God and the New Atheism: A Critical Response to Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens (Paperback)

~ (Author)
Key Phrases: new atheists, new atheism, explanatory monism, Sam Harris, The God Delusion, Charles Darwin (more...)

Editorial Reviews

From Publishers Weekly

The recent spate of books from atheists such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and (most stridently) Christopher Hitchens has prompted many pundits and scholars to label the trend the New Atheism. Haught uses the term, but argues that there is nothing really new about the New Atheism; it is instead a rehashing of antireligious arguments that are as old as the Enlightenment. In fact, Haught criticizes the New Atheism as being theologically unchallenging, its all-or-nothing thinking representing about the same level of reflection on faith that one can find in contemporary creationist and fundamentalist literature. Haught draws upon theologians such as Tillich, Bultmann, Ricoeur, McFague and Pannenberg to refute some of the New Atheists' most common contentions. Through most of Haught's book, his approach is straight theism, with the exclusively or specifically Christian arguments coming near the end. Although this book is more accessible than some of Haught's earlier theological work (e.g., Is Nature Enough?), it is still challenging and serious; readers will need to follow scientific, theological, philosophical and logical threads to keep up. The reward is worth it, however, as Haught lays out the fundamental issues clearly and without the vitriol that has characterized Hitchens et al. as well as many of their interlocutors. (Feb.)
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Product Description

In God and the New Atheism a world expert on science and theology gives clear, concise, and compelling answers to the charges against religion laid out in recent bestselling books by Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion), Sam Harris (The End of Faith), and Christopher Hitchens (God Is not Great). For some, these new atheists appear to say extremely well what they believe to be wrong with religion. But, as John Haught shows, the treatment of religion in these books is riddled with logical inconsistencies, shallow misconceptions, and crude generalizations. Can God really be dismissed as a mere delusion? Is faith really the enemy of reason? And does religion really poison everything? God and the New Atheism offers a much-needed antidote to the extremist claims of scientific fundamentalism. This provocative and accessible little book will enable readers to see through the rhetorical fog of this recent phenomenon and come to a clearer understanding of the issues at stake in this crucial debate.

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Paperback: 156 pages
• Publisher: Westminster John Knox Press (December 31, 2007)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 066423304X
• ISBN-13: 978-0664233044
• Product Dimensions: 8.3 x 5.5 x 0.4 inches
• Shipping Weight: 7.2 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 3.4 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (21 customer reviews)
• Amazon.com Sales Rank: #101,578 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

  Popular in this category: (What's this?)

  #59 in

  Books > Religion & Spirituality > Spirituality > Atheism

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

98 of 141 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Some people just don't get it..., April 27, 2008

By	Max Johnson "Neo-Whiteheadian Doctoral Student" (Claremont, CA) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

Many of the negative reviewers of this book so clearly have their OWN agendas in mind that they simply miss the THREE POINTS Haught was trying to make in this concise little critical tome: 1) that the "New Atheists" aren't really so "new"; 2) that the "old" atheists were more insightful and much more consistent (in other words, the NA's are not very "good" atheists); and 3) That the New Atheists rely on "straw God" arguments and certain presuppositions about both the nature of religion and the nature of reality that are not THEMSELVES "scientific," and thus, are more akin to "religious faith' than they are to genuine scientific inquiry.

To those ends, Haught makes his case eloquently and definitively. The negative reviewers need to realize that this book does NOT attempt or CLAIM to be exhaustive (it's only 107 pages, people!), nor does it attempt to "answer" the new atheists with (what for Haught would be) a more "adequate" worldview (for that, you actually have to READ his systematic works on Evolutionary Theology: "God After Darwin," "Deeper Than Darwin," and "Christianity and Science: Toward a Theology of Nature." Only after reading these cogently argued works is one in a proper position to "critique" Haught.

The "personal" nature of some of the negative reviews is quite astonishing, and reveals more about the reviewers' LACK of familiarity with Haught's reputation and his rather extensive body of work than they do about Haught himself.

For example, reviewer Ross' suggestion that Haught doesn't really "understand" the New Atheists, or the Old ones (like Nietzsche) is laughable when you consider that (in the case of Dawkins) Haught is WIDELY considered to be one of the FOREMOST experts in the science and religion dialogue (equally notable Darwinian Philosopher Michael Ruse calls him, "Our most distinguished writer today on the science and religion relationship"), and (in the case of Nietzsche) has written EXTENSIVELY on the impact of existentialism on religious thought (see Haught's "What is Religion?" for starters). Also, he's been teaching this stuff for 20+ years, and I think some smart-aleck graduate student would have "corrected" his "misinterpretation" of Nietzsche long ago, don't you?

Ross also apparently doesn't understand the difference between the way science SHOULD be practiced, and the way that it's ACTUALLY practiced. His idealistic view of "Big science" is quaint and kinda charming. Aside from Kuhn's famous analysis,"Structures," Mary Midgley's classic, "Evolution as a Religion," and Richard C. Lewontin's "Biology as Ideology," two recent books by other "real" scientists, Lee Smolin's "The Trouble with Physics," and Robert Laughlin's "A Different Universe" clearly reveal just how political, cliquish, and NON-OBJECTIVE the "business of science" can really be. When Haught says that scientists have "faith" in the "intelligibility of the universe," and that that NAs like Daniel Dennett has "faith" in the truth of the Dogma of "scientific naturalism" (the view that 1) only nature is real, 2)that God does not exist, and 3)that science alone can give us complete and reliable knowledge of reality), he most certainly knows of what he speaks. The "presumption" of scientific naturalism is just that - a presumption. It's a statement of belief, NOT a demonstrated, OBJECTIVE, scientific "fact."

Ross goes on to suggest that Haught might be WRONG when he argues that Richard Dawkins is unfamiliar with the work of thoughtful, systematic theologians like Paul Tillich and Sallie McFague. REALLY??? You want to tell me with a straight face that anyone familiar with the "theology lite" of "The God Delusion" really believes that Mr. "Devil's Chaplin" has seriously worked his way through ALL-THREE volumes of Tillich's uber-dense "Systematic Theology" (about which dozens and dozens of scholarly books have been written), and McFague's eco-feminist explorations of "Metaphorical Theology," and "The World as God's Body," especially since he believes that "Theology is a vacuous, nonsensical enterprise," since "its subject matter is non-existent"? Why would he put himself through that "torture?" Unlike Ross in Haught's case, I HAVE read ALL of Dawkins' books, and I can tell you there is NO indication that he is even FAMILIAR with likes of a Tillich, McFague, Clayton, Griffin, Peacocke, Polkinghorne, Barbour, Hefner, Peters, Cobb, Murphy, Keller, Kaufman, Wilber, or a Haught, much less that he (or Ross) has actually STUDIED any of their work. GIVE ME A BREAK!!!

Another reviewer claims that Haught "despises naturalism", is a "bad" scholar, doesn't understand Intelligent design theory, is a "poor" philosopher of religion and that he (for example) "doesn't understand the 'difference' between 'faith' and 'religion,' and between 'morals' and 'ethics.'

Again, Is the reviewers' "knowledge" of Haught's "poor" academic skills the result of his/her having studied all FOURTEEN or so of Haught's books and dozens of academic papers? How many Peer-reviewed journal articles has THE REVIEWER written, I wonder? In what circles is he/she acclaimed?

For one thing, since Haught is an "Evolutionary theologian" who believes that the divine works in and through the world's NATURAL, CAUSAL PROCESSES (primarily at the level of "novel information patterns"), to say that he "despises" naturalism is BEYOND a colossal MISUNDERSTANDING of his work. As suggested by the title of Haught's companion book to this one, "Is Nature Enough?" his problem with "scientific naturalism" is that it is for him an INADEQUATE way of explaining the full DEPTH of reality. He's no "supernaturalist," and he has no problem with evolutionary-theory-as-such; just the NAs VERSION of it!

For another thing, as one intimately involved in the academic study of religion, I can tell you that "faith" is OFTEN used as a SYNONYM for "religion," as in, "The Catholic Faith," or "The Jewish Faith." This is a DIFFERENT but quite COMMON use of the word than, say, "faith" as "trust in the truth of something despite not yet having any proof of it." Haught's not "confused"; apparently the REVIEWER is.

Similarly, many well-known moral theorists, such as Peter Singer, make no REAL distinctions between the words "Morals" and "Ethics," in practical usage, although, yes, some theorists do. Does this mean that Singer "doesn't know what he's talking about," either?"

When I was in my first year of seminary, one of my professors used to always tell us that one could only critique a theologian or philosopher when one was familiar enough with their BODY of work to make an INFORMED criticism. Otherwise, we were just embarrassing ourselves. Too bad many of the negative reviewers didn't heed that advice!

If you are truly interested in discovering the utter lack of depth and insight in the writings of the "New Atheists," then I highly recommend reading Haught's little surgical blade of a book (along with Alister McGrath's "Dawkins God," and Keith Ward's, "Pascal's Fire: Scientific Faith and Religious Understanding"). If you love the NAs, and want to continue believing that "all" religious folks (and all the great western philosophers, like Kant, Hegel, Schelling, Newton, Descartes, and Whitehead) are uneducated, anti-scientific, superstitious simpletons, then, hey, don't let ME rain on your parade!

91 of 134 people found the following review helpful:

1.0 out of 5 stars Old Straw Man's Hat, June 9, 2008

By	Anthony Konrath "Tony Konrath" (Key West, Florida United States) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

Simply re-labeling standard atheism and calling it "New Atheism" and then attacking it for being old-fashioned doesn't make for a good book. This is not a good book - just an old fashioned re-hash of arguments that simply don't work.

It's a prime example of straw man bashing and this writer has and should produce better work.

158 of 234 people found the following review helpful:

2.0 out of 5 stars Nice try, March 21, 2008

By	Franklin D. Ross (Anaheim, CA USA) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

In his new book God and the New Atheism John Haught does not directly refute any of the claims of what he is pleased to call "the new atheists" ie Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens. Instead he brings up several old, tired truth claims for religion. To wit;

1. "Science requires as much `faith' as religion does." Haught obviously doesn't understand science when he says something like that. There is zero `faith' in science. Every thing in science is held tentatively, even the scientific method. If a demonstrably better system comes along, scientists will adopt it long before theologians do. Until that happens the scientific method is the best way that we have of assessing the truth of claims. No scientist has `faith' in science. On the contrary, skepticism is the engine that drives science. There is only one assumption underlying science and that that the universe is `knowable' and even this basic assumption is constantly being tested. So far that assumption is holding up but if it can be shown to be false then theologians are in more trouble than scientists are.
2. "The new atheists are intolerant and want to destroy religion." When you turn on a light do you destroy darkness? When you teach a person to read do you destroy illiteracy? When you point out that superstition doesn't work are you destroying `faith'? I suppose that in a sense, Haught is right. The new atheists do seem to be intolerant of darkness, illiteracy and superstition.
3. "The new atheists have not studied the classical religious apologists such as Tillich, Bultmann, Ricoeur, McFague and Pannenberg." This may or may not be true. I suspect that it is not true but the new atheists don't spend much time on these scholars. Tillich, Bultmann, et al start with the assumption that gods exist and then go on from there to fill volume after volume with descriptions of the properties of these hypothesized gods. P. Z. Meyers answered this claim very well with the courtier's response which says (if I may be allowed to paraphrase) it is not necessary to spend years studying the finer nuances of high fashion in order to see that the emperor has no clothes.
4. "Atheism leads inexorably to nihilism". Haught's understanding of Nietzsche is as poor as his understanding of science. Nietzsche was horrified by the void that would be created upon the death of God. However Nietzsche worked through this frightening realization and came up with the saying "say yes to life". Subsequent existentialist thinkers expanded upon this theme to show that giving up superstition is actually quite liberating once you give it a try.

To his credit, Haught admits that it is possible to be moral even without belief in gods but in doing so he destroys the last justification for that belief. So the book is not totally without merit. If I were Dawkins et al I would insist that Haught's book be bundled with mine as a concrete example of just how weak and tired the best of the apologists are.