The Illiberalism of the New Atheism

Damon Linker, a former editor at First Things who has moved in a liberal direction, has an article in The New Republic in which he takes apart “the new atheism” of authors such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and David Dennett. He links them to the “ideological atheism” that arose in revolutionary France, moved through such nineteenth century writers as Feuerbach, Marx, and Nietzsche, and into twentieth century communism. That’s not to say the gang of four mentioned above are Communists; it’s to say that the trajectory of their thinking is not only hostile to religion, but to liberal society in general. Linker’s conclusion:

Why does it matter that a handful of writers who refuse to accept this basic human reality have recently sold a lot of books? On one level, it obviously doesn’t matter very much. The United States remains a very religious nation. While there are small communities of atheists, agnostics, and skeptics in every state, and substantial ones in a few–Washington state leads the country with 25 percent of its residents claiming to worship no God; North Dakota comes in last with 3 percent–there aren’t nearly enough unbelievers to leave a significant mark on the nation’s culture or politics as a whole.

Still, the rise of the new atheists is cause for concern–not among the targets of their anger, who can rest secure in the knowledge that the ranks of the religious will, here in America, dwarf the ranks of atheists for the foreseeable future; but rather among those for whom the defense of secular liberalism is a high political priority. Of course, many of these secular liberals are probably the same people who propelled Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens onto the best-seller lists by purchasing their books en masse– people who are worried about the dual threats to secular politics posed by militant Islam and the American religious right. These people are correct to be nervous about the future of secular liberalism, to perceive that it needs passionate, eloquent defenders. The problem is that the rhetoric of Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens will undermine liberalism, not bolster it: Far from shoring up the secular political tradition, their arguments are likely to produce a country poised precariously between opposite forms of illiberalism.

The last thing America needs is a war of attrition between two mutually exclusive, absolute systems of belief. Yet this is precisely what the new atheists appear to crave. The task for the rest of us–committed to neither dogmatic faith nor dogmatic doubt–is to make certain that combatants on both sides of the theological divide fail to get their destructive way. And thereby to ensure that liberalism prevails.

It’s well worth you time. Read it all.

They’re Against Big Booms

Another day, another politically left-wing position without theological or ethical thinking behind it–par for the course for the mainline churches. This time, it’s a letter they and others have sent to members of Congress regarding the next generation of nuclear warheads:

We urge you to delete all funding for the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) from the upcoming omnibus appropriations bill.  We support the bipartisan House decision to zero out funding for the new nuclear warhead and hope you will also take this course of action as you draft the Energy and Water portion of the omnibus bill.

The RRW is meant to replace the current generation of warheads on America’s nuclear missiles, both land and sea-based. According to GlobalSecurity.org, they are supposed to eliminate the need for periodic testing, which would pave the way for the U.S. to join the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. It is also only on the “concept” stage, and will take a minimum of five to ten years to develop, longer to implement. From what I’ve been able to gather, there are good arguments on both sides of the question, revolving around military needs, deterrence theory, and possible diplomatic consequences of proceeding–none of which are within the field of the mainline churches’ competence.

We believe it is important to consider the adverse international nonproliferation consequences of proceeding with RRW.  Limiting RRW to design and development will still be viewed internationally as the U.S. walking down the path toward new nuclear weapons.  If the United States does not appear to be serious about nonproliferation and disarmament, its ability to limit other nations’ development of nuclear weapons will erode.

This is possible, though it assumes an inability on the part of others to understand the difference between “new” weapons and modernizing older ones.

Former Senator Sam Nunn argued this point before Congress earlier this year, stating that proceeding with RRW would undermine U.S. efforts to “prevent the spread and use of nuclear weapons.”

If Congress approves funding for the Energy Department to proceed with research and possible development of RRW, many in the international community will interpret this as another sign that the U.S. is walking away from its nonproliferation obligations, including Article VI of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.  The 118 countries of the Non-Aligned Movement have already cited development of RRW as contradictory to nuclear disarmament agreements signed by the United States.  RRW will complicate efforts to win international support to bolster the beleaguered NPT system.

I don’t get this at all. How is modernizing our weapons “walking away from…nonproliferation obligations”? Among other things, the RRW is envisioned as a warhead that, even in the extremely unlikely event that it fell into terrorist or rogue state hands, couldn’t be detonated. Isn’t greater safety part of what NPT is all about? Oh, and relying on the Non-Aligned Movement, an artifact of the 1960s and the Cold War, for information isn’t smart. The U.S. has never signed any nuclear “disarmament” treaties, only nuclear reduction ones. START stood for “STrategic Arms Reduction Treaty,” remember.

Furthermore, U.S. funding of RRW will buttress the arguments of nuclear hawks in Russia and China when they argue in favor of nuclear modernization in their respective nations.

That strikes me as  undeniably true, though whether either Russia or China can actually do so is dependent on technological development and economic wherewithal, not just political decision.

The U.S. cannot simultaneously work toward upgrading its nuclear arsenal and successfully convince other nations that it is committed to reducing the role and number of nuclear weapons worldwide.

I’m not sure why not. Whether we’d be successful or not is another question, but there is certainly an argument to be made that modernization of old weapons is largely a matter of deterrence, and thus of making sure that they are never used, rather than allowing a potential enemy to think that they can get away with using them because our arsenal is out-dated.

We urge you to work with your colleagues in Congress to restore U.S. leadership in nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament rather than committing funding to this program.

And again, I’m not sure what the contradiction is, especially since this is only in the research stage.

Here’s the real point: while I don’t necessarily agree with the contents of this letter, I can buy that those arguments are reasonable and have some merit. They will need to be considered as part of the policy conversation going on between the White House, Congress, and the Defense, State, and Energy departments. There are signatories to this letter–from the Arms Control Association to the Union of Concerned Scientists to the British American Security Information Council to the Federation of American Scientists–who are in a good position to contribute to the debate. But what does the United Methodist Board of Church and Society, or the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (Roman Catholic) or the Episcopal Office of Government Relations or the PCUSA have to offer that isn’t simply a parroting of secular politicians or scientists? From this letter, it would appear that the answer is “nothing.” I’ve got no problem with any of the religious folk who signed this letter writing their senators, or the Secretary of Defense, or the president, and voicing his or her concerns. It’s when they write as representatives of religious institutions, and have nothing to add from a theological or ethical perspective, that I object. Do they really think that when they stand behind Sam Nunn and say, “yeah, what he said!” that they are actually contributing to the discussion? Do they really think that their fancy titles and religious affiliations are going to mean anything to the politicians, generals, and scientists who are going to make the decision, if all they can say is “me too!” That’s why stuff like this is such a waste of time, and such a degradation of the church’s mission in the world. If we can’t contribute a divine perspective, but only are own petty political opinions, what good are we?