Saturday, June 24, 2017 | site map | contact | FSJ

Subscribe to Salvo magazine today! Take a look at an issue online and if you like what you see, SUBSCRIBE at a discounted rate.

You Can Be Part of Salvo By Supporting Its Mission Today

We depend on all our great readers to keep Salvo going!

Follow Salvo online



Join Our Email List
Enter your email below:
 



Further Reading

DEPARTMENT: Archives

Godless Prose & Cons

They Don't Make Atheists Like They Used To

by Cameron Wybrow

Article originally appeared in
Salvo 28

They say that cars and movies and manners were better in the old days. Atheism was also better in the old days. At the very least, it was more literate and sensitive, as an old book will show.

In a recent book, The God Delusion (ch. 2), Richard Dawkins writes:

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.

How did he miss "fascist"? (I guess he was trying to avoid overkill.) In any case, note the use of hot-button terms to trigger reactions of politically correct indignation: "misogynistic," "homophobic," "genocidal," "ethnic cleanser." There's no scholarly exposition here. Dawkins doesn't want us to understand the biblical God; he wants us to hate the biblical God.

Such demagogical rhetoric is standard in New Atheism, but atheists didn't always write like this. In "A Free Man's Worship" (1903), Bertrand Russell's objection to the biblical God is expressed thus: "Such is the attitude inculcated in God's answer to Job out of the whirlwind: the divine power and knowledge are paraded, but of the divine goodness there is no hint."

Russell avoids the low road taken by Dawkins. Instead of manipulating the reader's emotions, he offers a restrained moral critique of a biblical passage. Yet alongside such restraint, he displays great rhetorical power. In breathtaking poetic prose, he sets forth his atheist cosmology:

That Man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of Man's achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins—all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain, that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand.

How does Russell respond to such a cosmos? Does he express public outrage against the idea of God? No; as if foreseeing our New Atheists, he warns against such outrage: "[A] spirit of fiery revolt, of fierce hatred of the gods, seems necessary to the assertion of freedom. . . . But indignation is still a bondage . . . which it is necessary for the wise to overcome."

Russell's alternative to indignation is the affirmation of human ideals in the face of a universe indifferent to them:

Brief and powerless is Man's life; on him and all his race the slow, sure doom falls pitiless and dark. Blind to good and evil, reckless of destruction, omnipotent matter rolls on its relentless way; for Man, condemned to-day to lose his dearest, to-morrow himself to pass through the gate of darkness, it remains only . . . to preserve a mind free from the wanton tyranny that rules his outward life . . . to sustain alone, a weary but unyielding Atlas, the world that his own ideals have fashioned despite the trampling march of unconscious power.

Like the Norse gods, Man is to continue to fight, though his world is doomed. Even a theist is momentarily moved by this writing.

Does style matter? Yes, it does; different styles express different atheisms. "A Free Man's Worship" is not consumed with spite or rage; Russell plainly yearns for the beauty and truth that his cosmology denies. He is, as it were, a "religious atheist" with whom one can have a meaningful dialogue, one who does not despise those of faith as "ignorant, stupid, insane, or wicked." If we must read atheists, let us read atheists like this.


If you enjoy Salvo, please consider contributing to our matching grant fundraising effort. All gifts will be matched dollar for dollar! Thanks for your continued support.

Bookmark and Share

FROM THE CURRENT ISSUE

Eye Openers: Eight Common Factors for Atheists Changing Their Minds About God by Matt Nelson

Tuning Out the Universe: How Naturalism & Post-Fact Science Ignore the Evidence We See by Denyse O'Leary

Deep-Seated Rights: What They Are & Why You Have Them by Steve Jones

Improbably So: Fine-Tuning Is Unlikely, but Unlikely Things Happen All the Time by Tim Barnett

FROM THE PREVIOUS ISSUE

The Long Red Shadow: Mike Shotwell Has a Message for Millennial America by Terrell Clemmons

The Good Life: It's to Know, Serve & Love the Truth, Not the Pursuit of Happiness by James Altena

Taking Polls Apart: Human Complexity Foils Electoral Predictions by Denyse O'Leary

Morality as Story: The False Charity of Modern Journalism by Rebekah Curtis

Can We Talk?: It Is Crucial That We Put Our Minds to Contentious Issues by James M. Kushiner

Evo-Elitism: Darwinism's Missing Link to Civil Liberties by Denyse O'Leary

Stonewalled on Abortion: One Woman's Quest for Straight Answers from Public Health Organizations by Terrell Clemmons

Love, Rhetorically: Using a Powerful Word Doesn't Mean Your Argument Is Logical by Tom Gilson

© 2017 Salvo magazine. Published by The Fellowship of St. James. All rights reserved. Returns, refunds, and privacy policy.