Richard Bastien has written a nice piece for MercatorNet about the "new atheism" and its fundamentalist proponents: Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, and Co. He notes:
For Christians who take their faith seriously, there is both a downside and an upside to this new wave of atheistic proselytising, with the latter probably outweighing the former. The downside is that it will reinforce already widespread liberal prejudices according to which there is no point in trying to know God. Instead of encouraging people to maintain an open mind about religion (the least to be expected from true liberals), these books will further encourage a closing of the mind to any possibility of the supernatural, which they gratuitously equate with superstition.
The upside is that these books help draw more clearly than ever before the battle lines in the ongoing culture wars. Until recently, most Christians were inclined to assume that modern culture was at least neutral with respect to the basic tenets of Christianity, and that it was possible to adhere to the creed while at the same time accepting the philosophical heritage of the "modern" age. In short, it was more or less taken for granted that one could view oneself as being both a child of God and a child of the Enlightenment.
Thanks in part to these books and others of the same ilk, it is now becoming increasingly clear that Nietzsche was right: the only true alternative to Christianity is nihilism and atheism. Nietzsche inferred from this that morality can only be based on the human will. Anyone familiar with European history of the 20th century will know the disastrous outcome of that alternative. It is in this sense that the new atheists help us to understand why the 150-year old attempt by "progressive" Christians to find some accommodation between the Christian creed and the basic tenets of the Enlightenment have led to a gradual erosion of the faith. This perhaps explains why, at the outset of the 21st century, many Christians are coming to realise that the only meaningful choice is between traditional Christianity and atheism. As the intellectual dust and confusion caused by the collapse of the numerous variations of liberal Protestantism and "progressive" Catholicism settles, we find there is no way around this choice.
All this does not mean, however, that Christians and atheists are soon to find themselves locked into some kind of unrelenting battle. Whether the more zealous atheists who have adopted the missionary posture of these books like it or not, there are other atheists who do not subscribe to their views and who even seek a dialogue with Christianity. Jürgen Habermas, considered by many as a most "methodical atheist" and an icon of postmodernism, wrote in a 2004 essay titled A time of transition that "Christianity, and nothing else, is the ultimate foundation of liberty, conscience, human rights, and democracy, the benchmarks of Western civilisation. To this day, we have no other options [than Christianity]. We continue to nourish ourselves from this source. Everything else is postmodern chatter." A similar view is held by atheist Marcello Pera, professor of philosophy and President of the Italian Senate in a book published jointly with Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Benedict XVI) and titled Without Roots.
• Learn more about The Dialectics of Secularization: On Reason and Religion, co-authored by then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and Jürgen Habermas, and Without Roots.
Previous, related posts:
• Atheists: Caught between evolution and a hard spot? (Sept. 11, 2007)
• Sam Harris's Religious Devotion to Abortion (Aug. 31, 2007)
• Continuing with the theme... (Aug. 23, 2007)
• The Irrational Dogmas of Rational Atheism (Aug. 23, 2007)
• "Which atheism do you not believe in?" (May 1, 2007)
"The Celestial Teapot" - a review of Sam Harris's "Letter to a Christian Nation" by James Wood (another kind of atheist) - is important to read in this context (there have been a couple posts on it at "The Socratic Catholic" blog):
http://www.powells.com/review/2006_12_14.html
The "battle lines" of the culture wars may appear to be "more clear than ever", but that appearance is both deceptive and undetermined - it disguises the real battle over men's souls, which is totally nonlinear. The existential necessity of a "choice" between Christianity and atheism (in the wake of "the death of God") is also losing its power to motivate - how could such a choice even be accomplished today? What does it mean today to have chosen one or the other? Who could ever say that they have done so? Possibility is too invasive.
For some reason it is a great comfort - because, in a certain sense, it is all that is left to us - to read this sentence from Wood's review: "Harris is welcome to sit on his floor and get off on his Buddhism; I'll go and sit in a cathedral."
Posted by: rimwell | Saturday, October 20, 2007 at 02:21 PM
--"The intent of these authors is to accelerate the elimination of all remnants of the Judeo-Christian tradition. As Sam Harris puts it, the name of the game is "to demolish the intellectual and moral pretensions of Christianity." As for Hitchens, he seeks to show "how religion poisons everything"."--
A couple of questions come to mind. Why Christianity? Why not start with Hinduism or Islam and proceed to demolish them all with the elimination of Christianity as the piece de resistance? The answer is likely quite simple. Christianity is recognized as the only religion that counts.
Leaving aside that failed soviet system of economics and government, there is also the question of what the atheists' world would look like. I would like to see a comprehensive picture of that brave new world. I think Habermas and Pera have taken the time to think about it and honesty compels them to rcognize that even in this, practically speaking, largely atheistic western world, the remnants of Christian morality are what keeps our society from flying apart, while it frays around the edges. If they were successful at eradicating God, what would hold it together?
Posted by: LJ | Saturday, October 20, 2007 at 09:00 PM
The advantages of a Catholic education were enough to persuade even an atheist to make a large donation, as an article posted May 23 on Bloomberg.com explained. Retired hedge-fund manager Robert W. Wilson announced he was giving $22.5 million to the Archdiocese of New York to fund a scholarship program for needy inner city students attending Catholic schools.
"Let's face it, without the Roman Catholic Church, there would be no Western civilization," Wilson said.
There is at least one atheist besides Habermas and Pera who knows his facts.
Posted by: Brian Schuettler | Tuesday, October 23, 2007 at 05:34 AM