Douglas Wilson is author of the recently released Letter from a Christian Citizen, a response to Sam Harris' bestselling Letter to a Christian Nation. We asked him about this book, the popularity of atheism and the best responses to it.
Discerning Reader: It seems clear to me, even if I just look at the books rolling off the presses these days, that atheism is gaining in both popularity and credibility. Do you agree with this assessment, and if so, to what do you attribute this surge?
Douglas Wilson: Yes, I agree with that. Not only are we dealing a number of new atheistic titles, but this is happening in a free market system. In other words, there are a lot of new books because a lot of people are buying them at NYT bestseller levels. There is definitely an increased market for this kind of thing. But in the good news department, I would attribute the surge to a sense of profound panic on their part. In other words, I believe that America’s secularists, after decades of patronizing the rubes and cornpones of the conservative religious world, have had a frightening epiphany. Their success in the so-called “culture wars” can by no means be taken for granted. So they have launched a very shrill ideological campaign, and a lot of people are responding to it.
DR: At this time the three most widely-read atheists seem to be Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins. All three have recently released bestselling books. In what ways do these men present the same arguments and in what ways do their arguments differ?
DW: All three rely on the standard arguments, but there are differences between them. Dawkins relies more on appeals to what he calls science, while Harris leans heavily on the so-called problem of evil. Christopher Hitchens’ guiding principle appears to be that he will be governed by no one other than Christopher Hitchens. In the matter of style, Dawkins is an avuncular but sometimes severe lecturer, Harris a scold, and Hitchens is vivid and fun to read.
DR: You recently completed a highly-publicized debate of sorts with Christopher Hitchens. What kind of response did you receive from those who read that interaction?
DW: I was very grateful for the opportunity provided by Christianity Today online, and as a result Mr. Hitchens and I had what diplomats call a frank exchange of views. I am a presuppositionalist in my apologetic approach, and I noticed in the comments at that debate site that people either “get” what you are doing immediately, or it sails right past them and they think that you are a black belt in non sequiturs. But I have received quite a bit of positive feedback over that exchange. And apart from comments and that kind of thing, the debate appears to have permanently juiced the traffic at my blog. So I was really grateful for the opportunity.
DR: In Letter from a Christian Citizen you continually show where Harris is inconsistent with his own ideology. Is there any such thing as a completely consistent atheist?
DW: That’s the fun thing. No, there is no such thing as a consistent atheist. I believe there are degrees of attempted consistency—radical relativism is more consistent than the atheistic moralism represented by men like Harris, and nihilism is more consistent than radical relativism. But once you get to nihilism, and attempt to embrace full consistency (via suicide, say), you have thereby admitted that consistency is a virtue. But there are no virtues. Why be consistent? And to grasp that principle and lurch into attempts at random inconsistency is just another disguised attempt at consistency again. You can run but you can’t hide. Consistency is inconsistent. And inconsistency for the sake of consistency is also inconsistent.
DR: Do atheists have any legitimate claim to words like ought and should? Is it possible for atheists to arrive at any kind of legitimate foundation for morality?
DW: I don’t believe so. I don’t begrudge them their ad hoc arrangements, but what I want to insist upon is that they be honest and admit that this is what they are doing, and they are doing it for the sake of their own temporary safety and convenience only. The Aztecs and their human sacrifice had a different ad hoc arrangement, as did the white establishment in the days of Jim Crow, and so on. Does our current arrangement differ with the ancient practice of sacrificing children to Molech? Tomayto, tomahto.
DR: In Letter from a Christian Citizen you say that Harris inadvertently betrays his prejudice against Christians. Is it possible for an atheist to be objective in his arguments against Christianity?
DW: The apostle Paul says that all unbelief is rooted in a refusal to honor God as God, along with a refusal to give Him thanks. So there is no such thing as a settled argument against Christ which can be called objective—after all, it is an argument enlisted in the defense of autonomous sin. But I do believe that an atheist who does not yet believe in God, but who is willing to consider Him, and is raising the questions because he wants answers to them—such a person is being drawn by the Holy Spirit and I would be willing for such probing or testing arguments to be called honest or objective.
DR: What do you consider the single most damaging argument against atheism?
DW: The most potent argument is the reductio that refuses to allow atheism into “the debate proper” in the first place. In order to formulate the arguments for atheism, one must first presuppose that the triune God of the Bible created a universe in which rational argument makes sense. And given atheism, arguments for atheism are just additions to the white noise all around us.
DR: As you interact with atheists, which of their arguments do you find most difficult to deal with?
DW: The hardest argument to deal with, because it involves so many fronts and so many variables, is the argument of the “open” and winsome atheist who says that he is quite prepared to be a religious man, and quite prepared to believe in a god. “But which one and why?” Atheists, if they know their business, want the debate to be between atheists on the one hand and all religious people on the other. Thus, in order to engage, the Christian has to deal not only with the atheism, but also separate himself from Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and so on. It can be done, but it requires a lot.
DR: How can the church do a better job of not giving ammunition to atheists?
DW: Of course, we have to do a better job policing ourselves. For example, the Church has to be seen as exercising moral authority and discipline when ministers disgrace their ordination vows through adultery, or hucksters on television prey on widows in the name of Jesus, or academics compromise with secularism in order to gratify their lust for respect. The Church will not regain moral authority in the world until we are seen as those dealing with our own scandals and embarrassments.
But the thing above all others that would be most persuasive to those in the world would be for believing Christians to cultivate a charitable and orthodox catholicity toward one another. Jesus said that men would know who we were if we loved one another. That, in its turn, requires us to cultivate and establish true Christian communities—where the people we love and have to deal with are not blog buddies, but rather flesh and blood neighbors.
DR: Do you know if Sam Harris is aware of your book? Do you know if he has taken the time to read it?
DW: I know that he is aware of it--links to what I wrote were posted on his blog as the installments first appeared on my blog. And I am pretty sure he knows of the book, but I do not know if he has read it. At some point I would love to arrange a debate with him if for no other reason than to ensure that he actually confronts some of these issues head on. And if he didn’t encounter them in his debate prep, he certainly would in the debate itself.
