God’s Slow Death

Three atheists argue for reason in the face of faith
Illustration by Sam Weber

Books discussed in this essayThe End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason
by Sam Harris
W.W. Norton (2004), 256 pp.

Letter to a Christian Nation
by Sam Harris
Alfred A. Knopf (2006), 91 pp.

The God Delusion
by Richard Dawkins
Houghton Mifflin (2006), 374 pp.

Atheist Manifesto: The Case Against Christianity, Judaism, and Islam
by Michel Onfray
Arcade (2007), 219 pp.
A gorgeous spring evening in Paris, cool and windy, the sky a radiant, mineral blue. I was in the throes of a personal crisis and I walked the city aimlessly, its legendary beauty as vacuous and desolate as a strip mall. Eventually I found myself standing in the square in front of Notre Dame Cathedral. Through its arched portals, studded with eroded stone reliefs of the kings of Judah and flanked by winged gargoyles, I could see that this twelfth-century monument’s interior was illuminated by thousands of long, thin, burning tapers. Inside, I pressed through the crowd to the front, and there, at the altar, were the priests, resplendent in their gold brocaded ecclesiastical vestments, performing the mass with a sombre deliberateness. The organ boomed; the candles flickered. Then the lights in the cathedral blasted on, and the priests followed the bishop with his crozier and tall red hat, and left the cathedral in slow procession. Walking back to my hotel, I felt transported, as though the world had been given substance and purpose again. But when I woke the next morning, I was mortified. At a moment of vulnerability, I had been seduced by the luxuriant spectacle of an institution whose core beliefs — the virgin birth of Jesus, Jesus having been crucified in order to redeem a sinful world, the Eucharist transubstantiating wine and bread into the blood and flesh of the Messiah — I found literally absurd, and whose history included the Crusades, the Inquisition, and savage pogroms against Jews.

Over the past few years, a number of books have attempted to answer the question: how is it possible that, nearly 150 years after Darwin’s On the Origin of Species, in an era in which both the history of the earth and the natural history of human beings are known in considerable detail, religion continues to exert a powerful presence? And given the divisive and often repressive impact of religious belief — to which the events of September 11, 2001, bore witness — why do we in Western liberal democracies still tolerate religion as a legitimate part of public discourse rather than attempting to eradicate it in favour of a more rational form of humanism? These books include Sam Harris’s The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason and Letter to a Christian Nation, The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, and Michel Onfray’s Atheist Manifesto: The Case Against Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.

The target of New York-based writer Sam Harris’s polemical The End Of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation is not just religious faith, but also liberal tolerance of religion. “I hope to show that the very ideal of religious tolerance — born of the notion that every human being should be free to believe whatever he wants about God — is one of the principal forces driving us toward the abyss,” Harris writes. “Religious moderation, insofar as it represents an attempt to hold on to what is still serviceable in orthodox religion, closes the door to more sophisticated approaches to spirituality, ethics, and the building of strong communities.”

Religious faith, whether Christian, Jewish, or Muslim, is if nothing else a belief in a transcendent being that does not need to meet the same standards of reason and evidence to which we hold ordinary beliefs; faith is a form of belief with a special status. Yet to believe something, Harris points out, is to believe that it is true and to be willing to act on it. “Either the Bible is just an ordinary book, written by mortals, or it isn’t,” Harris writes in Letter to a Christian Nation. Parallel statements could be made about the Koran and the Torah. “Either Christ was divine, or he was not. If the Bible is an ordinary book, and Christ an ordinary man, the basic doctrine of Christianity is false.” The sacred texts of the dominant religions today are of largely unknown provenance, assembled from multiple manuscripts over hundreds or even thousands of years, and they are riddled with internal contradictions. And the claims made by these texts — God parting the Red Sea, Christ raising Lazarus from the dead, Muhammad’s vision — have no more intrinsic credibility than the activities of Zeus or the events that unfold in Norse legends. In that case, according to Harris, “the truth is that religious faith is simply unjustified belief in matters of ultimate concern.” Unfortunately, religious faith is by no means a benign form of unjustified belief — of irrationality, of superstition. Rather, it is one that has caused an enormous amount of suffering in the world.

Yet in his polemical fervour, Harris takes it for granted that concepts like “belief,” “justified belief,” and “faith” are free of gradation or indeterminacy. “The conflict between science and religion is reducible to a simple fact of human cognition and discourse: either a person has good reasons for what he believes, or he does not.” But we are, individually, limited beings, bound by time, chronically suffering from lack of information yet needing to act, deeply conflicted, buffeted by passions. And as human beings, we have a terrible need to have an emotionally immediate sense that the world and our lives in it have meaning and purpose. “Secularists once hoped that with the advance of science and enlightenment, and the articulation of a new, humanist ethic, the illusory nature of religion would be more and more apparent, and its attractions would fade,” Canadian philosopher Charles Taylor writes in his beautiful commentary on William James, Varieties of Religion Today. “But this is not how it has worked out.... People go on feeling a sense of unease at the world of unbelief: some sense that something big, something important has been left out, some level of profound desire has been ignored, some greater reality outside us has been closed off.”

Richard Dawkins’s invective against religion, The God Delusion, covers much of the same ground as The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation. There is the usual tour of atrocities committed in the name of religion, from the tortures of the Inquisition to the bombing of abortion clinics in the United States; Dawkins even finds space to denounce early religious training as a form of child abuse. A distinguished evolutionary biologist and the author of The Selfish Gene and The Blind Watchmaker, Dawkins is at his best when addressing the so-called argument from design, a popular creationist alternative to Darwinian evolution. Dawkins regards the existence of God — “a superhuman, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us” — as a hypothesis like any other. The core assertion of The God Delusion is this: “Any creative intelligence, of sufficient complexity to design anything, comes into existence only as the end product of . . . gradual evolution.” Such a creative intelligence could not, therefore, have actually created the world.

The argument from design claims that the emergence of something as complex and precise as, say, the human eye or brain could not have occurred by chance, and therefore must have been fashioned by a higher intelligence. But according to Dawkins, the fact that something could not have appeared by chance does not imply that it was designed — Darwin’s theory of natural selection provides a powerful explanation of how intricate, finely tuned organisms can evolve over vast stretches of time. In addition, the argument from design simply pushes the problem back, for it does not offer an account of the origins of the transcendent designer.

Dawkins also addresses a version of the argument from design that focuses on the origins of life on Earth. Earth is ideally situated in its relationship to the sun, in the shape of its orbit and the composition of its atmosphere, to sustain life. In the grand scheme of things, it is highly improbable that this would be the case or that life would arise spontaneously; therefore, it must have been planned purposely by a higher intelligence. Dawkins responds to this with what he calls the “anthropic principle.” We know that life emerged on Earth because we are here. We also know that there are roughly a billion billion planets in the universe. Even if the odds of life arising on a given planet are vanishingly low, life will still arise on many planets, ours included. “The anthropic principle, like natural selection, is an alternative to the design hypothesis,” Dawkins asserts. “It provides a rational, design-free explanation for the fact that we find ourselves in a situation propitious to our existence.” And as always, he writes, “design certainly does not work as an explanation for life, because design is ultimately not cumulative and it therefore raises bigger questions than it answers.”
HomePage 1 of 2Next
10 comment(s)

jonzyApril 04, 2007 11:42 EST

Dear writter W O W!!!!___i humbly thank you for the research and heart felt insite.___with love/peace/understanding....daniel....p.s.? for Dawkins-if Design is not cumulative.How did Hu-mankind get to the MOON?or too AMERICA?___? anxiety-ridden place? no,i humbly think just Quest for "simple truth",which Jack Nicolson "think,s we/you can-not handle"; and John Lenon now knows.___not after life,just simply,extension of this one,but free of Darkness/only Light{LUV}

renahajiApril 12, 2007 13:13 EST

There is a lot of man's creation of God in the author's final question, with "really is" betraying the absence of God, for the author, despite the need. I fail to see how life or the world changes to the dramatic extent implied based upon the presence or absence of God in it. I have a theory that, offered a binding coin toss to determine the existence of God (binding, that is on God, not just on human belief in God,) non-believers would gladly accept the terms wanting only to know, while believers would refuse the terms wanting only to believe.

Brian Dixon-WarrenJune 12, 2008 16:20 EST

I agree entirely with the author of this fine article. TS Eliot, in his "Four Quartets" pointed out that "Humankind cannot bear very much reality".
Denial or delusion is often a comforting way to deal with the intolerable. Our ever increasing ability to see into the future has given us the Age of Anxiety, & this has generated also an Age of New Age Fads & Superstitions.
It is only given to the few to meet death with the grace of Socrates. The rest of us can hope to be helped along the Green Mile to the death chamber by someone like the character played by Tom Hanks in that film, "Its alright, we'll look after you. You're going to be O.K."

AyeshaDecember 13, 2011 20:19 EST

Then the Muslim evening call to prayer erupted.... and that among those who would soon be prostrating themselves in the al-Aqsa mosque were men willing to kill and be killed for their faith. A chill ran through me."

What? Notice that slippage? In this whole article, there is one paragraph devoted to a faith followed by 1.7 billion people in the world, and even in that one paragraph, it takes only one line to connect an evening call to prayer to an act of self-destruction and terrorism.

Recognize your own prejudices, namely Islamaphobia, especially when they appear so casually, as they do here.

JD HalperinDecember 14, 2011 09:43 EST

Ayesha: his point was it was a sublime, beautiful scene, and it's precisely that elevated power for which people are willing to kill and die. There was a paragraph about how he felt at Notre Dame, a Synagogue, and a Mosque. He's got nothing to apologize for.

I read somewhere that when Faulkner was asked about his alleged anti-Semitism he said, "Yea I'm an anti-Semite, but I hate everyone else too." This piece is written in that vein. It denounces all religions equally, and points to our preference for comfort over truth.

Great article!

RosemaryDecember 14, 2011 09:43 EST

For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools. Romans 1:25
Men seek because God put the knowlege of Himself in us. Like the athiest who spoke in London, On and finished his speech by saying, "Thank God for getting me through that!" The Spirit bears witness...I suggest that your Mennonite friend never really truly knew God because he would not have spent 30 trying to disprove something he already had experienced. Try asking God to show himself to you...you won't be disappointed.
If we are all to live by man's rules, whose rules do you suggest we live by? Hitler's? Stalin's? But no one ever speaks of the rivers of blood that have flowed from the mandates of the religion if Humanism!

Isaiah 53:5 But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed.

But by the blood of One are we saved!

CoryDecember 15, 2011 23:59 EST

Rosemary, your comment "Try asking God to show himself to you...you won't be disappointed" is something I've heard before from religious folk in one form or another. Now I've asked god to show himself to me and he never has. I wasn't disappointed because I am strong in my atheism and knew there would be no response. So in a sense your statement is true.

The conversation that follows with religious people is always based on circular logic. The religious person makes up an excuse for why god didn't respond. Well, I didn't really ask god because if I did he would have responded is always the gist of the response. This is like the circular reasoning of AA. A true alcoholic can only stop drinking with the help of AA, and any alcoholic who really tries AA will be able to stop. Someone who is able to get their drinking under control without AA is not really an alcoholic (a term with no real medical definition). If someone does their whole AA schtick and ends up drinking again, well they weren't really doing it right or it would have worked because... and the circle is complete.

You can't use quotes from a book not all parties in a discussion agree are the immutable and infallible word of god (most recent translation mind you) to prove the existence of god. I can't write a piece of historical fiction and say "Well there are plenty of facts asserted in here that are born out by historians, so all the rest of the crazy shit must be true because the book says it is."

As to the question of whose rules we should live by, there is nowhere on earth that actually follows the laws prescribed in the bible. I can quote verses too:

Matthew 5: 18-19 "For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

So the laws of the old testament are all still to be followed until the end of days, and since the bible is infallible any quote you could counter with to show this to be untrue would have to be some sort of misunderstanding because a contradiction wouldn't be possible in an infallible document. So if you've ever eaten a shellfish or worn a mixed-fabric garment touching your skin then you have committed abomination. If you have ever not killed someone you knew to be a male homosexual you have broken the laws of your god. I say again that no country on earth does or ever has lived according to the rules of your bible, and none ever will. Those rules were drafted by people in a cultural milieu that has almost zero relevance today (except for those golden rule type laws that are hardly unique to judeo-christian cultures). Switching to a theocratic form of government based strictly on biblical laws would be a nightmare, and most religious people have no desire to see such a thing. Sure secular governments have done horrible things and killed many, but there are some secular governments that are much less bloodthirsty. According to a Gallup poll in 2007, 83% of Swedes consider religion to be unimportant in their lives, and they have one of the highest standards of living in the world. There are plenty of similar examples in Europe.

I feel confident saying that there's no good empirical evidence for the existence of god, and therefore no good reason to have faith in him/her/it. I hope you don't spend your whole life deluded by this thousands of years old fable that's a rehashed version of far older fables, but if it makes you happy and leaves you feeling fulfilled then more power to you.

The UlcerJanuary 02, 2012 21:59 EST

I like the idea of faith because even in the most ignorant it is an acknowledgement of something greater than ourselves. I am sometimes jealous of the faithful because it seems like a nice way to view the universe. However, like Renahaji's allegory of the coin-toss, I would rather know than believe.

Another allegory: imagine yourself on the surface of another planet. Now, imagine how you got there. Did you construct a rocket in your mind, or did you allow for some supreme force to transport you? Either way, you are dealing with an unknown and I like to think that it is our ability to imagine beyond ourselves that provides us with a taste for the mystical.

DeanJanuary 04, 2012 14:45 EST

Maybe the truth of human religious experience is like human sexual experience: We long for it but just don't really understand why. If only we could figure out a way to embrace both our "Christian body" and our sceptical mind.

DanJanuary 10, 2012 10:16 EST

Of course you understand why you long for it, or at least your body does. You long for it because it feels good and that is anathema to the religious .

I could never understand how a thinking person could begin with the assumption of a creator of the universe which, if we look at the unimaginable grandeur and complexity of all that is around us, is not an unreasonable idea, especially to a bronze age mind and extrapolate from that possibility that the assumed creator could in any way resemble any in the array of psychopathic deities that are described in what can only by suspending understanding of the concept, be referred to a holy books.

Comment on this article
  
I agree to walrusmagazine.com’s comments policy.

Canada & its place in the world. Published by
the non-profit charitable Walrus Foundation
TwitterFacebookRSS
On newsstands now
New Issue on Sale
March 2012
Subscribe online for as little as $2.49 an issue. Visit The Walrus Store
to buy prints of our covers
The Walrus Laughs
Search the web, support the Walrus Foundation
COPA