To read: God and the new atheists
The New Yorker has an excellent article, which I only learned later was a book review, on faith and atheism. For quite some time now I have found the modern debate about the existence of God to be unfortunately unintelligent. Denizens of the Internet, especially, tend to characterize it as a duel between Bible-toting, young-earth, fundamentalist Christians on one side and super rational, intelligent scientists on the other. But I think James Wood gets it right:
What is needed is neither the overweening rationalist atheism of a Dawkins nor the rarefied religious belief of an Eagleton but a theologically engagcd atheism that resembles disappointed belief. Such atheism, onlya semitone from fuith, would be, like musical dissonance, the more acute for its proximity. It could give a brother’s account of belief, rather than treat it as some unwanted impoverished relative. It would be unafraid to credit the immense allure of religious tradition, but at the same time it would be ready to argue that the abstract God of the philosophers and the theologians is no more probable than the idolatrous God of the fundamentalists, makes no better sense ofthe fallen world, and is certainly no more likable or worthy of our worshipful respect—alas.
If you have a chance (and a subscription), read the rest of the article.
