All Comments for: New Atheists Are Not Great | Christianity Today

Free Newsletters:

RSS Feeds |

Audio |

Twitter

Home > 2008 > March

Christianity Today, March, 2008 |

New Atheists Are Not Great

In What's So Great About Christianity, Dinesh D'Souza is skeptical of skepticism and enthusiastic about the faith.

Tony Snow | posted 3/13/2008 09:30AM

Dinesh D'Souza is skeptical of skepticism and enthusiastic about the faith. by Tony Snow » There are two types of Christian apologetics. One makes the positive case for faith; the other responds ...

[Reader Reviews]

Average User Rating:

Rate and Comment on this article

Displaying 1 - 25 of 69 comments.

Page: 1 2 3

Show All

BRS	Posted: March 26, 2008 7:52 PM


Christianity was not about war and not about materialism. It was not about empire and eternal war for mankinds salvation. Whatever it is that Snow is trying to say is lost by the actions of the administration he shilled for.

Dan P

Posted: March 26, 2008 4:03 PM

I find this to be an incredibly frustrating read. Questions like: "can science explain love?", "why can't logic explain why we are here?" are incredibly pointless. There are things we don't know, and there are things we may never even be able to perceive. Does that mean that the religious answer is at all viable? When it comes down to it, you have to ask yourself: does this make sense? Religion can give you the answer to why we are here. We were created by an all powerful being, we have a personal relationship with him, the universe was created with us in mind. Does this make any sense? Is there any REASON for believing? I was afraid at the lack of meaning of life when I accepted that there was no god, but I soon became incredibly optimistic, because my life is my own. That is in no way selfish, it is the truth. Accept responsibility for your own existence, and be a moral and good person because that's who you are, not because you're afraid of a fairy tale.

chris

Posted: March 22, 2008 5:08 AM

i recently read this and was astonished at the outright dishonesty.... putting a positive spin on christian atrocities does not excuse them. unfortunately christian apologetics seldom rises above this level. the claim that the horrors of the 20th century were due to atheism is a common ploy, but communism and and its attendant personality cults can hardly be called atheistic. as a recent atheist "convert" i found absolutely nothing in this book that would steer me back towards faith. i admit that i was half hoping i would find something in it that would, but was left disappointed.

Martha M.

Posted: March 21, 2008 8:49 AM

"This leads us to perhaps the strongest argument against atheism... Atheism cannot reach our hearts. A rigorous atheist cannot console in a time of grief, cannot explain love... etc" That's "the perhaps strongest argument"?? It cannot reach our hearts, so it can't be true? Well, I think there you have the main difference between Dawkins and D'Souza. Dawkins is interested in truth, even if truth may rob him of comfortable delusions. D'souza seems interested in what makes him feel good. That's not the same as truth. Things won't become true just because you prefer them.

Dr. Robert

Posted: March 20, 2008 1:34 PM

I see the real reason of the problem not as religion but the lack of it. Man talks about the rape and murder of millions umder the title of Christian movements, but they do not want to acknowledge the deaths causes by religions of Atheistic areas like Russia and the Communistic realms of Korea, China and the people of Africa. We are dealing with hate and ethnic power struggles. We are not talking about religion. When it comes to religion and religious bias, one needs to distinguish between the religions of the world. Buddhism, Islamism, Judo-Christianisms. One need look at the real truths. If man is the product of evolution, then he is nothing more than a animal. As an animal there are no morals. Rape does not exist between animals. Premeditated murder doesnot exist in the animal kingdom. Laws and legality does not exist in the animal kingdom. It is not eat or be eatten, it is eat only when you are hungry. Man is the only creature that kills for profit!

God Hater

Posted: March 19, 2008 1:33 PM


I wish I believed in your god so I'd have the comfort of knowing you both would be spending eternity in hell for all the hateful things you do in your god's name. Oh well. I do believe in karma, and reincarnation, so I at least have the comfort of knowing you'll be back in your next lives as dung beetles.

Joe Chip

Posted: March 19, 2008 12:18 PM

Tony Snow does Christianity no favors here. Is he *actually* arguing that the Inquisition is no big deal because only 2,000 people were killed? How strange. How un-Christian. But I suppose it follows, since Snow is a lying mouthpiece for a war criminal whose immoral, violent actions have killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and 4,000 American troops. Tony, you will be judged for helping to continue an immoral war and for spreading falsehoods to do so. Your hands drip with blood. How many of the Dawkins and Hitchens brand of atheists can boast the same?

SteveB

Posted: March 19, 2008 9:18 AM

AlexK: I’m saying you have yet to actually answer the basic objection. Last time: Wilson and Ruse have enough intellectual credibility to understand (or admit…) that in a matter and energy universe in which morality is just another arbitrary construct formed from a pool of random accidents (and this is not controversial—random mutations are the only raw material that Natural Selection or any other process you care to name has to work with, according to the reigning model), the naturalist has no basis to say that X is “good” and Y is “bad;” they both simply “are.” I’m not quoting the Bible here; these are noted experts from your side of the aisle, and they say (excerpting): “Morality is an adaptation; ethics is an illusion fobbed off on us, without external grounding.” Clearly you don’t like this (lots of exclamation marks in your post…), but, equally clearly, the facts are what they are, and any frustration that this causes you is not my issue. Best wishes to you, -sb

Alex K

Posted: March 18, 2008 4:24 PM

SteveB. So are you actually saying that you had read Dawkins properly and did understand what sense of good or evil he was referring to when you made the statement that it was incoherent of Dawkins to make moral judgements? Are you saying that when you made the extraordinary statement that the work in the evolutionary origins of morality was ‘unobserved & untestable’ that you were familiar with the large amount of testable evidence that is referenced in the books I mentioned? OK then, sorry for the ‘haven’t bothered reading up’ lines – I found this a kinder interpretation. Furthermore, after making an amazing claim on the 'unobserved & untestable' nature of a major research program, providing utterly no evidence for this claim and when I reference three books which give hundreds of references to counter your empty claim, you have the cheek to say that “I am avoiding or waving away actual content”!!! Truly amazing!!! Sorry but I've had enough.

Lowtax

Posted: March 18, 2008 2:36 PM


http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=2801617 come make fun of the poor deluded retard here.

SteveB

Posted: March 18, 2008 1:18 PM

Hi AlexK: Thanks again for the “if you actually bothered to read” defense, which seems to be a favorite of yours, the assumption being that if you don’t buy the naturalist line, you must not have read enough about it. You do well too with making grand assertions and quoting titles at a high level, while either avoiding or waving away actual content, which is sadly typical. But for the sake of argument, I accept that W&R's stuff is not “a radical new idea!!!,” in spite of the fact that The Evolution of Ethics was written in 1991. The problem for you is that age is irrelevant; I never claimed it was “new!!!” merely that it was accurate, given naturalist assumptions. If you disagree with W&R, tell me why. If you can’t (without "the last few centuries of the philosophy” red herrings and sweeping ad-hominem claims of “ignorance”), admit it and move on. But I’ve seen all such rhetorical tricks too many times to be impressed by them. Are you either willing or able to discuss actual content?

AD Skeptic

Posted: March 18, 2008 12:52 PM

While I don't wish to base an objection to this article on an ad hominem attack, I would point out that White House press secretaries don't exactly have an unquestionable claim on the truth... That said, his most outlandish assertion is that atheists can't love or feel a sense of wonder. How untrue! I hold no beliefs in anything supernatural, but deeply love my wife and family. I'm utterly fascinated by the natural world; and do what I can to help others. Just because I can explain all of these in evolutionary terms, doesn't invalidate them, or make me hold them less dear. Some atheists do really altruistic acts, others really evil things. Some Christians do really good things; others really terrible things. Do you want p values to show that there's no statistically significant difference between the two...?

Dave M.

Posted: March 18, 2008 9:58 AM


One needn't read this article to know it's full of lies, exaggerations, and disingenuous "spin." Just look at Tony's prior body of work for the Bush administration! Predictably, once you strip away all of the above from his article, not even the faintest embers of cogent discourse remain.

Ben	Posted: March 18, 2008 9:30 AM

I found D'Souza's arguments in "What's So Great About Christianity" to be little more than a florid rehash of the same tired apologetics that have been repeatedly crucified (if you'll excuse the pun) by more rational arguments by the theist polemics. As an agnostic scientist seeking to renew my faith, I find this constant rewording and repetition of previously discredited arguments drives me in the opposite direction. It only serves to hightlight the fact that my loss of faith was, in reality, only the shedding of a thin veneer that hid the underlying truth.

Brian

Posted: March 18, 2008 9:23 AM

Sounds like neither D'Souza nor Snow read the books they misquote. Ah, well, D'Souza has no reputation to damage. He is a null. Can't quote accurately, can't think straight, and especially can't shut up long enough to even consider the logic of what he just said, before moving one to yet another fallacy. Watch his "debate" with Daniel Dennett. D'Souza is not fit to debate with. He needs a muzzle built so he can say only one thing, then it clamps tight so his audience can think about what he said, in peace & quiet. Once they see the mistakes in his logic, then the muzzle releases so he can spout off another bit of nonsense. For Snow to admire this trash speaks volumes.

Alex K

Posted: March 18, 2008 7:22 AM

SteveB: Sorry to burst your bubble again but if you actually bothered to read the literature you would find that the evolutionary origins of morality research program does indeed put out falsifiable predictions which are tested against the evidence (particularly altruism research). And is certainly more fruitful than the ‘God must have done it’ non-program. Please read a book like ‘Moral Minds’ by Hauser or ‘Evolutionary Origins of Morality’ by Joyce or ‘Primates and Philosophers: How Morality Evolved’ by Frans de wal. As to the metaethics questions on external standards, you are seriously ignorant of the last few centuries of the philosophy of ethics if you think that Wilson and Ruse’s conclusion on the lack of external foundations is a radical new idea!!! There are numerous schools of thought on how (or what are) moral judgements can be made in the lack of a godly or Platonic foundation. In fact I had already given you some suggestions! Read the experts and connect the dots.

Stunned

Posted: March 18, 2008 4:15 AM


Ignorant, offensive drivel. That this person held high office in a nation's government is, quite frankly, ridiculous.

Atheist

Posted: March 18, 2008 1:57 AM


Dang, and I really respected Tony Snow- no joking.

TonyA

Posted: March 18, 2008 12:08 AM

I am very disappointed by the ignorance and arrogant bigotry exhibited by Tony Snow in this article. I had previously held him in high regard. Others have pointed out many of the offensive or illogical examples. Here is another: SNOW: "It also dodges the big question: If reason can explain everything, why can't it explain where things come from?" Surely, it is because people of reason do not simply make up answers when the answer isn't known. Theism has no such handicap. The theist is not bounded by reason when making claims to knowledge that he does not possess.

dirtyape

Posted: March 17, 2008 11:25 PM

The article is biased. It is a good source of humour though, do Christians actually believe this stuff? How can people claim to be of a religion when they do not know anything about it's history? Dark Ages - caused by Christianity and the collapse of the Roman empire. Crusades - millions raped and murdered by "good" Christian militants (are they now in heaven?). Inquisition, tens of thousands tortured into false confessions and burned to death. The reality is that even Chimpanzees form social "laws" and recognise that killing each other is "bad" and that helping one another is "good". The fact that your holy doctrine attempts to take credit for what is so blatantly not it's doing is deplorable. To your ignorant eyes, was there no morality before Christianity? Or did it simply "redefine" what morality is and take credit for all the stuff that already existed. See your religion for what it is, a smart man's way to control large numbers of people. baaaaa

Mark P

Posted: March 17, 2008 8:51 PM

Mr. Snow wrote: While the chief atheists write beautifully, their works share a telling defect. They seethe with disapproval of God. Mr. Snow completely misunderstands atheism. We don't "disapprove" of your god. We deny the existence of that god and all other gods. Its hard to disapprove of something that isn't there! Unfortunately for the religious people, our collective knowledge of how our universe actually works and exists is expanding too quickly for you to keep your god-based view mainstream. In the past, you could claim superior knowledge because you had the bible on your side. Everyday we find more information that exposes the untruths in that work of fiction. As more young people become exposed to the fallacy of the religions, rational thinking will win out.

JamesM

Posted: March 17, 2008 8:08 PM

Do you really think anyone is impressed by the old Stalin/Pol Pot/Hitler argument anymore? If you look at any of these regimes it striking how many similarities they have with god based religions i.e. 1) nonsense claims about the world (communism - super 3 year harvests Nazis - the 'super race' from Tibet etc). 2) the dogmatism in there stupid beliefs not supported by evidence 3)the punishment for non belief of their stupid doctrine. etc For want of a better word Nazism and Communism are just political religions. They may lack a supernatural god (although there leaders are frequently viewed to be worthy of worship). Basically a lot of the bad things that happen in the world are because of dogmatic belief not supported by evidence. Judeao/Christian religion is one of the most enduring/damaging forms of this human nonsense and hence why it is attacked as is Nazism and other silly belief.

mark	Posted: March 17, 2008 7:19 PM


D'Souza doing what he does best, lying for jesus. Non of his arguements hold any water and most of what he says can only be described as gibberish.

Mark Plus

Posted: March 17, 2008 7:13 PM


President Bush has imprisoned, tortured and slaughtered heaps of Muslim creationists in Iraq and Afghanistan. But Bush's christian supporters give him a pass on these abuses of human life because the victims profess the "wrong" beliefs about god. No wonder many of the world's Muslims now consider Bush an atheist.

Davey

Posted: March 17, 2008 6:17 PM

Sorry, but more than once I've seen references to the French Revolution as 'atheist', including one in the article. Having read a history book or two, this is quite clearly rubbish. The revolutionaries executed many French atheist thinkers, including one who tried to set up a "Church to Reason" and instead instituted the "Festival of the Supreme Being", where they gave praise and thanks to "He who created the world" and "He who created men to help each other, to love each other, and to attain to happiness by way of virtue." The revolutionaries may have had beef with the Catholic church that had, in their view, abetted their suffering, but that didn't make them atheists any more than it made Martin Luther one. Ill-researched statements like these just give religions detractors _more_ ammunition.

Page: 1 2 3

E-mail this page

Write CT

Print this article

Post a comment