Albert Mohler & Crossway Books Promote Falsehoods About Atheism
If you going to be responsible for writing a book, you should be responsible enough to do a bit of research and get your facts straight rather than just repeating tired old myths and thereby perpetuating bigotry. Sadly, it does not appear as though Albert Mohler agrees because he has written a new book about atheism — or perhaps I should say he's written a book that has "atheism" in the title, because the book itself looks like it has more to do with his own misconceptions and assumptions than actual atheism.
DeMoss offers a quiz which bloggers can use to test their readers' knowledge of atheism. A couple of questions manage to relate to genuine facts, like that Christians were labeled atheists in ancient Rome and Time magazine published an issue in 1966 which addressed the Death of God debate. These appear to have been mistakes though, because most of the questions appear to belong to a quiz designed to test whether readers have completely swallowed the lies and myths promoted by conservative Christians in America. Jocelyn Broder is listed as the "media contact," so you might want to write to her to ask why they are promoting so many falsehoods about atheism.
Here are some examples, with the "correct" answers in bold (and linked to detailed explanations of why they are so wrong):
1. What do Atheists believe in?
a. A supernatural God just not Jesus Christ
b. Their questions about God
c. No beliefs - they deny belief in God d. A supernatural, personal God who intervenes in human history
5. When did Atheism become a publicly recognized worldview?
a. 1st century Rome
b. 18th century
c. 19th century
d. Early 20th century
8. Who of the following was not an atheist?
a. Sigmund Freud
b. Karl Marx
c. Albert Einstein
d. Friedrich Nietzsche
Notice that "atheist" and "atheism" are consistently — and incorrectly — capitalized in order to reinforce the false impression that atheism is a belief system comparable with Christianity or Islam. People who merely misunderstand atheism still typically spell it correctly; it usually requires a professional apologist for myths to take this extra step and that's definitely what Albert Mohler is.
What Albert Mohler appears to be even more interested in, though, is spreading falsehoods about so-called "New Atheism."
9. Why are New Atheists considered "new"?
a. Evangelistic in intent
b. Believe God is downright dangerous
c. Do not mourn the fact there is no God
d. All of the above
10. What are some of the components of New Atheism?
a. A clear and specific rejection of the Christian God of the Bible
b. Attack on toleration
c. Believe in separation of church and state
d. a and b
e. a, b and c
Nothing that Albert Mohler describes as characterizing "new" atheists is the least bit new. None of those categorized as "new atheists" are any more "evangelistic" or any more convinced that theism is "dangerous" than many atheists in the past. Albert Mohler is surely old enough to remember Madalyn Murray-O'Hair! The only thing that's "new" is the fact that there are more such atheists who are willing to publicly and unapologetically make their views known — but it doesn't sound nearly so interesting to attack atheists for speaking their mind than it does for being "evangelistic" or "rude."
Excerpts from the book itself reveal that Albert Mohler has filled it with far more falsehoods than could be fit in the short quiz. For example:
We Can't Both Be Right
"In the end, the existence of the supernatural, self-existent, and self-revealing God is the only starting point for Christian theology. God possesses all of the perfections revealed in Scripture, or there is no coherent theology presented in the Bible. The New Atheists are certainly right about one very important thing - it's atheism or biblical theism. There is nothing in between." (Page 96)
Can it really be possible that Albert Mohler is unaware of the existence of religions other than Christianity? That's the conclusion we have to draw if he sincerely believes the above passage because if the only options are "atheism or biblical theism," this means that there can't be any options known as Islam, Hindusim, and so forth. But of course theistic religions that aren't based on the Bible do exist, don't they? They can't be a figment of my imagination.
So, Albert Mohler must not be aware that they exist. Albert Mohler, a leading Christian writer, is even more ignorant of Islam and Hinduism than he is of atheism — at least he knows atheism exists, even if doesn't have the slightest idea of what it is. What does it say about Christianity in America today that a person possessed of such extreme ignorance about the topics they write on could rise to such an influential place? I don't know, but it's hard to escape the conclusion that the more he writes, the less respectable conservative, evangelical Christianity in American can be.
Someone should send him a copy of the Qur'an or the Baghivad Gita so he will at least be able to acknowledge that there exists theistic religions other than his own. I don't think we can expect him be any more accurate about them in his writings than he is about atheism, but knowledge of their existence would still be a big step forwar.
Comments
I have found myself thinking that Christianists (I have no better shorthand word) get to thinking their “opponents”–that is, all of us who think differently from them–are a Bizarro version of them. Like, we do things exactly the same way, only with different intents. I started coming to this conclusion in a e-mail forum, when a Christianist hammered me and other LGBTs about whether we’d want a gay or bi kid. We all said we wanted a happy kid of any sexual orientation. This absolutely frustrated our interlocuter, and we really could not convince him that we didn’t have a preference! After all, *he* had a decided preference for his kids! I have also seen this lack of comprehension by Christianists who are confronted with people who don’t particularly care what, if any, religion their kids eventually adopt.
I have a point, I swear. Mohler seems to think that the “new atheists” (what a stupid label) are Bizarro versions of him and his friends. I am not an atheist, only married to one, yet I shuddered at the bit about “why Atheists are increasing in number and what Christians must do to stop it.” They think they have an obligation to nip y’all in the bud, so naturally they think you feel that same obligation to nip them in the bud. And if you want, say, not to have them foist prayers and thinly disguised Sunday School lessons on your kids in a public school, they’ll gin that up into an attack on them personally and on Christianity its own self.
As a Pagan, I found the end of the excerpt disturbing, too, about how they and their straw-atheists agree that there is only “biblical theism” or atheism with nothing in between. I beg to differ. However, I do think that in a way, Mohler and them are comforted to be dealing with straw-atheists instead of, say, Muslims or Pagans. Conservative Islam comes a little too close to their beliefs for comfort, and Pagans, well, we believe in Gods, too. We can certainly be made into enemies, but we’re not so easy to fit into that black and white view. And of course, if Mohler and them knew anything about real atheists, they’d have a hard time fitting y’all in, too.
I am grateful to have left this hateful and ignorant variety of belief behind, if nothing else. Black and white is wonderful for pandas and zebras, but it sucks for theologies and worldviews.
This is a criticism leveled at Dawkins as well. The God Delusion, has little to no serious theological works in the reference or bibliography.
Sauce for the goose…
1. Do you need to read “serious theological works” to determine if any gods exist? If not, then the absence of them is hardly a valid criticism.
2. The two aren’t the same because Dawkins knows what theism and religion are; Mohler doesn’t even know what atheism is.
“(Dr. Mohler) holds a Master of Divinity degree and the Doctor of Philosophy from Southern Seminary.”
That must be some school.
This is a criticism leveled at Dawkins as well. The God Delusion, has little to no serious theological works in the reference or bibliography.
That’s usually how I evaluate an author’s argument; I just peruse the bibliography.
Austin says,”1. Do you need to read “serious theological works” to determine if any gods exist? If not, then the absence of them is hardly a valid criticism.”
No, you don’t need to read theological works to believe or disbelieve in gods. And you don’t have to know what atheism means or doesn’t mean to be a theist.
But we’re not talking belief or determination of belief.
We’re talking about writing books about these subjects. When you get to the point of writing a book, you need to do your homework.
At that point, it is a valid criticism to say that you need to get your facts straight before you can be taken seriously. That applies equally to both Mohler and Dawkins.
Austin says, “2. The two aren’t the same because Dawkins knows what theism and religion are; Mohler doesn’t even know what atheism is.”
Well, theologians are claiming that Dawkins makes a lot of mistakes in considering theism and religion… in much the same way you’re claiming that Mohler doesn’t know what atheism is.
Gerald says, “That’s usually how I evaluate an author’s argument; I just peruse the bibliography.”
I’m assuming sarcasm there.
But it isn’t just looking at the bibliography and ignoring what is being said. It’s noticing that what is being said is either incorrect or simplistic, then noticing that there is a lack of serious work in terms of research or reference on the subject at hand.
The criticism Austin is making of Mohler here is that he is making fundamental mistakes about atheism - and part of the reason he is making those mistakes… is that he doesn’t understand atheism as a concept very well (among other things).
Seems like a valid point to me.
I just thought it was ironic that people on the other side are saying the same thing about Dawkins, for exactly the same reasons.
1. He’s making some mistakes
2. Part of the reason he’s making mistakes is that he doesn’t have a good understanding of theological philosophy
The lack of reference and research material when you’re attacking a position is a mistake and worthy of criticism. Especially when you’re not an expert in the field you’re criticizing (like Mohler in this example).
This would be like writing a book attacking sciencific method as a valid point of view, but failing to talk about science in a way that scientists would agree with, and failing to cite serious scientific texts and research.
You do, however, have to know what atheism means in order to argue that atheism is wrong, irrational, contradictory, etc.
In what way are “serious theological works” necessary in order to argue that it’s more rational to disbelieve in gods than to believe in them?
I agree that authors need to get their facts straight. Mohler didn’t, because he doesn’t understand the subject of his book. Now, what facts did Dawkins fail to get straight?
Anyone can “claim” anything. Feel free to point to any mistakes which Dawkins has made regarding the nature of religion and theism. I have pointed to very specific and unambiguous mistakes which Mohler has made — mistakes which are about as fundamental as you can get. If you’re going to try to draw a parallel between Mohler and Dawkins, I think it might be helpful if you could provide some parallel examples.
You seem to be taking the position that one needs to have a “good understanding of theological philosophy” in order to accurately and fairly make the arguments and claims which Dawkins is making. Please point to the specific claims which he has made and which need such an understanding, then explain why, exactly, such an understanding is indeed necessary. If you cannot do so, then you cannot adopt that soothing or use it as a premise — and that undermines the above assertion.
Well, I emailed Ms Broder. I wonder if she’ll write back.
Austin says, “You seem to be taking the position that one needs to have a “good understanding of theological philosophy” in order to accurately and fairly make the arguments and claims which Dawkins is making. Please point to the specific claims which he has made and which need such an understanding, then explain why, exactly, such an understanding is indeed necessary. If you cannot do so, then you cannot adopt that soothing or use it as a premise — and that undermines the above assertion.”
Fair enough, having some computer issues, but will respond in a day or two.
By the way, I’m not trying to hijack the post, I’m in agreement with you about Mohler. I just thought it was interesting that the same things are being said in a different context.