Book Reviews
Excellent refutation of ‘new atheists’ flawed by heterodox open theism
highly educated and more law-abiding A review of than the general population; they The Irrational Atheist: also share ‘undeveloped social skills Dissecting the Unholy Trinity of … so dramatic as to be reasonably Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens: described as a form of social autism’ by Vox Day (p. 16). On the other hand, ‘low Benbella Books, Dallas, church’ atheists tend not to even call TX, 2008 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’ Lita Cosner counterparts and religious folk. While the ‘high church’ atheists are more the Dark Ages, which was ended by don’t care if you go to Hell. … vocal and visible, the ‘low church’ bold non-believers who ushered in the ‘I Your soul is not my responsibility’ atheists significantly outnumber them. Enlightenment. Day shows that ‘The (p. 5). That is hardly the sort of opening Dawkins, Dennett and Harris all belong Dark Ages’ is actually a reversal of a one expects from a self-described ‘non- to ‘high church’ atheism, and it is this Christian metaphor of ‘pagan darkness denominational evangelical Christian’ particular manifestation of non-belief giving way to the Light of the World’ (p. 1) whose pen name is a play on the that Day attacks. (p. 35), and was created by the Italian Latin for ‘Voice of God’. Vox Day poet and Christian Francesco Petrarca does not have a Ph.D.; his biography Which science? (Petrarch, 1304–1374) in contempt of lists no higher education, in fact. He German invaders, not Christian faith. is a video game designer, blogger,1 and Atheists often argue that science Although historians have discarded the columnist,2 who claims no intellectual has disproved the claims of religion in notion of the Dark Ages as a period achievement except ‘to have once general and Christianity in particular. of religious oppression for nearly a convinced [conservative columnist Day contends that ‘it is impossible and author] Michelle Malkin to skip to entirely separate atheism from century (indeed, even the term ‘Dark an opportunity to promote herself’ science, because scientific materialism Ages’ has been replaced with ‘Middle (p. 3). However, Day’s lack of formal has such an influence on atheistic Ages’), many atheists still promote this qualification does not affect the quality thinking even in matters where mistaken theory. of his arguments, for the most part, in science is not directly involved’ In The End of Faith, Sam Harris his book. He claims his purpose in (p. 28). So his next step is to define argued that religion is too dangerous in writing The Irrational Atheist is ‘not science. Day accepts the definition light of the advent of nuclear, biological to defend God, or even to argue for of an evolutionary biologist, who and chemical weapons in warfare: the truth of my particular religious gives a three-fold definition: science ‘Words like “God” and “Allah” must faith’ (p. 1). Instead, he argues against is ‘a dynamic body of knowledge go the way of “Apollo” and “Baal,” the ‘fraudulent, error-filled writings’ (scientage), a process (scientody), or they will unmake our world’ (cited of Dawkins, Dennett and Hitchens, and a profession (scientistry)’ on p. 43). Day argues that the five the ‘unholy trinity’ referred to in the (p. 32). It is the second definition, major religions of the world have been subtitle of his book. science as a systematic study of the around for 116 centuries, collectively, natural world through observation and without causing the extinction of Which atheism? experimentation, which Day refers to humankind. Modern science, however, The definition of atheism varies throughout the book. after existing only 350 years, has depending on who is defining it, so Having defined science, Day is created ‘a veritable witches’ brew Day begins by dividing the irreligious free to explore whether it is really in of potential dangers to the human into two categories—‘high church’ conflict with religion. The popular race, ranging from atom-shattering and ‘low church’ atheists. ‘High view is that the Church repressed explosive devices to lethal genetic church’ atheists tend to be wealthy, science and knowledge leading to modifications’ (p. 45). Day argues
28 JOURNAL OF CREATION 22(3) 2008 Book Reviews
that if science mixed with religion is a that, other than conflicts that involve Making atheists look ridiculous formula for the extinction of the human Muslim religious violence, there are Having addressed some race, it is more reasonable to attempt to currently very few religiously-based arguments that the New Atheists eliminate science rather than religion, wars, and some that are assumed to be have in common, Day focuses on as there are far fewer scientists than religious are actually primarily ethnic, the individual members of the ‘New religious people, and while religion political or linguistic conflicts (p. 85). Atheists’. He attacks Harris first, who has never been completely stamped For example, the IRA’s ideology was he calls ‘a grave embarrassment to out, scientific development has been mainly atheistic and Marxist, and had atheism, intellectuals, and the Stanford (pp. 53–54). nothing to do with Christian teachings. University philosophy department’ If religion inspired hawkishness, one (p. 113). Day accuses Harris of A New Enlightenment ? ‘ ’ would expect to find that militaries ignorance about the religions he For all their pseudo-scientific of religious countries have higher attacks, and of intellectual dishonesty. arguments, Day argues that the New volunteer rates for their military forces He documents factual and logical Atheism really has nothing to do with than do secular countries, however, errors in The End of Faith and Letter science; rather, science is only useful this is not the case (although it would to a Christian Nation,3 and in particular to them so far as it promotes their be more valid to examine the military refutes the ridiculous assertion in the goals (p. 68). Their real goal is to volunteer rates of religious individuals latter that ‘Red’ (or Republican, so obliterate Christianity, and to replace instead) (p. 91). allegedly more Christian according to it with their own code of morality. Since America is the most religious Harris) states are more prone to crime The New Atheists look forward to a nation in the Western world, if the than ‘Blue’ (or Democrat, so more ‘New Enlightenment’ where religious atheists’ hypothesis about religion secular) states. Indeed, most of the crimes in ‘Red’ states are committed texts will be replaced by literature and fuelling a warlike attitude is valid, in their ‘Bluest’ counties. poetry (the religious texts apparently then America should be particularly Dawkins is ‘the world’s foremost containing neither literature nor poetry) aggressive and that its wars should spokesman for secular science’ and one could practice unlimited be religiously motivated. However, licentiousness without fear of an (p. 136), yet his recent works contain Day shows that the vast majority of very little actual science. While afterlife or societal prohibitions in this American wars have been against one. As ideal as this humanist paradise Dawkins finds the idea of God utterly primarily (at least nominally) Christian incredible, Day shows that he has no sounds, the first Enlightenment, instead enemies, and only one of them, the of an atheist utopia, led to the French problem believing other things without War on Terror, could be properly said evidence. In Unweaving the Rainbow,4 Revolution and its associated Reign to be a religious war (pp. 99–102), but of Terror, Marxism and the European Dawkins professes to believe that even this war is only against violent science can inspire art and poetry as Union. Hitchens, a former Marxist, extremist Muslims, not Islam as a easily as religion, despite centuries of provides the insight that humanists who whole. evidence to the contrary. Day cites 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? 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. Image from
JOURNAL OF CREATION 22(3) 2008 29 Book Reviews
the atheist academic Camille Paglia, Michel Onfray is a prolific only 3,230 people were sentenced to who argues that religion is an artistic writer, nearly unknown in the English death, hardly the bloodbath of millions necessity, and it is because of atheism speaking world, but very popular in that it is sometimes made out to be that ‘anything goes, and nothing lasts’ France and Italy. He has published (pp. 217–219). in modern art (p. 142). Dawkins’ 31 books on a wide range of topics Some atheists go back even further beliefs that wars are won through (p. 197), and his Traité d’athéologie, to the Crusades to find material with blind obedience, atheists are less published as In Defence of Atheism in which to accuse Christians; Day likely to destroy religious architecture, England and Atheist Manifesto in the similarly handles this issue. These humanity is innately good, Christian United States, ‘performs the invaluable were defensive wars against centuries theocracy is as bad as Islamic fascism, task of demonstrating that atheism of Islamic aggression against major and Catholicism is more damaging possesses the inherent potential to historic centres of Christendom. than childhood sexual abuse, are be every bit as unrepentantly evil by However, until the fighters of the similarly refuted. traditional Western moral standards as Second Crusade foolishly attacked a Day calls Christopher Hitchens Christians have always believed it to be’ Muslim ally, Christians and Muslims ‘the last and least of the Unholy Trinity’ (p. 199). Onfray criticizes the other had mutually beneficial alliances, (p. 161). However, he also calls him New Atheists for adopting a mostly which allowed Christians to keep the the most honest of the New Atheists, Judeo-Christian ethic even as they gains made by the First Crusade. It since he does not try to disguise his reject the biblical God, calling such was greed, not religious faith, which hatred of Christianity. The main individuals ‘Christian atheists’ turned the Crusades into the fiasco criticisms that Day levies against (p. 201). Indeed, Dawkins has called they became. Hitchens are of inadequate research, himself a ‘cultural Christian’.6 Onfray making claims without sufficient wants to discard the values of charity, Atheist atrocities evidence, and overreliance on personal temperance, compassion, mercy, experience.5 Apparently not wanting to humility and forgiveness, among While atheists blame atrocities be open to the criticism of not having others, embracing a sort of utilitarian on religion, Day shows that an atheist enough evidence for this criticism, Day hedonism. His complete rejection of leader is much more likely, statistically, provides a nearly four-page-long list Judeo-Christian ethics, and his own to murder a significant part of his of the unsupported assertions in God hellish alternative, is the logical end country’s population than any religious is not Great (pp. 167–171). of the philosophy that the other New leader (p. 241). He argues that this is In contrast to the other New Atheists embrace, even if most will because, lacking belief in any spiritual Atheists, Daniel Dennett’s writing never admit it. reality, the atheist’s ambitions are is reasonable and tame, despite his limited to the material realm. These ignorance of basic history and theology. Hitler, the Inquisition, Crusades ambitions tend to take the form of Dennett, instead of assuming from the and human sacrifice reshaping society to fit their own outset that belief in God is a harmful Having gone on the offensive for vision of utopia; when the atheist delusion, argues for putting aside all meets resistance to his vision, or the assumptions to examine the evidence most of the book, Day turns to the accusations most commonly made limitations of human sinfulness and reasonably. Day also compliments fallibility render the vision impossible Dennett’s readiness to admit ignorance about Christianity. Atheists love to claim that Hitler was a Christian, and to realise, the atheist may try to force and to not take an opinion on areas cooperation by using violence, since outside his interest or expertise. Christians often claim that he was an atheist, but Day shows that both he does not recognize any higher However, ‘the philosopher shows moral law. himself to be repeatedly susceptible sides are wrong: Hitler was actually a pagan totalitarian (p. 213). However, to missing similarly obvious things, ‘Omniderigence’ and the video usually due to a failure to draw a many of his policies were based on 7,8 game designer god correct logical conclusion from the Darwinism. evidence on hand’ (p. 183). For The Spanish Inquisition is another Many atheists come to disbelieve instance, he has no problem with people ‘crime of religion’ that atheists in the existence of God because accepting Einstein’s famous equation, showcase. But the sole purpose of the they find it impossible to believe E=mc2, without understanding it and Spanish Inquisition was to root out in an omniscient, omnipotent and putting faith in the scientists who do people who professed to be Christians omnibenevolent God who allows bad understand, yet condemns people who but were secretly practising other faiths; things to happen. Day argues that trust their pastors on matters of religion it had no control over professing Jews, blaming God for the bad things that as immoral. Still, Day suggests that Muslims or atheists. Torture was rarely happen result from a mistaken belief ‘Dennett’s call for an open spirit of used, and only when there was strong in God’s ultimate complete control inquiry into religion is worthwhile and evidence that the accused was lying. over events which He micromanages, should be welcomed by Christians and Even then there were strict controls a belief he terms ‘omniderigence’ other religious individuals’ (p. 193). in place. And in nearly 350 years, (p. 276). Day explains:
30 JOURNAL OF CREATION 22(3) 2008 Book Reviews
However, Day’s analogy is Conclusion flawed, because God’s omniscience score <1><0> hrvtw11 Vox Day does not claim to be and omnipotence is part of His very a scholar, yet, except in the area of 000011110____100001101 nature in a way that the programmers’ theology, he holds his own against 0100000111010100____01 knowledge and ability to manipulate atheist intellectuals. He is not content 1111101011110011110001 his artificial world is not; indeed, to refute them only, he mocks them 1110____1000010011111 the programmers’ ‘omniscience’ is relentlessly. Day’s writing is filled with 110101011101010011101 limited to what codes the programmer insults and delightfully sarcastic wit, 0100111111010100001111 chooses to view. God cannot choose and his footnotes are as likely to add 01101 0100000111010100 to not know what will happen; His on an extra insult as to cite a source. ____011111101011110011 very nature demands that He know He makes his victims look ridiculous; 11000111100010011110__ everything. In the same vein, God is however, as delightful as it is to hear __10000100011110001111 not only omnipotent when He chooses him call Dawkins a ‘supercilious 00011110111010100____0 to supernaturally circumvent the way old fart’ (p. 68), sometimes after 1111110101011101010011 the physical world normally works; a several pages of reading how stupid a 1010100____01111110101 decision by a truly omnipotent being particular argument is, one forgets the to not intervene is itself an exercise of serious point he was trying to make. omnipotence. This makes Day’s book an entertaining Vox Day compares God’s omniscience Day argues that ‘we are incapable volume, but one that the reader might with that of a video game designer, but the comparison has serious flaws. of perceiving the difference between take less seriously than other criticisms a god who knows everything and of the ‘new atheists’. That said, The a god who merely knows a whole Irrational Atheist is a good refutation ‘There are two possibilities. Either lot more than we do, moreover, the of many core ‘New Atheist’ arguments, evil is part of God’s plan and latter is the god that more closely if flawed by Day’s open theism. has been from the beginning, or fits the description of the biblical God is somehow constrained in God’ (p. 274). It would have been References his ability to unleash his power interesting for Day to cite some actual 1. Day’s blog, Vox Popoli, can be viewed at upon this Earth. The biblical verses in support of this heterodox
JOURNAL OF CREATION 22(3) 2008 31