The Twilight of Atheism: The Rise and Fall of Disbelief in the Modern World [Paperback]

Alister McGrath (Author)

Book Description

Release date: February 21, 2006

In this bold and provocative new book, the author of In the Beginning and The Reenchantment of Nature challenges the widely held assumption that the world is becoming more secular and demonstrates why atheism cannot provide the moral and intellectual guidance essential for coping with the complexities of modern life.

Atheism is one of the most important movements in modern Western culture. For the last two hundred years, it seemed to be on the verge of eliminating religion as an outmoded and dangerous superstition. Recent years, however, have witnessed the decline of disbelief and a rise in religious devotion throughout the world. In THE TWILIGHT OF ATHEISM, the distinguished historian and theologian Alister McGrath examines what went wrong with the atheist dream and explains why religion and faith are destined to play a central role in the twenty-first century.

A former atheist who is now one of Christianity’s foremost scholars, McGrath traces the history of atheism from its emergence in eighteenth-century Europe as a revolutionary worldview that offered liberation from the rigidity of traditional religion and the oppression of tyrannical monarchs, to its golden age in the first half of the twentieth century. Blending thoughtful, authoritative historical analysis with incisive portraits of such leading and influential atheists as Sigmund Freud and Richard Dawkins, McGrath exposes the flaws at the heart of atheism, and argues that the renewal of faith is a natural, inevitable, and necessary response to its failures.

THE TWILIGHT OF ATHEISM will unsettle believers and nonbelievers alike. A powerful rebuttal of the philosophy that, for better and for worse, has exerted tremendous influence on Western history, it carries major implications for the future of both religion and unbelief in our society.

Editorial Reviews

From Publishers Weekly

Oxford University's McGrath has distinguished himself not just as an historical theologian, but as a generous and witty writer who brings life to topics that would turn to dust in others' hands. Here he explores the history of atheism in Western culture, observing that atheism seems to be succumbing to the very fate—irrelevance and dissolution—that atheists once predicted would overtake traditional religion. How did atheism ("a principled and informed decision to reject belief in God") become so rare by the turn of the 21st century? McGrath leaves no stone unturned, nor any important source unconsulted, in tracing atheism's rise and fall. Beyond the usual suspects of Marx, Freud and Darwin, McGrath surveys literature (George Eliot, Algernon Swinburne), science (Jacques Monod, Richard Dawkins) and philosophy (Ludwig Feuerbach, Michel Foucault), managing to make such intellectual heavy lifting look effortless. As a lapsed atheist himself, McGrath is a sympathetic interpreter, but he also relentlessly documents what he contends are the philosophical inconsistency and moral failures of atheism, especially when it has acquired political power. Yet believers will find no warrant here for complacency, as McGrath shows how religion's "failures of imagination" and complicity with oppression often fostered the very environment in which atheism could thrive. Indeed, he warns, "Believers need to realize that, strange as it may seem, it is they who will have the greatest impact on atheism's future." Readable and memorable, this is intellectual history at its best.
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

From Booklist

Secular intellectuals have been announcing God's funeral since the eighteenth century. But as McGrath surveys today's world, he finds faith in the deity alive and vigorous. Why did the apostles of atheism fail so spectacularly? With insights gleaned during his own years of religious unbelief, McGrath takes the measure of the titans of modern godlessness--including Nietzsche, Freud, and Marx--showing how these powerful thinkers convinced their followers that social and personal progress would accelerate once humanity surrendered its repressive beliefs in an illusory God. In acknowledging the remarkable success of political, psychotherapeutic, and scientific atheism, McGrath surprisingly traces part of that success to Protestant creeds that divorced sacred from secular, so rendering faith more vulnerable. But in the very triumph of atheism, McGrath discerns the causes of its collapse. For once in power, atheism delivered not enlightenment in utopia but rather barbarism in the gulag. Politically discredited and imaginatively exhausted, atheism has been forced into an astonishing retreat before advancing Pentecostal preachers and Christian fabulists. For readers trying to understand this unexpected reversal in cultural fortunes. Bryce Christensen
Copyright © American Library Association. All rights reserved --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Paperback: 320 pages
• Publisher: WaterBrook Press; Reprint edition (February 21, 2006)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0385500629
• ISBN-13: 978-0385500623
• Product Dimensions: 0.7 x 5.6 x 8.1 inches
• Shipping Weight: 8 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 3.3 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (71 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #72,443 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
  • #89 in Books > Religion & Spirituality > Spirituality > Atheism

More About the Author

Alister E. McGrath is a historian, biochemist, and Christian theologian born in Belfast, Northern Ireland. A longtime professor at Oxford University, he now holds the chair in theology, ministry, and education at the University of London. He is the author of several books on theology and history, including Christianity's Dangerous Idea, In the Beginning, and The Twilight of Atheism. He lives in Oxford, England, and lectures regularly in the United States.

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

125 of 163 people found the following review helpful

5.0 out of 5 stars Atheism as a Cultural/Sociolological Effect August 14, 2004

By C. Price VINE™ VOICE

Format:Hardcover

Allister McGrath's The Twilight of Atheism is a thought provoking book no matter what your background. This book is no polemic against atheism. McGrath only mentions arguments for and against God on a few occasions, and then only to set them in their historical context and show the rise and decline of atheist philosophy. And to be clear, by atheism McGrath means what many call "hard atheism." The deliberate, supposedly informed, affirmative belief that there is no God.

One of the strengths of the book is that McGrath does not hesitate to examine atheism as a cultural/philosophical development just as any other. That is, he examines the cultural factors influencing its development and growth. Though some atheists naively believe that atheism is simply a matter of applying logic and reason to see the obvious, this is an inadequate basis for explaining its origins and development as a philosophical movement. This does not deny the possible truth of atheism any more than examining the cultural and historical factors that facilitated the rise of Christianity necessarily negates the truth of Christianity. According to McGrath, one catalyst for atheist thought was the ongoing revolutionary attitudes across the board towards authority, including royal and ecclesiastical. Christianity was seen as part of an oppressive establishment and atheism was a "liberating" intellectual force. Religion, especially Christianity, was seen by many as an oppressive force and atheism was the vehicle of its destruction.

McGrath's overview of this period, and his closer examination of such atheists as Freud and Marx, is very helpful and makes the above points well.... He builds on these points to show that by the middle of the 20th century, atheism seemed on the verge of philosophical dominance in two forms. Externally, by the vehicle of communism atheism had spread over almost a third of the world, apparently vanquishing religion in the previously Christian areas of Russia and Eastern Europe. Internally, atheistic philosophy seemed on the verge of similar successes in the West. Symbolized by Time Magazine's famous cover page asking, "Is God Dead?" The answer seemed to be yes, or almost nearly so.

But just when atheism seemed on the verge of victory, it collapsed. Communism failed and was widely discredited by a recognition that it was an oppressive, not liberating force. Though atheism had been brutally imposed on the people of Russia and Eastern Europe, it faded fast once the state vehicle of oppression was lifted. Atheist numbers have dropped dramatically throughout former communist nations, and Christian numbers have surged.

In the West, atheism stumbled as well. Christianity adapted, and largely through Pentacostalism/Charismaticism, revised itself into a potent and popular new movement. In the third world nations of Latin America, Africa, and Asia, this movement supplanted Marxism in offering hope to the poor and oppressed. Even in Western Europe, atheism lost its potency and transformed into a more neutral nonreligious attitude.

What happened?

First, as a reaction to the establishment, atheism was destined to lose potency once Christianity was no longer part of the establishment. There is much to commend this argument. This explains why atheism was never as popular in the United States--where religion was a matter of personal preference rather than state sanction. If there was no oppressor, there is no need for a liberator.

Second, "hard" atheism has no more to commend it intellectually than theism. According to McGrath, neither side can claim compelling evidential or philosophical argument for its position. And because there seems to be something in humankind -- put their by God or by social factors -- that seeks a connection with spirituality or the divine, atheism loses what is intellectually a draw. This point is no doubt controversial, for both sides. I do not necessarily agree with it, but do recognize that because of predispositions and biases on both sides, the force of the argument for or against either position has not gained the upperhand. With that being the case, religion does seem to fulfill a need in most people that atheism simply cannot.

Third, Christianity adapted--especially Protestantism. As more of an intellectual movement than a mystical one, McGrath believes that Protestantism was especially vulnerable to atheism's arguments. With the rise of spiritualism in the Protestant sects (through the Pentacostal and Charismatic movements), Protestantism adapted to the situation and made itself more attractive. Again, there is much to commend this argument and I see it as an offshoot as the first one. Christianity modified itself to be seen as liberator once again by the poor and oppressed--often offering a material and spiritual liberation for those who embrace it.

There seems to be some misunderstanding about what McGraw is claiming. He does not claim that atheism is doomed to elimination. There will be plenty of atheists. Nor does he say that Christianity has won. He frankly admits that the decline in Christianity in Western Europe appears to be long lived, though it has not given way to atheism, but to agnosticism and complacency. What has not happened, but what seemed likely, is the victory of atheism as a philosophical force in Western Culture (and in communist nations.).

On a whole, The Twilight of Atheism is a thought provoking read. More so than I expected. There is much food for thought here for all sides to the debate. As a plus, McGrath writes in an understandable and unpolemical manner, making this book very readable (though not particularly exciting). Read more ›

81 of 113 people found the following review helpful

4.0 out of 5 stars Comprehensive July 16, 2004

By Steve Jackson

Format:Hardcover

Alister McGrath is a moderately conservative Evangelical theologian who was born in Northern Ireland. After a period of atheism, he became a Christian and is now one of the most prolific theologians in the world. In this book, he traces the rise of atheism from the time of the French revolution to its gradual decline in recent years.

Prof. McGrath is a good storyteller. Along with a discussion the seminal thinkers of atheism such as Nietzsche, Freud, Marx and Feuerbach, we get a political, historical and social overview of the entire movement. For example, Prof. McGrath discusses recent political issues such as the turbulence of the 60s and Madeline Murray O'Hair's crusade for atheism. While this book is no substitute for more detailed studies on atheism, it provides a historical and political background that other studies generally don't.

Prof. McGrath is, as I said, an incredibly prolific author. He has probably written, edited, or revised over 15 books since 2000. Because of this, it would appear that a few too many errors and editing problems creep into his books. For example, Robert Ingersoll is described as the "great atheist" when he was the "great agnostic." The former Episcopal bishop of Newark is not James Spong, but rather John Spong. The same quote from Augustine appears twice within a few pages, etc. In spite of these defects, THE TWILIGHT OF ATHEISM is an enjoyable work.

78 of 110 people found the following review helpful

2.0 out of 5 stars The Twilight of Antitheism October 23, 2004

By Conrad Knauer

Format:Hardcover

By the time I finished Alister McGrath's "The Twilight of Atheism", I had identified several major problems with it. These often flow into one another, but can be summed up in three major points; in no particular order:

(1) This book is apologetics ("the branch of theology that is concerned with defending or proving the truth of Christian doctrines"). Far from being a fair study of the history of atheism in relation to the religions of the world over time, its written by a 'former atheist' with a (primarily western and Protestant) Christian audience in mind. There is a disturbing tendency by the author to allow his apologetics to color his interpretation of historical events to the point of revisionism.

(2) It uses an improper definition of "atheism." This is perhaps the most surprising. The standard dictionary definition will be along the lines of "a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods." McGrath denies this and seems to think it means something like 'the active rejection of, or rebellion against God and religion'. But this is more properly 'ANTI-theism'. Consider in this light his pronouncement that "Atheism is ultimately a worldview of fear [...] largely derivative, mirroring the failings of the churches and specific ways of conceiving the Christian faith." (P. 274) When you realize that atheism and antitheism are not the same thing, it knocks a lot of the wind out of the main premise (that atheism is in its twilight). Antitheism perhaps, but not necessarily atheism. He also curiously refers to atheism as a religion quite a few times. The famous rejoinder to this, of course, is that 'atheism is a religion like bald is a hair color'....

(3) Its main premise (that atheism is in decline) relies almost entirely on the axiom that Postmodernism is correct and Modernism is false. I left this one for last because it needs the most explanation. As per McGrath's use of the terms, I will summarize them as follows:

Modernism is a school of thought that had its origins in the Enlightenment. It holds that the truth about the universe can be discovered and known with certainty. At its most extreme, it sees the world in stark terms of black and white, right and wrong, strong and weak, good and evil. Postmodernism is a school of thought that developed in reaction to the excesses of Modernism. It holds that there are many truths about the world around us and that it is impossible to distinguish between them with any certainty; at its most extreme, not only is everything seen in shades of grey, but all the shades are the same color. It is thus a far more tolerant way of dealing with cultural differences (including religion).

While treating other cultures with respect and promoting diversity is a noble idea, the problems start when you try to apply postmodernism to logic. Using postmodernist philosophy, the author thus feels he can happily dispense with rationalism, which he asserts has "quietly died out in most places" anyway (P. 271). This leads to perhaps the most absurd statement in the whole book (P. 92) which reads: "the simple fact is that both atheism and Christian belief were found to lie beyond the available evidence. The burden of proof is equally distributed between the two." But if there is no evidence to believe in a God, why should we? As McGrath believes: "A cold and dry rational account of nature might well satisfy the human reason, but it left the imaginative and emotional faculties untouched." (P. 115) Thus emotional reasons, to the exclusion of reason, are to McGrath indeed valid for religious belief. Consider his repeated praise for Pentecostalism, which relies on "charismatic gifts", such as "speaking in tongues [...] prophesying, [faith] healings, and exorcisms." (P. 194)

Finally, probably the least important criticism, but one that made me want to put the book down well before I finished it: its too long. McGrath really doesn't have to spend so many pages trying to refute 19th century poets, among other things. I'd say that he could easily have made his point in less than half the pages.

(Please note: I orginally submitted a more detailed (and thus much longer) review that wasn't accepted, probably because it was too long; if you are interested you can read it here: [...] ) Read more ›

14 of 19 people found the following review helpful

2.0 out of 5 stars Dark "Religion" of Atheism May 2, 2010

By fondfire

Format:Hardcover

McGrath, who has often shown a preoccupation with the refutation of atheism as a philosophical position (particularly as presented by Richard Dawkins), sets out an extended (though peculiar) account of the history of atheism in this book and speculates about its strengths, weaknesses, and future as a point of view in Western and world culture.

Much of the book is devoted to an idiosyncratic account of the history of atheistic thought. The French Revolution is portrayed as the first atheistic event in history, though McGrath does hedge enough to make it clear that atheism is neither the true cause or result of it, besides the fact that by all accounts not many of the revolutionaries actually were atheists (as Deism was much more common and many people retained some sort of belief in Christianity even as revolutionaries). He goes on to account for the development of atheism in philosophy and other disciplines, giving particular credit to Feuerbach, Marx, and Freud, though commenting that their explanations of the genesis of atheism require a circular reasoning of beginning with the assumption that there is no god. He spends a chapter dismissing the idea of a conflict between science and religion (as McGrath is not a creationist or "intelligent design" proponent; he seems to endorse Gould's idea of "non-overlapping magisteria") and then proceeds to give a much more idiosyncratic view of the development of atheistic thought.

He stops to mention George Eliot, a largely positive figure in the history of atheism. Otherwise, he prefers to spend the most time on personally repulsive individual atheists, such as the perversions of AC Swinburne, the appalling personal details of the life of Madalyn Murray O'Hair, and the totalitarian Joseph Stalin.... He repeatedly reminds the reader of Communism and portrays this secular faith in the perfectibility of human society as the legitimate face of atheism in the 20th Century, mentioning the deathtoll of Communism at ever turn. He mentions the National Secular Society in Great Britain and the O'Hair-led group American Atheists in the US, both of which are shrinking, but fails to discuss the British Humanist Association and its counterpart the American Humanist Association, which are growing in popularity at the moment.

The heart of McGrath's thesis is that atheism is an alternative religion. This "religion" believes that all the other religions which believe in supernatural forces (particularly God) will always and everywhere lead to the persecution of humankind. So, atheists are best understood as anti-theists, who further believe that a Utopia will begin if only religion can be eliminated. The Communist attempt to persecute religion out of existence failed horribly and was a nightmare, of course (though the Communists persecuted people for many reasons other than religion and got cooperation from certain religious leaders in many times and places; McGrath's portrayal of Communism as an anti-God machine being more than a little over-simplified), but hardly represents the secret wishes of most atheists (though perhaps was part of his own atheist fantasy in adolescence, as McGrath makes clear his own atheist ideology during his youth was Marxism). The Marxist-Leninists persecuted many fellow atheists who had any sort of divergent political beliefs and the Stalinists only did this more so. All but equating totalitarian communism with atheism (which McGrath comes very close to doing) is simply McCarthy-like hyperbole. He also repeatedly puts Nazism in the same class as Communism as an atheistic, totalitarian political ideology, which is totally absurd. (Though there were atheist Nazis, Nazism was closely allied to the "Positive Christianity" movement and didn't really advocate atheism at all. McGrath feels that atheism was a necessary precursor to Nazism, but doesn't really explain why, except to imply that Nazism would have been somehow inconceivable apart from atheism. Nazism actually advocated acceptance of any religion that renounced Judaism and didn't undermine their politics, with many Nazis even embracing and creating varieties of Germanic neo-paganism, such as the German Faith Movement. Essentially, Nazism was happy to embrace any faith that worked for their party at a given moment, and thus rhetoricians of all stripes like to associate the Nazis with whoever they do not like.) This attempt to portray atheism as a full-fledged ideology in and of itself is a failure, though, as atheism is simply the lack of a belief in deity that happens to be a feature of many other ideologies and worldviews, such as secular humanism, positivism, philosophical naturalism, Marxism, objectivism, and many other secular philosophies. Most atheists I know are anything but utopians who believe that the elimination of religion from humanity would lead to a perfectly positive future and McGrath's tendency to see all atheists (of whatever stripe) in this light is ludicrous.

McGrath portrays atheism as a position in retreat, at the end of the book. On an intellectual level, this is primarily due to the influence of post-modernism, which McGrath seems to feel has definitively put the nails into the coffin of Enlightenment and modernist thinking that provide the intellectual underpinnings of most modern atheist philosophies and worldviews. Essentially, he argues that atheism is only emotionally engaging as a response to corrupt or disengaged religions (which he actively feels the Christian churches to have been in those times and places where atheistic ideas held the most sway). He feels that the focus is currently on corrupt and disengaged secular institutions, particularly in the former Communist countries, and that emotionally engaging forms of Christianity (particularly Pentecostalism) will be the ideological winners going forward. McGrath's bottom line is that Christianity (the only religion he really discusses at all) is so much more engaging and appealing than atheism (which he portrays as being quite flat, disengaging, and boring) that human beings will only choose it if they feel it's better than just about any other spiritual alternative, which always tells a better story.

There are many reasons to doubt McGrath's conclusions. Though he is right that the spread of Christianity in Africa and South Korea do show the vitality of missionary work in many parts of the world, he may be misunderstanding what has led to the long-term growth of atheism. I believe most atheists simply see the lack of a belief in God as merely one aspect of a larger worldview. This worldview may not offer hope of eternal life, but simply seems to be more plausible and likely (in part because it does not postulate any utopian outcome for humanity, either in this world or any other). People may actually want to believe in supernatural saviors, but Western Europe shows no signs of making a big return to faith and the post-Communist return to faith in Eastern Europe (not surprising after a long turn of state enforced atheism) seems to have slowed considerably now that those craving religion have all had a chance to have it again. Instead, most Eurpoeans seem to find the emotionally salient forms of Christianity (like Pentecostalism) to be unpersuasive (particularly as these forms of faith tend to be the most anti-science and literalistic, as well, which is a feature McGrath conveniently overlooks). Though atheism and agnosticism are much less prevalent in the U.S., they are slowly growing and faith is slowly eroding over time. There's no reason to be so certain that the US won't seem more like Western Europe given another half-century or so. The fact is that many of the forms of religion McGrath seems to see as the future of the faith and the scourge of atheism (mega-churches and Pentacostal fervor) are so often creationist in their science, literalistic in their reading of the Bible, confining in their lifestyles, and regressive in their politics. Though they may be riding a post-modern wave in reaction to the excesses of post-Enlightenment ideologies, they are probably also creating excesses of their own that will eventually produce a new backlash. Over the very long run, it's hard to see from here whether modern forms of conservative Christian faith, atheism, or distinctly non-Christian forms of faith might hold the future.

McGrath's emphasis on the power of post-modernism to corrode atheism is an extremely odd choice. The post-modernism that McGrath embraces as the philosophical end of atheism, he equally derides in its many theological guises. Secondly, there are many signs that post-modernism is on the wane, with many prominent intellectuals turning against the movement as being at best a unique form of criticism and at worst utterly incomprehensible gibberish. It's hard to see how post-modernism will maintain it's own emotional and theoretical appeal going forward, particularly as it begins to wane in Academe. Further, most evangelical Christians in my locale often spend a considerable effort preaching against post-modernism as a form of "relativism" that corrodes Christianity faster than almost anything else.

Though McGrath may be right that atheism can never sustain its emotional appeal, his feeling that emotionally salient and popular forms of Christianity are the most likely alternative may not be sound. Post-modern thinking can have extremely interesting results in the spiritual realm, leading to neo-pagan, New Age, muti-cultural, and other wild conclusions that equally undermine Christianity. The diversification of spritual culture has probably more often been the outcome of increasing secularism in Western Europe than the rise of secular humanism and philosophical naturalism. So, we all may wind-up in the midst of a spiritual culture that looks more like the melange of religion in Japan, creating a stable yet dynamic balance of competing faiths in a secular polity over time. Such a spiritual marketplace might operate relatively well in a multipolar culture that relies more on secular institutions for a sense of shared values and national unity and international cooperation to function. But what exactly will prove to be possible and historically contingent remains to be seen.

At the very end, McGrath concludes that atheism cannot succeed when the Christian churches are approachable and above reproach. While this may be true, he doesn't entertain the possibility that a diffuse spiritual culture that would please neither the doctrinaire Christian or doctrinaire atheist may be the most likely outcome of all. Few took Pentecostalism very seriously at first, either.

For a better idea of what most atheists actually believe about atheism, Julian Baggini's Atheism: A Very Short Introduction is an excellent place to start. For an atheist's view on the history of atheism, Jonathan Miller's A Brief History of Disbelief. If you want your evangelical Christian bias reaffirmed, though, buy this book and don't read much else on the subject. Read more ›