Desperate Atheists?

You’ve heard of Desperate Housewives. I propose that the rash of books over the past couple years from atheist writers could be classified as “Desperate Atheists.” Historically, the greatest philosophical argument against belief in God, especially Christian belief, is the presence of evil in the world. (In fact, Boston College Professor of Philosophy Peter Kreeft says the problem of evil is truly the only “proof” against belief in God. There are arguments against belief, but no other “proofs” in the atheistic arsenal.) Yet, this proof has been thoroughly demolished by Christian philosophers with the argument of free will. “Man can only be a saint in a world where he can also be a devil.” If we are free, we must be free to do evil. The vast majority of suffering and evil in this world is carried out by people against other people. God gave us the gift of freedom and our misuse of that gift is the cause behind much of the world’s suffering. The argument of free will is so airtight that atheist writers don’t even take it on aggressively anymore. In my readings of Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens I found it interesting that they...

hardly mention it. No wonder they are desperate. Their only “proof” is dismantled. Couple that with the greatest philosophical problem for atheism (the existence of and continued growth of faith in God worldwide) and modern atheists find themselves in a philosophical dilemma.

Oxford professor Alister McGrath articulates this dilemma quite well in his brilliant response to Richard Dawkins’ best selling book, The God Delusion. What follows is an extensive quote from McGrath, using the conclusion from his book, The Dawkins Delusion. While the book focuses on Dawkins’ in particular, the points he makes are applicable to other current atheist writers as well.

“Every worldview, whether religious or not, has its point of vulnerability. There is a tension between theory and experience, raising questions over the coherence and trustworthiness of the worldview itself. In the case of Christianity, many locate that point of weakness in the existence of suffering within the world. In the case of atheism, it is the persistence of belief in God, when there is supposedly no God in which to believe.

Until recently Western atheism had waited patiently, believing that belief in God would simply die out. But now, a whiff of panic is evident. Far from dying out, belief in God has rebounded and seems set to exercise still greater influence in both the public and private spheres. The God Delusion expresses this deep anxiety, partly reflecting an intense distaste for religion. Yet there is something deeper here, often overlooked in the heat of debate. The anxiety is that the coherence of atheism itself is at stake. Might the unexpected resurgence of religion persuade many that atheism itself is fatally flawed as a worldview?

The God Delusion seems more designed to reassure atheists whose faith is faltering than to engage fairly or rigorously with religious believers and others seeking for truth. (One wonders if this is because the writer is himself an atheist whose faith is faltering.) Religious believers will be dismayed by its ritual stereotyping of religion and will find its manifest lack of fairness a significant disincentive to take its arguments and concerns seriously. Seekers after truth who would not consider themselves religious may also find themselves shocked by Dawkins’s aggressive rhetoric, his substitution of personal creedal statements for objective engagement with evidence, his hectoring and bullying tone toward “dyed-in-the-wool faith-heads” and his utter determination to find nothing but fault with religion of any kind.

It is this deep, unsettling anxiety about the future of atheism that explains the “high degree of dogmatism” and “aggressive rhetorical style” of this new secular fundamentalism. Fundamentalism arises when it fears its own future is threatened. The God Delusion is a work of theater rather than scholarship—a fierce, rhetorical assault on religion and passionate plea for it to be banished to the lunatic fringes of society, where it can do no harm. None can doubt the visceral appeal that this book will make to a secular audience that is alarmed at the new political importance attached to religion and its growing influence and presence in the public arena. Its dismissive attitude to religion will doubtless win plaudits from those who heartily dislike religion.

Yes others have been more cautious. Aware of the moral obligations of a critic of religion to deal with this phenomenon at its best and most persuasive, many have been disturbed by Dawkins’s crude stereotypes, vastly oversimplified binary oppositions (science is good; religion is bad), straw men and hostility toward religion. Might The God Delusion actually backfire and end up persuading people that atheism is just as intolerant, doctrinaire and disagreeable as the worst that religion can offer?

Dawkins seems to think that saying something more loudly and confidently, while ignoring or trivializing counterevidence, will persuade the open-minded that religious belief is a type of delusion. Sadly, sociological studies of charismatic leaders—religious and secular—indicate that Dawkins may be right to place some hope in this strategy. For the gullible and credulous, it is the confidence with which something is said that persuades rather than the evidence offered in its support. Yet the fact that Dawkins relies so excessively on rhetoric rather than the evidence that would otherwise be his natural stock in trade clearly indicates that something is wrong with his case. Ironically the ultimate achievement of The God Delusion for modern atheism may be to suggest that this emperor has no clothes to wear. Might atheism be a delusion about God?” – Alister McGrath, The Dawkins Delusion (InterVarsity Press, 2007), pp.95-97.