Against All Gods: What's Right and Wrong About the New Atheism [Paperback]

Phillip E. Johnson (Author), John Mark Reynolds (Author)

Book Description

Publication Date: March 18, 2010

The father of the intelligent design movement, Phillip Johnson, thinks the new atheists are right! How? They've put serious discussion about God back on the public agenda. Despite their conclusions, folks like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett are asking the right questions. They're making belief in any religion an issue again, especially in the university context where, for decades, questions about faith and reason have been taken off the table for serious discussion. Open debate is exactly what we need on the topics of God, evolution and creation. Together Johnson and John Mark Reynolds help us see the unique opportunity these vociferous and even evangelistic atheists are creating in their attempt to convert us to their unbelief. The authors show that we need not fear or react against these challenges. Rather they point to better ways to engage the opinions of this new, aggressive form of antireligious activity. With skill and insight they energetically take on the question of whether the evidence leads to a materialistic naturalism or points toward a creator God. Be informed. Be encouraged. Join the discussion.

Editorial Reviews

Review

"What a wonderful little book. Johnson and Reynolds offer a clear, readable and intelligent critique of the new atheism. But they offer something more: joy, hope and love. You get both the reason and the romance of the Christian story. So the new atheism comes across not so much as wrong, but as one-dimensional and childish, a sort of intellectual pornography claiming to be true love. Johnson and Reynolds's complementary combination of intellectual and theological virtues is a fire that both warms and purifies." (Francis J. Beckwith, professor of philosophy and church-state studies, Baylor University )

"Rather than engaging in specific critiques of the new atheism, Phil Johnson and John Mark Reynolds add their voices to the increasing scholarly chorus that decries the real oppressor in these and related discussions: unexamined naturalistic presuppositions that reject alternative ideas without a hearing. Declaring that uncritical attitudes and a lack of appreciation for ancient writings lie behind many recent criticisms of Christianity, the authors call for open discussion of the relevant issues. This volume is a treat to read, featuring a succinct, straightforward and easily digestible text that successfully treats issue after issue." (Gary R. Habermas, Distinguished Research Professor, Liberty University and Theological Seminary )

"This superb work by Phillip E. Johnson and John Mark Reynolds is both an informed response to the new atheism and simultaneously an invitation for ongoing conversation with those who question the truth claims of the Christian faith. I have longed to have a volume like this one to share with my colleagues in the world of higher education. Against All Gods is timely, convincing, readable and accessible; it is a privilege to recommend this little book to a wide audience, with the hope that it will find its way into the hands of university students across the land." (David S. Dockery, president, Union University )

"Johnson and Reynolds are provocateurs in the best sense of that word, and Against All Gods is sure to arouse considerable debate and reflection. This is not another apologetic response to the new atheists. It is a cultural analysis and critique of their claims. It reads like a detective novel and conveys powerful, important ideas to the reader. I couldn't put it down." (J. P. Moreland, Distinguished Professor of Philosophy, Biola University, and author of The God Question )

Product Details

• Paperback: 119 pages
• Publisher: IVP Books (March 18, 2010)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0830837388
• ISBN-13: 978-0830837380
• Product Dimensions: 8.2 x 5.5 x 0.5 inches
• Shipping Weight: 6.4 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 4.3 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (15 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #509,523 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

24 of 29 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars An Excellent Conversation Starter with Non-Christian Friends, June 6, 2010

By 

Stephen Notman (Bermuda) - See all my reviews

Amazon Verified Purchase

This review is from: Against All Gods: What's Right and Wrong About the New Atheism (Paperback)

Against All Gods: What's Right and Wrong About the New Atheism is a small book packed with big ideas. Co-authored by the eminent law professor, Philip E. Johnson (Darwin on Trial) and professor of philosophy, John Mark Reynolds (When Athens Met Jerusalem), this volume engages with the cultural influence of the so-called `New Atheists', folks like Richard Dawkins, Chris Hitchens and Daniel Dennett. It is the authors' contention that even though the New Atheists' attitude towards theism and Christianity in particular is overwhelmingly hostile and their conclusions incorrect, they are asking the right questions. Johnson and Reynolds happily point out that these attacks have made belief in any religion an issue again for public debate and so rather than be disheartened we Christians should seize this opportunity to present and defend the Gospels within the intellectual arena.

Johnson authors the first five essays along with the introduction and epilogue and Reynolds contributes the remaining three essays. I will not discuss all eight essays, but merely my five favorites (3 by Johnson, 2 by Reynolds) Johnson introduces the New Atheism as old arguments whose only new element is the evangelical fervor with which their advocates preach the gospel of disbelief, actively seeking converts. Not content with simply overthrowing belief in the existence of God, the New Atheists view theism as a malevolent force that ought to be stamped out entirely to make way for an atheistic utopia, founded according to the providences of secular reason and scientific naturalism. Ironically, Johnson welcomes such a blistering attack because for far too long, religion has been largely ignored within academia as a subject not worth talking about anymore. Johnson thinks it better by far to have religion again on the table, even if the atheists' intent is to prepare the body for burial.

Johnson's first essay, Introducing the New Atheists portrays them rather charitably as clear-eyed pugilists who have taken their gloves off and declared they have had enough of the scientific establishment's wimpy appeasement policy of assuring society that religion and science are compatible. They think the time has come to face reality and recognize that in light of the fact of Darwinian evolution, there is no longer any reason to go on believing in any God(s). The sooner we grow up and accept that the universe is a brute fact without purpose or design, that it is indifferent to humanity, that morality is an illusion, that love and compassion are merely chemical mixtures in the brain without any greater intrinsic significance, that the works of Bach and Shakespeare are merely noises and markings on a page; and that the human animal is nothing more than a genetically programmed, complex meat machines without free will or a soul - the sooner we accept all these facts about reality, the better off we will all be. Any more pandering to this dangerous God delusion is detrimental to scientific advancement and society as a whole.

We have to hand it to these self-proclaimed `Brights'. At least they are bold enough to state what they believe....well, sort of what they believe. The New Atheists tend to be rather inconsistent on the subject of morality. Given their absolute insistence that morality is merely an illusion foisted upon us by our genes to trick us into cooperating with each other, it is amusing to note the righteous contempt with which Dawkins and Hitchens repeatedly decry the `immoral' acts of the Christian God, whom they condemn as a genocidal tyrant.

Johnson points out that in fact, such vitriolic denouncements of religion by these atheist crusaders pose more of a threat to the reigning scientific institutional authorities than to Christianity. Christians are rather accustomed to attack, having been thrown to the lions or hurled from the Bastille for centuries. Rather, it is the `mandarins' of science that face a serious problem. If they endorse the New Atheists' campaign to persuade the public of Darwinism's necessarily atheistic metaphysics, it will look as though they have been lying to the public for decades with their constant assurances that science and nonfundamentalist religion are compatible. (page 22) Moreover, if enough scientists join the Atheistic Soul-less Train, the scientific establishment could not disavow the movement without facing a revolt in their own camp. (page 23)
Johnson welcomes the bold position adopted by the New Atheists because he would like to see the contested issues regarding the relationship between science and atheism analyzed fairly and thoroughly by our universities. Only by a genuine intellectual confrontation between competing viewpoints can we hope to arrive at the truth over whether Darwinian science and theistic religion are incompatible. Let us leave the conduct of such analysis to the scholars and students in the classroom, says Johnson, rather than leave it in the hands of some federal judge to rule that only one position may be considered (page 25).

Johnson's second essay, entitled, Harvard's Aborted Requirement in Reason and Faith, chronicles passionately Darwinist Harvard psychology professor and popular author Steven Pinker's successful campaign to block a proposed required course on the relationship of faith to reason. He claimed his objection on the basis that such a course would place superstition on the same level as reason as parallel and equivalent ways of pursuing knowledge. Pinker argued a university should be devoted to reason only and that faith belongs in religious institutions. (page 28)

Clearly, Pinker does not accept that there are any good reasons either in philosophy or science to believe that God exists and thus why he refers to religious belief as superstition. Johnson exposes the fact that Pinker has, in the typical fashion of naturalistic rationalists, oversimplified the subject. He has identified "faith' with religion, "thus wrongly assuming that the only faith of any importance is faith in a supernatural being" (page 32) and that some people rely on faith and some people rely solely on reason. Pinker fails to recognize that everybody has faith and everybody reasons. (page 34)

Naturalists, for example, have an absolute faith in a philosophical doctrine that says that our universe is a closed system of cause and effects in which every conceivable natural phenomenon is explicable on the basis of some combination of chemical laws and chance. (page 34) Such scientists believe that the successes of science fully justifies their holding these beliefs with absolute certainty such that they eliminate the idea of `faith' in naturalism entirely from their vocabulary, but instead view naturalism as a defining example of reason. (page 35)

For Johnson, the truth of the matter is that having the right kind of faith is not an alternative to reason, but an essential element of reason. Having faith is not wrong, so long as the object in which it is placed is worthy of such faith. Johnson argues that the total inability of science to even begin to explain the origins of life or the universe in purely naturalistic terms, whilst simultaneously refusing to countenance the compelling evidence for Intelligent Design, is evidence of a dogmatic faith in the truth of Darwinism that runs counter to reason and evidence.

"Darwinism may refer either to a specific theory of biology or to an episteme, a way of thinking about things in general," (page 49) When teaching the theory of evolution, the student must first adopt the `correct' worldview, which is to say, a purely naturalistic worldview. (page 50) Otherwise, the evidence for the theory will not be persuasive. The student must first be indoctrinated in the belief that science is the supreme and only arbiter of what is true and that the first great commandment of science is that the world is devoid of an Intelligent Creator, but rather is composed "only of material causes that act on each other according to physical laws or chance." (page 50) Scientific knowledge of the universe is incomplete but metaphysical certainty about the absence of a Designer is absolute. According to Darwinism, only when the student has fully converted to the naturalistic paradigm can she begin to learn about the world. (page 50)

Dawkins and Johnson agree on little but they are united in disparaging theistic evolution on the grounds that the theistic evolutionist does not understand the full implications of the Darwinian hypothesis. (page 51) The main spokesman for theistic evolutionism, Dr. Frances Collins, is essentially trying to have his cake and eat it too. He accepts Darwinian evolution in biology, yet appeals outside of biology, to cosmology and to a universal sense of morality, to try and reclaim the universe for theism. Johnson agrees with Dawkins that this "maneuver fails to explain how it can be consistent for a biologist to insist on employing only naturalistic reasoning in biology and then employ theistic reasoning in physics." (page 52) An unguided, Darwinian process cannot have a Designer guiding the process from behind the scenes. A guided, unguided process is simply a guided process and thus not Darwinian evolution.

If as Dawkins argues, the Darwinian hypothesis is correct, in other words, if natural selection "really does explain the whole of life, then we should expect it to explain the entire scope of life, including human behavior and human beliefs about God or anything else" (page 53) then Darwinism fully assimilated, "is a kind of philosophical `universal acid' that eats away...every traditional concept...including the container that was meant to hold it." (page 54) Therein lies the irony of self-contradiction: the Darwinian acid dissolves metaphysical concepts of universal truth, yet... Read more ›

16 of 20 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars An Aid for Atheist Self-Criticism, April 20, 2010

By 

George P. Wood (Springfield, MO) - See all my reviews
(VINE VOICE)    (TOP 1000 REVIEWER)    (REAL NAME)   

This review is from: Against All Gods: What's Right and Wrong About the New Atheism (Paperback)

Toward the end of Against All Gods, Phillip Johnson writes this: "[E]very position about the nature of life and its origin has difficulties. Therefore, the question is not whether we can find a position that has no difficulties, but rather, which set of difficulties we prefer to embrace."

For several years now, the "New Atheists" have highlighted what they believe are the "difficulties" in theistic worldviews, especially the Christian theistic worldview. For many of them, rationality is more or less identical to the deliverances of science, and what science delivers most clearly is evolution. Since evolution explains the biological complexity of the universe without reference to God, God is an unnecessary hypothesis. Continuing belief in him, then, is an exercise of irrational faith.

Johnson and Reynolds push back against these conclusions by pointing out several difficulties within the "Darwinian worldview" itself. Among other things, they point out that faith is not irrational. Rather, it is human, a necessary component for all human intellectual endeavors. Further, the deliverances of science cannot determine once for all the nonexistence of God since those deliverances shift over time. Also, if the Darwinian worldview acts as a "universal acid" on traditional beliefs - the phrase is Daniel Dennett's - then it acts as a universal acid on all beliefs. If there is an evolutionary explanation for belief in God, then there is also an evolutionary explanation for belief in evolution. If the evolutionary explanation invalidates the former, it invalidates the latter as well.

One needn't agree with Johnson and Reynolds' Christian theism, as I do, to appreciate the difficulties with atheism they raise in this small book. But surely at least one of the goals of a liberal arts education should be self-criticism: knowing what's doubtful about one's own position. For years, criticism of theism has been an implicit and explicit part of a liberal arts education on many college campuses. Taking the first steps toward criticism of atheism in the same way would be a sign of educational progress.

16 of 21 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Good groundwork for discussion, April 5, 2010

By 

OC Philosopher - See all my reviews

This review is from: Against All Gods: What's Right and Wrong About the New Atheism (Paperback)

This book is quick, enjoyable, and helpful enough that anyone interested in discussing the competing worldviews of naturalism and theism ought to read it. Johnson and Reynolds obviously know which side of the debate they are on, but this book is more of a primer the debate than a showcase of the debate itself. Johnson spends the first five chapters focusing on ways that the New Atheists are moving a bit too fast and loose in their arguments. He claims that they are both developing their own worldview without scrutinizing its foundations, and then criticizing other worldviews without understanding their foundations. Of course, the same might be said of some branches of theism, but this book serves as a primer on debate through a light critique of the New Atheists, so it is only natural the New Atheists supply the examples. Reynolds then goes on to provide a more positive account of how the New Atheists could give their intellectual foils a fairer hearing, namely, by giving due regard for sensible interpretations of Scripture and accepting the historically positive influence of religion on society and education. Though Reynolds' portion feels more like traditional apologetics, I would say that it still falls under the project's scope of being a primer--after all, if you don't respect your opponent or know how to listen to them, you can never argue with them. By the end, you can really sense that these two professors are gentlemen, and that the public square could benefit from their cue.