In Defense of Evangelicalism
I know this blog has seen its fair share of religious debate, so I’m reluctant to even write this post, but a friend of mine called me out via e-mail and requested my public rebuttal of this claim by John Gray (via Andrew Sullivan) about “contemporary atheism”:
Zealous atheism renews some of the worst features of Christianity and Islam. Just as much as these religions, it is a project of universal conversion. Evangelical atheists never doubt that human life can be transformed if everyone accepts their view of things, and they are certain that one way of living - their own, suitably embellished - is right for everybody. To be sure, atheism need not be a missionary creed of this kind. It is entirely reasonable to have no religious beliefs, and yet be friendly to religion. It is a funny sort of humanism that condemns an impulse that is peculiarly human. Yet that is what evangelical atheists do when they demonise religion.
I’ll try to keep this short: I don’t have a problem with a “missionary creed,” whether it be on the part of atheists, Christians, Jews, Muslims, or whomever. The reason I found this debate between Andrew Sullivan and Sam Harris so interesting was not just because it allowed me to read Harris’s best case supporting atheism, but also because it allowed me to read Sullivan’s best case supporting faith. There are any number of reasonable, enlightened people out there who can lay out a persuasive argument in favor of religious belief, and not only do I not have a problem with those people trying to make that argument to me, I find the discussion stimulating and worthwhile.
What I object to is the attempt by many religious people to remove that discussion from the realm of reasoned discourse entirely, as though there is something peculiar about religion that frees it from the burden of having to respond to criticism. We should all, of course, be tolerant and respectful of one another’s views, whether political, philosophical, or religious. And there are obviously people of all political parties, philosophies, and religions who are decidedly not tolerant and respectful, with atheism being no exception. But I don’t believe that because many atheists want to engage in a public exchange of ideas on the subject of religion, and because atheists think they have a persuasive case to make in their favor, that this necessarily makes them intolerant or disrespectful, any more than the works of St. Thomas Aquinas are intolerant or disrespectful.
