Well, we made it. Here we are: the final post of my extended book analysis of Jerry Coyne’s Faith vs. Fact. In this post, I want to not only wrap up my analysis of Coyne’s book, but I also want to reflect a bit on all my previous book analyses on the New Atheist Movement. It was a good 8-10 years ago that I decided to first sit down and actually read what the New Atheists had to say. I read Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion, Sam Harris’ The End of Faith, and Christopher Hitchens’ god is Not Great and wrote an extended book analysis on each one. (You can begin to read them if you click on each book title. It will take you to the first post in each analysis. You can navigate to find the other posts by either clicking “next post” at the bottom of each post, or by typing in each author’s name in the search box). Over the course of the past few years, I’ve read a number of other books, written a post or two on various New Atheist topics, and specifically this year, have written three more book analyses: godless and Mere Morality by Dan Barker, and now Faith vs. Fact by Jerry Coyne. I can now officially say that I’m quite sick of reading about the New Atheist Movement.
Sure, the book analyses have been somewhat of an interesting intellectual exercise. After all, it is a good thing to analyze and critique certain arguments and then make counter arguments to show why such arguments are faulty. At the same time, though, it all can get rather old and tiresome. I can’t say I enjoyed writing the book analyses. In the end, it got pretty depressing to read the same intellectually lazy and pedantic arguments over and over again. For that reason, I don’t see myself writing much about the New Atheist Movement anytime in the near future. It’s the same reason my writing on Young Earth Creationism has considerably dropped off as well—at a certain point, you just realize there’s nothing there. It is all just the same circular arguments and confirmation bias.
I’ve long said that Richard Dawkins (or Jerry Coyne, or any other “new atheist) is just the doppleganger of Ken Ham. Each one holds each other up as the big bad boogieman as a way to scare his own following into swearing even more allegiance to his own little crusade. The ironic thing, though, despite the fact that each one comes to polar opposite conclusions regarding evolution and the age of the earth, each one nevertheless makes many of the same arguments and assumptions regarding biblical interpretation (Genesis 1-11, in particular, as well as a select few other books like Job and Jonah), theology, and history. Each one views Christian scholars and academics who accept evolution and who do not see Genesis 1-11 as literal history as “syncretists,” “liberals,” and “compromisers” who have just “turned everything into a metaphor or whatever” because they think that science has “proven the Bible to be a fairytale.” And both assume that “real” Christians are right-wing YECists who read the Bible with a wooden literalism all the way through.
Indeed, there are so many similarities between the arguments of new atheists and young earth creationists alike, my study of them over these past few years has actually made me change my views regarding the typical lines of demarcation society tends to use, be it “Christian vs. atheist,” “creationist vs. evolutionist,” or even “liberal vs. conservative.” I know many fellow Christians who are thoughtful, engaging, and honest in discussing their views, and I know some who are arrogant, antagonistic ideologues who are incredibly divisive and judgmental. The same can be said for all the other categories I just mentioned. I suppose my point is this: regardless of whether or not you call yourself a Christian, atheist, creationist, evolutionist, liberal or conservative, the moment that becomes your ideology (or perhaps we should call it, your “idology”) is probably going to be the moment that you start resembling the “works of the flesh” that the Apostle Paul describes in Galatians 5.
If I Were an Atheist…
In any case, if there is one thing of which I’ve become convinced about the New Atheist Movement, it is this: Their arguments that there is no God or that religion/faith/Christianity is a delusion and the greatest danger to the human race simply are horrible. They are utterly unconvincing. And, in the process of reading and critiquing them over these past few years, I’ve naturally pondered questions like, “What would my view of religion be if I were an atheist?” and “If I were an atheist, what would be my reason for not believing that God exists?” Well, here are some of my tentative thoughts and answers to those questions.
1. If I was an atheist…the reason I wouldn’t be a Christian would be quite simple. I would point to the divisions within Christianity, the corruption and missteps within Christianity throughout history, and I would conclude that religion in general, and Christianity in particular, is just a human phenomenon that tends to bring about some good things as well as some bad things. I’d point to the Christian emphasis on being united in Christ and showing love for all mankind, then I’d point to the fact that just has never fully happened in Church history (even in the earliest churches of Paul there were conflicts and divisions), and I’d conclude, “That’s a great thing to strive for, but Christianity doesn’t seem do it much better than any other human institution or movement.”
2. Still, if I was an atheist…I would acknowledge all the good that has been done in the name of Christianity and I’d appreciate all the beauty in art, music, and literature that has been inspired by religious faith. Simply put, I wouldn’t hate Christians or Christianity.
3. If I was an atheist…I’d still reject the false narrative of the so-called Enlightenment. No, there were no “dark ages.” The medieval Church really did do a whole lot of good in rebuilding western Europe after the collapse of paganism. Given the amount of art, literature, advances in architecture and the sciences, technology…the list could go on—no one in their right might can buy the false narrative western culture has blindly accepted over the past 200 years.
4. If I was an atheist…I wouldn’t try to make science the answer to everything. I’d be okay with mystery in the world and I’d admit that there are things that science can’t address. I wouldn’t try to make science my own atheistic version of a fundamentalist religion.
5. If I was an atheist…I would acknowledge the dangers of having some sort of atheistic utopia that tried to do away with all religion. I’d acknowledge the historical fact that the most murderous and horrible societies in human history were the self-proclaimed atheistic communist regimes of the 20th century. I wouldn’t ignore that.
6. If I was an atheist…I wouldn’t deny Jesus really existed in history. I would completely reject Jesus mythicism and would see it as just as ridiculous as flat-eartherism. I’d admit Jesus was a Jewish messianic teacher in the first century who had a following, had twelve disciples, who taught about the Kingdom of God, who had the reputation of healing people, and who was crucified around 30 AD in Jerusalem during Passover by Pontius Pilate. I’d also acknowledge that all the evidence suggests that those early disciples claimed he had been physically resurrected from the dead. Of course, if I was an atheist, I wouldn’t believe he had resurrected from the dead. And if a zealous Christian pressed me on that and asked, “But how can you account for rise of Christianity if Jesus hadn’t been really resurrected?” I’d say, “I don’t know. I just don’t think dead people resurrect.” And I’d move on with my life.
7. If I was an atheist…I wouldn’t obsess over trying to “prove” that religion in general, and Christianity in particular, was the worst thing ever and the biggest danger to humanity. I’d freely admit that Christianity has done a lot of good in the world, and that there are countless Christians who are well-educated, kind, loving, and generous people. And although it is obvious that there are some who are quite nasty and horrible, I certainly wouldn’t go out of my way to broadbrush all Christians as idiots, or right-wing Bible thumpers. I’d just say I thought they were wrong about the resurrection thing and about Jesus being divine. And I’d move on and live my life the best way I know how.
8. Finally, if I was an atheist…I’d acknowledge the clear and obvious distinctions and differences between various religions. I wouldn’t be so intellectually lazy to lump them all together, as if they were all basically the same thing. I’d take the time to actually learn about them before I would attempt to critique them. And, for that matter, in light of the creation/evolution debate, I’d acknowledge that young earth creationism is a 20th-21st century fundamentalist phenomenon that stems from 7th Day Adventism, and that, despite YECist claims, there is a distinct difference between the historical Christian faith and modern YECism. Simply put, I wouldn’t assume every Christian was a YECist fundamentalist.
Conclusion
Like I said at the beginning of this post, I don’t imagine that I’ll be writing too much about the New Atheist Movement any time in the near future. I want to get back to writing about things that I actually love, not about things I disagree with. Over this upcoming school year, I will be working on writing my own Introductions to the Old and New Testaments, and so most of my blog posts this year will focus on learning about and understanding the Old and New Testaments a bit better. I hope you join me for the journey.
Very good Joel! Keep up the good fight.
Hi Joel,
While I appreciate the time and energy you put into these book reviews, I think there is a disconnect somewhere. My take on Coyne’s position is that Christians, for the most part, fall into 2 camps. Those that are ‘wooden literalists’ and don’t accept a lot of modern science; Bible is literal history, YEC, evolution is evil, etc. And those that accept most of the science and have had to ‘adjust’ their view and interpretation of the Bible. You seem to take great offense to this assertion and, in your opinion, Christians actually embrace science and have for centuries and they have never changed their position on the Bible. It’s only the few YECs and atheists that don’t know how to read the Bible in the first place that are wrong. Now, I would probably agree with you on both points but the numbers don’t seem to support your case, thus the disconnect. Here is a recent Gallup poll that shows that 40% of Americans believe in Young Earth creationism.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/261680/americans-believe-creationism.aspx
That is a whole lot of people that don’t accept current science which I think makes Coyne’s whole point. And I guarantee that not a single one of those 40% would read your book review and think; Wow, I’ve been reading the Bible all wrong, now I accept evolution and an old universe. I know this because that is not how it worked for me or anyone else I know who used to be an YEC. And if I had to guess that’s not how it worked for you. I was raised in a strict traditional religion and then, when I was older, researched the science and it overwhelmingly demonstrated evolution and an old universe. Then I went back to the Bible and realized it was not historical, inerrant, etc. Again, making Coyne’s point. It wasn’t some supernatural revelation that made me change my views, it was science. And it took several years for me to fully accept the science and replace the beliefs of my youth. And I can also confidently say that the vast majority of that 40% see you as a heretic, you’re an annihilationist for Pete’s sake, how can you say your interpretation of the Bible hasn’t changed over the years?
Hey there Jim,
Thanks for the comment. Let me try to clarify a couple of things. First, yes, Coyne divides Christians up into two basic groups: the “wooden literalists” and the “liberals” who have adjusted their views of the Bible because of science. That, I submit is a really shallow analysis. In fact, the very way he makes the distinction rests on his assumption that ORIGINALLY everyone viewed the Bible like modern YECists…and then some people “went liberal” and deviated from that original view. My point is that historically-speaking, most Christians throughout the centuries didn’t share the YECist interpretation of Genesis 1-11. The early Church Fathers discussed Genesis 1-11 in their debates with Greek philosophy; theologians since then have interpreted Genesis 1-11 in a variety of ways. Coyne, though, simply shows no knowledge of any of this. His “analysis” is really limited to a little more than modern day Evangelicalism.
Now, in terms of Evangelicalism, yes, a big chunk of them say they believe in a young earth, etc., or more properly, say they don’t believe evolution. But even then, I can guarantee you (having taught in Evangelical schools for 16 years) the vast majority who say that either (A) haven’t ever really even looked into the issue, or (B) may say that, but practically speaking, don’t really care–it makes no real impact on their daily life. So, yes a big reason for that 40% is the misinformation of organizations like “Answers in Genesis,” but I would also say it is partly because of people like Dawkins and Coyne who perpetuate this false narrative that “science” is incompatible with Christianity/the Bible. It isn’t. It is incompatible with YECism because YECism is pseudo-science and rooted in really awful biblical exegesis and interpretation.
Simply put, Coyne’s real “beef” is with modern YECism, not historical Christianity. And the fact that he doesn’t make that distinction, indeed doesn’t really make any distinctions between whole religions, is just intellectually irresponsible and lazy, in my opinion.
As for me, I never liked science. If you would have asked me as late as 2008, I would have said I didn’t believe evolution. BUT, it was my work in Biblical Studies that convinced me that Genesis 1-11 was an example of ancient Near Eastern mythological literature as far back as 1997. In addition, I grew up within Evangelicalism, and I NEVER believed the universe was 6,000 years old. When I first heard of Ken Ham in 2009, I had never heard of such a silly claim. Since then, having learned about what actual evolutionary theory is (and having distinguished it from the philosophical naturalism that Dawkins, Coyne and others tend to conflate it with), I have no problem accepting it–still, I’m not a scientist, and I’m sure time will tell it’s not a perfect theory.
In any case, I think more Evangelicals would accept the actual theory of evolution if the likes of Ken Ham and Jerry Coyne would stop telling them that “evolution=atheism.” And that really is part of the reason for the book analysis (as well as the other ones on the other New Atheists, as well as all my stuff on Ken Ham and YECism)–I see the both groups as spewing a lot of misinformation and confusing a whole lot of people. They are perpetuating this false “war” between science and faith. The “war” isn’t between science and faith–it’s between New Atheists and YECist Fundamentalists.
I hope that helps!
For the record, I wouldn’t call myself an “annihilationist.” I think it makes the most sense, sure. But it is hardly something I consider a core belief.
No it isn’t and your remark is simply disingenuous, and probably reveals a more accurate picture of why you wrote this ‘review’ in the first place.
Jim hit the nail on the head and you simply don’t like it when it’s pointed out to you.
Even as a throwaway line, much like your rubber hose remark, it tells a lot about you and how you approach scientists such as Dawkins and Coyne.
You clearly are a hopeless cause. I take the time to write a 13-post series in which I dismantle Coyne’s arguments, show where he is woefully wrong on multiple levels, and you ignore it all and just say, “Nu-uh!” The fact that your favorite retort is “You’re being disingenuous” is the hallmark of a narcissist who always projects onto others what he is himself. There is nothing disingenuous about any of my posts. I painstakingly go through tons of Coyne’s arguments and show where they are wrong. You, on the other hand, are always “asking for evidence” and “asking for further explanation,” and yet when the person takes the time to do just that, you then completely dismiss it and respond with petulance, childish insults, and attempts at being an armchair psychiatrist.
All you ever do is repeat things like a parrot from the supposed “big names” in the new atheism or Jesus mythicism movement, and you clearly don’t understand any of it because you have proven yourself wholly incapable of actually ENGAGING with arguments and questions posed to you. All you ever do is deflect and obfuscate. And the fact you are unable to discern hyperbole (i.e. beating a kid with a rubber hose) goes a long way to explain your inability to differentiate genre and your misunderstanding of what the Gospels actually are. Marinating in your ignorance might feel good to you, but you come across as arrogant as you are ignorant.
And again, no, Coyne has proven nothing. His entire book is one assertion and confirmation bias after another. He throws up 3rd grade caricatures of Christianity, attacks those with statements and assertions that don’t even make sense to the educated reader, and then pats himself on the back…and you rush in to give him a massage as well, even though you haven’t even read his book!
And yes, there IS evidence of countless miracles and healing throughout the world. Books have been written on it. But you are too lazy to read them because YOU ALREADY KNOW the supernatural doesn’t exist. What a rube.
I’m almost as exhausted by the New Atheists as you… I’ll admit to only reading half of your Jerry Coyne series. I liked your conclusion though. I often find myself wondering what my view of the world would be as an atheist. I hope it would be something similar to what you’ve written about yourself here.
Like I said, it is an intellectual exercise to go through the NA stuff, but nothing more. It isn’t really edifying or inspiring. I feel I can now say, “This is what they claim; here’s why they’re wrong; now I can leave them behind, knowing full well that I’m not missing anything.”
Many atheists it seems to me, are atheists, not so much because they’ve carefully investigated and weighed the evidence, but because, as CS Lewis admitted of himself, they’re angry at the God they profess not to believe in. I get this feeling Dawkins, Harris, Coyne, and many of the New Atheists. These otherwise erudite, critical scholars think with their emotions when it comes to religion. Their books are often just rants against the evils, real and imagined, of organized religion in general, Christianity in particular. And as Dr. Anderson has said, they are usually reacting to a fundamentalist caricature of what Christianity actually teaches.
Pax.
Lee.
@Lee
I don’t believe in fairies and I am not angry at them.
However, I have never encountered any individual or group telling me I was going to spend eternity in Hell for not having a belief in fairies.
Perhaps such issues are why atheist get angry. Not at the notion of gods, but what people do or demand or assert in the name of gods?
Just a thought.