God and the New Atheism – A Critical Response to Dawkins Harris and Hitchens
God and the New Atheism A Critical Response to Dawkins Harris and Hitchens
In God and the New Atheism a world expert on science and theology gives clear, concise, and compelling answers to the charges against religion laid out in recent bestselling books by Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion), Sam Harris (The End of Faith), and Christopher Hitchens (God Is not Great). For some, these new atheists appear to say extremely well what they believe to be wrong with religion. But, as John Haught shows, the treatment of religion in these books is riddled with logical inconsistencies, shallow misconceptions, and crude generalizations. Can God really be dismissed as a mere delusion? Is faith really the enemy of reason? And does religion really poison everything? God and the New Atheism offers a much-needed antidote to the extremist claims of scientific fundamentalism. This provocative and accessible little book will enable readers to see through the rhetorical fog of this recent phenomenon and come to a clearer understanding of the issues at stake in this crucial debate.
User Ratings and Reviews
5 Stars On the Nose
It is clear that, like Dawkins and the other self-proclaimed "new atheists" who are the target of Haught's book, most of the the critics of this book here on Amazon know little or nothing about philosophy, theology or Biblical Studies, bringing to mind O'Malley's Law: "The less one knows, the more certain one can be." Haught has written a devastating and irrefutable critique of the illogical reductionist nonsense of Dawkins, Hitchens and the other "new atheists" whose ignorance of the subject matter they pontificate about (mainstream theist philosophy, theology and Biblical scholarship) is nothing less than embarassing. Their portrayal of all theists as Bible-thumping literalists is nothing less than intelletual dishonesty. These "new atheists" make one long for the honesty and integrity of Neitzche, Camus and Sartre, brilliant and well informed minds who had no need to set up theistic straw men to make their case for atheism.
4 Stars Thoughtful analysis…
One legacy of 9/11 is a spate of books decrying religious extremism and heralding science and reason over faith. These books inevitably focus on the most disastrous effects of religion and then generalize that proper intellectual prioritizing will solve this problem. Is religion evil? No, but making religion too important is. As long as we value science and logic above religious literalism, the world will be more peaceful.
Can you spot the reductionist flaw yet? The problem with authors like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins is that they collapse literalism with terrorism and war, making the illogical connection that religious beliefs lead to violence. Of course some people use religion as an excuse to kill, but their numbers pale in comparison with the population overall. Oftentimes (this was true of the 9/11 attackers) it is political situations that are motivating the violence, with religion the mere vehicle of expression. So why not rid the world of capitalism, imperialism, socialism? If you focus on the extremes of any ideology, the conclusion would be do do away with it. There are millions of literalists in the world who are not violent people. I fail to see how reducing religion in the world will solve the problem.
All of these thoughts came to me while reading John Haught's thoughtful book "God and the New Atheism." He offers some insightful analysis of the new atheists, two of whom I had read prior to reading this book. (I have not read Christopher Hitchens, but I am familiar with him.)
Most useful to his critique is the fact that authors like Dawkins and Harris aren't well informed about their own topic, approaching Christianity as if it were only defined by its extremes. Not all Christians are literalists, and not all non-literalists are peaceful people. Dawkins and Harris seek to end religion as we know it, and yet their focus is very narrow.
Then there is the issue of imposing the scientific method onto spirituality. Haught points out that spirituality isn't a science, and is bound by different rules. Faith is not about evidence, but about trust in an order that lacks coherent origins. This argument is hardly new, but there is some weight to it. Not everything you believe in can be explained by science.
Haught's ultimate point is that religion addresses things (such as faith, trust, and love) which are too profound to be reduced to scientific theories. If the new atheists had truly wished to deconstruct religion, they might have looked deeply at these issues. Instead what they offer is a simplistic connection between religious theism and political violence, and seek to prioritize science over spirituality.
3 Stars Disappointing
When Haught criticizes new atheists for arguing that faith is not supported by credible evidence, that implies that Haught has evidence that DOES support faith. So how come Haught never justifies his criticism by providing some of that evidence? This is the third book I've read on this topic. Haught's book was slightly better than McGrath's The Dawkins Delusion, and Marshall's The Truth Behind the New Atheism was awful, but they all suffered from the same lack of evidence. Maybe the new atheists are right!
4 Stars Ollie's Take
The Author makes a reasoned argument which I dispute.
The product, itself, was just as described by the seller.
5 Stars Merits Consideration as the Liberal Response to the New Atheists
In the Introduction Haught argues that a proper understanding of God, faith, and theology is something these critics are woefully lacking in, and as such their critique of Christian religion is "theological unchallenging." (p. xi). Haught argues that when it comes to the Christian notion of God the understanding of the New Atheists "has almost nothing to do with what Christian faith and theology today understand by that name." (p. xv). When it comes to understanding religious faith their views are "at the same unscholarly level as the unreflective, superstitious, and literalist religiosity of those they criticize." (p. xiii). Haught faults them for debating with "extremists" like creationists, fundamentalists, terrorists and intelligent design advocates "rather than any major theologians." (p. xv).
As a theologian and philosopher of science, Dr. Haught effectively dismantles what I consider to be a few na
Related posts:
- The Irrational Atheist Dissecting the Unholy Trinity of Dawkins Harris and Hitchens
- The Correlation Between Intelligence and Faith: Richard Dawkins on Militant Atheism
- The New Atheism Taking a Stand for Science and Reason
- Answering the New Atheism Dismantling Dawkins Case Against God
- Pastor Responds to Dawkins, Harris and Atheists
- Bill Maher Interviews Sam Harris
- Answering the New Atheism – Dismantling Dawkins Case Against God
- The Last Superstition – A Refutation of the New Atheism
- Discussions with Richard Dawkins – Episode One – The Four Horseman
- The End of Reason – A Response to the New Atheists
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
4 Responses to “God and the New Atheism – A Critical Response to Dawkins Harris and Hitchens”
Leave a Reply
Here in the States, a growing number of people are no longer affiliated with any religion. Yet, there are some Christian groups who continue to insist on blurring the lines of separation between church and state. For the non-churchgoers and freethinkers worldwide, this site features news, reviews and editorials on just about anything regarding religion. Your opinion is always welcome here, either as a columnist or commenter. Hey, this is not church -- you are allowed to speak your mind and think for yourself!
A NOTE ABOUT COMMENTS: While comments are welcomed and get the Do Follow option, they are strictly monitored. That means comments must be on topic and add to the discussion. Submissions from multiple names having the same IP, troll comments, keyphrase users and the like will be deleted. Please see our policies page for more information.
 |
 |
Main Feed | Comments Feed |
|
 |
 |
Can God really be dismissed as a mere delusion?
Yes. God is just another word for magic. It's a childish idiotic idea.
Is faith really the enemy of reason?
What a dumb question. Faith means believing in nonsense that couldn't possibly have any evidence. Of course faith is the enemy of reason.
And does religion really poison everything?
Yes, most definitely. Christians try to dumb down science education. Muslims fly airplanes into buildings. Jews claim their magic fairy made them the "chosen people". They all brainwash their children. They're all insane. The world would be better off if every religious person in the world grew up and stopped pretending there's a magic fairy hiding in the clouds. Of course they will never grow up. Religion is an incurable mental disease.
Bob, You have a good video series on YouTube. Other people who are interested, check his link by clicking his name.
I was raised as a protestant, later became an agnostic, and then converted to catholicism. I became an author and wrote christian fiction (see: http://www.eloquentbooks.com/AnaMarkovic.htm) and never again turned back to disbelief. I thought that atheism was irrational when I was an agnostic, and my viewpoint didn't change when I became christian again.
I like to recall what Albert Einstein, an agnostic, once said:
'Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is the same as that of the religious fanatics, and it springs from the same source … They are creatures who can't hear the music of the spheres.'
Frankly…I always thought that folks like Dawkins were idiots. God is just a word. Something caused all of this existence. Call it what you like…it didn't spring out of nowhere. Existence didn't cause itself. When science can refute that, this debate will end.
Arrogance is arrogance no matter the clothing. For Dawkins and his ilk to simply dismiss the beliefs of others and not offer a viable alternative is much like a bible-thumper telling me I'm screwed because I don't believe in his book.
Frankly, I don't believe in either side of this argument. I think they're all full of crap and it will never cease to amaze and amuse me how some will go to such great lengths to paint all with the same broad brush…your a sinner…your delusional…as if there were no other option or perspective outside their stupid little argument.
I'm reminded of something Nietzsche wrote:
"And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music."
Both sides of this debate offer nothing to the rest of us who are not on either side to begin with.