UMR Communications is offering the latest headlines in the RSS format.
Commentary
COMMENTARY: Debunking the New Atheists Will Deuel, Nov 18, 2008
Will Deuel
By Will Deuel Special Contributor
Bill Maher has joined the choir, adding his voice to the ever-growing Church of the New Atheism. That’s a shame. I enjoy watching Real Time on HBO.
Most of the time I find Mr. Maher to be very intelligent, insightful and even fair-minded. Other times he runs off the rails, especially when he talks about the medical profession, dietary concerns (milk is poison, pot is good!) and religion.
I’ve heard his diatribes against any and all religion before, so I pretty much know what to expect from his new film Religulous. And he exhibits the same fundamental problems as his fellow atheists Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins.
The central thesis of the New Atheist movement is that without the “delusion” called religion, history would be devoid of wars and oppression.
There is no empirical evidence to support such a claim. What’s more, wars fought “in the name of God” were waged by people who were hungry for political power and who used religion as one of many tools to manipulate people.
The counter-argument, that such wars would have been fought anyway and that the leaders would have used economic or other means to manipulate others, is as well-supported as their thesis.
The New Atheists read the Bible using precisely the same hermeneutic as those they rail against. In Mr. Maher’s words, “You either believe in the talking snake or you don’t.”
I think (or at least I sincerely hope) that most people of faith understand that as a false choice. In other words, most of us take the Bible seriously without necessarily taking it literally. Or as my Old Testament prof would say, “the Bible is primarily a confessional document, and its claims are first and foremost confessional and theological in nature.”
The Bible’s authors were theologians and storytellers; not biologists, historians, genealogists, anthropologists, physicists or journalists. The New Atheists do a wonderful job of disputing 17th- and 18th-century theology. They do themselves and their readers a massive disservice, however, by failing to engage the works of Karl Barth, Reinhold Niebuhr, Paul Tillich, Schubert Ogden, John Cobb, Marjorie Hewitt Suchocki, George Lindbeck, Marcus Borg and others who have wrestled more openly and honestly with exactly the same questions they have.
Another central thesis—that one can be a good, moral and ethical person without religion—would be an easier case to make if those presenting the case weren’t so strident, arrogant and dismissive.
In the cases of Mr. Maher, Mr. Hitchens and Dr. Dawkins, each comes across as petty and closed-minded as those they seek to criticize for being petty and closed-minded. Pot, kettle.
Now I will be the first to admit that far too many mainstream Christians are theologically immature or naive. But I don’t think it’s their fault. No, I blame us.
We clergy have not properly educated laypersons to think theologically about the problems of life and death, heaven and hell, good and evil with any real depth.
I think so many people have assumed that because some theologians’ propositions about faith have been so challenging to us that laypersons couldn’t handle it without having some sort of faith crisis. And since we have so utterly failed to engage the laity in deep theological growth, most of us find ourselves unprepared to answer the kinds of questions posed by the New Atheists. We as clergy should not be afraid of Dr. Dawkins, Mr. Hitchens or Mr. Maher. Rather, we should relish the opportunity to engage our congregants in deeper theological study. The Rev. Deuel is a pastor in the Illinois Great Rivers Conference. This commentary first appeared at his blog.
Will Deuel
