Excellent refutation of ‘new atheists’ flawed by heterodox open theism
A review of The Irrational Atheist: Dissecting the Unholy Trinity of Dawkins,
Harris, and Hitchens by Vox Day
Benbella Books, Dallas, TX, 2008
reviewed by Lita Cosner
“I don’t care if you go to Hell. … Your soul is not my responsibility’
(p. 5). That is hardly the sort of opening one expects from a self-described ‘non-denominational
evangelical Christian’ (p. 1) whose pen name is a play on the Latin for ‘Voice
of God’. Vox Day does not have a Ph.D.; his biography lists no higher education,
in fact. He is a video game designer, blogger,1
and columnist,2 who claims
no intellectual achievement except ‘to have once convinced [conservative columnist
and author] Michelle Malkin to skip an opportunity to promote herself’
(p. 3). However, Day’s lack of formal qualification does not affect the quality
of his arguments, for the most part, in his book. He claims his purpose in writing
The Irrational Atheist is ‘not to defend God, or even to argue for
the truth of my particular religious faith’ (p. 1). Instead, he argues against
the ‘fraudulent, error-filled writings’ of Dawkins, Dennett and Hitchens,
the ‘unholy trinity’ referred to in the subtitle of his book.
Which atheism?
The definition of atheism varies depending on who is defining it, so Day begins
by dividing the irreligious into two categories—‘high church’
and ‘low church’ atheists. ‘High church’ atheists tend to
be wealthy, highly educated and more law-abiding than the general population; they
also share ‘undeveloped social skills … so dramatic as to be reasonably
described as a form of social autism’ (p. 16). On the other hand, ‘low
church’ atheists tend not to even call themselves atheists, falling into the
‘no religion’ or ‘secular’ categories in polls. They are
also much more likely to be incarcerated, and are less intelligent than both their
‘high church’ counterparts and religious folk. While the ‘high
church’ atheists are more vocal and visible, the ‘low church’
atheists significantly outnumber them. Dawkins, Dennett and Harris all belong to
‘high church’ atheism, and it is this particular manifestation of non-belief
that Day attacks.
Which science?
Atheists often argue that science has disproved the claims of religion in general
and Christianity in particular. Day contends that ‘it is impossible to entirely
separate atheism from science, because scientific materialism has such an influence
on atheistic thinking even in matters where science is not directly involved’
(p. 28). So his next step is to define science. Day accepts the definition of an
evolutionary biologist, who gives a three-fold definition: science is ‘a dynamic
body of knowledge (scientage), a process (scientody), and a profession (scientistry)’
(p. 32). It is the second definition, science as a systematic study of the natural
world through observation and experimentation, which Day refers to throughout the
book.
Day argues that the five major religions of the world have been around for 116 centuries,
collectively, without causing the extinction of humankind. Modern science, however,
after existing only 350 years, has created ‘a veritable witches’ brew
of potential dangers to the human race, ranging from atom-shattering explosive devices
to lethal genetic modifications’
Having defined science, Day is free to explore whether it is really in conflict
with religion. The popular view is that the Church repressed science and knowledge
leading to the Dark Ages, which was ended by bold non-believers who ushered in the
Enlightenment. Day shows that ‘The Dark Ages’ is actually a reversal
of a Christian metaphor of ‘pagan darkness giving way to the Light of the
World’ (p. 35), and was created by the Italian poet and Christian Francesco
Petrarca (‘Petrarch’, 1304–1374) in contempt of German invaders, not Christian
faith. Although historians have discarded the notion of the Dark Ages as a period
of religious oppression for nearly a century (indeed, even the term ‘Dark
Ages’ has been replaced with ‘Middle Ages’), many atheists still
promote this mistaken theory.
In The End of Faith, Sam Harris argued that religion is too dangerous in
light of the advent of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons in warfare: ‘Words
like “God” and “Allah” must go the way of “Apollo”
and “Baal,” or they will unmake our world’ (cited on p. 43). Day
argues that the five major religions of the world have been around for 116 centuries,
collectively, without causing the extinction of humankind. Modern science, however,
after existing only 350 years, has created ‘a veritable witches’ brew
of potential dangers to the human race, ranging from atom-shattering explosive devices
to lethal genetic modifications’ (p. 45). Day argues that if science mixed
with religion is a formula for the extinction of the human race, it is more reasonable
to attempt to eliminate science rather than religion, as there are far fewer scientists
than religious people, and while religion has never been completely stamped out,
scientific development has been (pp. 53–54).
A ‘New Enlightenment’?
For all their pseudo-scientific arguments, Day argues that the New Atheism really
has nothing to do with science; rather, science is only useful to them so far as
it promotes their goals (p. 68). Their real goal is to obliterate Christianity,
and to replace it with their own code of morality. The New Atheists look forward
to a ‘New Enlightenment’ where religious texts will be replaced by literature
and poetry (the religious texts apparently containing neither literature nor poetry)
and one could practice unlimited licentiousness without fear of an afterlife or
societal prohibitions in this one. As ideal as this humanist paradise sounds, the
first Enlightenment, instead of an atheist utopia, led to the French Revolution
and its associated Reign of Terror, Marxism and the European Union. Hitchens, a
former Marxist, provides the insight that humanists who are anti-authority support
authoritarian government actions because ‘temporary expedients considered
necessary for the achievement of a primary goal are easily transformed into dogma
that cannot be questioned lest the attainment of the goal be jeopardized’
(p. 75). This explains why so many atheists in power have committed horrific crimes
in pursuit of an ideal.
Does religion cause war?
Image wikipedia.org
Atheists blame religion for the Crusades and Spanish Inquisition, but atheist regimes
in the 20th century have killed far more people than all religiously-caused
‘atrocities’ combined.
Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins both claim that religion is responsible for enabling
war-making, because the belief in an afterlife makes a person more willing to risk
his earthly life. However, their whole argument is flawed, because the vast majority
of wars over the history of mankind have had nothing to do with religion. Day shows
that, other than conflicts that involve Muslim religious violence, there are currently
very few religiously-based wars, and some that are assumed to be religious are actually
primarily ethnic, political or linguistic conflicts (p. 85). For example, the IRA’s
ideology was mainly atheistic and Marxist, and had nothing to do with Christian
teachings. If religion inspired hawkishness, one would expect to find that militaries
of religious countries have higher volunteer rates for their military forces than
do secular countries, however, this is not the case (although it would be more valid
to examine the military volunteer rates of religious individuals instead)
(p. 91).
Since America is the most religious nation in the Western world, if the atheists’
hypothesis about religion fuelling a warlike attitude is valid, then America should
be particularly aggressive and that its wars should be religiously motivated. However,
Day shows that the vast majority of American wars have been against primarily (at
least nominally) Christian enemies, and only one of them, the War on Terror, could
be properly said to be a religious war (pp. 99–102), but even this war is
only against violent extremist Muslims, not Islam as a whole.
Making atheists look ridiculous
Having addressed some arguments that the New Atheists have in common, Day focuses
on the individual members of the ‘New Atheists’. He attacks Harris first,
who he calls ‘a grave embarrassment to atheism, intellectuals, and the Stanford
University philosophy department’
(p. 113). Day accuses Harris of ignorance about the religions he attacks, and of
intellectual dishonesty. He documents factual and logical errors in The End of Faith
and Letter to a Christian Nation,3
and in particular refutes the ridiculous assertion in the latter that ‘Red’
(or Republican, so allegedly more Christian according to Harris) states are more
prone to crime than ‘Blue’ (or Democrat, so more secular) states. Indeed,
most of the crimes in ‘Red’ states are committed in their ‘Bluest’
counties.
Dawkins is ‘the world’s foremost spokesman for secular science’
(p. 136), yet his recent works contain very little actual science. While Dawkins
finds the idea of God utterly incredible, Day shows that he has no problem believing
other things without evidence. In Unweaving the Rainbow,4 Dawkins professes to believe that science can inspire
art and poetry as easily as religion, despite centuries of evidence to the contrary.
Day cites the atheist academic Camille Paglia, who argues that religion is an artistic
necessity, and it is because of atheism that ‘anything goes, and nothing lasts’
in modern art (p. 142). Dawkins’ beliefs that wars are won through blind obedience,
atheists are less likely to destroy religious architecture, humanity is innately
good, Christian theocracy is as bad as Islamic fascism, and Catholicism is more
damaging than childhood sexual abuse, are similarly refuted.
Michel Onfray … ‘performs the invaluable task of demonstrating that
atheism possesses the inherent potential to be every bit as unrepentantly evil by
traditional Western moral standards as Christians have always believed it to be’
Day calls Christopher Hitchens ‘the last and least of the Unholy Trinity’
(p. 161). However, he also calls him the most honest of the New Atheists, since
he does not try to disguise his hatred of Christianity. The main criticisms that
Day levies against Hitchens are of inadequate research, making claims without sufficient
evidence, and overreliance on personal experience.5
Apparently not wanting to be open to the criticism of not having enough evidence
for this criticism, Day provides a nearly four-page-long list of the unsupported
assertions in God is not Great (pp. 167–171).
In contrast to the other New Atheists, Daniel Dennett’s writing is reasonable
and tame, despite his ignorance of basic history and theology. Dennett, instead
of assuming from the outset that belief in God is a harmful delusion, argues for
putting aside all assumptions to examine the evidence reasonably. Day also compliments
Dennett’s readiness to admit ignorance and to not take an opinion on areas
outside his interest or expertise. However, ‘the philosopher shows himself
to be repeatedly susceptible to missing similarly obvious things, usually due to
a failure to draw a correct logical conclusion from the evidence on hand’
(p. 183). For instance, he has no problem with people accepting Einstein’s
famous equation, E=mc2 , without understanding it and putting faith in
the scientists who do understand, yet condemns people who trust their pastors on
matters of religion as immoral. Still, Day suggests that ‘Dennett’s
call for an open spirit of inquiry into religion is worthwhile and should be welcomed
by Christians and other religious individuals’ (p. 193).
Michel Onfray is a prolific writer, nearly unknown in the English speaking world,
but very popular in France and Italy. He has published 31 books on a wide range
of topics (p. 197), and his Traité d’athéologie, published
as In Defence of Atheism in England and Atheist Manifesto in the
United States, ‘performs the invaluable task of demonstrating that atheism
possesses the inherent potential to be every bit as unrepentantly evil by traditional
Western moral standards as Christians have always believed it to be’
(p. 199). Onfray criticizes the other New Atheists for adopting a mostly Judeo-Christian
ethic even as they reject the biblical God, calling such individuals ‘Christian
atheists’
(p. 201). Indeed, Dawkins has called himself a ‘cultural Christian’.6 Onfray wants to discard the
values of charity, temperance, compassion, mercy, humility and forgiveness, among
others, embracing a sort of utilitarian hedonism. His complete rejection of Judeo-Christian
ethics, and his own hellish alternative, is the logical end of the philosophy that
the other New Atheists embrace, even if most will never admit it.
Hitler, the Inquisition, Crusades and human sacrifice
Having gone on the offensive for most of the book, Day turns to the accusations
most commonly made about Christianity. Atheists love to claim that Hitler was a
Christian, and Christians often claim that he was an atheist, but Day shows that
both sides are wrong: Hitler was actually a pagan totalitarian (p. 213). However,
many of his policies were based on Darwinism.7,8
While atheists blame atrocities on religion, Day shows that an atheist leader is
much more likely, statistically, to murder a significant part of his country’s
population than any religious leader.
The Spanish Inquisition is another ‘crime of religion’ that atheists
showcase. But the sole purpose of the Spanish Inquisition was to root out people
who professed to be Christians but were secretly practising other faiths; it had
no control over professing Jews, Muslims or atheists. Torture was rarely used, and
only when there was strong evidence that the accused was lying. Even then there
were strict controls in place. And in nearly 350 years, only 3,230 people were sentenced
to death, hardly the bloodbath of millions that it is sometimes made out to be
(pp. 217–219).
Some atheists go back even further to the Crusades to find material with which to
accuse Christians; Day similarly handles this issue. These were defensive wars against
centuries of Islamic aggression against major historic centres of Christendom. However,
until the fighters of the Second Crusade foolishly attacked a Muslim ally, Christians
and Muslims had mutually beneficial alliances, which allowed Christians to keep
the gains made by the First Crusade. It was greed, not religious faith, which turned
the Crusades into the fiasco they became.
Atheist atrocities
While atheists blame atrocities on religion, Day shows that an atheist leader is
much more likely, statistically, to murder a significant part of his country’s
population than any religious leader (p. 241). He argues that this is because, lacking
belief in any spiritual reality, the atheist’s ambitions are limited to the
material realm. These ambitions tend to take the form of reshaping society to fit
their own vision of utopia; when the atheist meets resistance to his vision, or
the limitations of human sinfulness and fallibility render the vision impossible
to realise, the atheist may try to force cooperation by using violence, since he
does not recognize any higher moral law.
‘Omniderigence’ and the video game designer god
Vox Day compares God’s omniscience with that of a video game designer, but
the comparison has serious flaws.
Many atheists come to disbelieve in the existence of God because they find it impossible
to believe in an omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent God who allows bad things
to happen. Day argues that blaming God for the bad things that happen result from
a mistaken belief in God’s ultimate complete control over events which He
micromanages, a belief he terms ‘omniderigence’
(p. 276). Day explains:
‘There are two possibilities. Either evil is part of God’s plan and
has been from the beginning, or God is somehow constrained in his ability to unleash
his power upon this Earth. The biblical account describing how God gave man dominion
over the Earth, a dominion which the Scriptures explain was subsequently handed
over in turn to Satan, strongly suggests the latter … if everything is in
God’s hands and moving according to God’s plan, then what need would
there have ever been for Jesus Christ to come to and die on a cross?’ (pp.
277–278).
Day uses the experience of a programmer designing a computer game world to illustrate
this principle. The programmer is ‘omnipotent’; he could program anything
into his pixellated world. He could stop or reverse time, and could look into the
‘mind’ of any AI character to see what that particular character would
do if left to its own devices, and change its intended course of action if he wanted.
That makes him ‘omniscient’ as well. However, the programmer can also
choose not to exercise his ‘omniscience’ or ‘omnipotence’
and allow the AI world to operate without his interference.
However, Day’s analogy is flawed, because God’s omniscience and omnipotence
is part of His very nature in a way that the programmers’ knowledge and ability
to manipulate his artificial world is not; indeed, the programmers’ ‘omniscience’
is limited to what codes the programmer chooses to view. God cannot choose to not
know what will happen; His very nature demands that He know everything. In the same
vein, God is not only omnipotent when He chooses to supernaturally circumvent the
way the physical world normally works; a decision by a truly omnipotent being to
not intervene is itself an exercise of omnipotence.
Day argues that ‘we are incapable of perceiving the difference between a god
who knows everything and a god who merely knows a whole lot more than we do, moreover,
the latter is the god that more closely fits the description of the biblical God’
(p. 274). It would have been interesting for Day to cite some actual verses in support
of this heterodox ‘open theist’ view. The Bible makes it clear that
all things are possible for God (Mathew 19:26) that don’t contravene His nature
(e.g. Titus 1:2). The Bible also calls Him the ‘Lord God
Παντοκράτωρ’ (Pantokratōr)
(2 Corinthians 6:18, Revelation passim), which means
‘all-ruler’, and is usually translated ‘almighty’, or omnipotens
in the Latin Vulgate.9 Day
possesses no theological credentials, yet feels qualified to say that ‘there
is no theological significance whatsoever to a reduced form of omniscience and omnipotence
… ’ (p. 274).
Day’s flawed view of God leads him to other theological errors; his answer
to the problem of suffering seems to be ‘Well, God must not have been looking
that way at the time’ (though it is not put in those words), and we are supposed
to praise God for allowing us to be so free and make our own choices, and be glad
we do not have a ‘cruel and easily bored puppeteer’ (p. 278) for a God.
His view also ignores the Fall, which introduced death and suffering into the ‘very
good’ world that God had created.
Conclusion
Vox Day does not claim to be a scholar, yet, except in the area of theology, he
holds his own against atheist intellectuals. He is not content to refute them only,
he mocks them relentlessly. Day’s writing is filled with insults and delightfully
sarcastic wit, and his footnotes are as likely to add on an extra insult as to cite
a source. He makes his victims look ridiculous; however, as delightful as it is
to hear him call Dawkins a ‘supercilious old fart’ (p. 68), sometimes
after several pages of reading how stupid a particular argument is, one forgets
the serious point he was trying to make. This makes Day’s book an entertaining
volume, but one that the reader might take less seriously than other criticisms
of the ‘new atheists’. That said, The Irrational Atheist is
a good refutation of many core ‘New Atheist’ arguments, if flawed by
Day’s open theism.
Related articles
Further reading
References
- Day’s blog, Vox Popoli, can be viewed at <voxday.blogspot.com>.
Return to text.
- <www.worldnetdaily.com/news/archives.asp?author_id=175>.
Return to text.
- See detailed refutation, Holding, J.P., Letter to a Maladjusted
Misotheist, 2 November 2006, <www.tektonics.org/gk/harrisletter.html>.
Return to text.
- See review, Truman, R.,
Disappointing delusion, J. Creation 13(1):33–36,
1999; <creation.com/unweaving>. Return to text.
- This is independently supported by Sarfati, J.,
Christopher Hitchens blind to salamander reality: A well-known atheist’s eureka
moment shows the desperation of evolutionists, 26 July 2008, <creation.com/hitchens>.
Return to text.
- Dawkins: I’m a cultural Christian, BBC News,
10 December 2007, <news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politiics/ 7136682.stm>; see also
<creation.com/christmas>. Return to text.
- Weikart, R., From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics,
Eugenics, and Racism in Germany, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, USA, 2004; <creation.com/weikart>.
Return to text.
- Bergman, J.,
Darwinism and the Nazi race Holocaust, J. Creation 13(2):101–111,
1999; <creation.com/holocaust>. Return to text.
- See also Sarfati, J.,
If God can do anything, then can He make a being more powerful than Himself? What
does God’s omnipotence really mean? 12 January 2008, <creation.com/omnipotence>.
Return to text.
| The thousands of fully searchable articles on this site are accessed daily by thousands of people. If even a fraction of those thousands of people gave a small amount regularly, we could dramatically increase our outreach!  | | |
|
