Ever read stuff that just angers you to no end? It probably usually comes via Facebook. You encounter stuff you don't like and just get into a rampage about it. I've felt that way recently reading the works of notorious advocates of atheism such as Richard Dawkins. Today I picked up someone else at the library (name eludes me) and just walked away frustrated. Maybe I shouldn't, but allow me to share some of my reactions (and take them as that, reactions) to some of these readings.
Reading these works I noticed several things:
1. The general element of these books is not to so much convince you of atheism as to turn you off of religion. The idea is if we can disgust you enough about religion and prove that religion is the real problem in this world that's all that really matters. If you still believe in a god of some form on your own that's fine (you're wrong, but whatever). That is the general tone of the book. Which means the books are more a reaction against religions than a case against God, yet many of the books often market themselves the other way around.
2. The claim that religion is the root of problems are as equally selective of history as ones that claim secularism is. This may sound strange that I say it this way but it is true, history has borne out that cultures and peoples - religious or not - are totally capable of barbarism and regularly are! I don't claim religion is the fix, not in a moral sense. The reason I say this without qualm is my religion has not really claimed that its morals will remove evil. The reason is because the problem with the world is something we in the church have had a word for: sin. And sin is not cured by law, merely curbed and contained. And it will lead people to always try to abuse, excuse, cut, and compromise the law. Progressive thought has in no way removed the same basic elements, just the places and ways it manifests itself. The problem with the books that try to "expose" religious evil is that it is blaming religion as if people without religion have nothing to drive them to harm. But for every example of "secular freedom" there are examples of secular barbarism, just as much as every case of religious compassion can be paired with atrocities in the name of religion.
3. Their biblical arguments are also quite interesting. They argue that most modern Christians are selective anyways of their religious book because of the shame of the other parts as though to say even Christians "know" that the Bible is not a good book. Of course, then the presentation they make of God according to the Bible is far more selective, and perhaps more importantly in what I have read there is a serious failure to understand the Christian understanding of why there is a greater emphasis of some passages over others (and to call it embarrassment would be a failure to see those interpretations and emphases throughout Christian history). It's true you can draw horrible messages from the Bible, but it should say something that to prove this they have to go outside the bounds of the religion's primary interpretation. Also, the books come from the standpoint that wherever we feel bothered or disagree with the ethical bounds of scripture it is obviously wrong. But that assumption is problematic. No doubt they say the same about the assumption of the religious that their sacred texts are always right and above reproach. But I will say personally, that you don't have to like everything about scripture to say it is scripture. Yet I do find that when one struggles with that which seems unacceptable I often find my stance to change, for when I don't discount it I eventually see new light as to why it matters (something I see more and more as I get older I would add) which often happens when I see the spirit of the text and don't get hung up on the immediate words that trouble me, or I learn something of the cultural divide that changes its meaning, or I simply come to realize I was wrong. And some I still struggle with, or I have come to some conclusion about that I do not like but am settled on. I also consider what I've learned from historical critiques that examine the morality of a time and from a distance can see what contemporaries could not, it makes me caution the assumption that my moral objections are inherently good or above reproach.
4. Very little critique of external influence and agendas are ever present in their assessment of religious history. That is, where as in the church we may attribute too much to external influence (political agendas, colonialism, etc) the complete reverse is at work here. The idea that religion is the cause of dehumanization is as absurd as saying theology has never been used to defend dehumanization. Just like it would be historically inaccurate to attribute "humanizing" movements apart from the church when it played a great role historically in such movements as well. The relationship of religion to the world around it is a major issue. Just because the religions (like my own) will make counter-cultural claims in no way means it is not touched by the culture. And how much it is and should be is one of the biggest struggles internally and externally in the church, and that struggle and relationship is minimized in these readings.
5. One other feature seems to be a certain understanding of the purpose of religion. It usually asserts two real purposes for religion: understanding the world and morality. By this then comes the argument that it has served its purpose and no longer has one in our world. By science we can understand the world and whether by science (as the book I read today argued) or by social conscience and progressivism we can discern what is right. The culture is moral enough and we are civilized enough and smart enough to not need superstitions to explain things or scare us in line. This of course begs the question, what is the role of religion? And it operates of course under a sociological assumption rather than a theological one. That is, it argues the social purpose of religion rather than what the religions themselves argue which is revelation of the divine in order for communion with the divine. Because they assume there is no God, they cannot see a purpose beyond the social ones. But of course for one who believes in God it is the total opposite. That is, if God exists (and studies regularly show the vast majority of human beings believe so) then religion has a purpose - to know this God (or if you want to be inclusive of other religions even if I say they are wrong; to know these gods). A bigger issue that I think actually presses or concerns most individuals today is whether one can know God (and how), and to what extent that impacts one's daily life. In that case the claim of religion is absolutely relevant (the coming of God in the flesh certainly is important towards how one can know God and the impact on God has on living). And even though many have varying degrees to which they actively seek the help of religion in these things regularly, religion still serves most of them to some degree. The "secular religion" of America if broken down would amount to a universalist-deistic religion whose framework is borrowed from Christianity. Many still, even if they don't commit themselves, dabble in and seek aid from religions. And that is to say nothing of the role religions have in being the institutions of compassion and organized aid in communities. And all of this is to say the assumption of no purpose misses the mark, especially if God is real. Now add to that, if God is real then suppose a religion's paradigm is correct (since they are not all alike and do not share the same message), if the paradigm is correct then the purpose is quite real. If Jesus really did rise from the dead then the Christian church has a purpose that is more than moral or just understanding the mechanics/origins of things.
6. The three most common things attacked about the biblical story are: a) the creation account, mainly because this is the headliner in American religion-science debates and because they feel they have won this issue. It's hard to prove God didn't intervene for a specific person/people in time (beyond the argument it's hard to prove he did), it's easier to argue about something wider, in relation to cosmic history. b) the morality of Israel, usually around the treatment of women and the invasion of Canaan. See number 3. And, c) the resurrection of Jesus, because that is the central issue to the Christian faith (and while the books claim to be against religion, they usually are focused on Judeo-Christian religion and the only other real faith focused on is Islam mainly to argue the poor treatment of women and religion as the cause of war). These arguments usually attack the believer as "ignorant" and seek to show why there is no proof (or not the kind of proof they would find satisfactory). And while their arguments will perhaps sway those in the middle (kind of like political campaigns are aimed at those in the middle) those adamantly on either side kind are at an impasse on these issues. Both insist on the authority of one form over another. And this is to say nothing of the Holy Spirit, which as a Christian I believe is the giver of faith. Faith is not just a decision of persuasion but a living force of election, and what is revealed by faith is a reality skeptics are seeking via science: communion with God. The lack of "proof" of God (in quotes since only certain things constitute proof) makes them say God does not exist, while to those who have experienced and related to God, such arguments are foolish since that barrier has been crossed. As a Christian, it is God revealed in preaching by which the Holy Spirit breaks in and there lies Christ. Faith is not just a rational or irrational decision, it is a creative outcome of God.
7. There is an interesting philosophy I note in the books. They utilize the same basic principles they criticize of religion (need I say again the problem is people, not religion). For example, they say that religion is the most divisive thing in the world by creating zealous belief, but then they express their zealous beliefs about religion in an equally divisive tone. The claim that making another "infidel" "heathen" or "damned" makes it easier to dehumanize them is no different than calling them "ignorant" "barbaric" "unenlightened" or "the greatest evil in the world". Not only does such a stance equally create divides, but it also makes the religious people "less" in a way that has historically been used to categorically deny people rights: it calls them less intelligent/behind the evolutionary scheme (since society they claim has evolved to no longer need religion), which is dangerously close to the Aristotelian philosophy that dubbed women as lesser creatures because they were "less-rational" and "more emotional" and that dubbed African Americans as less human because they were "under-evolved". This is not to say they automatically look at religious individuals this way (although their language sometimes does make one wonder) but rather to say the danger of their doctrine is equally evident in history. And the anger or "danger" they see in religious groups (especially the more radical or at least devoted groups) has included in their works the desire to deny rights such as raising children. I also just find it a little ironic when they criticized proselytism when their books are essentially trying to do the same thing.
8. My last thought is that what really bothers these authors especially of religions' views of God is election. That is, that God would specifically relate in history with specific people because election is bothersome for the abstract thinking of these things as it inevitably brings questions of "why them not me" or "what about these people" and so forth. Special revelation, salvation of some not all, uniquely relating and God not just being an abstract benevolent principle is perhaps the hardest thing for them to grasp. This is why the invasion of Canaan is so bothersome. Why should God favor one people over another? Why should they be wiped out while these people get all their things? Election is unfair. Even Christians and Jews struggle with the unfairness of it. Any sense of Divine preference (even if that preference is described as gracious, undeserved) is an affront to the philosophy of God and therefore becomes the case for God not being real or good. Of course that is because it looks at God as an ideal not a person and abstraction inevitably looks from the outside gazing in, whereas from the opposite (from the inside), election is good. Election is only not good if God doesn't choose you, and they usually pair this with free will persuasion theology to be God is good to those who choose him rather than what we on the inside say: we are faithful because God has been good to us. Much is made of Boenhoeffer's idea of cheap grace, I usually am not a fan of the term or his understanding of it (although to some degree I agree/get it, I still find it a bit off the mark). But I think real cheap grace is the one that wants to rob God of any free or sovereign activity. If Bonhoeffer's view of cheap grace was that faith has no impact on life, the atheistic one is wider; grace should be automatic and there be no religious element to it (like faith), and grace should need no established story or action in history. It should be more a scientific principle than a word of action, or experience of relationship. This ultimately attacks God's ways as less desireable: Jesus should not have to die, people should not have to believe, no one should be damned, etc. The claim is if God is good the only real outcome should be to share grace with everyone automatically and that it should have no real impact (or it should act like an instant fix). In short, if they can't understand God's way, or it looks bad for someone it is unacceptable. This is as I say the problem with looking on the outside rather than in. To use a biblical metaphor, God relates to his people like a spouse. When you look at relationships that way it is totally different. It is not outrageous for me to treat my wife differently than other women, even if she is not the only woman I come in contact with, care about, or have responsibility to. It still would be absurd for some other woman to say I unfairly favor my wife, or I should have the same relationship with everyone (whether they want to or not on top of that...disturbing). Not only is such absurd, but it is absolutely good news to the wife to hear of the special relationship she alone has, especially when she hears that her husband has so chosen her to be his bride in the covenantal vows (you hear that honey, it's good news we're married!). This is the sacred bond of the covenant relationship of God and Israel, a people chosen to be God's own. And ironically the greater message of election and grace is for those on the outside looking in to be told God has chosen to bring them in through Jesus Christ (it's what they want and what they criticize simultaneously). Speaking at least again for my religion, God is both very concerned with the world at large and yet does have a special relationship with the church (which by the way, is one of the ways God shows special concern for the rest of the world, through the ministry and lives of the redeemed, particularly through how the covenant relationship will impact their relationship with others). This also explains why special revelation and the miraculous is an affront and problematic; it is unprovable precisely because it (like election in general) happens to some and not others.
Anyways, that is enough rambling. Now I should note this is reactionary, from some quick reading I have done of several books of the literature. I haven't read all of Dawkins, only one book (I want to say it was God Delusion but it may have been another one of his, there were several all out at the book store when I grabbed one to peruse). But this is my take on what I've seen looking at a couple of books in the genre of atheistic apologetics. And my feeling is that there is either misunderstandings of some of the statements they make or selectivism, which should be no surprise because that is what we do. I read a study once in Psychology that stated people are far more likely to embrace facts that support their worldview/beliefs. Interesting, right? The idea of objective fact becomes problematic when we naturally are skeptical of the ones we don't embrace, this goes for Christians and atheists alike. Is there a place for these books out there (would it be religious nut like of me to suggest a book burning)? Sure, their selective approach is a nice reminder of how easy it is to do so (and religions certainly do in our literature too), and to better understand how those outside who are hearing the message are not hearing the message. I also share some of their critiques. There are problems and beliefs in our religions that are problematic or dangerous. But before you pick up some book at Barnes and Noble (I swear over half the religion section is conspiracy theories, gnostic proponents, prosperity theologians and atheistic apologetics) and walk away saying religion is the real problem in the world and God must not be real because he doesn't fit how I would imagine him to be (let that sink in for a second), realize the arguments aren't as clear-cut as they present them.
Afterword: I should also say that Dawkins interestingly is more selective in who he attacks. He is especially hard on Catholic and American Evangelical denominations, and at times does speak a few positive things about liberal Protestants (that is of course because he sees them as having dismissed much of the superstition, but also because he sees their emphasis on social justice).
I'm not voting Hillary or Trump. No way. Lewis Black was not lying when he said we have a party of no ideas and a party of bad ideas. I've read plenty of blogs and news editorials on why I should vote for one of these two and most of them boil down to "you gotta vote for Hillary because if Trump wins we will become a fascist state" or "Anybody but Hillary." If the best argument for your candidate is s/he is not the other candidate your candidate is unworthy of my vote. That tactic has failed. So interestingly has the "this candidate is not as bad as they've been painted" tactic because even they have done little to show me anything particularly likeable in their candidate. My analysis, comments, and reasons for refusing to vote for either were so negative, I had to delete them before publishing this post because I did not feel I could post them without violating the Commandment to not bear false witness against my neighbor, since it would be hardly interpreting their actions in the best possible light and in case I was inaccurate at all, I felt it would be wrong to state them. But when you literally have to invoke the "if you can't say nothing nice" clause it's a problem.
So the last post I penned has been far and away my most popular blog to date, logging over a thousand reads in the first 24hrs and just when I thought it was winding down, it experienced another upswing. It had me thinking, though, that if a blog on what to do 