Peter J Leithart: Solomon Amongst the Postmoderns
This is Dr. Leithart's most recent book, and it is an addition to the conversation on postmodernism. Many christian responses have been variously set against the new directions that postmodernism offers. Dr. Leithart's book is decidedly more sympathetic, but for more biblical reasons. He has not drunk for the swamp of modern philosophy and been metamorphosised into a baptized Derrida, but rather wants us to view postmodernism positively, without being uncritical, because this is what Solomon in Ecclesiates would have us do.

Modernism offered us certainties without God. Science had it all sussed. Postmodernism has seen through the smoke. Ecclesiastes tells us that in the world we live in, created and managed by the Triune God, life is still vapour and elusive. We don't have it all buttoned down, neither can we. But God is the Lord, and our job is to rejoice and not bend to frustration and angst.

T.S. Eliot on Modern Education

Tracey Lee Simmons provides some great quotations form T S Eliot on education.

Simmons, in Climbing Mount Parnassus, writes, "T.S.Eliot, a poet and critic with much to say about education was convinced that any culture worthy of survival must work unstintingly to preserve itself and resist the modern, ideologically driven tendency "to create bodies of men and women - of all classes - detached from tradition, alienated from religion, and susceptible to mass suggestion: in other words a mob " which is "no less a mob if it is well fed, well clothed, well housed and well disciplined.""

Eliot, "It would be a pity if we overlooked the possibilities of education as a means of acquiring wisdom; if we belittled the acquisition of knowledge for the satisfaction of curiosity, without any further motive than the desire to know; and if we lost our respect for learning."

"No one can become really educated without having pursued some study in which he took no interest - for it is the part of education to learn to interest ourselves in subjects for which we have no aptitude".

Village Atheists: Responding to Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris

Ps. 14:1 The Fool has said in his heart, "there is no god"...

Introduction
Not everyone you meet can be slotted into the usual evangelistic model – what do we do with people who are not even at the stage of talking about Christ, salvation or the Bible? For example, imagine the conversation below.

C: "Could I talk to you about Christ and the gospel?"
A. "Well, I don't believe in God, in fact there is no god, but thanks anyway."
C. "Oh, but in the Bible we read..."
A. "Don't you listen, there is no god..."
C. "So you won't be coming to Christianity Explored.... " nervously backing away.

The flat denial of the existence of God has to be tackled. Therefore, 1 Pet. 3.15 tells us: "But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect.."
We do need to be able to answer the current objections against the Christian Faith.

I have chosen three men and their books: the latest effort from the "new atheists", Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris, or as Robert Hutchinson has called them, the "Village Atheists".

These three men are passionate about atheism. But why this passion?
All three are concerned about the growth of Christianity and Islam: something's up. They don't like it. There is a problem: they are not winning.

I am going to work through the main arguments form Dawkins' book and weave in the other two as we go.

1. What's new? Answer: not much really. There isn't anything that is particularly new here. It is the tried and tested arguments from the armoury of atheism:-
- you can't prove the existence of God;
- look at the OT with its laws;
- look at the horrible things that "religion" has brought about;
- science has made religion redundant and is answering all of the big questions.

2. Also they lump all religions together – all religions are bad. How is it that false medical treatments can be used to prove that genuine medical treatments are to be avoided? Because Islam is off the wall, does not say anything about Christianity.

1. Getting Our Own Heads Straight
It's important we understand the basic starting-point of the person with whom we are talking.
With the Village Atheists, it is the assumption of starting from a neutral position, an objective enquiry.
Dawkins: "I shall suggest that the existence of god is a scientific hypothesis like any other. ..If he existed and chose to reveal it, God himself could clinch the argument, noisily and unequivocally in his favour." ( p. 50)
Here is the suggestion of objectivity – the impartial scientist. But we know that no one is impartial, and that all of our perspectives are limited and subject to change.
As Christians, we claim that the evidence/appearance of design is part of God's self-revelation – but Dawkins has already filtered it out because it does not fit with his worldview.
Now, you have to address this first, otherwise you will miss the point. But by taking this turning, they have already revealed their true colours:-

1. we are going to view the facts from our own perspective first of all;
2. we are going to be unaided judges of truth;
3. we are going to evaluate God by our criteria;
4. the facts are the material world around us, of which we are a part.

We have to challenge this overall direction at the beginning because if someone is thinking like this, then no amount of "facts" to the contrary will shake their confidence. The atheists use the facts against God;whilst the Christian sees the facts as the revelation of God. Each wears different glasses.

There is no neutral ground where we can meet. Otherwise we would be suggesting that you find god through unbelief. If God is God, then there is no neutral zone – there can be no accurate view of any evidence apart from God's view. Objectivity is "God-jectivity. Thus all appeals to "the facts" fail, and you get the kind of conversation below.

C: "Did you know that the evidence for the historical Jesus is greater than that for the existence of Julius Caesar?"
A: "That's all very well, but it doesn't prove He's the Son of God or the Saviour of the world."

"Build up arguments " fail: starting from ground level and gradually building the case for "a god", then "The God", then the Bible, then Christ.... and so on... All of these credit the atheist with too much. They all try to prove the existence of God by agreeing to lock Him out of the room. In fact, to work as if god did not exist is an impossibility, how in God's world could you start without God?

All three authors proceed on the basis that they can autonomously look out on the world and, against their own criteria, decide whether or not there is sufficient evidence of the existence of "a god". For them, human reason is the measure. In fact, Hitchens says that we are not evil, rather "the human species is, biologically, only partly rational"(GiNG p. 8). If only we were more rational. For the same reason Sam Harris titles his opening chapter, "Reason in Exile".

So if "reason" is the big help we are looking for, let's look at rational argument for minute. "Reason" proceeds on the basis of certain rules and principles of thinking that cannot change – e.g. the rules of logic. The rules of logic must be real. But, first, what is thinking, according to the evolutionist? An evolutionist has to say that it is chemical process in the brain. Or as Douglas Wilson says, "On atheistic principles, expecting to find a correlation between "truth" and the chemical activities of the cerebral cortex in some people and the outside world is more than a little bit like astrology."

Now what? If reason is authoritative how does that help? Did it evolve? Yes? So it might evolve further? Is it a construct of my mind, then how do I know it is true? We are only chemical reactions in progress you know. Evolutionists appeal to reason and rationality, but can offer no basis for that rationality.

2. The God Delusion

1. Things hot up straight away, in the first chapter,

"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully." (p. 31)

This is a heavily moral judgment. As an evolutionist, Dawkins must account for his abhorrence of all of the above because to exercise a moral judgment, you have to justify that moral stance. But can evolutionary biology provide such a foundation? What do the Village Atheists believe?
- they believe that billions of years ago the universe started with a big bang – a random event in the very dim and distant past.
- they believe that everything since then has been an accumulation of beneficial random events, part of the result being that an Oxford professor now rants against god from his computer keyboard.
- they also confess that we are biological machines in toto. Crudely, we are a bag of chemicals.

But what basis for ethics is there here? We are still lacking the answer to the question: why? Why would homophobia, or genocide be wrong in his random universe? Who cares? Why get worked up? If a few million bags of juice die, their feelings are just electrical pulses and pain is well, a break in the circuit...?

2. Then in Chapter 2 we are led to the main thesis of the book:
"This book will advocate an alternative view: any creative intelligence, of sufficient complexity to design anything, comes into existence only as the end product of an extended process of gradual evolution." (p. 31)

All this does is tell us that creativity sprang out of random chance processes in a meaningless, chance universe.
Dawkins argues that design comes out of evolution, it is not what goes into it. The problem with this is that the process itself (natural selection) is a random, chance process. For example, a similar line of argument would be: the BMW wasn't put together by chance, the factory machine/robot directed the process, but the factory got there by itself, by chance. Or one could argue, the library wrote itself, the stage produced the play and so on.
This is just moving the problem around, shuffling the cards one more time.

3. Chapter 3 is about arguments for the existence of God. We ought to agree with quite few a points here. Many of the proofs for the existence of God are just not up to scratch. e.g. the teleological argument, the cosmological argument and more..

4. Chapter 4, Why There Almost Certainly is No God
Dawkins starts with Sir Fred Hoyle's Boeing 747 from a scrapyard analogy which expresses the improbability of the chance appearance of this world/universe.
"Hoyle said that the probability of life originating on Earth is no greater then the chance that a hurricane, sweeping through a scrapyard, would have the luck to assemble a Boeing 747."
Dawkins then denies that he has to answer the charge of a chance universe. The creationist is: "somebody who thinks that natural selection is a theory of chance whereas – in the relevant sense of chance – it is the opposite." (p. 113).

Let's explore this chance thing a bit further.

Darwinists believe that the world, the universe and everything sprang from a random event billions of years ago. Ensuing random events led to the appearance of life. More random events, mutations and chance combinings, led to you and me.
Cornelius Van Til said that this problem of Chance as an explanation was like a man made out of water, in a world of water, with a ladder made out water, trying to climb out of the water.

Dawkins does not face up to how big this problem is. He tends to speak of natural selection as a purposeful process, but is unable to explain why this would be the case in a chance universe.

Finally, if the appearance of design is not evidence of design, then what would design have to look like to be evidence of design? If the answer is always, "no it's not design , it just looks that way", when could appearance ever lead us to the conclusion of design?
"Dawkins has created himself an argument that can never be falsified: he has created a circle of argument that always proves itself and is never open to the conclusion he always wants to exclude.

5. Chapter 5, The Roots of Religion
Dawkins writes, "Religion is so wasteful, so extravagant, and Darwinian selection habitually targets and eliminates, waste . . . If a wild animal habitually performs some useless activity, natural selection will favour rival individuals who devote the time and energy, instead, to surviving and reproducing. Nature cannot afford frivolous jeux d'espirit. Ruthless utilitarianism trumps,, even if it doesn't always seem that way" (p. 163).

In the end it boils down to religion being an accidental by-product of evolution (see p.188).

He also explores his own meme theory (pp, 190-206). To explain how ideas develop, he posits the existence of "memes" which transmit ideas – as genes replicate and transmit data.
Douglas Wilson hits the nail on the head,
"He offers an evolutionary explanation of a particular form of intellectual development, serenely unaware of how that explanation applies just as much to him as to anyone else. The thought never crosses his mind. But I can't fault him for this really. If he is (accidentally) right, there is no such thing as a mind to cross."

6. Chapter 6, The Roots of Morality: why are we good?
One of the great challenges for the evolutionist is to explain:-
1. how can we derive any kind of ethic/morality that applies any further than me;
2. what is that morality in the first place; and
3. altruism, doing good for no personal gain or return.

Of course, the problem runs much deeper: in a random universe, or in a world governed by natural selection, how can one derive moral standards that apply to everyone?
Did they evolve? Then they are in process, they might be different tomorrow or the day after.
Are they relative and just conveniences for the moment? Then who decides and how? This is the road to a tyranny of the powerful elite over the rest of us.

How does Dawkins explain altruism? He gives us four reasons:-
1. genetic kinship;
2."the repayment of favours, and the giving of favours in anticipation of payback..";
3. acquiring a reputation for generosity;
4. the "benefit of conspicuous generosity as a way of buying unfakable authentic advertising".

None of these are altruistic – they all hold a self-ward glance...
Again with everything is stripped of its meaning: why would we write poetry about a biological urge in a random universe? Why write a symphony or a novel?

7. In Chapter 7 Dawkins addresses The Bible.
As with Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchins we have the same arguments:-
1. look how horrible the OT is;
2. we don't much like the NT either;
3. religious people, Christians too, are all hypocrites.

We could attempt the same kind of argument on a Darwinist: "Some Darwinists are moral hypocrites and have lied to advance evolutionary science, therefore all Darwinists are necessarily liars, Darwinism tends to untruth and therefore Darwinism itself is false". This illogical argument is the same type of argument as the one constantly regurgitated by the Village Atheists.

The big problem for the Village Atheists is that millions died during the 20th Century at the hand of atheistic regimes: Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia, and Mao's China.
The Communist Black Book estimates estimates up to 200 million died. All three "explain" this as ideologically driven, i.e. religion. (p, 272) – these tyrants were more like religious zealots!!
"But this leads to a good point: we are all religiously driven. Dawkins and the Village Atheists all show the same zeal, passion and commitment of any fundamentalists.
Our basic commitments are all "religious" in that the final authority for our life and actions is our "god".

Finally, Dawkins comes to us with 10 Secular Commandments (p. 263) plus his own extra four.
"but this laughable – why these? They are nearly all informed by Christian/Biblical morality. They are not self-evident, as there are human cultures that have not held to them.

8. Chapter 8, What's Wrong with Religion?
Again this ground is covered by all three writers: religion produces tyrants, hypocrites, oppressors and so on. We largely agree with the details, but that is because we have a transcendent, ethical standard with which to judge the actions of men in the past.
Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris all fail to distinguish religion, true and false.
All make the false claim that "Faith is evil precisely because it requires no justification and brooks no argument" (p. 308).

9. Chapter 9, Childhood, Abuse and The Escape From Religion
All kinds of abuse, child abuse, mental abuse are laid at the door of "religion". However, on p. 341 Dawkins breaks out, (as does Hitchens) in praise of the Authorized Version of the Bible, as well as Shakespeare (p. 344).
"..an atheistical worldview provides no justification for cutting the Bible, and other sacred books, out of our education".
What has captured his imagination here? Beauty! So how does one account for beauty and its appreciation in a random universe?
Francis Schaeffer: speaking to a young married couple, he said, "when you hold her in your arms tonight can you live with the fact that what you feel for your young wife is just a chemical process, an electrical impulse?"
The same applies to our appreciation of beauty. In a "chance universe it is quaint, but meaningless.

Finally, Dawkins believes it is abuse to describe a child as a "Christian child" or a "Moslem child". Parents ought not to be able raise their children in their own faith. We must protect the children from this.
But this simply raises the question: so who will decide how and what the children learn? The scientific elite? Are they free form bias and indoctrination?
Here we see some worrying totalitarian tendencies.

Conclusion
In Scripture we learn what the the heart of atheism is Ps 14:1 The Fool has said in his heart, "there is no god"...
Romans 1 reminds us that the existence of God is revealed in all things, all aspects of reality, including ourselves.

Our job is to point people back to these arguments politely, calmly and sanely. I have argued that without God no meaningful debate, thought or science is possible. Or as Cornelius Van Til said, " I hold rather that unless you believe in God you can logically believe in nothing else."

Further Reading and Resources:-
Alister McGrath: The Dawkins Delusion.
Douglas Wilson v. Christopher Hitchens at http://www.christianitytoday.com/
Douglas Wilson: Blog and Mablog http://www.dougwils.com/ and search for "The Odd Delusion".
Cornelius Van Til: Why I Believe in God. http://www.reformed.org/and search for "Why I Believe in God"

The Dust of Death
So committed are we to our own destruction, that the "integration downwards into the void"(Van Til) continues apace. Proverbs warns us that "all those who hate Me love death", and so we see it made more and more explicit in our culture.

The New Criterion(HERE) provides us with two examples in the January issue (this is a superb cultural journal):-

First a professor at Cape Town University, Prof. David Benatar, has published (OUP!) his magnum opus, Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming Into Existence. This book, as the title suggests, woes on the problem of our existence, rather the fact of our existence. This piece of self-loathing carries this publisher's blurb:

"Those who never exist cannot be deprived. However, by coming into existence one does suffer quite serious harms that could not have befallen one had one not come into existence. Drawing on the relevant psychological literature, the author shows that there are a number of well-documented features of human psychology that explain why people systematically overestimate the quality of their lives and why they are thus resistant to the suggestion that they were seriously harmed by being brought into existence. The author then argues for the “anti-natal” view—that it is always wrong to have children—and he shows that combining the anti-natal view with common pro-choice views about foetal moral status yields a “pro-death” view about abortion (at the earlier stages of gestation). Anti-natalism also implies that it would be better if humanity became extinct. "

However, at least for Prof Benatar, there's a residue of meaning left, whereby we can at least muster some enthusiam to beef about our shameful existence. These humanists just can't live out their presuppositions to the full!

So the New Criterion sums it up nicely,

"we believe people are right to take that high road and reject the book without engaging its argument. To quote Nietzsche again, you do not refute a disease: you might cure it, quarantine it, or in some cases ignore it altogether. You don’t argue with it. Reason is profitably employed only among the reasonable. Dr. Johnson had the right idea when he employed the pedal expedient against Bishop Berkeley’s doctrine of universal hallucination. Something similar should be employed in the case of Professor Benatar’s Lemmings First doctrine of human fatuousness."

Secondly, the next piece of self-negation. The same editorial reports the case of Ms. Toni Vernelli, who has taken the reduction of her carbon footprint very seriously,

"Professor Benatar is part of a larger “environmental” movement of like-minded nihilists like Toni Vernelli, an Englishwoman who at twenty-seven had herself sterilized in order to reduce her “carbon footprint” and help “protect the planet.” “Every person who is born,” Ms. Vernelli told a reporter, “uses more food, more water, more land, more fossil fuels, more trees and produces more rubbish, more pollution, more greenhouse gases, and adds to the problem of over-population.” Ms. Vernelli is 35 now, works for an “environmental charity,” and is happily married to Ed, her second husband: “A week before my sterilisation, I went to an animal rights demonstration and met Ed.” Life is good for Ed and Toni. “We feel we can have one long-haul flight a year,” she explained, “as we are vegan and childless, thereby greatly reducing our carbon footprint and combating over-population.” Still, there are frustrations. “A woman like me, who is not having children in order to save the planet, is considered barking mad,” Ms. Vernelli lamented. “What I consider mad are those women who ferry their children short distances in gas-guzzling cars.”

All of this is undisguised selfishness wrapped up in ideology and served up as "environmental concern".

With declining populations, a childless future, we are furthering our own destruction with gusto. Environmentalism, once a concern for the squirrals and the conifers, has morphed into a philosophy of human self-hatred and destruction. Our very existence is the problem, we are told, and a few are rushing out to do something about it. But are they doing enough?