Why the new spate of atheistic books? Is it a sign of secular strength?
To the contrary, secularism is an aging phenomenon of the dying First World that is terrified of the worldwide growth of theism. There might have been a time to fear secularism, when it was young and sweeping everything before it in Russia and Central Europe. There must have been a time before millions died when folk like Shaw could still pretend to see in secularist experiments hope for mankind. In Victorian England where morality and progress seemed strong enough to not need any foundations, then society without God could look appealing.
Not so much now.
Bluntly, secularism is in trouble globally. Most of its happy sociological assumptions, such as the inevitable rise of atheism with the rise of education have been shown false. It has not developed in the slightest, presenting the same tired arguments one could have read in the late nineteenth century. In the last fifty years philosophical theism has undergone a renaissance and Christianity is in the midst of a global revival. In the face of this, skeptics are replying with the same tired arguments and are most powerful in those nations and sectors of society in demographic trouble.
J.P. Moreland’s new book The Kingdom Triangle
is a good summary of the rise of intelligent and miraculous Christianity.
Pastorally one meets a few young secularists, but they usually are motivated by a desire to avoid regulation of youthful desires. Children remind all but the most selfish that inventing social rules for self is not the best way to raise the next generation and they outgrow this phase.
A few hope that getting rid of all religion will decrease dissension or bring on a new era of rationalism. These are the same lies told in the nineteenth century and the experiment was tried and did not work. Some, especially in the hard sciences, are ignorant enough of history not to know that science without religion is sterile and capable of great evil. There will always be a market for a comforting story, however, and enough people have been actually harmed by toxic forms of religion that a few people will always be attracted to Victorian secularism in a new dress.
The new secularist writing is not very new, after all, but it appeals to a part of the population afraid of changing times. As secularism fails across Europe and parts of America like New England, secularists cling to simplistic doctrines hoping to make sense of that change. Fearful times, like those in which we live, often lead to the rise of this type of narrow secularism. It happened during the Industrial Revolution and it is happening now.
Of course, fringe religious groups also exist, but these new secularists cannot distinguish between good and toxic forms. Instead of encouraging the good and standing against the bad, it is easier to condemn everything and get another drink. This sort of fearful and reactionary secularism is most on display in Christopher Hitchen’s new book. It might comfort the fearful secularist trapped in a geriatric philosophy (and so will sell well to that community), but it it will have little appeal for those on the outside (about 90% of us).
If you eliminate the short-term appeal of hedonism, “scientism,” and scorn, then there is not much left to the new secularism. Being “against religion” is not much of a basis for life and secularists are for things like “reason” and “science” that everybody likes. The devil, and he also is there whether one believes in him or not, is always in the details of how “reason” and “science” work!
Atheism does have one slender marketing advantage.
Since the rise of advertising to target demographic groups, it has been valuable for marketers to convince young adults to be trendy and consume new products. Done well this continuous conspicuous consumption can last a lifetime. Since traditional religion wants people to be happy, it is opposed to this attempt to consume our way to happiness. As a result, religion is never “cool,” but always happier.
You just cannot find happiness in short-term godless pleasure.
The sad case of Christopher Hitchens is the perfect example. Hitchens may party, but he incarnates why this is not a good lifestyle through middle age. Reading Christopher Hitchens on religion is like reading G.K. Chesterton without his wit or point, but with all the stylistic excess. One still gets wonderful and unexpected sentences, but the whole texts ceases to make an argument altogether, turning into an assertion linked to a sneer.
Atheists have a problem. Secularism hasn’t produced much historically and is fairly unappealing. When it has been placed in charge of a culture, it either killed millions in brutal states nobody would imitate or committed demographic suicide in dead end socialist Western Europe. Since the 1960′s secularists have manged to shoot through centuries of accumulated cultural confidence and capital in just under five decades.
Unless the new Benedict is as great as his namesake much that is great in Western Europe will almost surely be lost. As even a quick stroll in any European city will show, the best of European culture is Christian.
Culturally Hitchens is simply and utterly wrong. If the cultural contributions of Christianity were removed how impoverished Britain would be! From the development of the university, to the Cathedral of Saint Paul, to the development of modern science, to hospitals, to the poetry of Donne and Milton the British Isles are awash in the gifts of the Christian religion. Science would not exist without it and a generation with technical, but little human education should not be trusted with it. Only religion can keep the two together.
Morally Hitchens and the new secularists cheat at every turn. They believe in doing “right,” but never ground it in anything. Pleasure, easy pleasure, threatens to overwhelm them. Hitchens, to his credit, wants to fight the War on Terror, but his secular friends cannot be convinced to do so. It is not pleasant to die for a culture when you believe that this life is all there is. Why not just live for self? Why die for King and country or raise children when one can simply eat, drink, and be merry?
Hitchens can give no sufficient reason to end the personal selfishness that will destroy any secular state. It is no accident that Stalin had to make his peace with Orthodoxy and rely on the love of Holy Mother Russia in World War II to save himself. Fortunately, there was enough memory of old Russia to save him in one of histories great ironies. Secularism is fundamentally parasitic.
Hitchens must simplify religion or he loses. As a result all religion is equal in his eyes and the sins of one group applied freely to another. For example, he seemingly cannot grasp for long the differences between the form of Islam that dominated the powerful, very stable, and culturally important Ottoman Empire for centuries and more extreme forms that motivate some terrorists at the Islamic edges. The religious and philosophical arguments of Oxford philosopher Richard Swinburne are ignored or passed off with ridicule in the new atheism, but not answered. Instead of dealing with religions best arguments, they seem fascinated with the fringes. When J.P. Moreland argues for Christianity, he is not met with new arguments from these proponents of a degenerate secularism, but only an attempt to drown out the dialectic with shouting.
In the new atheist mythology, whatever good religion does is accidental and all the harms done in its name are part of the package, but this seems very unlikely. Stalin proves that men don’t need religion to be evil (though at his most offensive Hitchens sounds like he blames the deaths of twenty-two million or so Orthodox Christians at the hands of atheism on Orthodoxy). In fact, the hardest thing is to motivate men and women to live for others and give their lives in service. Religion has done this millions of times and it is not accident that the religious are more charitable (in their giving) than non-theists.
Soon Hugh Hewitt will host a discussion between the Harvard-trained pastor Mark Roberts and Christopher Hitchens. I am confident that my friend Mark will demonstrate (at the very least) the confidence of his view of reality and the fragility of Hitchen’s faith commitment.
Roberts can doubt any particular miracle and remain a supernaturalist but Hitchens must doubt them all. Roberts is open to the validity of any religious experience, while Hitchens must explain them all away. Roberts can see design in nature or believe the Creator acted in undetectable ways, Hitchens must not see the Creator anywhere.
I pity Hitchens and other atheists of this sort. They seem like very unhappy people. I have been unhappy and do not wish it upon anyone. In love, divine love, I found forgiveness, healing, and happiness. I trust and pray that Hitchens finds this as well.
His ideas are bad, but he is not the foe. His unhappiness and anger are just a symptom of what happens when even capable and good men try to be gods. We should pray that he is able to find the truth and see reality as it is.
