A Theologian Pretends to Answers Atheists

All the different books written recently by atheists have led to a similar number of responses from religious apologists. Those responses vary greatly in quality, however, and many are simply atrocious. Rather than respond directly to the actual arguments and ideas raised by atheists, many apologists merely pretend to respond by tackling straw-men of their own creation. I suppose this allows them to feel better about themselves, but it means that the atheists' arguments stand unscathed.

Thomas D. Williams, the Vatican analyst for NBC and MSNBC, writes:

...the very mention of a Supreme Being makes these professional atheists break out in hives. But they are scratching all the way to the bank, as several of these recent diatribes have become best-sellers, showing once again that religion-bashing never truly goes out of style. In the wake of The Da Vinci Code, a series of books have jumped on the lucrative religion-debunking bandwagon.

Source: National Catholic Register

Thomas D. Williams doesn't cite a single example of atheists breaking out in hives at "the very mention of a Supreme Being" — I know he doesn't mean that literally, but he doesn't cite a single example of what he does mean. I don't believe he can. So why say such a thing? I suspect it's because doing so allows him to portray atheists as only doing what they are doing for the money.

Note carefully the language being used: they are "professional" atheists who are going "to the bank" because of their "best-sellers" which were apparently only written in order to jump on a "lucrative" bandwagon. The idea that atheists might have written their books because they sincerely believe what they are saying, sincerely want to make their cases to the public, and did so without any regard for how much they might sell, doesn't seem to have occurred to Williams.

Then again, maybe it did occur to him, but it serves his purpose better to implicitly depict atheists as greedy and materialists rather than to treat them as equals or address their arguments directly. Claiming that atheists are hedonists or materialists is a popular bit of anti-atheist bigotry and we shouldn't be surprised if Williams is simply leading off his column with what he's strongest at — bigotry, not reasoned argument.

First, they all latch onto the worst historical errors of religious people and extrapolate them to apply to all believers everywhere. ...No attempt is made to distinguish between religious fanaticism and religious belief.

Thomas D. Williams doesn't cite a single example of this. It's true, of course, that atheist writers base a number of arguments on various atrocities committed by religious believers, but I've yet to see any effort to "extrapolate them to apply to all believers everywhere." What they actually do is different, though perhaps the difference is too subtle for a "professional" apologist like Williams' to comprehend: they argue that the worst that's been committed by believers is not an aberration but is instead consistent with what religion teaches; therefore, we must judge religion by these fruits rather than pretend that it was only "false religion" which was responsible.

There are naturally implications here for all believers because any person who voluntarily associates themselves with some ideology or institution necessarily also assumes some complicity in what is done in the name of that ideology or institution. As a voter, for example, I assume some complicity for what the American government does in my name even if I disagree with the government and voted against the current leaders. This is not the same, though, as extrapolating the worst crimes committed by the government to all American citizens everywhere. Like I said, it's a difference that is perhaps a bit too subtle for Williams to understand.

Second, all of these authors toss impartiality out the window in their passionate campaign against God.

Well, it's true that the authors of various books on atheism recently have not been partial; many have also been passionate. I wonder, though, why Thomas D. Williams thinks that being partial and passionate is a bad thing? He certainly doesn't make any pretense at being impartial and dispassionate, and I doubt that he's ever been upset at someone being partial and passionate on behalf on his religion. I suspect very strongly that Williams is only bothered when people fail to be impartial and dispassionate when he disagrees with them — which means that his objection is not at all principled or reasonable.

What's not true, however, is that atheists are making any sort of "campaign against God." Atheists don't believe in any gods, by definition, so there can't be any campaign against any gods. It's self-contradictory and while Williams may have trouble with subtle arguments, he should at least be able to comprehend the fact that atheists are arguing against belief in gods and religious beliefs which involve gods. These are obviously different from alleged gods themselves — and it's not a subtle difference.

Third, despite the facade of novelty presented by these authors, there is really nothing new in the arguments they raise.

Well, Thomas D. Williams manages to say something nearly true, but as with before he doesn't explain what's wrong with it. Religious theists themselves haven't offered any truly new arguments in decades, if not centuries, so why should atheists be expected to offer much in the way of new counter-arguments? Granted, lots of new antitheological arguments would be nice, but it's hardly much of a criticism. Williams isn't being very serious if he thinks this matters a great deal.

That's all assuming, though, that it's completely true that atheists aren't offering any new arguments, but it isn't. The growth of scientific knowledge about the universe has allowed the development of arguments which make the existence of a god more and more irrelevant, if not unlikely: because aspects of the universe can be explained naturally, no supernatural explanations can be true. This type of argument isn't new, but the specifics are new insofar as they are based on new scientific discoveries.

Then again, perhaps Williams is simply ignorant of these arguments because he has only read a very narrow selection of recent atheist books — not all the books raise all the arguments. The reason why takes us back to what I wrote a few moments ago: since the initial burden of proof is on theists, the burden is theirs to develop novel and convincing arguments. Unless and until they do, previously successful atheist refutations continue to be sufficient.

In the following weeks, I will address some of the recurring criticisms against God and religion found in the neo-atheist tracts. Though I am answering the objections of atheists, these essays are not written especially for them. I am writing rather for Catholics who may feel threatened by these books, and who are looking for answers to share with their friends or others who may challenge them on these points.

I'm not sure if this is the saddest or the most disturbing thing in Thomas D. Williams' article. Because he is addressing other Catholics and doesn't expect any rebuttals from atheists, he doesn’t have to frame his arguments in a manner that is consistent with what atheists have actually said. That's disturbing, because it means that he can just keep creating new straw men over and over. What's sad, though, is that Catholic readers may just end up reading those straw men over and over, thinking that what they have are actually sound arguments because they heard them from a priest.

Catholics are ill-served by religious leaders who not only fail to directly address critiques from atheists and other outsiders, but who in fact instruct Catholics in ways to repeat this failure over and over.