The Irrational Atheist Dissecting the Unholy Trinity of Dawkins Harris and Hitchens
The Irrational Atheist Dissecting the Unholy Trinity of Dawkins Harris and Hitchens
User Ratings and Reviews
4 Stars A worthy contender
At the turn of the twentieth century, G.K. Chesterton wrote 'Heretics', a book criticizing and exposing the philosophies and viewpoints of some of the most prominent authors of his day. Now, at the turn of the twenty-first century, Vox Day has taken up his mantle. Day, in similar Chesterton style, goes head to head with the leading 'New Atheists' of our own day and undercuts some of their favorite claims. And while you could hardly compare the writing of Day to Chesterton (who can compare to Chesterton?), you can hardly compare Harris, Hitchens and Dawkins to Wells, Wilde and Shaw either (ah, the good old days).
Vox Day succeeds in what he sets out to do however, and that's all you can ask of him. There have been a number of responses to the New Atheists by this point in time, but what sets this particular work apart is Day's tackling of the 'religion causes war' argument. Day (rightly) admits that religion does indeed cause war, but instead of running around screaming about it, he carefully looks at the historical evidence and views the situation statistically. What he finds is ample enough evidence to close the case on the argument forever.
Also throughout this book, Day attempts to tackle some of the other fighting points brought up in 'The God Delusion', 'The End of Faith', and 'God is Not Great'. Here, the book uses an interesting and subtle tactic that it seems some readers haven't picked up on. While other writers have (quite satisfyingly) defeated these arguments by showing where the logic has gone awry, Day uses different means: He grants them their arguments and then exposes the silliness of logic used to get there. If Day's arguments come across as childish or asinine, it is only because his opponents have used them first.
To top it off, there's some short musings on theodicy and other things theological. While the book makes no attempt to argue positively for the existence of God, this section is definitely the weakest. I would hate to see a follow-up similar to what Chesterton did with 'Orthodoxy' from Day.
All that aside, the book simply needs to be read if you're up on some of the arguments being thrown around in atheist circles today. It's a worthy contender in the ring.
1 Star The Childish Theist
I found a lot of positive reviews of this book on the net so I wondered how well it tackles the 'new atheist' preachings. Needless to say, I was disappointed and didn't even finish reading it (yeah, you can smash me for it in the comments). If this is the best refutation to Dawkins/Hutchins/etc a theist can offer, then they've won. The first chapter (and a half of all next chapters) is one big ad hominem. At one point Day pictures the atheist as 'having receding hair lines, bad breath and fading jeans'. Yes, Dawkins resorts to ad hominems as well, but at least they are funny and don't go beyond a couple of paragraphs. Day just seems to want to show us just how childish he can become.
When finally throws in some arguments in between all the name calling I can only wonder why the reviewers fail to see the evident fallacies in them. Let me just show you two examples of two Day's attempts on logic:
In the first chapter he wonders about the appearent discrepancy between number of people identifying themselves as 'atheist' in the polls and a larger number of people labeling themselves as 'no religion'. Day proceeds to name three explanations for this phenomenon:
(1) there is a substantive difference between being an atheist and not being religious, (2) many people without religion still cling to a belief in God, or (3) there are a large number of individualswho simply dont know what to call themselves
There's a number of things wrong with these explanations. For one, there is in fact a substantive difference between not being religious and being atheist. While all atheist are non-religious, not all non-religious people are atheist – those are the group of people identified in the second explanation – those who believe in some kind of god but are not part of any existing religion (this would include Albert Einstein and Thomas Jefferson for instance). Moreso, Day forgets to include other options like people not believing in any god being afraid to identify themselves as atheist because this term is used in a derogatory manner in their society (and in books like Day's). As much as this set of explanation is flawed (first two explanations being the same) what follows – Day's way of choosing which one of them is the correct one – is outright ridiculous:
"Given the large number of American voters, 26 percent in the 2004
election,8 who cannot figure out if they are Democrats or Republicans
even after making a selection between the two parties, Occams
Razor suggests that the third explanation is the one most likely to be
correct."
It left me breathless. While he fails to see that all of the explanations can be correct (with different people falling into different cathegories) he chooses Occam's Razor (supported by a non-sequitur) as his decision tool? Wow, I guess he would choose Newton's theory of gravity over Einstein's gravitation theory just because it's more simple – good thinking, Mr Day, don't overexert your brains.
The second example of author's anti-logical thinking is even more evident. In the second chapter he tries to work out a crippled version of Popper's definition of science (overlooking a lot of other Popper's criteria along the way):
"Poppers primary criterion for distinguishing between science and not-science is the concept of falsifiability. For a hypothesis to be falsifiable, it must be theoretically possible to make an observation that would disprove the subject."
Then he proceeds to propose a science of 'god linguistics':
"I base this premise on the classic example of a falsifiable proposition, the statement that all swans are white. The fact that one could prove this proposition to be wrong by observing a black swan makes it falsifiable and therefore a proper scientific matter. … the proposition all gods speak Aramaic is equally falsifiable, given that the theoretical observation of a monolingual Greek-speaking god would suffice to falsify the proposition."
So what's wrong with that argument? Well, Mr. Day, how do you propose we observe gods speak? Even theoretically. No answer? Well, then your "god linguistics" is not a scientific theory while the swans theory is, because there is a way to observe them. There are in fact many theories produced by the scientific society that are not, in popper's sense, scientific, because they cannot be proven/disproven. These include the Many Worlds Interpretation and the String Theory.
The rest of the book does not get any better. The problem with The Irrational Atheist is that the author does not understand science, does not understand atheism and does not understand logic either. All we are left with are childish ad hominems praised by the religious community. Makes me wonder…
1 Star Confident Irrationality
I was given this book by a relative who thought I just had to read it, but before I started, I looked it up on Amazon to get an idea of what to expect, and was surprised to see so many reviews saying things like "irrefutable", "incredibly well argued", "logical" etc. I was surprised because I have been an Atheist for a very long time, and have heard most everything one could throw at me, so I was intrigued. What arguments for the existence of God, and for religion could cause one to say something as uncompromising as "irrefutable".
Well lets just say the intrigue didn't last long. First I read that there will be no argument to support the existence of God at all, and I thought well then what's the point? The only thing left is to argue fantasy is good for humanity, and so we should all pick something and then fight hard to fool ourselves into believing it's true and this will somehow make us happier, and this is basically what the rest of the book proves to be about, but of course, Christianity is always the preferred something to believe in.
It is argued with confidence, and it takes a tact from Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris by insulting them and Atheism quite frequently. The difference is however, that in the first case the insults are incidental to the material. I mean It's pretty hard to tell someone their beliefs are silly without insulting them, but in the case of this book the insults are often personal and gratuitous in nature, such as calling Hitchens a drunk, and also completely mis-representative of reality such as calling calling New Atheism "militantly fundamentalist" and a "godless jihad". Wow.
I understand that many Christians who might have read any of the current popular Atheist books, might feel a bit of frustration at being openly attacked for the first time in many years, and having absolutely nothing of substance to say in return, and that is what this book feels like. An angry rant, demeaning and insulting those it claims to be doing this same thing to religion, but unfortunately there is nothing behind the anger in this case.
The book is filled wall to wall with flimsy argument, but presented in a confident and antagonistic manner, and I suppose this is enough for many to think a valid logical point has been made. As I got further into the book though, it really became clear why the high ratings. I could begin to feel the frustration of those religious people who perhaps have read or heard of one of the more popular Atheism books available now, and desperately want something on their side with the same confidence and condemnation in these books, but against Atheism instead of for it. They got the confidence and condemnation, but without any of the substance of the Atheist books.
Just one quick example I found just by opening my book to a random page is this quote.
"..nearly all of the great religious scientists were not merely religious, but Christians, and that there were far fewer scientists than there are today.
The frst fact is significant because it indicates that there is likely a
difference between the Christian worldview that supported a search
for scientifc truth and the various non-Christian worldviews that
did not. The second fact is even more interesting, as it suggests that
the non-Christian worldview of today's science may in fact be hin-
dering the pace of scientifc development rather than helping it"
I mean Wow! A little history would have done wonders for this book. Most of these early scientists lived during the renaissance, a time when everyone in Europe was still a Christian under punishment of imprisonment or death. Also during this time writings from Ancient Greece and Rome started to be reread and European saw there used to be great civilizations which had relied mostly on reason to guide them in the world rather than a Christian God, and it made people think that perhaps they were spending a bit too much time debating scripture, and not enough time using their reason, and then a magical thing happened. European civilization started to move forward again and science was born. So how could one say with a straight face, that the early science was due to Christianity when it had done nothing for 1000 years. And if this were not bad enough, he then suggests that current scientific research is slowing down, perhaps because there are not enough Christian scientists, and he says this in the face science starting it's vertical ascent on an exponential curve, when over 93% of the top tier scientists are strong Atheists. It's not only blatantly false, but I think deliberately so, and filled with desperation, as is the entire book.
3 Stars Christianity as Madness
Vox Day's main argument is that he's a Christian and he's cool. He's cool with you not agreeing with his Christianity. However, he's not cool if you, or anyone, want to actually SAY anything about his Christianity. This goes especially for Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens (The New Atheists) who want to say BAD things about Christianity. Christians, in fact people of all faiths, should be left alone to do their own thing. Day believes emphatically people like Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens have no right poking around in other people's business.
Day believes, quite reasonably, that Christianity is a form of madness. As a self-professed 'Christian libertarian' (do what you like – it's fine by Day if atheists burn in hell) Day believes he is entitled to whatever form of madness takes his fancy because everyone is a bit mad. Day takes exception not to the argument that Christianity is demonstrably false, but that Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens call Christianity on its madness and would love to see not THE END but the end of Christian faith altogether. This has made Day's blood boil. He's no longer cool, he's angry. Day is mad enough to write this book.
Day calls his opponents all sorts of terrible names. He accuses atheists of believing that they stand above all the madness, that somehow they are exempt from the madness. Atheists simply refuse to understand that everyone is a bit mad, including themselves. We're all trapped in the asylum and the atheists have stepped out of line by attempting to prevent the Christians from quietly playing with themselves.
Day berates Dawkins for describing himself as an agnostic who believes there is a very low probability of God's existence. In Day's asylum, Dawkins should be more like a Christian, to have an absolute belief in his particular form of madness – in Dawkin's case his atheism. But Dawkins doesn't fit. Dawkins passes Day by for the entire book. The reasonableness, the rationality of Dawkins' position suggesting the very low probability of God completely eludes Day. Day needs Dawkins to be a mirror image of Christianity. As a result (I'm not suggesting there is a clear logic here) Day goes off on a mad search for a definition of atheism, concluding that agnostics are cooler than atheists and that Dawkins, despite what he says, is an atheist not an agnostic.
Although a lot of the time Day is very muddled and it's often difficult trying to work out exactly what he's arguing, he spends much of the book suggesting on the one hand that like religion, science is a bit crazy, therefore science has no right to criticize religion, and on the other, that Christianity is not nearly as bad as the New Atheists make out.
If you believe we're all a bit mad and therefore it's fine to believe in Christianity, and further, that those who believe in science and atheism are deluding themselves that somehow they are above the madness, then this is the book for you.
If you believe that on balance, in all probability science teaches us genuine truths about our universe, and equally on balance, in all probability there is no Christian God, you will find this book a complete waste of time and its critique of Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens about as powerful as being slapped with a limp noodle.
5 Stars David slays Goliath
[reposted with modifications - from Amazon.co.uk]
Vox Day is the blogonym of Theodore Beale, a successful rock musician, sci-fi novelist, computer games designer, internet entrepreneur, social commentator and syndicated columnist. This is his first non-fiction book.
[Those who moan about the Pseudonym should remember that 'Mark Twain', 'George Eliot' and 'Mark Pattison' were pseudonyms too! And there is a very distinguised British writer who publishes crime novels and serious biographies under different names, so why pick on Beale/Day?]
Day is also a multi-linguist, extremely well read in world history, a very sharp thinker and formidable in unpicking fashionable nonsense, be it political, philosophical or pseudo-scientific.
He describes himself as a Libertarian and an Undenominational Evangelical Christian, who has left the `frozen tundra' of his native Minnesota for the balmier climes of the Mediterranean. It was entirely appropriate that he should use the name by which he has become so well-known from his award-winning Blog, Vox Popoli, in authoring this amazing, erudite, logical and no-holds-barred criticism of the `Unholy Trinity' of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens. In passing, his guns are also sometimes turned on Daniel Dennett, for whom- unlike the other three – he has some respect. And there is also a chapter on the French Post-Modernist `Philosopher' and Prophet of Hedonism, Michael Onfray, who really deserves no respect whatever.
One thing which makes this work both refreshing and surprising is that here is someone without scientific or academic credentials who nevertheless manages to demolish the New Atheists on their own turf. It is like watching little David with his sling and pebbles face up to Goliath, the Champion of the Philistines, and bring him down with a well-aimed blow. Day succeeds where so many others, ostensibly better qualified, have failed. "This is the Lord's doing and it is marvellous in our eyes."
After a very thorough exposure of the lies, ignorance, illogicality and bad faith of the New Atheists, Vox Day has a paragraph [page 265] which I simply must quote in full:
"Predicated on an unreliable human attribute that may not even exist, rejecting the foundation of Man's most successful civilization, trusting a notoriously quixotic institution for a miracle as a means of replacing that foundation and refusing to learn from its past disasters, atheism is not so much a basis for an irrational philosophy as for an insane one. Attempting to build a society on reason is like waging a war on terror; the effort is doomed to failure because it's a category error. There is no evidence, scientific or historical, that any human society can survive its establishment on an atheist foundation, let alone thrive, and a fair amount of evidence to the contrary."
Richard Dawkins sometime ago urged those who have rejected religion to sign-up as `Brights'. A number of those in thrall to `scientism' have done just that in an orgy of self-congratulatory hubris. Vox Day shows them up as really rather dim – and, of far more importance, potentially sinister and dangerous. PZ Myers is incandescent with rage about this book. The tenured professor of biology fits the `Bright' profile so perfectly that Dawkins made it known he wanted him to succeed to the Charles Simonyi Chair at Oxford, soon to become vacant on the age-related retirement of Dawkins himself. You should see what Myers has to say about Vox Day on his Blog – it is venomous, barely coherent personal invective with no argument that is not an ad hominem. But as Day has responded on his own Blog:
"For all that he comes off as an egregious buffoon most of the time, PZ Myers is strategically correct to stick to the petty name-calling that is the entirety of his method of argument relating to anything outside of his narrow field of science; attempting more would banish the illusion of his intellectual expertise and reveal the paucity of both his knowledge and his intelligence."
If anyone deserves the epithet `Bright', in its original meaning, it is the author of this marvellous book.
News Update: 28 Oct 08
"Professor Marcus du Sautoy, Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford, has been appointed to the Charles Simonyi Chair for the Public Understanding of Science."
We can perhaps be grateful that the crass Host-desecrater, PZ Myers, was in the event nowhere in the running.
Related posts:
- God and the New Atheism – A Critical Response to Dawkins Harris and Hitchens
- The Dawkins Delusion – Atheist Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine
- Pastor Responds to Dawkins, Harris and Atheists
- Discussions with Richard Dawkins – Episode One – The Four Horseman
- Bill Maher Interviews Sam Harris
- Dawkins on Extremism, Haiti, Politics and More
- Dawkins Interviewed on Al Jazeera
- The Portable Atheist Essential Readings for the Nonbeliever
- Religious Group Claims Prayers Shut Down Dawkins Forum
- The Correlation Between Intelligence and Faith: Richard Dawkins on Militant Atheism
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
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 |
|
 |
 |