In the Philadelphia Inquirer this weekend Dinesh D'Souza reviews Novak's book "No One Sees God". He starts out by telling us that there are finally some good books out there that have rebutted the 'attacks' on religion that Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens have written.
I'm not sure if these books so much attack religion, its a very negative word. I would agree that some of the books are a bit harsher than others when it comes to discussing religion and the idea of there being a god or higher power. If we are going to use the word 'attack' then my question is 'what is wrong with attacking an idea'? An idea that to these four men, or 'four horsemen' as some may call them are discussing, intelligently.
D'Souza says what he thinks about Novak's "No One Sees God". "It is a wise and important book". Ok, so now he does have me curious as to why he applauds this book.
D'Souza says in his review." For Novak, life raises bigger questions than the ones answered, and answerable, by science. Ultimately we want to know not merely how things work. We also ask even larger questions. Why are we here? What is our purpose? What is our final destiny? Novak credits religion with addressing the largest moral questions, not only "What is it good to do?" but also "What is it good to be?" and "What is it good to love?"
Science cannot answer all questions. The four horseman know this as we all do. The scientific method is all we have to try and figure out the bigger questions in life. I do not think religion or a believing in a higher power can answer any of these questions. It's basically the easy way out of thinking. Well, we don't understand it so it must be god.
Novak says "we are all in the same darkness''. I disagree and think that many people are way further in the dark than others. The reason for this is that they do not understand what the scientific method is or how it works.
As far as being a good moral person, religion is not needed to achieve this. I am an atheist and I consider myself a person that values human life and it has nothing to do with a god or religion.
If it were true that we needed religion to act morally, then how come the more secular and non-religious countries are the most peaceful and have less crime? Why are countries that are dominated by religion have the most bloodshed? You would think if we needed religion to be moral than the opposite would be happening.
He goes on to talk about how, even though Novak admires a few of the four horseman, he thinks they don't understand the believer. He equates their analysis of religion as the same as reading Dostoevsky or Shakespeare. He is basically saying that you cannot understand Macbeth unless you have ''a certain measure of suspended disbelief". I don't really get the connection here. I have read Dostoevsky and Shakespeare, we all know that those books are fiction. Atheists, do however, think the bible is also fiction.
D'Souza begs the question "It is also a matter of giving an account of why such a tiny minority of people in our culture have embraced vocal atheism. If atheism is so obviously convincing, Novak asks, why are so few people drawn to it? The new atheists offer no answers; indeed, scarcely any of them even raise the question."
Well, that is certainly untrue, atheists do indeed answer that question. People are afraid to say they are atheists, with good reason. Many atheists are in the closet because family members and friends would not accept them or they are afraid of the alienation it might cause them in their communities. Its not like atheists want you to be drawn towards atheism. We just want others around us to accept us and also take a deep hard look at why they believe what they do. We have tried to do this ourselves and as an atheist I marvel at nature as it is without a god being part of all it. Its science that we want people to look at and see how convincing it really is. I just don't understand believing something unconditionally just because you were told it when you were a child.
Lets take what he asks why atheism isn't that popular. Popularity does not equal that something is true. If you were in a room with 50 people and 48 said goblins were real and 2 of them said that they were not. Would you automatically go along with the 48 people just because of the numbers? Most rational people would say no.
I will take a quote from a book I am reading now that talks about how the popularity of religion vs the unpopularity of atheism really doesn't prove anything anyhow.
"One thing is clear: belief is popular. So popular, in fact, that many people find confirmation for their god in numbers alone"
"There are problems with this attempt to justify belief, however. First of all, every believer around the world, regardless of what religion he or she follows, is operating without overwhelming evidence or arguments for any of the supernatural claims they may be making. The weight of believers alone is not enough to tip the scales. Only the weight of evidence can do that." (50 Reasons People Give for Believing in God: Guy P. Harrison).
I think believers of course should be allowed to express their views and believe whatever they wish. That is what is great about living in a free country. I do not think however, that religious dogma should have a place in government. That is what many outspoken atheists fight against. Separation between church and state is critical and if we don't speak up we are afraid that our rights will be taken away based on someone else's religious beliefs.
"The truth is, most atheists are not nice, especially those that are active on the Internet.
I think the fact that such a T-shirt was made to begin with is a case of protesting too much. If you really thought atheists were nice, would you feel the need to assert it so?"
I emailed the commenter back. This person seems nice enough and it all ended on a good note. However, I can't help but think that many people do have this same idea that atheists are assholes.
What do you think?