Book Review
Michael Novak is convinced that
Atheists and believers in God can and should open civil, reasoned conversations about questions important to each. Who really are we? What may we hope? How ought we to live?
In the face of such questions, both the atheist and the theist stand in similar darkness. The atheist does not see God–but neither does the believer….
The world of human experience is not all that different for the believer in God versus the atheist….
Why not, then, set aside our cultures of mutual distrust and begin to converse like serious human beings?
Out of that conviction, he has written No One Sees God: The Dark Night of Atheists and Believers. It is a book for turning down the heat of debate, recognizing our shared humanness, opening our ears to hear the other side of the story. As such it is more than timely.
Novak, according to the flyleaf, has taught at Harvard and Stanford, and held academic chairs at Syracuse University and Notre Dame. He now holds the Jewett Chair in Religions, Philosophy, and Public Policy at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C. He was granted the Templeton Prize for progress in religion in 1994. A Roman Catholic, he presents views in this book with which Protestant believers may be almost entirely in agreement. One hopes that his call for more irenic religious debate might also be amenable to many atheists.
Peaceable discussion does not mean, however, simply nodding or shaking our heads blandly when we agree or disagree. Novak disagrees deeply and pointedly with the four famous “New Atheists,” Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens. Above all, he takes exception to their dismissing religion offhand with an air of knowledge that in many cases is quite unsupported in fact or argument. Theirs is not the calm approach to reasoned debate that Novak desires; or, as he put it in his title to Chapter One, it is “Not the Way to Invite a Conversation.” All of them, he says, “think religion is so great a menace that they do not show much disposition for dialogue.” In their books,
there is not a shred of evidence that their authors have ever had any doubts whatever about the rightness of their own atheism. Self-questioning about their own scholarly indifference to their subject; about the horrific brutalities committed in the name of “scientific atheism” during the twentieth century; about the restless and mercurial dissatisfactions in atheist and secular movements during the past hundred years…. all such questions are notable by their absence.
Of Dawkins he writes,
Had Professor Dawkins made even a semiserious pretense of fairness, I would have thought much more carefully about his criticisms of Christian peoples…. The letter that Harris claims is intended for a Christian nation is, in fact, totally uninterested in Christianity on any level…. Dennett’s concept of reason and science is so narrow that he seems trapped in something like early-period A.J. Ayer.
It is serious dialogue he desires, not that of the sort set forth by these New Atheists. By way of demonstration and contrast, he devotes 54 pages respectfully responding to his colleague (his description) Heather MacDonald of the Manhattan Institute, who had written a short article espousing atheism in the American Conservative in August 2006. It is a back-and-forth exchange, actually, marked throughout by the sense of common humanness Novak calls us to recognize. He allows her in his book to present her case, and in a tone of genuine friendship he answers with his own. Here you get a sense of his approach:
It is rare in American life today to conduct public argument at the depth Heather chooses. Her arguments are crucial to our national life.
A famous Jesuit once said that to achieve real disagreement, two disputants must drink a case of brandy together. Most of what seem to be “disagreements” are a case of mutual misunderstanding. These are not so much real disagreements as false leads. What is needed, then, is a patient willingness to circle round and round together, during many long evenings, narrowing the issues….
One of the best things about friendship is lifelong disagreement on important points, cherished in affectionate argument.
He goes on to list four topics on which believer and unbeliever are likely to be in agreement; and then moves on to state his own case.
This common humanness is evident throughout the book. The common darkness (“No One Sees God”) is in the opening and in the epilogue, but most clearly explained in a chapter on Thinking About God, where he reminds us that even Moses at the Burning Bush did not see God; all he saw was a flame; and
as a drop is to the ocean, so compared to God is a dancing flame.
It is not all darkness: there is knowledge. Yet mystery remains.
Brave and persistent men may come to know God exists. (I repeat, know it. Not believe it.) They can know unmistakably that God exists…. They know it by the fruits of God’s presence in their own lives and in the lives of others…. However humans cannot know, cannot possibly know, what God is. Not with God’s own self-knowledge, and not even with their own.
Elsewhere he also draws at length upon the knowledge of God to be gained through natural theology, as well as through Scripture.
Nearing the close of the book Novak speaks of the via negativa, the negative way (literally), the way of not-knowing: for all our theology and Biblical studies, there is far more about God we cannot grasp than there is that we can understand and know. This approach is more common to Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christian traditions than to my own Protestant version of Christianity. It expresses a refreshing and helpful humility in one’s approach to God, and to one’s own knowledge and understanding. Yet for all that, Novak still emphasizes that we can know God’s existence, and some of what God is like, even in the midst of the mystery.
It was a difficult task he set for himself: to call for reasoned, even brotherly discourse at a time when four best-selling atheists have been spilling forth in a most unbrotherly tone. (He might also have pointed to the tone taken on many atheist Internet sites–Pharyngula, for example.) His exchange with Heather MacDonald showed that discourse of that sort is possible. I can only hope that this blog follows Novak’s example of spirited yet respectful debate; a strongly reasoned defense of Christian belief couple with an awareness that others may choose differently; and that though we may have different answers, we all share similar burdens, issues, and questions.
No One Sees God: The Dark Night of Atheists and Believers by Michael Novak. New York: Doubleday, 2008. 336 Pages. Amazon Price (Hardcover) US$16.29.
_______________
Possibly related posts (automatically generated):
A timely post considering our current discussion deep into the comments here on what it means to know God. I certainly welcome a spirited yet respectful debate, and I think this blog is a great place for that. Come one, come all!
I’m curious if Novak ever admits to being possibly mistaken with regards to his theistic belief, or does he include himself among those “brave and persistent men” who “know God exists.” It does no good to have a reasoned discussion with someone who can acknowledge no room for error in their views.
As an atheist, the primary discussion I wish to have with Christians and other theists is why they believe it is appropriate to force non-believers to adhere to their theological doctrines (e.g., prohibitions against gay marriage). Your beliefs would not concern me (and the so-called new atheists) if you were not so energetic about injecting theology into the public sphere.
[...] Gilson of Thinking Christian has posted a review of Michael Novak’s new book No One Sees [...]