Customer Reviews

Deepest Differences: A Christian-Atheist Dialogue

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Deepest Differences: A Christian-Atheist Dialogue
The beauty of this book is in its unscripted dialogue between two very bright, highly educated gentlemen that took place through email exchange over many months with no target audience other than themselves. Such an exchange of minds on topics that are so highly sensitive too often polarize or intimidate leading to distorted positions. Sire, the Christian believer, is sufficiently comfortable in this format to reveal some confusion and a little doubt concerning the Christian Theology he is defending. He seems to be repaeatedly saying there are things we don't know and there is much we must take on faith alone. Peraino is the more agressive challenger sometimes employing humor and mocking to argue against the Christian concept of God. Were these gentlemen writing for a commissioned book or magazine article, the reader would no doubt have been deprived of much emotion and genuine thinking. One can sense the difficulty encountered in editing the emails into a coherent book form. There are too many nonsequiturs, redundancies and convoluted arguements especailly when Sire is responding to a Peraino provocation. For example, the controversey between evoluton and intelligent design is debated much too often. The reader is left hanging when Peraino challenges with the ultimate question of how a loving, all knowing, omnipotent God could allow so much human suffering through the ages down to the Holocaust and beyond. This follows with no direct response from Sire. It is an issue that torments believers and is used by nonbelievers as evidence to confirm the absence of the Christian concept of God. One has to go back to reread Sire's discourse on good and evil to discern his take on the subject. The Peraino/Sire give and take is not a debate that is won or lost but a fascinating exploration by sharp minds of the atheist challenge to Christian Theology that leaves one with much to ponder. This modestly priced book is well worth the read.

Does God exist? The question is perennial. Indeed, it is of such long standing that one wonders whether an answer to which all sides give their consent is even possible.

Deepest Differences by James W. Sire and Carl Peraino displays some of the arguments and counterarguments offered for Christian theism and evolutionary naturalism. Sire (the Christian) and Peraino (the atheist) are friendly interlocutors, having met through a book club. Their book is an edited version of a series of more than 70 emails they exchanged between April 14 and July 19, 2007. None of the arguments each advances is original. What makes this book valuable is its demonstration that intellectual antagonists can engage in dialogue that is both personally warm and intellectually pointed, not to mention inconclusive.

Having said that, the book disappointed me in two basic ways. First, like many of the so-called "new atheists," it is obvious that Peraino has not read (and probably is not much interested in reading) major works in theology or the philosophy of religion. He has read Hume and Russell, and evidently thinks their arguments dispositive, but I'm pretty sure he would (rightly) criticize any theist whose scientific reading was decades or even centuries old. Just as all theists need to read Darwin, so all atheists should at least try to engage contemporary Christian theistic philosophers such as Richard Swinburne and Alvin Plantinga. At one point, Sire, drawing on the groundbreaking work of Thomas Kuhn has to explain to Peraino that scientific method involves more than observation, hypothesis, and verification/falsification. It's almost as if Peraino didn't know that kind of debate in the philosophy of science even existed. Sire seems (to me anyway) better read on a wider range of topics. Plus, his writings over the years have explicitly addressed these kinds of issues, while Peraino's writings are more narrowly tailored to technical issues in biochemistry, especially related to oncology.

Second, Sire frustrated me by letting several arguments drop to the ground. At one point, Peraino rhetorically hammers Sire for the violence committed by Christians in Christ's name. Sire agrees that the violence is deplorable and argues that such violence has no warrant in genuine Christianity. Fair enough, but Sire should've exploited the weakness of this argument in at least two ways: (1) Yes, Christians have committed violence in the name of Christ, but atheists have committed violence in the name of their scientific materialism. Fair being fair, if "Christian" violence discredits Christianity, then "atheist" violence discredits atheism. (2) Peraino might respond that atheism properly understood does not entail violence, that such violence was an aberration. But fair being fair, this argument is available to Christian theists too.

Another argument that Sire does not pursue vigorously enough for my taste revolves around Peraino's understanding of the mind. For Peraino, the mind is simply what emerges from complex brain interactions with nature and nurture. His account is both materialist and determinist. Consciousness, in other words, is the effect of complex biochemical causes, which are sufficient to produce the results. Describing his take on his differences with Sire, Peraino writes: "key structural and functional elements of our brains differ, consequent to dissimilarities in our genetic heritage and early formative experiences."

Now, there is obviously some connection between the mind and the brain. Brain damage can result in decreased intellectual capacities. Mind-altering drugs (whether legal or illegal) can produce hallucinations and change moods. Sire agrees that there is some connection between mind and brain, but correctly argues (in my opinion) that mental states are not identical to brain states without remainder. Ideas are not the same thing as biochemical processes in the brain. The mind is the brain but not only the brain.

Peraino thinks Sire's position is bizarre, but logically, it's his position that is absurd. Consider, after all, that if his materialist and determinist account of the mind is true, then (1) neither he nor Sire can help their beliefs for they simply are what nature and nurture acting on their respective brain structures have determined them to be. On this account, if Peraino could concoct a drug that altered the "God part" of Sire's brain, Sire would become an atheist. Or, even more ridiculously, if Sire could concoct a biochemical "atheism antidote" to alter the irreligious part of Peraino's brain, Peraino would become a theist. (2) If this materialist and determinist account of the mind is true, how can we ever know it is true, since our belief that is true is simply the result of nature and nurture acting on brain structures? Our philosophical and religious conclusions are not the results of intellectual deliberation. Rather, our intellectual deliberation is simply the result of external causes working on our brains. (3) Indeed, on Peraino's account, why argue about such matters in the first place? Debate assumes that non-material ideas may be articulated and evaluated based on their empirical correspondence to reality and/or logical coherence, to name just two criteria. But since our ideas (a kind of mental state) are just brain states, and since brain states are determined by material causes, why bother debating? Indeed, on a materialist account, how could a non-material idea ever change someone's mind, which is simply a material process of nature and nurture acting on brain structure? Sire should've pursued these implications of Peraino's belief as a reductio ad absurdum of that belief. He didn't, at least not sufficiently enough for my taste.

Despite my disappointments, I think Deepest Differences is a valuable book to read. If you haven't already thought about the Christian-atheist dialogue, this book will get you thinking. And if you have thought about them, it will help show the way toward a respectful but sharp manner of debating.

The mind has mountains: radical materialist atheist versus orthodox theist

This dialogue between a Christian and an atheist (or more specifically between an orthodox theist and a radical materialist atheist) through the argumentative set-up of the book, an e-mail debate, invites the reader to take part and the deepest divisiveness of the issues, since the days of Bishop Samuel Wilberforce and Thomas Henry Huxley, makes the choosing of sides almost unavoidable for any engaged reader.

I should look at this atheist-Christian dialogue, and be fair: seventeenth- and (enlightened) eighteenth-century (mostly impolite) polemicists have battered each other's brains (!) which in the end led to some sort of political toleration of individual religious experience. In the post-Darwinian nineteenth century atheists joined the debate about the immortality of the soul. After an initial deist attempt at harmonizing faith and new science, most atheists used Darwin's theory for their own anti-Christian exercise. The polemics in old (early modern and modern) Europe addressed the by then (already) age old issues of the theodicy or the problem of evil, (ex nihilo) creation or the magnificent handicraft of the demiurge, human morality and free will, reasoned faith and revelation. Then Darwin and Nietzsche came along wreaking even more social, political and religious havoc, then Einstein and Hawking. The debate only intensified in the twentieth century, now on issues such as radical religion and sectarianism, slavery, colonialism, nationalism, racism, war and holocaust.

This book was published by a Christian publisher, and it happens to be the Christian co-author's publisher, and the Christian believer, James Sire, when he is not citing or referring to the Bible to support his beliefs (sola scriptura?), does not miss an opportunity to throw books written and published by himself and with the same publishing house at the atheist Peraino and the Christian reader, in order to prove his position to his intended readership, something he more than once fails to do in response to the challenges actually laid down by the atheist in the dialogues. One such book is even offered twice, and once, the polite atheist deftly declines yet another offer of more heavy tomes of religious learning (p. 81-2).

As I understand it, Peraino was invited by Sire at their book club meeting to challenge him and the scientist lived up to that challenge, at times with steam coming out of his ears. More than once Peraino feels frustrated only countering, or in fact running into, the believer's statements of belief. What can he do otherwise? It is braver to honestly (logically, rationally, as he would say) challenge beliefs than to be sure (in the faith) with some mostly suppressed lingering doubts. If the book had been published by an atheist publisher, and geared to a new American nonbelievers' audience, it would have been a different book and a different rhetoric (sure, some would say).

In the meantime Peraino has much more to offer than he realizes. Curiously, the atheist's comments on the crucifixion and human suffering as well as his historical (anthropological) approach to the pre-Christian cultic religions are moving in a way that the believer's religious clichés of non-dialogue fail to be. For on this point of suffering for (and of) mankind, where he most needs a response, Peraino meets Sire's silence or the preacher's admonition that understanding atonement would require him to be a profound Christian. The book serves an important purpose if people, be they religious or nonreligious, feel challenged by it to think about these matters.

However, Sire's final editorial comments, although Peraino was asked to sum up his position first, appear to want to have the last say (Word): we finally end up in an apocalyptic situation, and the nonbelievers, sadly, are left (spiritually) blind for ever and ever (a footnote, usually stated in the third person - Sire or Peraino - is now suddenly first person Sire). Sire can only conclude that in the naturalist and godless world "Humanity's pluralist lifetime on earth will be cut short not by global warming but by its inability to sustain itself. Totalitarianism or extinction: those will be the options. And neither of them will be any worse than the other, for better and worse have passed away as a category." (pp. 172; and cf. 181ff.) Thank God (I almost said) there are still scientists to help us mortals take care of the problem of global warming at least.

But seriously, why do these observations hurt, after an impressive exposition on human morality and several successful attempts at civil dialogue (including the atheist's apology for some snide remarks), attempts at trying to wear the other's moccasins (it is Sire, rather, who mostly fails to fit on Peraino's shoes)? This is nineteenth-century post Darwinian religious fear of atheism. Plato's cave and the beginnings of teleology are not far, also not to a post-Reformation Christian. The principle of the survival of the fittest (first described as such by Herbert Spencer) is clearly misunderstood by Sire - and that in this Darwin year 2009 (!) - as the end of the real, natural, world as we know it. But what is perhaps more hurtful is the (latent?) Calvinism here (Calvin is not in the index, nor in the book): paradise is for the elect.

Finally I might add some more points scored by Peraino, the argument versus creationism and the pseudoscience (or pseudoreligion) of intelligent design, his observation on the coming into being of the natural world (p. 160), and his reading of E.L. Doctorow's novel City of God. Just to maintain some balance for future readers, and these, if they care about the issues and are not indifferent, will be divided.

Theodor Harmsen

Deepest Differences: A Christian-Atheist Dialogue

Deepest Differences: A Christian-Atheist Dialogue by James W. Sire

My rating: 3 of 5 stars

Deepest Differences is accurately titled. The book is made up of actual emails between two very different people. It is great to see how both James Sire and Carl Peraino talk to each other as friends and yet with passion to their points of view.

James make is clear that his position is one of a biblical theist. I'm pretty certain that he is a theistic evolutionist so I don't personally believe that he is consistent with the "biblical" part. However, to be fair James never says this and instead argues that logically you do not have to believe in creationism to believe in theism. James makes many good arguments but clearly respects the man at the other end of the email.

Carl is clearly a naturalist who believes that evolution and social constructs explain the origin of life and the morals that rule our society. He has very little open mindedness to anything supernatural. I would believe that his pre-suppositions would cause him to reject even the most objective proof for a miracle or supernatural event. Again, Carl is quick to apologize when he feels his passion might offend his friend.

I was able to learn quite a bit about the two viewpoints these men espoused but I would not recommend an email format for this purpose. It is way more efficient to read summary statements about these world views. The real value I see in this book is the opportunity to hear the passion and heart of a real person's worldview and the example of respectful dialogue. You might think that this book is a debate but I would disagree. Every debate I am familiar with takes on the format of the following: One person states a position; the next person takes an opposite position and seeks to prove the validity of his view. There is little regard for the other person's feelings, background or peripheral concerns that would be effected (possibly even devastated) by finding that his view might be wrong. Reality is that they do not focus on helping someone change their view as much as winning an argument. The two gentlemen in this book do argue passionately for their respective views but they clearly value the other person. I believe they could have done a better job of caring for the other person by becoming more concerned holistically with the other person rather than with just the viewpoint.

By only discussing viewpoints they finally came to the position that there were DEEPEST DIFFERENCES that were irreconcilable and thus agreed to stop discussing those differences any further. I do recommend this book but not if you are specifically looking to learn how to argue either of these views.

I heard of this book during a radio interview with James Sire. It sounded interesting, and I really enjoyed Sire's book "The Universe Next Door". Unfortunately, my high hopes were soon dashed. I was expecting a legitimate dialogue on what the atheist believed vs. what the Christian believed. Dr. Peraino spent almost his whole time bashing God and Christianity, oftentimes with gross generalizations and time worn complaints about what he perceived to be Christianity. He did very little to articulate his own atheistic position, other than to keep insisting that he was operating on the basis of reason. One came away with the idea that atheists have nothing to offer other than their rantings against their perceptions of the Christian God. He never gave a basis for moral decisions, other than the survival of the species, seemed completely oblivious that the worst atrocities of the 20th century came at the hands of atheistic/Darwinist governments, (e.g. Hitler's Nazi Germany and Stalin's Communist USSR) and in general never gave anything positive to say other than that atheism was a rational conclusion whereas religion, Christianity in particular, was irrational.

For his part, Sires seemed content to defend Christianity. Whether out of politeness or just the course the discussion followed he never seemed to make a determined attempt to get Dr. Peraino to state his position, especially in responding to the worldview questions Sire's had in his book "The Universe Next Door". To Sire's credit, he did not respond in kind to Dr. Peraino's snide remarks, and general arrogance.

In summary, if you are looking for an apologetic for Christianity, there are far better books available, including other books by Sire. If you are looking for a defense of atheism I would assume there are better books out there. If there aren't, then atheism is in a sorry state of affairs. The old adage about debating appears to be at work on the part of Dr. Peraino, if you don't have anything to support your side of the argument, then tear down the other side.

Your money and time can be better spent on other books.

I bought the book because James Sire is an excellent writer and the title was intriguing.
However I was disappointed from the lack of good philosophical discussion. Except for discussion #44, the epistemic argument, which the atheist totally misunderstood what Sire meant; the book lacked the depth of philosophical discussion I was hoping for. Also it would have been helpful to explore the Catholic viewpoint more in depth than it was.