“If there was no God, there would be no atheists.” – G.K. Chesterton
The cover of “The Godless Delusion” (Our Sunday Visitor, paperback, 255 pages) features a man sawing off the branch he’s sitting on, offering the perfect metaphor for the atheist position. Co-written by two renowned Catholic apologists, Patrick Madrid and Kenneth Hensley, the book shows how atheism is just as self-defeating as the man who destroys his own foundation.
As the “new atheists” gain traction in the modern world, many Christian authors have sought to mount a defense of Christianity. But this book is somewhat different. Instead of defending Christianity, Madrid and Hensley attack atheism full-force. Both writers demonstrate how this new brand of atheism is not just wrong, but self-contradictory, impractical, and hypocritical. They describe how objectively claiming that there is no objective truth is self-contradictory, how most atheists don’t actually live lives reflecting their beliefs, and how atheists chastising ‘religious indoctrination’ force their own belief system on others just as relentlessly.
A good chunk of “The Godless Delusion” compares atheist arguments with the ramifications of their beliefs. The authors repeatedly use the logical tool “reduction ad absurdum”, which basically means that if the ramifications of an argument are absurd, then their premises must be flawed. In the case of atheism, this means that atheist regimes, the anarchy of immoral life, and life without objective truth are each absurdities that disprove the premises of atheism itself.
In order to reinforce its points, “The Godless Delusion” does include a good amount of repetitiveness; the authors could have proven their points in less than 250 pages. And despite the reasonableness of the author’s arguments, atheists will probably become frustrated reading this book because Madrid and Hensley sometimes write with condescension and routinely mock atheist beliefs. Both authors could have pursued their arguments with a little more charity.
But overall, “The Godless Delusion” successfully levels the atheist belief system. The book is clearly well-researched—it includes over 120 footnotes—and stands as one of the few books that goes on the offensive instead of the defensive. If you’re interested in a defense of Christianity look elsewhere, but for a dismantling of atheism check this book out.
(Near the end of the book, the authors encourage atheists and skeptics to explore other books on the existence of God, including: “The Last Superstition” (Edward Feser), “Handbook of Christian Apologetics” (Peter Kreeft, Ronald Tacelli), “The One and the Many” (W. Norris Clarke), “What’s So Great About Christianity?” (Dinesh D’Souza), and “Theology and Sanity” (Frank Sheed). I recommend these books not just for skeptical atheists, but for all Christians as well. I particularly like the books by Kreeft and Sheed.)
4 comments:
I'm an atheist. I have to wonder if the authors have any atheist friends. I wonder where they get their opinion of atheists. Your review makes it appear that they link immorality with atheism, which is quite a bizarre idea. All the atheists I know subscribe to "The Golden Rule", and morally are as good as any Christian I know. My wife and I recently celebrated our 51st Wedding Anniversary, and we have raised six children who are all working toward making the earth a green, peaceful planet.
Edwin F. Meyer II
EFM: The authors don't link immorality with atheists, but they do link it ultimately with atheism. Notice the subtle, but important, difference?
They are quick to admit that, like you explained, the huge majority of atheists are "good" people.
However, their claim is that these are cases of atheists not living true to their atheistic beliefs. The authors argue that atheism inherently rejects an objective source of reality, and if this is truly lived then atheists wouldn't obey laws but would simply act on their own whims and unchecked desires.
You see this same example in your own comment. You note that atheists are "as morally good" as any Christian you know. Well how do you define 'good'? Something can only be good relative to something else. Atheists believe that there is no objective definition of goodness, while theists believe God created one--or, to be more accurate, is the definition himself.
The authors simply assert that, thank goodness, most non-believers are theoretical atheists but practical theists. Only a few notorious men--Hitler, Stalin, etc.--have carried out atheistic belief to its natural conclusion, the conclusion that without God there is no 'true' right or wrong, only whatever each man decides them to be.
Atheists can live moral lives, because all atheists were created in the 'image of God'. They follow the natural law written on their hearts, whether or not they realize that's what they are following.
Ooooo! Thanks! Just what I needed to turn me around: The Catholic definition of atheism!
EFM II: That's not the Catholic definition of atheism, but the atheist definition.
Which part of that definition would you say that atheists disagree with?
Post a Comment