God is Great or Not Great? That is the Question

Read this article from National Review Online. It contains some interesting logic from the right, logic that is faulty in my view. Read it carefully and please give me your comments. I will get us started by writing comment to my own blog entry by the end of the day. The most interesting debate in the public arena may eventually be science vs. religion, very meaningful public discourse to say the least.

The God Defense --- Fr. Williams takes questions.

Father Thomas D. Williams is author of Greater Than You Think, a direct answer to Christopher Hitchens (God Is Not Great), Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion), and a whole host of others. Fr. Williams, a Catholic priest who teaches theology at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University in Rome, recently answered questions from National Review Online editor Kathryn Jean Lopez on God, man, and books. Kathryn Jean Lopez: There seem to be so many anti-God books on my bookshelf at once. What’s the occasion?Fr. Thomas D. Williams: The two biggest factors at play are money and radical Islam. With The DaVinci Code, Dan Brown showed that atheism sells, and sparked a whole cottage industry in atheist literature. The neo-atheists authors jumped on the lucrative DaVinci bandwagon and are laughing all the way to the bank. Secondly, especially after 9/11, Americans are rightly petrified of what Islamic fundamentalists are willing to do to advance their agenda. The new atheists have exploited this fear of religious fanaticism and extended it to all religion, even moderate Christianity.

But this doesn’t mean that atheism per se is on the rise. The recent study of the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life shows that atheists still make up a miniscule minority of Americans. Atheism isn’t growing. Atheists are just getting noisier.Americans are curious and like to hear why atheists think the way they do. We are also into conspiracy theories and love to hear wild stories of cover-ups, especially when the bad guy is a big institution like the Church or government. Finally, for the many who have ceased actively practicing their faith, the neo-atheist books provide a veneer of respectability and justification for their inactivity.Lopez: There also seem to be a lot of books in retaliation. What makes yours different?Fr. Williams: Mine is a simple, point-by-point rebuttal of the atheists’ central claims. I read through all the recent atheist literature (a little pre-Lenten penance!) and distilled the atheists’ accusations against God and religion into 27 theses. In my book, each atheist thesis forms a short chapter in which I respond head-on to the accusation. I think readers will find this to be a clear, helpful approach for understanding the crux of the neo-atheist arguments and having convincing answers at the ready.Lopez: Is someone picking up your book going to have to agree that Catholicism is the one true faith?Fr. Williams: Not at all. That isn’t the purpose of this book. It’s not an apologetics for the truth of Catholicism or even of Christianity more broadly. It is simply a dismantling of the atheists’ claims to show that they are based on myth, fallacy, and historical inaccuracy. From this, people can see that atheism isn’t a more “rational” worldview than religious belief; they are free to believe without feeling like they have adopted a less credible view of reality. In fact, it is more credible.Lopez: How does Christopher Hitchens confuse you with an Islamofascist?Fr. Williams: Very cleverly. Hitchens writes well, and people who are taken in by his wordsmithery easily overlook his logical lacunae. He narrates detailed stories where religious people behave badly, and then applies that particular judgment to religion in general. In this way all religious believers are guilty by association of the crimes of the most fanatical. This is like blaming all Americans for Timothy McVeigh’s Oklahoma bombing or blaming all doctors for Jack Kevorkian’s medical misbehavior.Lopez: What’s the most absurd point the atheist books make?Williams: There are so many it’s tough to choose just one. Among the more absurd is the accusation that parents who raise their children to believe in God are guilty of child abuse. This claim is especially worrisome because it demeans the gravity of real child abuse, and also seeks to impose an atheist standard on child-rearing. We easily forget how the imposition of atheism education failed so miserably in the former Soviet states. If the ACLU were really concerned about hate-mongering, they might say a word about these dangerous charges.Lopez: What’s the best point they make?Fr. WilliAms: The best anti-God arguments are the classics — the ones that thoughtful people have wrestled with for millennia. Of these, the strongest is the existence of evil and the suffering of the innocent. Surprisingly, however, in their search for novelty our neo-atheist authors pay little attention to these more substantial arguments. They prefer to pit religion against science (a hopeless enterprise) and to make religion look like the culprit for all the world’s ills (another impossible task).Lopez: So, say, you’re a typical Joe or Jane who believes and you are confronted with casual atheists at work, at school, at play. What do you do or say without being preachy? Or is preachy good? It usually doesn’t win fans in, say, the locker room though?Fr. Williams: There’s no need to be preachy. In my opinion, preachy is never good. The last thing we should do is assault a casual atheist with a battery of biblical quotations. This is a guaranteed turn-off. Sincere non-believers need to be heard, understood, and addressed with respect and seriousness. Again, I think the best way to do this is to first show that atheism does not hold the moral high ground, and that religious belief does not require a suspension of reason, but its full engagement. Sometimes it’s enough just to make people question their own assumptions and prejudices against religion. We don’t need to leave the locker room having made converts out of our agnostic friends. We need to start them re-thinking their position.Lopez: Can you teach morality without religion? Does it work without religion?Fr. Williams: Morality can be taught without religion, but experience shows that it rarely takes hold. Our nation’s Founders were convinced that morality without religious belief and practice is destined to fail, and this seems to be the case historically. But the important question isn’t so much whether morality is possible (in rare cases) without religion. A much better question is whether religion bolsters morality or undermines it. Here, the answer is patently clear: religion sustains and fortifies a moral citizenry by providing an ethical code, divine sanction, a standard for conduct, and the assurance of eternal justice.Lopez: “WWJD?” is the popular expression. Can you pretend to know what he’d say, say, to Christopher Hitchens or Richard Dawkins?Fr. Williams: That depends. Jesus was quite indulgent with the sincerely erroneous, but severe with hypocrites. I don’t pretend to know the state of Hitchens’ soul or whether Dawkins really believes what he writes. I also don’t know what life experiences influenced their choice for atheism. I suspect, however, that Jesus would invite these men to openness to a greater truth, a truth that they cannot control or manipulate. This is a frightening endeavor, since it involves stepping into the unknown, but life without transcendence, without God, is the saddest of existences.Lopez: What’s this pope got to offer Americans rich in a culture of hostility toward God — at least, it would seem, in the publishing industry?

Fr. Williams: He has repeated the cri de coeur of his predecessor, John Paul II: “Don’t be afraid! Open your hearts to Christ!” Atheism is a “safe” position, and Benedict invites all to a greater courage in exploring the deeper truths of the world, without being afraid of what we might find.

Pope Benedict is a firm believer in and defender of human reason, and is convinced of the power of the human mind to reach the truth. He has engaged in very fruitful dialogue with noted agnostics in Europe, and has encouraged this dialogue for believers and non-believers everywhere.Lopez: Why do people believe that Christians hate sex? Is that our fault? Can we do something about it short of embracing Carrie Bradshaw?Fr. Williams: People never like to be told “You can’t do that.” We don’t like people putting moral restrictions on our behavior, or telling us that our lifestyle is sinful. So there will always be resistance to Christian sexual morality, which places sexual intimacy in the context of the marriage covenant. In reality, Christianity is extremely “pro-sex,” but it will never be “pro-adultery” or “pro-fornication.”Perhaps in past generations too much emphasis was placed on sexual morality in the larger context of Christian morality generally, and perhaps Christians insisted more on what is forbidden than on the immense adventure of faithful sexual love. The explosion of interest in Theology of the Body, ignited by Pope John Paul II, has begun a revolution in this regard. People are realizing that the Church’s message on human sexuality is liberating and fulfilling, and even exciting.Lopez: Father: Why would a great God ask faithfully married couples to put themselves in constant danger of having another child — to lay off birth control? Isn’t he realistic? Can’t he let us get with the times?Fr. Williams: I don’t think keeping up with the times was very high on Jesus’ list of priorities. Moreover, he never claimed to be a realist. When confronted with the difficulties of his teachings, Jesus blithely replied that “what is impossible for men is possible for God.” In reality, Christians have never gauged their morality on the reigning standards of the moment. Perhaps one of our problems is that too often we frame the question of having another child as a “danger” rather than a blessing. We have our idea of the perfect family, without sufficient openness to what God may have in mind. And if we really must put off having another child, even permanently, there are ethical ways of doing so. They do, unfortunately, demand personal sacrifice—something that none of us likes—but they are effective.Lopez: Father: What’s really wrong with two consenting adults getting to fully know one another? Aren’t Catholic prohibitions against premarital sex unrealistic?Fr. Williams: Again, here we have the “realism” question again. God expects more of us than we think we are capable of. He demands selfless, faithful love. He demands that we pardon our enemies and those who have hurt us. He demands that we give from our want, and not only from our surplus. Why does he ask such difficult, such “unrealistic” things? Because he is calling us to greatness. He is calling us to realize our potential and to grow in resemblance to Jesus. Is this unrealistic? If we were left to our own devices, yes. With the assistance of his grace, no.Lopez: What you’ve said there – How do we lay the groundwork for that in high school and college, where handing out condoms seems to be the default position? Do Catholics have to offer something to everyone here?

Fr. Williams: Most people nowadays think that perfect continence is impossible. They think that an active sex life is as necessary for the body as eating and drinking. They think that it is absurd, even unhealthy to ask kids to be chaste. Yet this is a myth that has been created to promote the agenda of the sexual revolution. In reality, very many kids lead happy, healthy, well-rounded lives without engaging in sexual activity. We need to remind kids that the sexual messages of our contemporary society undervalue their real potential. Pressures to lose one’s virginity are unfair to young people, and Christian educators abdicate their responsibility when they cave into society’s criteria and assume that young people are incapable of virtuous living. We need to call young people to greatness, and show them that it is possible.

Lopez: Do Christians hate science?Fr. Williams: Christians have been in the forefront of scientific investigation from the outset and any supposed rift between science and religion is an historical fabrication. Just as the Church actively patronized the arts, so, too, it sponsored and encouraged scientific research. Atheists love to point to the Galileo case as proof that the Church hates science. The very fact that the only case ever presented is Galileo’s demonstrates how rare Church interference in scientific study was. What the atheists studiously avoid is any mention of the countless discoveries made by Christian scientists, who saw their science as fully compatible with their faith. Many scientists were even religious brothers, monks and priests (such as Gregor Mendel, the father of modern genetics). While some fundamentalist Christians may oppose science, this has never been the position of orthodox Christianity. If any hostility exists, it comes not from believers, but from atheist scientists who feel challenged by religious belief.Lopez: Then why do so many insist we do? Do we have a communications problem?Fr. Williams: Some scientists, such as Richard Dawkins, insist on absolute incompatibility between science and religion because they don’t want to admit that there are important questions that science cannot answer. They would like to believe that the only questions that matter are scientific questions. Others try to undermine the authority of religious belief because it would impose ethical restrictions on their research. Finally, as noted above, some fundamentalists give a bad name to religious belief by insisting on a blind fideism that is inimical to science. Little attention is paid, however, to the numerous projects today where science and faith work hand in hand.Lopez: Let’s say I’m attracted to the “God Is Not Great” way of thinking but not sure. What should I consider?Fr. Williams: Read my book! I will challenge every assumption and claim made by Christopher Hitchens and his gang. Above all, I would ask for openness and a willingness to consider the claims of Christianity without prejudice. In the end, both atheism and religious belief are choices; in other words, they involve the will and not just the intellect. No empirical proof will definitively prove or disprove God’s existence. We all must consider the testimony at our disposal and make a personal choice about the nature of the universe and the meaning of human existence. In my mind, the global proposal made by Christianity explains the world and my life infinitely better than materialistic claims regarding the nature of things.Lopez: If God were so great, why are we in this mess?Fr. Williams: Part of God’s greatness, according to Christian theology, is his willingness to allow people to act without coercion. He assists us, but our lives and our world are truly in our hands. He made us free and respects our freedom. This means that things will go wrong. The world is not a Swiss watch, where every part fits perfectly with every other part. Humanity is a mishmash of passion and self-control, selfishness, and love, personal interest and generosity, reason and irrationality. We are called to the triumph of good over evil and reason over chaos, but the perfect world we dream of will happen only in the world to come.Lopez: Are you trying to convert all NRO readers? Are these billable priest hours?Fr. Williams: I don’t hope to convert anyone. What I do believe is that the Holy Spirit is at work in the hearts and minds of every person on earth, inviting them to belief and to conversion. If my words can trigger a greater openness to that invitation, I am delighted. Jesus called his disciples “sowers,” people who scatter to the four winds the Good News of the Gospel. Some of that seed will fall on fertile soil and bear fruit. That is not due to the talent of the sower, but to the excellence of the seed and God’s burning desire that all men and women discover the power and beauty of his love.