Those lucky enough to have been raised in a family of easygoing atheists may experience a brief shock of non-recognition when they discover, later in life, that not everyone is an atheist, that even some intelligent people believe in God. Think of Mr. Broderick, who taught you European history in your senior year and who, for god's sake, was a devout Catholic -- hard to make sense of it, isn't it? And when those easygoing but firm atheists (not the hitchins or dawkins kind) discovers that a lot of what was written, painted, composed in the past, has a religious theme, makes religious references, requires an understanding of religious symbolism, requires in fact a knowledge of the Bible stories, they cheerfully learn them. And get on with the real business of living -- whatever that may be.

But now all these dawkinses and hitchinses, in their equal-opportunity denunciations of religion,  think that with a book they will help attain what is 1) unattainable and 2) not such a hot idea to be attempting to attain in the first place, which is a world in which everyone discards religion and becomes an atheist.  Not necessarily, always and everywhere, a good thing. And right now, one wishes to shake the trees of faith selectively: more Christians and Jews, surer of themselves, more Muslims, unsurer of themselves. That's the desired result.  Atheism -- not wishy-washy agnosticism, may remain caviar for the general. Ainsi soit-il.

Strangely enough, I actually agree with a lot of what Dalrymple has written here about religion.  It's a fairly standard version of what might be described as the "baby and the bathwater" defence which is fine as far as it goes...... which is up to about the present day and out to about the limits of western culture.

I suspect that to understand why these books have appeared  we have to look at the generations that are growing up now and where they intend to take our culture.   As a high school teacher I have been in constant contact with teenagers for over thirty years and the present generation are remarkably different to their predecessors in their attitude to religion. 

Until 5 or 10 years ago those students, who like Dalrymple himself,  had rejected religion at an early age would rarely put their position forward or challenge religious views.  Not so any more.  Religion is fair game and atheism is the dominant creed.  To give an example; students used to sit in pious silence in my  Biology classes as some devout fundamentalist put forward their nonsensical arguments against evolution.  Now, despite my efforts to moderate, such views are met with loud mockery and derision.  There may indeed be a tide in the affairs of men but I think a tide in the  opportunities available to publishers is what has driven the production of these books.  They have seen their market and rushed to meet it.

There are parallels here also with the cultural changes around sexuality that have occurred over the last three decades. Atheists are coming out, and like gays before them, they are loud, proud and out to change the culture!

Freeman Dyson is example of a decent person, a practicing believer and a great matematician-physicist. For many reasons it is deeply satisfying to read his memoir, Disturbing The Universe - and I think the tone of his writings can serve as an antidote to all the recent militantly anti-religious stuff.

(It woud have been more helpfulif if the new atheists went after specific churches and doctrines because these do have sordid history - whenever I see the infallible Pope banishing contraceptives I am glad he is not as powerful as his predecessors were and as the Ayatollahs still are. ) 

I grew up in communist Czechoslovakia, under anti-religious regime, in atheist nation with strong anti-catolic sentiments. And looking back I remember that the churches, the priests, the catolic holidays and traditions were treated with respect by most -  it was not just my parents. I suppose the city people I knew then felt that something immaterial was lacking in their existence. One can be awed in a cathedral or enjoy christmas midnight mass even if one does not believe in what it represents .

Theodore Dalrymple's statement that "a sense of a transcendent meaning or purpose to existence is a great comfort" is true as far as it goes, but does anyone else find it a bit woolly? (note - this is the first time I've noticed anything less than needle-sharpness in his writing).

A sense of transcendent - even if it preserves our culture -  is ultimately a deception if this quotidian world is all that exists. This is particularly true with Christianity. As Paul said in 1 Corinthians 15, "if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith". The significance of Christianity stands or falls on a single historical fact, the resurrection of Christ. If it did not happen Christianity is futile (comfort or no comfort), a logical consequence Paul recognises and lays clearly before his readers.

If there is no resurrection, if Christ's death on the cross was his final act, then his numerous claims to be the Son of God were simply false; and his profound moral teaching must remain an eternally discordant enigma alongside the brutish reality of his egotistical madness.

But if the resurrection did in fact take place, then it was the most important event ever. And how we respond to it will determine who we are - and what we will become - to a degree infinitely more important than the aggregate of all our other choices.

Purpose should be rooted in reality, so we shouldn't fear examing whether the resurrection took place or not. To me, the documentary evidence is compelling, but I think Bach can also give us a clue. The transcendence we feel listening to his music would merely be a teasing mockery of our animal selves without the reality of a transcendent object. The resurrection, the point in history when the Transcendent transformed humanity, solves both the enigma of Christ's character and the riddle of our numinous desires.

Is someone who studies the history and philosophy of atheism an atheologist?

As for Hitchens, Dawkins &c - and especially Dennett - there are far too many bright people (real "brights") who have embraced religion - many later in life - like Chesterton, C. S. Lewis, Tolkien, T. S. Eliot, to name just a few.

"Clever" people are almost always limited in their cleverness to the particular field or fields in which they excel.  To claim their belief as an argument for religion makes no sense.  I offer a statistical disproof of religion as follows.

At least 90% of religious belief has to be wrong since it is mutually exclusive...if you believe in Mohammed you can't also believe in Jehovah etc.  Now since there is no evidence to indicate one set of beliefs is more accurate than another the only reasonable statistical inference is.......they're all wrong!

I regularly apply this process when questioning students.  If they all tell different stories......they're all lying!

Nice piece, Mr. Dalrymple.  Your comment to your friend in paragraph 6,  "...it was also possible that the belief would come with the observance rather than the other way around" is a restatement of an ancient maxim observed and experienced by the orthodox:  lex orandi, lex credendi.

Well said, Mr. McCormick.  I think you'd like an article in the recent National Review, "Enemies of the Soul" (or something like that.)  Re: atheist authors, I picked up Harris' book, opened it randomly to a page, and within a few sentences was reading an outright, bald-faced lie.  No need to read further: a lack of literary  integrity on one page means you can't trust the other pages. 

I recommend GK Chesterton's Orthodoxy for any of you.  Push yourself thru the intial chapters for later rewards, and excuse some of its datedness.

S.D.G.