Reviewed: The Irrational Atheist by Vox Day

It would be hard to escape the so-called New Atheists. Sam Harris has written two books, The End of Faith, and Letter to a Christian Nation; Richard Dawkins has penned The God Delusion, which has sold one and a half million copies; and Christopher Hitchens has contributed god is not Great.

The books have spawned a number of responses and objections, most of which offer a defense of religion against atheist attacks.

Enter Vox Day, a libertarian columnist at WorldNetDaily, who is also the author of several science-fiction and fantasy novels. Although Vox is a Christian, he insists on battling "the unholy trinity" in their home arena: his "only weapons are the purely secular ones of reason, logic, and historically documented, independently verifiable fact." (p.2) The result is The Irrational Atheist, a solid polemic, but one interspersed with a goodly amount of humor.

A common mistake in this debate--or indeed any debate--is to argue exclusively from one's own perspective. Quoting verses from the Bible is ultimately ineffective to someone who views it with the same amount of respective as one would regard the Weekly World News. While a case could be made that this is an example of "pearls before swine", the important point is that it makes for bad apologetics.

Vox steers clear of this trap and meets the atheist charges head on. The results are glorious to behold, though a tremor of pity may escape the human breast if one glances at the slain trinity. It's not just that Vox is intellectually honest whereas Harris, Dawkins and Hitchens are not. Vox has clearly read books relating to the subject matter--his knowledge of history is especially keen--whereas it appears that his opponents have assembled books after a series of college bull sessions and limited research, probably involving Wikipedia.

Sam Harris is clearly the biggest breaker of the laws of logic; as such, he takes the lion's share of the blows. Vox points out twelve glaring errors from his two books, before tackling the "striking"--Dawkin's term--argument of the superiority of atheism, based on a survey of crime data from red states and blue states. As Vox points out, the argument is idiotic, and proves nothing; but Harris is so mindbogglingly incompetent that the data actually suggest the opposite of what Harris claims.

As for the canard, hoisted arrogantly by Harris, that religions cause war: it's simply not true. According to the Encyclopedia of Wars, religion accounts for a mere 6.98% of all wars, 3.98% if Islam is excluded. And as Vox demonstrates in chapter xiii, the few atheists who have been given power have shown a disturbing propensity to spill blood--and lots of it. Compared to the copious crimes of atheism, the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition and the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre, are insignificant. Still, Vox doesn't merely present the damning death tolls. Instead, he covers the topics in a thorough manner, presenting events in their historical context. The Crusades were not explicitly religious, and became less dependent on religious motives as crusading continued. The Spanish Inquisition was responsible for 3,230 deaths, over a span of over 350 years. And while the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre was wholly indefensible, it was met with righteous indignation, shock and horror by all of Christendom. Vox also examines Hitler, a pagan who was nonetheless quite opposed to religion, and can on way be considered a Christian.

Having run through the lackluster Harris, Vox approaches the able evolutionary biologist, Richard Dawkins. Unfortunately, "Darwin's Judas" is out of his depth when dealing with religion. A number of books have been written, in the hope's of elucidating to Dawkins that which he has already attacked, but Vox instead focuses on Dawkins's inability to use the scientific method he ostensibly champions. Dawkins's book is the only book examined by Vox which I have also read; suffice it to say I was not impressed. Dawkins is much brighter than Harris, so he tends to be more careful at falling into logical traps. His book is certainly more coherent than Hithchens's--but so too is the livejournal of a typical fourth grade girl. Yet Dawkins dances, keeping his minions happy as he takes it to the benighted religious, leaving the latter a bit bewildered at what passes for a logical argument, and a bit angry at such astounding arrogance over what is little more than repeated "bait-and-switch".

Nonetheless, Vox catches Dawkins, who cannot believe in an improbable God, confessing faith in "seven impossible things". The assertions are quite silly, and Vox easily demonstrates them to be false. Most damaging, and least rational, is Dawkins belief in what Vox terms "the infallibility of Sam Harris". Coming on the heels of a skewering of Harris worthy of a Viking horde, this bodes badly for Dawkins. While his book is superior to those of Harris, tying the success of his own to the biggest atheist clown speaks volumes to the intellectual integrity of Richard Dawkins.

Vox also examines Dawkins's "unrebuttable" argument, "The Argument from Improbability for the nonexistence of God". Attempting to succinctly summarize the refutation of this argument would be very difficult to do. Suffice it to say that it's in chapter viii, and Dawkins has some explaining to do.

Hitchens merits a chapter, too, but the argument--if one can call it that--is so incoherent that it scarcely merits mentioning. One gets the distinct impression that there would have been no book were Hitchens allowed to fornicate freely. Only, so far as I know, he is. The Roman Catholic Church's opposition to birth control hasn't prevented those who disagree from partaking of the forbidden fruit; just ask the 96% of American Catholics who don't follow the Church on this exact issue. In Hitchens's mind, religion is inexorably linked to compulsion. Vox, the friendly libertarian, is just the person to correct this misconception. Vox lists a series of bizarre Hitchens quotes, and comments on a few of them. He then pronounces Hitchens "eminently likable" and "even charming at times", and extends an olive branch of mutual tolerance. One notes, in passing, the irony of Hitchens concerning himself with tolerance. This is the same fellow who wanted to nuke Iraq. But, as Vox repeatedly shows, Hithchens is quite irrational. He's primarily a rabble rouser--albeit a fairly entertaining one--who doesn't dare stoop to rationally, at least in making his case against religion.

Vox also comments on two atheists who are not part of the unholy trinity: Daniel Dennett and Michel Onfray. The two are remarkably different. Dennett avoids most of the mistakes made by the trinity, as he primarily seeks further use of science to examine the claims of religion. Since religion is, or should be, concerned with truth, Vox doesn't have a problem with this; nor should the believer. When he doesn't know the answer, Dennett sensibly admits as much; this alone sets him apart from his compatriots. Vox has to call him to the carpet to answer for a few foibles, but Dennett alone appears to realize that ridding the world of religion may not be all fun and games, even as he lumps God with the Easter Bunny. Dennett alone would never have inspired The Irrational Atheist. But his inclusion is beneficial because it demonstrates that not all atheists fit the unholy mold, and that however firmly one is convinced of one's personal atheism, there are many problems for a society which divorces itself from religion. It also demonstrates the inherent irrationality in even relatively innocuous atheism.

The case of Michel Onfray is also instructive. On the culturally secluded continent of North America, his name fails to ring a bell, but the expatriated Vox is familiar with this European icon. Onfray is not particularly coherent, and Vox spends little time examining the French post-modern nonsense of which Onfray subsists. But Onfray has his purposes, one being that whereas Dawkins and company are fine with the Christian morality--except for parts they don't like--Onfray wants a whole new system of ethics, an atheist's atheism. More importantly, Onfray is the only proponent of the rational extension of atheistic principles. The trinity is wise to avoid Onfray's conclusions, but they are not especially rational.

"According to Onfray, the New Atheist path leads to only to Nietzschean nihilism; his atheology is post-Nietzschean, leading humanity beyond the dialectic of nihilistic struggle and into a hedonistic philosopher's paradise." (TIA, p. 206) Inferno would be a better word, and if history is the judge, the path to paradise would lead through the gas chamber and the gulag.

There is more to the book, but this is supposed to be a brief review. The penultimate chapter presents fascinating take on the dilemma of omniscience and omnipotence, involving a computer programmer and his video game. I'm a bit uneasy with Vox's explanation, but after slogging through all of the atheist books, he's more than entitled to a theological exercise. The appendix involves a conversation with Socrates, in which Vox demonstrates some problems with the Euthyphro dilemma. The book closes beautifully with a testament to the edifying influence religion will always have over mankind.

No one should have had to write this book. The New Atheists never deserved to be held in such high regard. Those who have treated these unimpressive thinkers as intellectual paragons should be mortified. Vox has answered the call to arms. If his challenges are not addressed, no one will be able to take Harris, Dawkins or Hitchens seriously when they discuss religion. At least then the intellectually honest will know where the New Atheists stand.

Nor is it fair to ask "Who is Vox Day?" He happens to be a very intelligent man, but even if he's not, what does that say about the champions of reason, that a strange fellow from the Internet demolished them in intellectual combat?

This book is best suited for those who were a little too impressed with the arguments of the New Atheists; for those who haven't the tools to meet the seemingly irrefutable attacks of the atheists; and really, for all those concerned with truth. After all, that's what this whole debate is supposed to be about.