Some links
1) The LA Times has a mildly entertaining op-ed by Charlotte Allen about the so-called New Atheist movement, arguing essentially that it is mostly boring, whiny, and unsophisticated. It seems to me that one factor leading to this conclusion is the presence of blogs, many of which provide source material for Allen’s mockery. There is also a tendency to focus on the popular versions of atheism, promoted in best sellers. It seems to me that atheist literature is developing a similar structure as Christian literature, insofar as there is a clear distinction between popular and rigorous approaches. Making fun of Richard Dawkins for being unsophisticated is a lot like making fun of Francis Collins for being unsophisticated. Pointing out that Christopher Hitchens doesn’t address the best arguments in philosophy of religion is a lot like pointing out that C.S. Lewis doesn’t address the best arguments in philosophy of religion. I’m not sure who Sam Harris would be in this schema. Maybe Lee Strobel.
2) Interesting note on philosophers.
3) Happy New Year!
I think that’s an astute point you make, Joshua; it does seem that atheist literature is vulgarizing in a manner similar to pop-Christian literature, and likewise developing a similar structure. There may soon be an “atheism” section in bookstores, and a derivative subsection “devotional.”
It appears to me that formidable and sophisticated atheists–some philosophers, e.g.–simply do not dignify theism with their attention (rightfully, perhaps); thus there isn’t much estimable atheist literature out there. There’s no longer any worthy, notable scorn. Hitchens, I admit, is an anomalous case.
There is in fact an atheist section at my local Borders.
Hitchens is an anomaly, which is one reason why I compared him to Lewis, who is likewise a strange case in his genre.
I think there are worthy atheists. Those who proclaim their “deconversion” narratives are serious in one sense, as long as they are honest. Other than that, serious analytic work in phil religion from an atheist perspective does occasionally take place, probably most concentrated in works edited by Professor Michael Martin, especially The Cambridge Companion to Atheism and his two edited volumes, The Impossibility of God and The Improbability of God. There are others, like Paul Kurtz, Kai Nielson, and Quentin Smith, who devote considerable time to phil religion from an atheist perspective and do serious work, including independent defenses of secular humanism.
A persistent problem with so-called “atheological arguments,” however, is their nuanced – and often idiosyncratic – nature. Theologians, as well as lay religious people, virtually never hold their faiths with some kind of linear deduction from first principles or sanitized concepts from philosophical theology. And so this or that refutation of one or another aspect of academic theism tends to hold little weight, including the dreaded problem of evil. In contrast to atheological arguments (and Christian apologetics, for that matter), the best theology (as far as I know) is not done in this outdated, quasi-foundationalist fashion.
True enough, but let me rephrase: of the most influential philosophers of the past 50-60 years, how many directly engaged theism? Frege didn’t; Quine didn’t; Searle didn’t; Rawls didn’t; Kuhn didn’t; Wittgenstein didn’t (in the manner of phil of rel); et al. Also, the names you enumerated are hardly polemicists treating religion with outright scorn–as were, e.g., Celsus, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Marx…even Bertrand Russell.
It just seems to me that phil of religion has been relegated to an inferior, maybe nondescript, status, and that’s why it’s only being attacked by pseudo-philosophers and mediocre critics.
It’s correct that the best critics in phil religion don’t treat religion with outright scorn. That’s partially because “Christian” philosophy has seen something like a renaissance since the 1960′s or so, driven by people like Plantinga, Wolterstorff, Swinburne, and others. It is viewed by these critics as being respectable, and so they treat it with respect.
It is an interesting point, however, that the greatest minds in philosophy more generally tend to ignore phil religion, and often religion altogether. Russell is in many ways the last of them, and in fact his criticism of religion is of poor quality, and rarely engaged. One somewhat interesting exception is Erik Wielenberg’s God and the Reach of Reason: C.S. Lewis, David Hume, and Bertrand Russell.
I suspect that this loss of interest in religion on the part of the great philosophers derives from a couple of fairly contingent factors. One, secular philosophers have little motivation to become experts in this area of specialization, apart from refuting theists; theists, on the other hand, have obvious motivations, including service to their community and personal relevance. Two, even though logical positivism is dead, it seems to have taken broad interest in religion down with it (despite the fact that Christian philosophy itself rose from the ashes). Three, [insert interesting analysis of continental philosophy]. As far as I can tell, thinkers like Derrida and Levinas have in fact spent considerable time on what can only be called phil religion, and this despite (or sometimes in response to) the secularization of European thought and culture. Perhaps if analytic philosophers stopped ignoring Europeans, we would find that there are plenty of influential philosophers to engage.
I presumed we were speaking only of Anglo-analytic philosophy, since it prevails so indomitably here in the English-speaking world.
And actually, as you know, analytic departments seem to have the strongest programs in (the history of) continental philosophical thought, specifically the 19th century and, sometimes, 20th (e.g. critical theory); so I wouldn’t say analytic philosophers ignore Europeans (or, at least, their patronage) altogether. They do, however, seem to regard French philosophy,e.g. Derrida and LEvinas, as something more like comparative literature. I find that humorous, because it allows me to treat with haughty disdain anybody who knows more than me about French philosophy. Also, it seems to me that Europeans such as Derrida and Levinas aren’t engaging religion in the fashion of analytic phil, so I’m not sure attention to European thought would enrich phil of rel here whatsoever–unless, that is, there’s a paradigm shift in American philosophy, which I don’t suspect is on the horizon.
I agree: Russell’s critique of Christianity is infantile.
I sadly don’t think it’s necessary to attach the adjective “secular” to the noun “philosophers” Due to the vast secularization of the university, which is almost exclusively where philosophers reside, it’s usually implied. That’s not an irrelevant side-point, I think. They don’t feel the compulsion to become experts in phil of religion because it doesn’t much intersect with the mainstream of philosophy. It’s not that they lack a moral imperative to do so; it’s that there’s simply no sound reason for a study of phil of religion. As I’ve experienced, aside from the motivation to expel it from philosophical discourse, religion serves no purpose to philosophy. Christian philosophers such as Wolterstorff seem to contend that religion (Christianity) is indeed indispensable; but until that’s trenchantly demonstrated, philosophers won’t study the discipline of phil of rel.
I would argue that philosophy of religion is just as interesting as philosophy of X, whether history, science, or something else. One might also observe that it is just as relevant to its overarching discipline. E.g. phil science has little impact on science, most scientists agree (Feynman’s quote is relevant here: “Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds.”).
Philosophy of religion has another usually unrecognized value: it is remarkably interdisciplinary, as is theology. Any intro text on phil religion will invariably contain more interesting work and discussion of more topics than any other similarly specialized intro text.