If you are having trouble viewing this email, click here.

September 9, 2008
by Dinesh D'Souza

side bar side bar side bar side bar side bar Michael Novak is a friend of mine and a former colleague at the American Enterprise Institute.  He is known for his books celebrating the morality of free markets, notably The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism.  As a theologian who has written on subjects from Aquinas to existentialism, Novak is well equipped to consider the metaphysical claims of the new atheists.

One of Novak’s especially attractive qualities is his ability to find common ground with his opponents.  Here he begins by conceding to the atheist that “we are all in the same darkness.”  No one—not even Moses or Abraham—has set his eyes on God.   Novak rejects the certitudes of both the religious fundamentalist and the militant atheist.  He intends to explore what he calls “the dark and windswept open spaces between unbelief and belief.”

For Novak, life raises bigger questions than the ones answered, and answerable, by science.  Ultimately we want to know not merely how things work but also: why are we here?  What is our purpose?  What is our final destiny?  Novak credits religion with addressing the largest moral questions, not only “what is it good to do?” but also “what is it good to be?” and “what is it good to love?”

Novak expresses admiration for some of the leading atheists, notably Daniel Dennett and Christopher Hitchens.  (He seems less enamored with Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris.)  Modern atheism has its virtues, such as an emphasis on truth over good feelings, and also on honesty and courage in facing the realities of life.  Even so, Novak finds it puzzling that these atheists make so little effort to understand how God is experienced by the believer. 

“For a believer,” Novak writes, “It does not take a prolonged thought experiment to imagine oneself an unbeliever.”  The believer knows full well where the atheist is coming from.  By contrast, Novak suggests, atheists like Hitchens seem to have no empathetic understanding whatsoever of genuine religious conviction.  They have no sense of what belief must be like from within. 

Novak’s point is that this shortcoming makes them poor analysts of religion.  All critical reading requires a certain measure of suspended belief.  This is as true of the strange but captivating world of Dostoyevsky as it is of Shakespeare’s moral universe.  When we read Macbeth, for instance, we have to be able to plunge into Shakespeare’s world, ghosts and all.  No understanding of Macbeth is possible if we begin with rude dismissal, “Of course the whole premise is complete nonsense.” 

Novak is surprised to discover that in the entire literature of the new atheism “there is not a shred of evidence that the authors have ever had any doubts whatever about the rightness of their own atheism.”  This is not simply a matter of refusing to apply the vaunted virtue of skepticism to one’s own philosophy.  It is also a matter of giving an account of why such a tiny minority of people in our culture have embraced vocal atheism.  If atheism is so obviously convincing, Novak asks, why are so few people drawn to it?  The new atheists offer no answers; indeed, scarcely any of them even raise the question.

Novak likens Hitchens to Thomas Paine, that fiery pamphleteer and partisan of the American Revolution.  Novak notes, however, that despite his hostility to Christianity Paine understood that such concepts as the dignity of man and human rights depended on man’s special place in God’s creation.  Indeed the Jacobins of the French Revolution imprisoned Paine after he warned them that their atheism would undercut the basis of their declaration of human rights.  Hitchens seems blissfully unaware of a whole tradition of scholarship, from Tocqueville to Jurgen Habermas, that identifies Christianity as the essential foundation of some of the West’s most cherished institutions and values.

In a 2005 lecture in Poland on “Religion in the Public Sphere,” Habermas raises a question that is central to Novak’s inquiry.  Habermas shows that the very idea of toleration is a gift that religious thought has bequeathed to modern secular society.  Then he asks: are secular people willing to acknowledge that toleration is always a two-way street?  In other words, if religious people are expected to be tolerant of unbelievers, shouldn’t secular people learn to be tolerant of their fellow citizens who are believers?

This argument has important implications.  If Habermas and Novak are right, the public square should not be viewed as the property of secular citizens.  Rather, it is the common ground on which believers and non-believers communicate with each other.  It makes no sense to exclude religious convictions from the public sphere if secular convictions are granted full access.  An uncritical “separation of church and state” must give way to a shared domain in which all citizens have the right to express their heartfelt convictions.
subscribe email a friend
Send your letter to the editor to feedback@tothesource.org.

Responses to The Next Attack on Palin Will Be...:

Evolution is NOT Science - I'm sorry to have to challenge you, because I so heartily agree with most of what you say, and I am encouraged by your work in holding atheism at bay while it's proponents try to reshape the thoughts (and souls) of men to deny the existence of God.. However.. I believe you just made a grand error.. I quote you as saying "Evolution, like relativity, is genuine science." I stand willing to debate you, in any forum of your choosing on this topic. Evolution may fit under the heading "Philosophy of Science", but it is ABSOLUTELY NOT SCIENCE! I am currently completing research for a book (and set of seminars) entitled "Evolution Versus Science". As a result of a lifetime of study, I have unearthed mounds of evidence that say evolution (as it is defined in our current culture) is scientifically impossible. Natural Selection (which at it's heart has no real meaning) and Survival of the Fittest (which is a Tautology) do exist as defined principles, but they do not stand up as evidence for the origination of new species. I am prepared to list a plethora of basic laws of nature, science and mathematical principles that have to be violated in order for evolution to be true. When you violate the laws of nature, that is a miracle by definition. A belief in evolution is therefore a belief in the miraculous. Tell me when and where you would be willing to debate me on this topic. Thank You - Alan Harvey

Creation Science - I strongly disagree with your statement that evolution is good science. Please steep yourself in real science at answersingenesis.org. After a few days of reading its articles, you may awaken to the junk science that evolution is. Blessings, - Ricker Polsdorfer MD

I believe Sarah deserves to be closely questioned about her religious beliefs. She apparently thinks its ok to encourage students to debate issues where there is an overwhelming scientific consensus. Should students debate how far it is to the moon? I believe students should be taught the current state of science on each topic. If there is significant dissent on an issue among qualified scientists, students should be taught the majority view and the minority view. Most of us are not qualified to have an opinion on scientific matters. The best we can do is look at the debate among qualified scientists -- persons with Ph.d's in the relevant fields from accredited universities. I am very concerned if a Pentecostal type or other highly conservative Christian should become President. Will this person overrule the advice of her science advisors? What if President Roosevelt had told Eintein: "Forget it, there is no such thing as atomic energy." Does she think God is on our side and we can easily defeat any opponent? Such thinking could easily lead to catastrophe. Will she deny that viruses are evolving and mutating and refuse to take recommended actions to avoid a pandemic? Does she think AIDS is God's punishment for sin as Pat Robertson and other conservatives have suggested? Does she think New Orleans deserved it? Will she refuse to distribute condoms even if scientists say they can save lives? Does she think the end of the world is coming soon? I sure don't want someone in charge of the nuclear button who has such thoughts. It's extremely discouraging that we could elevate a person with anti-science views to high office. This wouldn't happen in Europe. Maybe they do a better job teaching science over there. - John Pearson Alexandria VA

As a holder of a BS in Biology and Chemistry, and an MD, I find the evidence for Darwinian evolution to be pathetic and lacking. In fact, the late Stephen J Gould, himself an evolutionist, but not a Darwinian, described the lack of evidence for Darwinian evolution as the "trade secret of paleontology". King Darwin has no clothes, but to thorough materialists, the alternative is far too shocking to even consider. They cringe at the idea of being morally responsible to anyone, so they would rather force feed pathetic drivel about the "facts" that support evolution, ( where are all the fossil intermediates, after all), than face the real facts- God exists and we will all answer to Him. - Jim Carson MD- Litiz, PA

When teaching evolution especially at the introductory level, I urge that the subject should not start with how a fin became a foot, or even how a microbe via random mutations over eons of time became a human. The subject of evolution should start with aspects about which all agree. That would at the beginning of the process, the big bang creation of the universe. Discuss quandaries such as what could have caused the creation? Leave God out of the discussion. Kids are not dumb. They will ask the questions. And then move on in brief summary of how the burst of exquisitely hot energy that marked the big bang beginning of the universe, how that energy over time metamorphosed, changing first into matter, as Einstein showed the process, and then forming into galaxies and stars and planets and life and brain and mind. All the time keeping in mind that at the bottom of it all is a burst of inert, non-living, chaotic energy. In short energy, super powerful light beams, became alive. And sentient. The wonder of life is not whether its evolution from non-living matter and energy took six days , 14 billion years or an eternity. The wonder of life is life itself. And let the kids get a feel for that wonder. - Gerald Schroeder Jerusalem, Israel p.s., and if the western world will get its act together and stop fantasizing, it will remain Jerusalem, Israel.

Not to mention. Macro Evolution is not science, it is a interpretation of scientific data based on one of many perspectives. Macro Evolution is really just a philosophical or religious perspective which puts it on equal ground with creation, ID. Personally when it comes to the science portion I look at the data and stick to looking at it as what we see is not actually fair to interpret as 'relationships' since it does not really fit the data. (drosophila are then highly similar to human onco-genes and many other examples). What we see is FUNCTIONAL similarities. Similar to if you want something to roll smoothly you make a circular design. If you want something to go to the nucleus, bind to DNA, you do need very specific properties to accomplish this. Keep up the good work! - Mark
Click for a Printer Friendly Version
top
left links right
•Was Biden Talking About Palin During Stem Cell Research Reference?
 
 
bottom
about tothesource
We live complex lives. We strive to sort out priorities that sometimes conflict or seem incompatible. A moral framework is needed to help us understand the reality around us. Our Judeo-Christian heritage provides a framework to help us comprehend the choices we make and the conflicts that arise over them. It is not only the main source of our spiritual values, but also many of the secular values we depend on.

tothesource is a forum for integrating thinking and action within a moral framework that takes into account our contemporary situation. We will report the insights of cultural experts to the specific issues we face believing these sources will embolden people to greater faith and action.
subscribe email a friend
We invite you to subscribe to our free email service
that features informed opinion on current cultural issues.
Dinesh D'Souza, the Rishwain Research Scholar at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, served as senior domestic policy analyst in the White House in 1987-1988. He is the best-selling author of Illiberal Education, The End of Racism, Ronald Reagan, The Virtue of Prosperity, What's So Great About America, and The Enemy at Home. His new book What's So Great About Christianity was released in October of 2007.
tothesource, P.O. Box 1292, Thousand Oaks, CA 91358
Phone: (805) 241-3138 | Fax: (805) 241-3158 | info@tothesource.org