Customer Reviews

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

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(8)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(4)
1 star:		(7)

 

 

I've read the books Haught objects to, this one got pretty good reviews on Amazon so I picked it up in hopes for a reasoned response from the "other side."

I was sorry to see so much patronizing, so many straw dogs and pot shots (e.g. "our ill-informed new athiests" ... know absolutely nothing of theology). Fair enough. Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens also do their sniping at times. But once I got over that I tried to find the substance of the book. Here is much of it, and all these points are repeated many times: (1) The new atheists are are not as rigorous as the old ones like Sartre, Nietzche, Camus. (2) They don't know anything about theology and (3) they rail against only the most extreme and fundamental religious beliefs, which Haught himself distances himself from. And (4) where new atheists rely on objective evidence for their beliefs, Haught asks "Can anyone prove objectively that the postulate of objectivity is true?" This last point was made again and again, and then he curiously developed it on page 74 where he simply explains that atheists differ from believers by trusting in the mind's ability to reason! Believers, he explains, allow themselves instead "to be grasped and carried away" by Faith, which he defines as "the inexhaustibly deep dimension of Being, Meaning, Truth, and Goodness." That was particularly disappointing, as he had just ridiculed Harris for defining Faith as "belief without evidence." I mean, is faith belief without evidence or isn't it?

The book is short (100 pages) and pretty well written though often repetitive and pejorative, as I have said before. He often summarizes "the new atheists" arguments reasonably well, but occasionally he is way off the mark. For example, when he derides Dawkins' use of Occam's razor (the argument that the simplest explanation should carry) he explains that there are many mutually compatible observations to make of a single phenomenon -- for example his book was commissioned by the publisher, written by him, AND printed by a press. This is like saying an apple is red AND a fruit, and not at all like comparing creationism to evolution. Does he not know that? Should I be embarrassed or insulted?

He also tried to answer a query posed by Dawkins to creationists. It goes like this. If life on Earth is so complex that it could not have occurred by chance, and must have been designed by a Creator -- then the Creator (who also micromanages His Creation) must be much more complex than His Creation, so how exactly did *He* come about? Wouldn't the chance of God just occurring be infinitely less than the probability of life just occurring? It's a great question, and Haught answers: Since Dawkins clearly believes in evolution, he must think that God *evolved*. Clearly that's ridiculous, and so Dawkins is ridiculous too!

As I've said, I've read Harris, Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett. I've read Alister McGrath as well, and this, because I am looking for a thoughtful response. Anyone reading just this book, and not the others, is doing themselves a disservice. Read this AND the books he criticizes, and then decide for yourself which set of arguments have more merit.

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!

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.

There are some cultural debates that break new ground and shed badly needed light on old issues. There are others, though, that generate much more heat than illumination. I fear that the current (New) atheism/theism controversy more often than not falls into the second category. Angry and belligerent New Atheists lining up against angry and belligerent Intelligent Designers and fundamentalists: in this context, the debate too frequently reduces to name-calling.

That's why books like John Haught's are novel but refreshing contributions. Haught, who has reflected on science and religion for a couple of decades now, writes soberly and judiciously. He argues that the New Atheism, defended by the Dawkins/Harris/Hitchens troika, suffers from (1) irrelevancy (disdains familiarity with theology and side-steps serious debate by going after fringe theists); (2) inconsistency (first because it never questions the foundation of its scientific naturalism, second because it never pauses to ask how reason, if it's nothing but an evolutionary product, can be trusted--a point similar to one defended by C.S. Lewis in his book Miracles); and (3) scientistic reductionism--or what Haught calls "epistemic and ethical puritanism"--which "shrinks" both knowledge and morality into the too-confining language of naturalism.

More positively, Haught argues that faith, contrary to the reductionistic definition adopted and easily demolished by the New Atheists, is better thought of as an openness to experiences which point beyond themselves to depth, beauty, and truth, qualities Haught associates with divine Being. In making this argument, he draws heavily upon an earlier and excellent book of his, What Is God? His final two chapters, in which he examines the "personal" nature of the theistic God and the inevitability of ambiguity and messiness in any examination of reality, are really quite fascinating.

Haught's book isn't perfect. It tends to be repetitious, especially in the first two chapters, and at times his arguments could've been more detailed than they are (especially, it seems to me, in his claim that Dawkins is wrong to think of God as a hypothesis). But despite this, his God and the New Atheism is a much-welcomed exercise in reason and civility. It's to be hoped that everyone attracted to the on-going cultural debate between atheism and theism, regardless of their allegiance, will profit by Haught's example.

In a breathtakingly sweeping non sequitur, theologian John Haught (God and the New Atheism) declares that we should be grateful for the imperfect Creation (the "ambiguities and evil") of his perfect god---thank god for our manifold pain and suffering; without it, there would be no "freedom," no "adventure," no "grand cosmic story," no "opening to infinite horizons up ahead." In an odd (unwitting?) conflation of heaven and hell, he concludes: "Locked eternally into splendid perfection," Man would be mere "puppets and statues" !
On behalf of the New Atheists whom Haught excoriates, I rest my case.

If this book was meant to answer the questions raised by Dawkins,Harris,and Hitchens against Christianity,the author probably didn't understand the questions. There are basically two simple questions that atheists like Dawkins ask: (1) What is the Christian definition of "God" (how does one have faith in something that has no definition - that is tantamount to believing in nothing, for what is not defined does not exist), and (2) What is the evidence that this god, as defined (assuming that can and has been done), exists. Instead of answering these questions, Haught does what virtually every Christian apologist does - he claims that God is all mystery and that since this mystery is a divine mystery, we should be grateful for it and we shouldn't question it (his case seems to be that there is no need to; just accept it, glow in it, and thank "God" for it). He denies that faith is incompatible with reason but he has not subjected his premises and assertions to reason - the logical and unemotional questioning of assertions; and meeting such questions head-on with clear and equally direct answers. May I suggest that readers pick up a Dawkins, Harris, or Hitchens book, and read it side-by-side with Haught's, and decide for themselves whether Haught had any answer at all. Finally, Dawkins and other atheist writers must be amused to find Haught calling their rational state "new atheism" (since none of them had used that term) and then promptly declares that there is nothing "new" about this "new atheism". There is certainly nothing new about atheism. It is as old as the hills. Man, from time immemorial, is born an atheist.

Haught's principal target in this wordy, boring polemic is Richard Dawkins. But he is not a very good shot. Indeed, at times he seems to shoot himself in the foot, as many of his quotations appear to be far more convincing than his refutations of them. To a degree, he acts as a publicity agent for the naturalism, humanism, and atheism which he so obviously despises.

A few examples:

'Even though many theorists may agree with Dawkins that morality is the main point of Biblical religion, it is not. The main point is to have faith, trust, and hope in God. Morality is secondary, and the principle underlying Biblical ethics is that our conduct should be shaped with respect to others by the trust that God's promise of ultimate liberation will eventually come to pass.'

'Because he is wrong on the first claim in his argument, Dawkins cannot defend his second and third points either. Having acquired his most striking theological comments from the likes of comedian George Carlin, humourist writer Douglas Adams, and The Skeptic Magazine, Dawkins' discussion of morality and the Bible is a remarkable display of ignorance and foolish sarcasm. I do not enjoy speaking in such a blunt manner about any writer, though not to do so here would be evasive. What is most lamentable about Dawkins's discussion is that it completely misses the moral core of Judaism and Christianity, the emphasis on justice, and what has come to be known as God's preferential option for the poor and disadvantaged. To maintain that we can understand modern and contemporary social justice, civil rights, and liberation movements without any reference to Amos, Hosea, Isaiah, Micah, Jesus and other biblical prophets makes Dawkins is his treatment of morality and faith almost unworthy of comment.'

'Dawkins seems quite certain that the modern biological synthesis of Darwin's notion of selection with the more recent field of genetics can demonstrate that human morality, no less than the behaviour of animals, is the product of impersonal evolutionary intervention rather than a free human response to an eternal goodness. Briefly, his argument is that we humans are moral beings at this time in natural history not because of any direct or indirect revelation by God of moral absolutes, but because our genes long ago fashioned human organisms whose virtuous behaviour increased the probability that their genes could survive on to future generations.'

'Biology indicates that we are moral because being good has contributed to human gene survival. Thus, no need for theological accounts exist. According to major religious traditions, altruism is the high point of moral existence, and selfless love especially convinces believers of the divine origin of human ethics.'

'Dawkins realises, of course, that moral life is much more complicated than animal behaviour and the cultural factors are also important in shaping ethical life. Still, he remains adamant that morality is ultimately natural rather than divine in origin.'

'By this point in Dawkins's argument natural selection has become about as explanatory of human virtue as the chemical laws that bond ink to paper explain what I am writing on this page. In order for you to read this page the chemical laws relating inks bonding with paper have to keep on working reliably and predictably, but the actual content of what I'm writing is not determined or explained by the science of chemistry. Likewise, in the transmission of moral values from one generation to another, the biological laws of genetic inheritance are at work shaping organisms capable of moral behaviour.'

For one who has lectured in theology, Haught has a woefully weak grasp of moral theory and the philosophy of religion. He doesn't understand the difference between ethics and morals or between faith and religion, his treatment of intelligent design is decidedly woolly, and he displays a lack of scholarship on almost every page.

This is yet another book by an author whose cage has been rattled by the likes of Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens. He would have done better to preserve a lofty silence.

Basic Flying Instruction: A Comprehensive Introduction to Western Philosophy
A Good Boy Tomorrow: Memoirs of A Fundamentalist Upbringing
The BelieverIota: God as Nature, Nature as God

This book was a delight to read.

John Haught's masterful grasp of vocabulary and prose leaves you admiring the artistic appearance of his work even if there were no substance to it. The additional blessing is that the book is, indeed, also chalk-full of substance. Haught is a very well-informed individual. Unfortunately, it's precisely his erudite (erudite, not "tremendously complicated") manner of speech that is going to lose some readers with "lesser" intellects, and perhaps those with a lower level of patience for whom this work will represent a new and challenging, fuller way of thinking. This is unfortunate because Haught's message is so necessary and so solid when one grasps it clearly.

"God and the New Atheism" is a stellar, even-handed, informative response to the peculiar musings of Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris. For some reason, those who decry it seem to take the book personally, which they shouldn't. It isn't an attack on any person as much as it is a very eloquent, "tell it like it is" defense of faith in general. Does Haught take what could be interpreted as an occasional "pot shot" at the aforementioned New Atheists? I suppose so. But suffice it to say that he does so in a manner that is, as he himself notes in the book, simply unavoidable.

Four stars rather than five simply because it IS just a little bit repetitive on occasion (as charged by another reviewer) and because, as profound a grasp as Haught has of so many divergent subject matters, Intelligent Design seems to be one area where his intellect falters. He, like so many others, seems to mistakenly identify ID as Creationism under a different name, which it clearly is not. (See "The Design Revolution" by William Dembski for a comprehensive dismissal of this misunderstanding.) But for these minor issues, this work deserves a standing ovation and a very careful read by those with a "New Atheist" mindset.

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.

This book is a scholarly yet readable rebuttal to several recently-published mainstream books by prominent Darwinian scholars, and is written to the intelligent layperson. Dr. Haught is a Senior Fellow in Science and Religion at the Woodstock Theological Center at Georgetown University, and was Chair and Professor in the Department of Theology at Georgetown from 1970 to 2005. He is an international lecturer and has authored many books, particularly on topics evaluating Science, Evolution, and Religion. The books that Haught addresses: The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins; The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation by Sam Harris; and God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything by Christopher Hitchens; are relatively recent popular books chosen as a representative description of the "new" atheism, that is, atheism as described for this generation.

Haught describes the parameters of Scientism, namely that only Nature exists, it is self-originating, and it can be understood only through rational inquiry. Furthermore, the "new" atheism also states that belief in God leads to many profound evils in the world, and therefore should be rejected on moral grounds. In his classroom Haught has assigned to his students many rationalist and atheist authors, including Nietzsche, Camus, Sartre, Marx, and others. Interestingly, he finds the current crop of atheists to be not as rigorous and compelling as previous proponents.

Among Haught's criticisms of the "new" atheism include:

*New Scientism must take nothing on faith, yet its precepts require faith. In other words, to state that only rational, objective, extrinsic evidence is valid is in itself a statement of faith. Can you PROVE that these criteria are the only valid ones?

*New Scientism describes only the worst and most superficial aspects of religion. The current authors do not seem to have a good grasp of the subtleties of thought and evidence that theologians present in their own expositions.

*New Scientism doesn't allow for any ambiguity or layered religious interpretation. Religious texts such as the Bible are understood in only the most literal, one-dimensional sense.

*No good evolutionary explanation of the existence of morality or the penetration of religious belief across cultures is given; instead the arguments are circular and incomplete.

*Interestingly, the new atheists made quite vehement statements against the "evilness" of religion, an inclusion of an emotional component that weakened their arguments.

As I thought through the arguments in Haught's book, I was struck by the idea that the authors of the critiqued books wanted "God" to behave in a particular manner, and to be able to be proven scientifically. Because God (in their view) doesn't seem to follow their narrow prescriptions, the new atheists want to jettison the idea. If you can't read and don't want to believe me, I can't "prove" to you that ink blotches on paper carry information; you don't believe me, but that doesn't make what I say untrue.

Overall, I found this a challenging book and an interesting and cogent counterargument to widespread ideas of atheism in this culture.