Tina Beattie on The New Atheists (interview by Becky Garrison)
Becky Garrison recently e-mailed Tina Beattie, author of The New Atheists: The Twilight of Reason and the War on Religion,
Why is this new atheism primarily a British and American phenomenon?
Although the new atheists are sweeping in their condemnation of religion per se, they are by and large a rather homogenous bunch of disaffected white, male, English-speaking Protestants who seek in evolutionary science the kind of reassurances that perhaps they might once have sought in Christianity.
Sam Harris is Jewish.
Sam Harris is an exception. Not only does he come from a Jewish background, he is also a much more complex and clever philosopher with a smattering of mysticism and a neo-con approach to politics, which allows him to offer a quite terrifying philosophical justification for torture, war, and the inevitability of "collateral damage." Harris apart, most of the new atheists have much in common with their Christian fundamentalist counterparts.
How so?
They think that theirs is the one and only truth to which all other cultures and religions should submit; they interpret the Bible literally (they blindly condemn what religious fundamentalists blindly support); and they have very little insight into the psychological, philosophical, and historical complexities of their fellow human beings outside their own small circle. (Dawkins refers to French critical theorists as 'icons of haute francophonyism.') The new atheism reflects a certain intellectual zeitgeist currently fashionable in Britain and America (which are of course also two quite different cultures), rather than those of European cultures, which have been more deeply influenced by Catholic and Jewish thinkers, and where there is a greater concern for language and symbolism than science and fact in the construction of meaning. Continental atheism has its roots in philosophy and psychoanalysis rather than the material sciences (e.g. Nietzsche, Freud, Lacan), but it also arises out of the trauma of the 20th century and the Holocaust. I think it's fair to say that many Christian thinkers -- myself included -- have little difficulty reconciling Darwin's theory of natural selection with a Christian understanding of the world, but Auschwitz poses a much more fundamental challenge to the history and values of our faith. I would add that the new atheists fail to take seriously enough the challenge posed by the genocides of the 20th century to their own position, with its faith in science, progress, and reason. We should remember that, in the 20th century, a religious person was much more likely to be persecuted by an atheist than vice versa.
Why do you think you have more in common with Richard Dawkins than George W. Bush?
Well, for a start Dawkins has been fairly robust in his condemnation of the Iraq war, but I also agree with many of his criticisms about the dangers of religion -- not the least of those dangers is the alliance between recent American presidents and the Christian Right. (I have a friend who has a bumper sticker that says 'The Christian Right is neither'). My problem with Dawkins is not that he criticizes religious extremism, but that he is so undiscriminating and ill-informed in his criticisms. He blunts the impact of his own critique by spreading it too thinly and too wide. But if I had to choose between spending an evening with Dawkins or with Dubya, I'd choose Dawkins if only because I think the jokes would be better (the intentional ones, anyway).
[to be continued ...]
Becky Garrison is the author of The New Atheist Crusaders and Their Unholy Grail
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
"The Christian Right is neither"
Becky, thank you for sharing such an interesting interview! I'm somewhat hesitant to rely too heavily on the "atheist/christian" dichotomy, as it's a matter of mere identity politics and self-proclamation.
First, everyone--regardless of religious affiliation--is an atheist. Evangelicals do not believe in the Hindu god Shiva, thus, a strand of atheism. I don't believe in Constantinian christendom, thus I am also an atheist. I don't worship at the modern temples of the White House, the Armed Forces, or the harmfully narrow political agendas of Focus on the Family, so I must be be an atheist here as well.
But rather than focus on the politics of self-identification and what one chooses to call themselves, why not focus on that which one actually *enacts* in the real, material world of lived experience...
On the topic of Everlasting Life (Salvation), Jesus told a powerful narrative of a Samaritan Heretic who showed compassion to a Jewish stranger. Nowhere did Jesus demand that his followers call themselves "christians." He simply asked others to follow him.
Today, "christian" is, at best, an empty signifier that says little if anything about how someone actually lives their life. Perhaps we need new language to describe the profound task of following that radical prophet from Galilee.
Posted by: Quetzal | July 22, 2008 11:57 AM
I am very confused by some of these comments.
Kevin S. - Where does Becky argue that any belief in a deity is better than none? I just don't see that, at least not in this post so I do not understand your criticism.
Moderatelad - I am also confused as to the premise of your critique. I don't think this is an anti-Christian book. It seems to be similar to another book I read in response to the "New Atheism" of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, etc. My understanding is that Tina's book primarily is a defense against the New Atheists. The new atheists' books are, indeed, anti-Christian but only inasmuch as Christianity is a religion and the new atheists and scathingly anti-religion of any kind. Whether or not this book is a pro-Christian book, I wouldn't know, but Tina calls herself a Christian thinker. I agree that the bumper sticker is somewhat of a cheap shot, but it's no worse than many conservative Christians questioning the Christianity of liberals. I think it is certainly important to remember what you say: we are Christians first, not liberal or conservative.
Finally, I think the thing that really disturbs me about the interview is the final line about having lunch with Dawkins. If any of you have read a book by these New Atheists, you know the terribly vitriolic tone that they employ. I don't think I could stand more than about 5 minutes of one of their secular fundamentalist rants. I am no fan of Bush politically, but I get the feeling that a dinner with him would be very pleasant.
Posted by: Brian | July 22, 2008 12:50 PM
"I would add that the new atheists fail to take seriously enough the challenge posed by the genocides of the 20th century to their own position, with its faith in science, progress, and reason."
I think this is an excellent point. Atheists (armed with 'materialist' ideologies) were responsible for millions of deaths during the 20th Century. If 'the end of faith' were to bring about the end to genocide, we might say that it was worth it. But, history, in Cambodia and during the Stalinist era in Russia, has shown that it won't.
Besides, in my opinion, human beings will never eliminate religion. I believe the religious impulse is innate, no matter how much "evangelical atheists" would like to believe differently.
Posted by: Alicia | July 22, 2008 1:34 PM
"most of the new atheists have much in common with their Christian fundamentalist counterparts.
How so?
They think that theirs is the one and only truth to which all other cultures and religions should submit; they interpret the Bible literally (they blindly condemn what religious fundamentalists blindly support)"
Wow. Another dragging through the mud of the "christian fundamentalists." The main problem with this blog site is that it almost always erects the 'christian right' strawman then ridicules it and tears it to pieces. It is the most frequent recurring underlying theme of the God's Politics blog. You would never think, reading this site, that anyone matching the description of "christian right" could possibly be thoughtful, reasonable, accepting, loving, humble, and a true christian believer.
I think of myself as a Christian believer, and many of my views could be thought of as to the right, or conservative. If so I guess that makes me one of the 'christian right'.
Posted by: Noodle Beach | July 22, 2008 2:35 PM
"Today, "christian" is, at best, an empty signifier that says little if anything about how someone actually lives their life. Perhaps we need new language to describe the profound task of following that radical prophet from Galilee."
Quetzal has hit the mark precisely.
Posted by: Noodle Beach | July 22, 2008 2:57 PM
I just wanted to throw something out there for consideration because I see some people getting offended. My understanding is that the "Christian Right" does not equal "conservative Christian." I could be wrong, but I think (and hope) that when most people on God's Politics use the term Christian Right, they refer to a very specific sect of the Christian evangelical community typically associated with people like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson and organizations such as The Christian Coalition and The Moral Majority. From what I understand, these people and organizations are/were highly politically motivated and many people believe they distorted the message of Jesus. Therefore, one can easily be conservative and Christian without being a part of this "Christian Right" in the same way that one can have socialist ideals without being a Godless Communist. That analogy is probably imperfect, but I hope it expresses the gist of what I am saying.
Posted by: Brian | July 22, 2008 4:07 PM
I highly recommend the new book by Susan Jacoby called "The Age of American Unreason." Although she is also one of the newly popular atheist writers, she attempts to be fair. Although this book is not about religion per se but about how American standards and expectations have dropped to an alarming degree, she does handle the topic of Christianity quite fairly, acknowledging that there are responsible and thoughtful believers as well as non-thinking ones. In fact, she does better than most of the mainstream media: she acknowledges and explains the difference between fundamentalists and evangelicals rather than using the terms synonomously.
Heck, I hope GP will invite HER to write an article for this blog.
Posted by: I and I | July 22, 2008 4:16 PM
"Therefore, one can easily be conservative and Christian without being a part of this "Christian Right""
I agree. Rick Warren might be Exhibit A in that regard. Or for that matter, the average churchgoing, Bible-believing Republican who thinks Falwell and Dobson and Parsley are out to lunch.
Posted by: I and I | July 22, 2008 4:20 PM
I and I -
I just read Jacoby's book, too, and I agree it's quite remarkable (although our conservative friends are likely to be offended by it, as are my pomo academic colleagues).
One thing that struck me is the dramatically different picture she presents of the Second Great Awakening from that found in Jim Wallis's book, which I also finally got around to reading recently.
Wallis sees the SGA as a glowing moment in American history, when newly energized Christians came together to establish many of the reforms that have shaped our country ever since.
Jacoby, OTOH, sees it as a nightmare, when the worst forces of ignorant religion enshrined slavery as a Biblical presence and permanently "dumbed down" the intellectual life of the country as a whole.
Otherwise, I agree with you that Jacoby is surprisingly sympathetic to religious thinkers, as long as they reject orthodoxy as a matter of principle (!). It's an interesting contrast with Allan Bloom's "The Closing of the American Mind," which I read when it came out in the 80s. Bloom was also an atheist, but was quite sympathetic to orthodox religion as a social force.
So how does somebody respond who actually believes in it? Any thoughts?
Posted by: Another nonymous | July 22, 2008 4:35 PM
Option A= the new Atheists
Option B= the Christian Right (= shorthand for Robertson, Dobson, Falwell interpretive understanding of faith and politics)
My understanding of Garrison is that she rejects the two options above, as do I. I also reject that those are the only choices.
I support "God's Politics" as Option C, realizing that there are multiple metanarratives, Christian and otherwise, that comprise Options D...etc
Peace, Duh----sciple
Posted by: Duh-sciple | July 22, 2008 4:48 PM
Another thought...
In my opinion the rhetoric and arrogance and "knuckleheadedness" of the Religious Right and the New Atheists is very similar... to quote a writer to God's Politics a few months ago... both sides want to make me "throw up in my mouth a little bit."
Duh----sciple
Posted by: Duh-sciple | July 22, 2008 4:51 PM
Quetzal and Noodle Beach, my church is encouraging the term "Christ follower" rather than Christian. Seems like that's what we're supposed to do, anyway.
Posted by: Nance | July 22, 2008 5:13 PM
"I just wanted to throw something out there for consideration because I see some people getting offended. My understanding is that the "Christian Right" does not equal "conservative Christian." "
They have never made this distinction, and have criticized conservatives on every issue. Of course they use Robertson and Dobson as bludgeons, but the message is pretty clear.
As such, when you see mention of a one true God equated with fundamentalism, it isn't particularly difficult to read between the lines.
Posted by: kevin s. | July 22, 2008 5:16 PM
Another non,
Yeah, I guess she kind of skimped over the SGA. Interesting you mentioned Bloom's book; I also read it in the 80's as a college student, and her book reminded me of it. I thought she would have had some nice things to say about it since they agree on so many things, but she just blew it off because of something (very foolish) that he said about the students who went down South to help with voter registration. She bashed him for coming down hard on multiculturalism, yet throughout the book she has some sharp words about it as well. I recall thinking that was a weakness of the book; for all the attention she gave Hofstader, she could have shown more explicitly where she thought Bloom went wrong.
Posted by: I and I | July 22, 2008 5:23 PM
I and I: " for all the attention she gave Hofstader, she could have shown more explicitly where she thought Bloom went wrong."
Haven't read the Jacoby book, tho a friend who teaches music history in a Texas university gave a nice review of it via email.
On Hofstadter and Bloom, Hofstadter and his work on anti-intellectualism has had more influence among academic circles, esp. historians (I'm speaking as an academic historian) than has Bloom's Closing of the American Mind. But Bloom, it seems to me, had a bigger impact on the general reading public. Of course, each was writing for a different audience.
Which is a very long-winded way of getting to a question: who is Jacoby writing for?
Posted by: carl copas | July 22, 2008 5:41 PM
"Which is a very long-winded way of getting to a question: who is Jacoby writing for?"
My guess, Carl, is that she's writing for the kind of readers who would have been considered "middlebrow" in the 50s, but who now no longer have the cultural background implied by that once-derogatory term or who, like me, tend to shun the term because of those same derogatory implications. I now understand that I'm a middlebrow and proud of it.
"She bashed him for coming down hard on multiculturalism, yet throughout the book she has some sharp words about it as well."
Actually, I don't think she has much of a problem with multiculturalism as such. What she dislikes is the "ghettoizing" of non-majority cultures into their own departments and programs. Bloom would have been more likely to say that those programs were funded to pacify underqualified students admitted under affirmative action who weren't prepared for the core curriculum. Thus, Bloom's ideal curriculum would include Plato and Shakespeare but no Ralph Ellison. Jacoby's would include all three, while insisting that Ellison stand on his own merits in a mainstream course.
Posted by: Another nonymous | July 22, 2008 6:06 PM
So when did the Christian Right become such a pejorative? Just because Falwell et al happened to be christian and have right-wing views and people disagreed with them because they were in-your-face? They certainly are strong personalities -- is that what makes them so objectionable? If we are talking about Falwell-Dobson-Robertson, who don't we refer to them like that? Pat, Jerry, and James.
Or is it easier to use the pejorative term because people who do so in reality object to conservative views and christianity in general, especially when the two are combined? And Pat, Jerry, and James are of course poster children for this objectionable set of views.
You have conservative views. You describe yourself as a Christian. I don't agree with you, so you are just like Pat, Jerry, and James, who, as you know, are reactionary individuals who want to control the world with their view of religion.
What would happen if we just FORGOT about Pat, Jerry, and James? Pretend they have passed on...better yet, that they are no longer RELEVANT to faith discussion. Then what?
Posted by: Noodle Beach | July 22, 2008 9:20 PM
>>Therefore, one can easily be conservative and Christian without being a part of this "Christian Right" in the same way that one can have socialist ideals without being a Godless Communist.
As a believer in Matthew 25, I consider myself somewhat of a socialist. But I am not Godless or a communist.
--'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?' "The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.' - Matthew 25:37-40 --
And though I believe that Christ's message was for us to take care of our brothers (all our brothers and sisters, ie everyone) I go to church with people I respect that often vote Republican. What identifies these persons are that they have thought about the reasons they are voting for someone, and they recognize that they could be wrong in their opinions.
The Christian Right and so much of the Conservative Movement are so convinced of their rightness that they will not even entertain the possibility that their ideas could in any way be wrong. This is what makes them so wrong!! No humility, or thought from what I can see.
Recently, there was a post here about the possibility of Christians working together to reduce abortions by working to reduce poverty and other causes of women feeling no option but to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. Some of the posters responded quite negatively, and predictably, to that initiative. From their responses, I had to draw the conclusion that they were the Christian Right/Fundamentalist that caused me to leave the church long ago, and that kept me from coming back for so long.
As Christians, we are all advertisements for Christ's movement. The 'Christians' pointed to in the books put out by the new atheist do exist. And the criticisms that are offered in these books do have a basis, and we do no service to Christianity to deny it. So, what type of advertisement for Christ are you? I try to keep that foremost in my mind everyday. My goals - to show understanding, compassion, humility, and love - not to show hatred, bigotry, unreasonableness, or indifference.
Radical Moderate
Posted by: Radical Moderate | July 22, 2008 9:47 PM
"The Christian Right and so much of the Conservative Movement are so convinced of their rightness that they will not even entertain the possibility that their ideas could in any way be wrong. This is what makes them so wrong!! No humility, or thought from what I can see."
Could someone please provide an example or two of the "ideas" of the Christian Right that are "wrong."? I'm not saying there aren't any, I just would like to see what examples are actually posted to this site.
Posted by: Noodle Beach | July 22, 2008 10:11 PM
Some Bad Ideas from the Christian Right? I'm willing to start that list.
1) turn regulated and lawfully accountable markets into a free for all of predatory lending phony numbers, scams, and etc. in the name of "de-regulation" ( resulting in a financial meltdown that may drown the country in debt and saddle taxpayers with paying off the rapists.
2) Smite them as the Lord commands. Even though "they" committed no crime against us . ( resulting in over a million civilian deaths, millions of refugees, and a civil war.)
3) Destroy the "evildoers" and use all the tactics of history's evildoers to accomplish this ludicrous goal, including: torture, detention without due process, cluster-bombs , collective punishment, unconstitutional search and invasion of privacy, massive spying, and lies, lies and more lies about everything from weapons of mass destruction to who outed Valerie Plame, to the economy, the enviromnment...
4) Republicanism equals God's Only Party
5) All social justice comes from saying the sinner's prayer and voting for God's Only Party.
6) All social injustice comes from people who are not Christian Republicans and therefore are out to corrupt the youth, promote sexual perversion, support godless Islamo-Fascist communistic, humanism and terrorism and the UN uber alis , and who secretly long for the appearance of the anti-Christ as soon as the religious right finally decides who he really, really is.
7) America is always right and God wanted us to Kill the heathen North American Indians, and break all those treaties. The founding Fathers were all Godly Christians and and made the right decision o continue to enslave Africans for their own good and later to trample out the vintage where the good old civil wars are fought. Despite what Jesus taught, God really hates peacemakers and all their stupid socialist ideas.
Well there's a little start. You may think I am exaggerating, but I can find examples of support for all these ideas and policies written and recorded by the leaders of the religious right. These seem like bad ideas to me. On the other hand, maybe we should count the blessings of mass violence, torture, and bankruptcy. Count those many blessings, count them one by one.
Posted by: jonabark | July 22, 2008 11:41 PM
I wonder if the only athiest is in fact God himself as he said "there is no other god besides me" Deut 32:39
Posted by: Glen | July 23, 2008 6:19 AM
So when did the Christian Right become such a pejorative? Just because Falwell et al happened to be christian and have right-wing views and people disagreed with them because they were in-your-face?
The most dangerous thing about the "religious right" -- I won't dignify their ideology and tactics by calling it "Christian" -- was its oft-ignored alliances with secular interests; I think there's something in the Scriptures about "not be[ing] yoked with non-believers." In the late 1970s Falwell was encouraged by conservative fund-raiser and former Nixonite Richard Viguerie to found Moral Majority (which was never a religious organization per se) to add a religious dimension to Viguerie's fund-raising machine. To this day I believe that, for the sake of temporal political power and cultural authority, such connections allowed un-Biblical ideology to contaminate the church to a point where true Biblical witness is often rejected.
Posted by: Rick | July 23, 2008 10:51 AM
You see - unlike Wallis - I would rather keep them as a friend and have some influence on them with open and honest dialog in private than make them the enemy like Jim has with his writings.
That's hard to do when your enemies believe that you're wrong without even listening to what you have to say. Four years ago on this very blog Wallis reported that Falwell insulted him as "as evangelical as an oak tree." And how often has Wallis been invited on "The 700 Club" and "Focus on the Family"? Never, I'm sure. Sojourners has been around since the early 1970s; if Robertson and Dobson were truly interested in the "view from the street" they would have approached him long, long ago. Truth be told, they don't want to be bothered with him because he threatens their goals.
Posted by: Rick | July 23, 2008 11:03 AM
Posted by: Rick | July 23, 2008 11:03 AM
let it go Rick...let it go.
no comment.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Anonymous | July 23, 2008 8:03 PM
Moderatelad -- I'll let it go when you do and no sooner. By that, I mean that you should quit insulting people without cause who don't agree with your agenda and can elucidate why. The ball is in your court.
Posted by: Rick | July 23, 2008 9:15 PM
Moderatelad:
Once again, your comments about Rick reflect more on you than they do on him.
If you post something here, it's fair game for anyone to comment on.
From what I have seen, Rick has not questioned your character. But he is correct that you insult and make fun of others who disagree with your ideology. I've written about that before. As you demonstrated in our little conversation about the 9-11 widows, you aren't a bit averse to attacking others' character or impugning their motives.
And respect is a mutual thing. If Rick doesn't respect you, it might possibly be in part because you have shown disrespect not only to him but to others as well (I think--in part--of your incessant, juvenile comments about "Harry and Nancy and Teddy," your constant and equally juvenile references to the former Vice President as the "environmental evangelist," and your repeated whining over topics that Sojourners hasn't covered here [e.g., Tony Snow's passing].)
And while it's true that you don't have to respond to Rick's comments if you don't want to, please stop making an issue out of it. Frankly, we're tired of your whining.
D
Posted by: Don | July 24, 2008 8:32 AM
Noodle Beach
I thought you wanted some examples. ?
Posted by: jonabark | July 24, 2008 10:36 AM
Over a month ago he questioned my character and called me a liar -- something that for everything I dissagree with him on -- I have never done to him.
To use an analogy, you asserted that 2 + 2 = 5; this is not at all about "interpretations" or "opinions." As the saying goes, you have a right to your opinion but not to your own facts. That's what I called you on.
The Pres and VP along with the whole Cabinet have been used as a joke on this site - I will stop when they do - promise.
I won't hold you to that. The Bush Administration has created real problems not only in this country but around the world and those of us who understand that, especially on this blog, have the responsibility to speak out -- and since Bush refers to himself as an evangelical Christian those of us who also are evangelicals are also often tarred with the same broad brush. We should thus have the right to say that his policies are un-Biblical if we believe they are.
Posted by: Rick | July 24, 2008 11:35 AM
It's too bad that Becky, in writing about the
New Atheists, felt the need to engage in one
of Sojo's (and the press's, and Hollywood's, and
the Democratic Party's) favorite pastimes, that of
denigrating the President. I fail to see what
he has to do with her review, but then, as I recall,
she has written rather unkindly about Falwell
and D. James Kennedy after their deaths. While I
don't/didn't always agree with any of these three
men, they deserve better than Becky's
condemnations.
Posted by: John G. | July 24, 2008 8:29 PM
John -- I don't recall Becky saying anything about Falwell, but she did write about Kennedy to assess his legacy. Realistically, he did do a lot of damage to the Christian faith whether you like to admit it or not. This blog is a place were we can address conservative "sacred cows" and consider them more objectively than you will on most "Christian" blogs. Besides, if Wallis had died you had best believe that conservatives would have bashed him even more -- if they paid attention to his death at all.
Posted by: Rick | July 24, 2008 10:59 PM
"I wonder if the only athiest is in fact God himself as he said "there is no other god besides me" Deut 32:39"
God would have to refuse to believe in Himself in order to truly be an atheist...
So, catch me up--is Rick Nowlin now signing himself as just "Rick"? It's probably obvious, but I haven't been around much this summer...
Posted by: squeaky | July 24, 2008 11:55 PM
in response your comment about the 'enviromentalist evangelist' - that was not me- the 'landlord' (code for you-know-who) placed that mantle.
True enough. I remember the post. It was several months ago, from my recollection.
However, it is you, not the sponsor of this blog, who have taken that phrase and turned it into a cudgel so you can repeatedly knock our heads with it. That part is your responsibility and yours alone.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | July 25, 2008 9:42 AM
Slight point of clarification - I did an obituary for the late Senator Jesse Helms not Jerry Falwell or James D. Kennedy.
BTW, if anyone skims through the archive section of The Wittenburg Door, they'll see that we hammered on the Clintons for years - and a quick skim of John Bloom's (the webmaster) columns will should demonstrate that we will satirize whoever ends up in the White House as need be. Also, I did a piece that's posted on the website titled "Today's Theologians Rock With the Oldies" that isn't exactly friendly to the democrats.
www.wittenburgdoor.com
Posted by: Becky | July 25, 2008 10:59 AM
you know im speaking for most atheist when i say atheist that stomp on your ideas and way of life are wrong so not all atheist are bad just want to be left alone so we can do our free thinking thats what your god gave us these amazing brains for right
Posted by: toad | August 29, 2008 5:40 PM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?