Commentary on a Recent Viral Video Defense of Religion

Some of my Facebook friends are passing around the video below. It's an interesting defense of religious belief, going viral on the Internet. It's good to see that not only the atheists like social media.



The argument made by the young Albert Einstein in this video is one taken directly, although in less scientific form, from St. Augustine, its original author.

Simply put, evil is not "real" but rather the absence or "privation" of goodness.

Augustine made this argument against the Manicheans, who held that evil was an equal and opposing force to good. If so, Augustine reasoned, then man has no free will, being caught up simply in the war of two opposites. A convenient deterministic theory for escaping responsibility.

An elaboration of this argument is made in a modern context by author Jean Bethke Elshtain in a talk given at GooglePlex, entitled, "Harry Potter, St. Augustine and the Confrontation with Evil." In it, she elaborates on the idea of evil as a parasitic form of non-being, using the examples of the Nazis and Voldermort from Harry Potter." It's a very interesting talk, parts of which I show my philosophy students every year.




Interestingly in the first video, however, the young Einstein makes a "reductionist" argument against his instructor. He cites darkness as the absence of light, not a reality itself at the subatomic level. The same for cold, which is the absence of heat, which is subatomic activity.

However, if one were to rely on the subatomic level, what would we say about love? Is it a reality at that level, or something else?

There are risks to denying realities that man experiences at his own level. That is why Einstein's instructor is onto something, and why the argument for atheism persists. Because just like our experience of love, we experience cold, or darkness, or myriad other evils at our own, not the subatomic level.

I recently had a conversation with a friend about this very same point. And about my concerns with the limits of Augustine's argument.

I sometimes think Augustine's argument is stretched too far from its original purposes.

If one proposes that evil is a lack or privation, then it is merely a zero or non-being. There is nothing to see in it, only to ponder the mystery, as Ms. Elshtain does, of its parasitical nature.

But what if one looks at the myriad manifestations of evil in the world? The privations of so many goods, that yield so many different and disturbing forms of evil, at our human level, not the metaphysical or the subatomic.

This is the gist of the black comic points made in first video in the comic series "Mr. Deity," which I truly enjoy, even as it disturbs me greatly. The episode is entitled "Mr. Deity and the Evil."



God is questioned as to why he wants SO MANY evils. Now, one could argue that God simply wanted to create so many goods. And each good must, by God's own plan face its own potentially horrifying privation. Granted, privation is the absence of good. I've got that.

But at another level, you must consider the black comic point above. What the heck is the plan for history when there is so much evil that seems to be driving it? Just think of the Nazis, for example. Or child abuse. Or cancer. History is moved greatly by the reality of evil. Privation is everywhere. Pervasive.

Collectively, we are resilient in the face of it no doubt. But I do not believe, as I noted in a previous post, that one can dismiss an individual's being scandalized by the experience of it, as Michael Novak has done at times, as a "morose" concern with it.

I have no answer to the comic point raised above. Except to recall the point made by Aquinas in the Summa Theologica, which scandalized me in graduate school. (II-II, Q. 19, Article 11. "Whether Fear Remains in Heaven.")

Aquinas argued that even in a state of beatitude in Heaven, man would still feel fear of God. This entire passage is contained in a section on "The Gift of Fear" contained in a larger treatise on "Hope." (I think this section bears re-reading on my part, for sure.)

I don't think Aquinas would be willing to call God "dark." But when one considers the prominent role of evil and suffering in the world, and even the scandalous and almost fetishistic obsession among Christians with evil and suffering, one can't help but feel disturbed. By them, and by God's apparent "plan" for "sacred history," so-called.

Is it in any way inefficient? If so, what does that say about the nature of God?

It certainly disturbs atheists, especially when they read the gleeful way in which Christians were willing to see them in a state of eternal damnation for their annoying lack of faith. Today, we have far more empathy and understanding of our fellow man, and should reject co-dependency with them, for their and our own sake. And recognize that their concerns are our own.

Dueling Philosophical Movies

Following on dueling political documentaries by and against Michael Moore, now we see, dueling philosophical films?

"The God Who Wasn't There." vs. "Expelled." A good thing? This marks an interesting trend. I suppose it is good to see more philosophical subject matter in the public square, as filmmaking has become more democratic.

My only concern, which I can see in the trailers for many of these films, is to latch on the most extreme example of theism and atheism, in censorship and hate. And the most codependent behaviors, to become codependent in turn.

What's the answer? I don't know. The marketplace must decide.

But each film pulls its audience in some way into reactive behavior against extreme opponents. That is a problem. Are boring university seminars the only answer?

Book TV This Weekend: Michael Novak on Atheism and Belief

In a previous post I took a shot a theologian and philosopher Michael Novak for a simplistic dismissal of the phenomenon of unbelief, in his short article for First Things magazine.

Well, Mr. Novak has been up to a more substantive treatment of the issue apparently, as today I received an alert from Book TV on C-SPAN 2 regarding Novak's latest book, "No One Sees God: The Dark Night of Atheists and Believers." A special program about the book will air this Sunday at 5 a.m. (no thanks) and 7 p.m. EST. More show information here.

The reviews from Amazon so far suggest Novak shows generosity to Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, et al (a case of turning the other cheek perhaps?). However, as I noted in a previous post, few conservative thinkers, it seems to me, extend their "solidarity" to the generic unbeliever.

Why should they? If you think about it, all believers, when confronted by the reality of evil and suffering, go through moments of unbelief/doubt. Unless they are "fronting."

This common ground seems to be the subject of Novak's new book, which I will be sure to read. I will also be watching this program this weekend to hear more.

Another One Page Refutation of Unbelief (Yawn)

I like the publication First Things. I respect the life's work of the theologian and philosopher Michael Novak. But, damn, and yawn, if I don't see simplistic, dismissive, curriculum vitae-padding arguments against unbelievers, like Novak's latest, too often in First Things and elsewhere on the Christian Right.

In a drive-by article, majestically titled "Atheism and Evil," Novak engages a friendly audience of First Things readers to quickly dismiss atheists and agnostics for their struggles with belief.

A good percentage of these unbelievers, according to a recent poll, have allowed the problem of evil to drive them away from the notion of a personal God. But, surprisingly, many of them cling to some notion of an ultimate force.

In the most insulting statement of the entire piece, Novak accuses all of them of possessing a "morose delectation" for the reality of evil. In other words, they should just get over their perverse hang-up with suffering. (Now break out the brandy.)

Novak reminds us, yawn, that Thomas Aquinas posited that evil was not a co-equal reality with good. Evil tends toward non-being rather than being. (Ah, how did millions of human beings miss that? It's all explained now!)

And, without the possibility of moral evil, the world could never reach its current heights of goodness.

Excuse me if I yawn, again. These arguments are repeated endlessly against modern unbelief like a Thomistic spell. And yet, unbelief doesn't seem to go away. Curious.

Of course, the reality of physical evil (hurricanes, cancers, etc.) is not addressed here. That would have required at least another page of strenuous quoting of the Church Fathers.

Or perhaps it is, encrusted within Novak's brief, metaphorical reference to the world as a "tapestry of human experience." Or in his sweeping notion that "[a]ll the stuff of a good story depends on creation being not just a world of iron logic and inflexible arithmetic, but also a world of immense crisscrossing variation and 'blooming, buzzing profusion.'”

There you have it. The whole thing, from Krakatoa to Katrina, is just another "good story," and "blooming, buzzing profusion." What?

I know that Michael Novak means better. Perhaps Christopher Hitchens' delectations have gotten too much under his skin.

But I think that if one were actually concerned with these issues, in a spirit of genuine solidarity with non-First Things subscribers, it might help to acknowledge the serious concerns of "unbelievers" -- and perhaps more "believers" than one might care to acknowledge -- with moral evil, physical evil, and even metaphysical evil -- where one grinds daily against the limits of one's own being.

In a media-mad world in which human beings are buffeted daily by images of untold suffering and cruelty, and even levels of human success and honor that they will never achieve, it will require more than a series of dusty syllogisms to ease the suffering and dissension caused by the "immense crisscrossing" within the human spirit of the problems of moral, natural and metaphysical evil.

Dawkins Tweaked in New Music Video

I had to share this humorous little item from YouTube about Richard Dawkins - a very smart and very condescending man, leading a modern "posse" of pugnacious atheists.

Humor helps put things in perspective.

Hitchens is Not Great?

Although I do not always agree with him, I admire Christopher Hitchens' intellect and persuasive power. When he wades into religion however, like many of his fellow "new atheists" such as Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins, he is out of his depth -- except of course, when beating up the most simple of fundamentalists.

Peter Berkowitz has written a fine piece for the Wall Street Journal on this "new atheism" and its lucrative books sales. He also takes particular issue with his friend Hitchens' "God is Not Great." Good reading.

One Christian's Take on Dawkins' Militant Atheism

Interesting interview with Alister McGrath, former atheist, now a Christian, about debating atheist media superstar Richard Dawkins. His take: Dawkins dismays his fellow atheist intellectuals because of his sloppiness and acidity, but appeals to those atheists around the world who are concerned about an apparent resurgence of (often fundamentalist) religion.

Also part of this conversation: does the atheist Dawkins help balance out religious fundamentalism because he forces people to think seriously about religion? Personally, I think that such attacks do cause people to think more about the relationship between religion, myth and science. But the rhetoric of those attacks can cause serious misunderstandings on both sides.

Today's Arrogant Atheists

Excellent piece by Sam Schulman in the Wall Street Journal online about the arrogance of today's high-profile atheists.

Schulman notes that Christian apologists like C.S. Lewis could extend some sympathy to atheist arguments because they had been there themselves. They could also take philosophical arguments about science and belief seriously. Yet, today's crusading atheists do not reciprocate and are remarkably "incurious" about anything beyond their own materialism.

Highly recommended.

Shermer on Critical Thinking

Here's a fun twenty minute video from the always interesting TEDBlog.com and TEDTalks featuring Michael Shermer of Skeptic magazine, who demonstrates the importance of critical thinking. This video has been around for a while, but my blog has not. Hence, I'm posting a link to it now that I've thought of it.

I don't endorse Shermer's entire worldview, which is atheist and naturalist, but he is clearly a sharp mind worth listening to. My favorite part is about the alleged satanic lyrics in the backwards Led Zeppelin songs.

Another Fellow Traveler Takes on Dawkins

Another interesting critical review of Richard Dawkins, this time by Irish atheist Michael Fitzpatrick, for Spiked.

Fitzpatrick criticizes Dawkins' anti-religious bigotry and selective focus on the evils of religion, when there is a far bigger pseudo-scientific fish to fry (the radical environmental movement) in his own backyard, which, according to Fitzpatrick, is also far more destructive.

An acknowledgment of the reality of pseudo-science or junk science by Dawkins would knock him off the moral high ground. If science, or at least those who claim to love it, can be fanatical and irrational, then religion cannot be the sole force of evil in the world, or the sole opponent of progress.

Andrew Brown Highlights Richard Dawkins' Own Fanaticism in "The God Delusion"

Reactions to Richard Dawkins' latest and popular work "The God Delusion" have been varied. To those intimidated by Dawkins' contempt for religion, it may be heartening to know that even his allies recognize weaknesses arising from his scorn.

One such fellow traveler on the road to atheism or agnosticism has a particularly interesting review. Andrew Brown in Prospect highlights some of Dawkins' weakest arguments, including his historically disingenuous claim that atheists are not violent in the name of atheism. Brown makes quick work of this one.

Dawkins is right to criticize many aspects of religious fanaticism, but wrong to blame them on religion per se. Mankind has an alarming propensity for fanaticism no matter the subject. Dawkins' own inability to see the potential for fanaticism among atheists is itself fanatical.

Thoughts on Gary Numan

British industrial rocker Gary Numan fascinates me. Not only do I love his deeply engaging and original sound, but some of his works are thought-provoking and powerful.

His "Prayer for the Unborn" (below) is a remarkable statement of dissatisfaction with God, who didn't intervene in the death by miscarriage of Numan's unborn child. Whether you are an atheist (as he is) or not, you can understand the frustration he expresses here. In fact, as this song demonstrates, Numan's atheism seems to be directed at a God who is hearing, but not answering him.



Critics note that Numan, who in his early career struggled with some very derivative work, has finally discovered a unique voice and vision as he wrestles with darker themes.

Gary Numan's official website