Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett and Christopher Hitchens – the ‘four horseman of the New Atheism’ – became icons by criticising “religion”. The books and lectures of each were vitriolic towards religious ideas and people.
In hindsight, the verdict on New Atheism is unfavourable, even on the part of many atheists.
In an article entitled ‘Why I Think the New Atheists are a Bloody Disaster’, atheist philosopher of science Michael Ruse wrote:
Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion would fail any introductory philosophy or religion course. Proudly he criticizes that whereof he knows nothing…
If we criticized gene theory with as little knowledge as Dawkins has of religion and philosophy, he would be rightly indignant…
Conversely, I am indignant at the poor quality of the argumentation in Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, and all of the others in that group.
Also instrumental in demonstrating the shortcomings for which the New Atheism would eventually be dismissed was the eccentric Christian philosopher and theologian David Bentley Hart. I am speaking with David in a few weeks, and will keep a dictionary handy.
Residual Damage
However, the rhetoric of the New Atheists was far stronger than their argumentation. As a result (of this and many other influences), popular commentary on ‘religious issues’ is infused with a subconscious scepticism – not only on the part of sceptics, but also of believers.
The New Atheists were particularly critical of ‘blind faith’. The accusation comes with such force, especially given our cultural assumptions, that one cannot help asking, ‘Is my faith blind?’
It’s an unsettling and intensely personal question. So it’s easy to miss the fact that it’s completely incoherent.
An Incoherent Assertion
In considering whether the assertion of ‘blind faith’ is coherent, a good place to begin is asking, ‘What would blind faith look like?’
Imagine you are a judge, presiding over a murder case which begins in five seconds. You were appointed five seconds ago with no knowledge of the legal system, no useful information and no knowledge of the background or character of the defendant.
You hear the door of the courtroom creak open, and guess that the defendant is about to enter. Before anyone appears, you bang your gavel, and yell ‘guilty’.
I can’t believe you just did that. More importantly, what a stupid situation.
This ridiculous courtroom scenario helps to illustrate our point. In what could you be said to have put your faith? Not in your personal experience, nor your observations, nor the information and argumentation of others. Since you make your decision, in a sense, blindly, you cannot be said to act on faith.
Faith is trust, dependence, confidence in an object of faith. Blind faith – that is, faith without an object – is an oxymoron.
Faith is, by definition, not blind.
For us to place ‘blind faith’ in God would mean trusting him based on nothing – not personal experience; not philosophical observations; not revelation.
But of course no religious person has ever placed their trust in God based on nothing at all. Only one group of people ever have: the imaginary believers whom the New Atheists criticised.
Blind faith – that is, faith without an object – is an oxymoron.
A Better Question
Instead of asking whether our faith is blind, we ought to ask whether the object of our faith is dependable. By a person’s dependability, I think we mean a combination of competence and character.
If God came to Earth and gave himself in our place, triumphing over all his enemies, then he has provided the ultimate demonstration of competence and character.1
How can we be confident whether such a God exists?
That’s a question for another time – one with which I have always struggled, partly due to influences like the New Atheists.
I’m eager anticipating help from Esther Meek, a professor of philosophy, a leading thinker on the theory of knowledge and a proponent of ‘covenant epistemology’.
Giveaway
Come back next week for a substantial giveaway! You won’t want to miss it.
I mean, of course, in the person of the Son.
This is a really wonderful post. Thanks! Asking whether the "Object" of our faith is trustworthy is definitely a better question, granted it assumes the reality of that Object. I need to read Meek's work. I've been meaning to for sometime, and the epistemological questions she addresses feel rather important. How do we know what we think we know? I've been doing a little digging into phenomenology and thinking about revelation as phenomenon, as something given. I don't think the New Atheists would be on board, lol, but the phenomenological idea is that things in the world "give" or "present" themselves to us, and if that's the case, then it makes sense that is how God is known, which is how Scripture describes how we come to know God.