Atheist Smugness

A couple of weeks ago I finished Crimes Against Logic. Overall, I found the book fairly enjoyable. The author, Jaime Whyte, highlighted many logical fallacies, and though most were fairly obvious, it was worthwhile to review some of them, especially for one, such as myself, who depends on logic, at least theoretically, in writing these little essays.

But there was a fundamental flaw to the book which brought into question the whole of Whyte's credibility. Throughout the book, Whyte uses various examples to poke holes in logical fallacies. While most of his examples were sound, most of his theological insights were laughably bad. In one instance, he concludes, smugly and simply, that God cannot be a tangled Trinity because three does not equal one. All of Christendom crumbles! Neither Augustine nor Aquinas ever thought of something so profound. Elsewhere he states that there is no such thing as paradox, a dubious assertion which he doesn't even begin to back up.

Whyte is not alone in his crimes against theology. Most of the new atheists, more than just rejecting Christianity (and other theological systems of thought) , dismiss it far too readily as simplistic and probably idiotic. They seem to have absolutely no grasp of what theology is, or why some might find it, not only comforting, but true.

Fraters Libertas linked to an article from the Wall Street Journal by Sam Schulman. (Note: an account is required to view the entire article.) I quote therefrom:

For the new atheists, believing in God is a form of stupidity, which sets off their own intelligence. They write as if they were the first to discover that biblical miracles are improbable, that Parson Weems was a fabulist, that religion is full of superstition. They write as if great minds had never before wrestled with the big questions of creation, moral law and the contending versions of revealed truth. They argue as if these questions are easily answered by their own blunt materialism. Most of all, they assume that no intelligent, reflective person could ever defend religion rather than dismiss it. The reviewer of Dr. Dawkins's volume in a recent New York Review of Books noted his unwillingness to take theology seriously, a starting point for any considered debate over religion...

But to pass over this deeper faith -- the kind that engaged the great minds of Western history -- is to diminish the loss of faith too. The new atheists are separated from the old by their shallowness.

Sometime ago, Sloan interviewed Richard Dawkins, one of the new fangled atheist types.

Sloan: But it seems to me the big "why" questions are, why are we here? And what is our purpose in life?

Dawkins: It's not a question that deserves an answer.

Is he serious? Socrates once famously intoned, shortly before being condemned to death, that "the unexamined life was not worth living". The Last Days of Socrates makes clear that he was well short of finding all the answers to his questions, but that didn't stop him from continuing to search for them.

Sloan: Well, I think most people would say those questions are central to the way we think about our lives. Those are the big existential questions, but they are also questions that go beyond science.

Dawkins: If you mean, what is the purpose of the existence of the universe, then I'm saying that is quite simply begging the question. If you happen to be religious, you think that's a meaningful question. But the mere fact that you can phrase it as an English sentence doesn't mean it deserves an answer. Those of us who don't believe in a god will say that is as illegitimate as the question, why are unicorns hollow? It just shouldn't be put. It's not a proper question to put. It doesn't deserve an answer.

Jean-Paul Sartre once wrote that "Life begins on the other side of despair." If he was write about his premises, namely, that there is no God and existence precedes essence, he was right in his conclusion. But what a harsh conclusion! It is very difficult to get to the other side of despair. Dawkins seems unconcerned with, or unaware of this point. He says, essentially, "Life has no purpose, but neither does it require one. It is stupid to look for a purpose, and there is no reason one cannot simply live, quite happily, pursposelessly."

Of course, with such an outlook, one is not sure whether life is good at all. Being mere accident, it simply is. Morality goes the wayside; as Dostoyevksy noted, "Without God, all is permitted". It is difficult to formulate any sort of moral code when existence itself cannot be deemed good or bad. Murder is clearly wrong if life is valuable. Without this value, murder is only the cessation of cell replication, the atrophy or muscles, the breakdown in the function of organs, and so on and so forth. It is dull, but it is not really ghastly or immoral.

Yet in a sense Dostoyevsky was wrong. There seems to be things that are not permitted in an atheistic universe, except in some of the more extraordinary individuals. If science can explain all, wonder ceases; if there is no higher power, pride quickly ensues. A world without humility and wonder is somehow less humane. This alone points to the utility of reason. Since so many atheists seem to grasp even this, it is worth wondering whether or not they are missing other attributes as well.