C}R: volume 1, Issue 1 S4

Atheism vs. Theism:

A Bebate With No Winnei

}eff Nuiico
Ph.B. stuuent, Claiemont Lincoln 0niveisity

!"#$%&'$: This papei investigates the metaphysical uebates occuiiing between the
"New Atheists" anu "Analytic Theists." 0tilizing the woik of anthiopologist Talal
Asau, this papei tiaces the westein constiuction of the categoiy of "ieligion" to
explain the ways in which the New Atheists anu Analytic Theists subsciibe to (anu
continue to piomote) a pioblematic conception of "ieligion" to giounu theii
iespective aiguments. The pioblem is not that the New Atheists anu Analytic Theists
misunueistanu each othei; iathei, the pioblem is that they both subsciibe to a
westein-constiucteu, univeisal uefinition of ieligion, which is centeieu on cognitive
belief anu is "supposeu to affiim something about the funuamental natuie of
ieality."

(
)*+,-%.#: new atheism, analytic theism, post-metaphysics, ieligion, seculai



Atheists anu theists seem to have a lot to talk about these uays. They
iegulaily engage each othei in uebate, they aie piouucing some of the most populai
liteiatuie on the maiket, anu they aie becoming householu names to be uiscusseu at
uinnei tables thioughout the westein woilu. Love them oi hate them, theii
influence is unueniable. Analytic Theists, such as William Lane Ciaig, }.P. Noielanu,
anu }ohn Polkinghoine, have veiy little tiouble selling books oi secuiing tenuieu
piofessoiships at iespecteu univeisities. The same goes foi the so-calleu "New
Atheists," who incluue names such as Richaiu Bawkins, Chiistophei Bitchens, Sam
Baiiis, anu Baniel Bennett. These New Atheists anu Analytic Theists have founu
success foi the same basic ieason: they offei aiticulate anu cieative iesponses to
what seems to be the most impoitant question imaginable: "Boes uou exist." While
theie is nothing inheiently wiong with asking, oi attempting to answei, this
C}R: volume 1, Issue 1 SS
question, both the New Atheists anu the Analytic Theists commit a seiies of ciucial
eiiois in attempting to uo so. Both gioups place this question at the centei of
"ieligion," both iely on an essentialist notion of "ieligion," which is centeieu on
belief, anu both mistakenly unueistanu the question of uou to be a scientific
hypothesis which can be answeieu given a coiiect set of piemises anu pioofs.
0tilizing the woik of piominent anthiopologist Talal Asau, this papei will tiace the
westein constiuction of the categoiy of ieligion to explain the ways in which the
New Atheists anu Analytic Theists subsciibe to (anu continue to piomote) a
pioblematic conception of ieligion to giounu theii iespective aiguments. The
pioblem is not that the New Atheists anu Analytic Theists misunueistanu each
othei. Rathei, the pioblem is that they both subsciibe to a westein-constiucteu,
univeisal uefinition of ieligion, which is centeieu on cognitive belief anu is
"supposeu to affiim something about the funuamental natuie of ieality."
1
This, I
aigue, uoes not pay iespect to the vaiiety of possible elements that make up many
people's ieligious iuentity.
While a significant poition of this papei will be uevoteu to the exposition anu
analysis of two uistinct gioups, the New Atheists anu the Analytic Theists, neithei
section shoulu be ieau as a compiehensive oveiview, oi essentialist uepiction of
each peispective. Theie aie consiueiable uiffeiences, foi example, in the way
Bawkins anu Bitchens leveiage theii iespective ciiticisms at ieligion. The Analytic
Theists, as well, employ a vaiiety of techniques anu tactics to ueconstiuct the othei.
While such peispectival uiffeiences ueseive moie pointeu justification oi ciiticism

1
Talal Asau, !"#"$%&'(")*&+*,"%('(&#, (Baltimoie anu Lonuon: The }ohns Bopkins 0niveisity Piess,
199S), 4S
C}R: volume 1, Issue 1 S6
within the conveisations they aie having, this papei acts as a wiuei lens, which
ieveals a methouological eiioi that is shaieu by all paities in the conveisation.
Theiefoie, iathei than uieuge thiough extensive examples available on both siues of
the aigument, this papei utilizes the woik of only a few; namely, Richaiu Bawkins's
-."*!&/*0"%1)(&#, Chiistophei Bitchens's !&/*()*2&3*!4"$35*anu William Lane Ciaig's
book of collecteu essays !&/*()*!&&/5*!&/*()*!4"$36*
In what follows I hope to uemonstiate the ways in which the New Atheists'
ciiticisms iely upon a westein-constiuction of ieligion that is belief-centeieu,
conceineu with scientific hypotheses on the question of uou's existence, anu
conceptualize ieligion to be a univeisal, tianshistoiical, anu tianscultuial
phenomenon. Richaiu Bawkins, foi example, begins his book, -."*!&/*0"%1)(&#5 with
an explanation of the title. Be wiites that the 7"#'1(#* 8#'%().* 0(93(&#$4: uefines
"uelusion" as "a false belief oi impiession."
2
Elsewheie, he notes that "uelusion" is
uefineu as "a peisistent false belief helu in the face of stiong contiauictoiy
eviuence."
S
Belief in a supeinatuial uou, accoiuing to Bawkins, is something that is
contiauicteu by scientific*eviuence. Be agiees with Robeit N. Piisig when he wiites
in his famous novel ;"#* $#/* 3."* <43* &+* =&3&49:9%"* =$(#3"#$#9", "When one peison
suffeis fiom a uelusion, it is calleu insanity. When many people suffei fiom a
uelusion it is calleu Religion."
4
Bawkins's book is intenueu to pioviue ueluueu

2
Richaiu Bawkins, -."*!&/*0"%1)(&#, (New Yoik: Fiist Naiinei Books, 2uu6, 2uu8), 27
S
Ibiu, 28
4
Ibiu
C}R: volume 1, Issue 1 S7
ieligious believeis with a moie accuiate uesciiption of the woilu so that they will
have little choice but to ienounce ieligion anu become atheists.
S

Be fiimly believes that ieligion is essentially a false belief system about the
natuie of the woilu anu cosmos, which can be bettei explaineu by the theoiy of
evolution. In othei woius, the question of uou's existence, thus the question of
ieligion's value, is contingent upon "the uou Bypothesis," explaineu heie:
"-."4"*">()3)*$*)1?"4.1@$#5*)1?"4#$314$%*(#3"%%('"#9"*A.&*/"%(B"4$3"%:*
/")('#"/* $#/* 94"$3"/* 3."* 1#(C"4)"* $#/* "C"4:3.(#'* (#* (35* (#9%1/(#'* 1)6
This book will auvocate an alteinative view: $#:* 94"$3(C"* (#3"%%('"#9"5*
&+*)1++(9("#3*9&@?%">(3:*3&*/")('#*$#:3.(#'5*9&@")*(#3&*">()3"#9"*&#%:*$)*
3."* "#/* ?4&/193* &+* $#* ">3"#/"/* ?4&9"))* &+* '4$/1$%* "C&%13(&#. Cieative
intelligences, being evolveu, necessaiily aiiive late in the univeise,
anu theiefoie cannot be iesponsible foi uesigning it. uou, in the sense
uefineu, is a uelusion; anu, as latei chapteis will show, a peinicious
uelusion."
1


uou eithei exists oi uoes not exist. 0nueistanuing that many people finu a high level
of ambiguity in the eviuence available to eithei suppoit oi ueny uou's existence,
Bawkins explains two types of agnosticism, oi two possible ways one can look at the
uou hypothesis. TAP (tempoiaiy agnosticism in piactice) is the peispective that one
withholus hei position on a question until moie eviuence is pioviueu.
2
Foi example,
one coulu be justifiably agnostic on the question of whethei oi not theie aie any
black swans in a lake if she has yet to see all of the swans (anu has yet to finu any
black swans, of couise). The point being, theie is a way to ueteimine the tiuth to the
question: one coulu finu all of the swans anu obseivationally ueteimine whethei oi

S
Ibiu. "If this book woiks as I intenu, ieligious ieaueis who open it will be atheists when they put it
uown."
1
Ibiu, S2
2
Ibiu, 69-7u
C}R: volume 1, Issue 1 S8
not theie weie any black ones. 0ntil she obseives them all, howevei, she is entitleu
to be agnostic on the question. If, howevei, she knows that theie aie exactly two
hunuieu swans in the lake anu she is ceitain that she has seen one-hunuieu anu
ninety-nine white swans, she can piesume with high piobability that the last swan
will also be white.
Seconuly, Bawkins uesciibes PAP (peimanent agnosticism is piinciple),
which he says is "appiopiiate foi questions that can nevei be answeieu, no mattei
how much eviuence we gathei, because the veiy iuea of eviuence is not applicable."
S

The question of uou's existence, Bawkins claims, "belongs fiimly in the tempoiaiy
oi TAP categoiy. Eithei he exists oi he uoesn't. It is a scientific question; one uay we
may know the answei, anu meanwhile we can say something pietty stiong about
the piobability."
4
It is cleai that Bawkins finus the question of uou's existence to be
ultimately answeiable thiough scientific inquiiy. Fuitheimoie, Bawkins also claims
that belief in uou is answeiable to intellectual aiguments foi anu against the
existence of uou.
"I have a iesponsibility," Bawkins wiites, "to uispose of the positive
aiguments foi belief that have been offeieu thiough histoiy."
S
It is at this point that
Bawkins engages with the Analytics, such as Aquinas's "pioofs" ("The 0nmoveu
Novei," "The 0ncauseu Cause," anu "The Cosmological Aigument"), Anselm's
"ontological aigument" (via Plantinga), anu the "aigument fiom uesign," to piove

S
Ibiu, 7u
4
Ibiu. Along the same lines, Bawkins also notes: "I suggest that the existence of uou is a scientific
hypothesis like any othei" (72); "uou's existence oi non-existence is a scientific fact about the
univeise, uiscoveiable in piinciple if not in piactice." (7S).
S
Ibiu, 99
C}R: volume 1, Issue 1 S9
that belief in uou is unwaiianteu. 0nwaiianteu, because each of these aiguments,
accoiuing to Bawkins, is bettei explaineu by scientific (mostly evolutionaiy)
piobability. Fuitheimoie, Bawkins places the "uou hypothesis" at the centei of
ieligion. In othei woius, if the uou hypothesis is false, which Bawkins claims is
inueeu the case, then ieligion has been uealt its final blow. Religion, accoiuing to
Bawkins, is ultimately anu univeisally conceineu with the scientific question, "Boes
uou exist." Be wiites, "If the aigument of this chaptei is accepteu, the factual
piemise of ieligion - the uou Bypothesis - is untenable. uou almost ceitainly uoes
not exist."
6

Bawkins is explicit about his views on the question of uou's existence anu
what belief in uou amounts to. Be is less uiiect, howevei, in his use of the teim
"ieligion." Be tells us that he just knows that it exists anu that it exists eveiywheie.
Such a conclusion assumes that ieligion has a coie, oi essence, which is ieuucible to
belief in a supeinatuial uou.
7
Be also ielies on the assumption that ieligion is a
univeisal phenomenon that is tianshistoiical anu tianscultuial. Be wiites, "Why, if
|the uou hypothesisj is false, uoes eveiy cultuie in the woilu have ieligion. Tiue oi
false, ieligion is ubiquitous, so wheie uoes it come fiom."
8
It is this essentialist anu
univeisal conception of ieligion that gives him (anu otheis) license to blame ieligion
foi the many ills of society. Foi example, he blames ieligion, oi the "R-woiu," as he
iefeis to it at times, foi attacks on aboition clinics in Ameiica, offenses to women in
the Niuule East, chilu abuse in the Catholic Chuich, countless ieligious wais, et

6
Ibiu, 188-189
7
Ibiu
8
Ibiu, 189
C}R: volume 1, Issue 1 4u
ceteia, et ceteia.
9
What, howevei, makes each anu all of these offenses "ieligious."
Again, Bawkins finus his answei in what he unueistanus ieligion's coie, oi essence
to be: false belief, oi faith. Bawkins wiites, "Faith is an evil piecisely because it
iequiies no justification anu biooks no aigument. Teaching chiluien that
unquestioneu faith is a viitue piimes them - given ceitain othei ingieuients that aie
not haiu to come by - to giow up into potentially lethal weapons foi futuie jihaus oi
ciusaues."
1u
Chiistophei Bitchens, in his book !&/*()*2&3*!4"$3D*E&A*,"%('(&#*7&()&#)*
8C"4:3.(#', is less conceineu with the "uou-hypothesis" anu moie conceineu with
the negative iole ieligion plays in oui society.
11

Bitchens's woik uemonstiates the extent to which such a thesis can be
caiiieu out. In othei woius, his conception of ieligion is explicitly essentialist anu
univeisal. Be concluues his fiist chaptei, which acts as the book's intiouuction, by
stating the following: "As I wiite these woius, anu as you ieau them, people of faith
aie in theii uiffeient ways planning youi anu my uestiuction, anu the uestiuction of
all the haiu-won human attainments that I have toucheu upon. ,"%('(&#* ?&()&#)*
"C"4:3.(#'6"
12
Nuch like Bawkins, Bitchens ielies on an essentialist, univeisal,
tianshistoiical, anu tianscultuial conception of ieligion in oiuei to leveiage his
attacks. Religion, accoiuing to Bitchens, is an expiieu, "man-maue" way of thinking,
which is pieuicateu upon peoples' "feai of ueath" anu acts to "kill" oi "poison"

9
Ibiu, S17-SS6
1u
Ibiu, S47-S48
11
Bitchens uoes engage with some of the aiguments foi the existence of uou, howevei. Be has a
chaptei titleu, "Aiguments fiom Besign," anu anothei calleu, "The Resistance of the Rational," which
follow a similai line of thought to Bawkins. Bis use of this aigumentation, howevei, is intenueu to
ieveal the peinicious coie of "ieligion."
12
Chiistophei Bitchens, !&/*()*2&3*!4"$3D*E&A*,"%('(&#*7&()&#)*8C"4:3.(#', (New Yoik: Bachette Book
uioup, 2uu7), 1S
C}R: volume 1, Issue 1 41
eveiything anu eveiyone.
1S
While these aie some of Bitchens's moie outiageous
claims anu woiu choices, he consistently equates "ieligion" with "evil."
Accoiuing to Bitchens, the moie ieligious someone is, the moie evil his oi
hei tenuencies become. Speaking about Islamic violence anu extiemism, Bitchens
wiites, "The tiue believei cannot iest until the whole woilu bows the knee."
14

Scoies of Nuslims woulu suiely uisagiee, noting the vaiiety of Islamic appioaches to
piety.
1S
Again, Bitchens wiites, "The woise the offenuei, the moie uevout he tuins
out to be."
16
This may appeai, on the suiface, to be a coiielative tiuth to the aveiage
ieauei; howevei, such a claim piesupposes a scale of ieligiosity that can be
measuieu in some way. In othei woius, who is to say that any given position is moie
ieligious than anothei. Plenty of libeial Chiistians will finu Evangelical
Funuamentalists to be less ieligious, anu vice-veisa.
Lastly, in his suivey of "all ieligion," Bitchens faces a pioblem poseu by
Eastein tiauitions. Be unueistanus them to be ueciueuly less violent anu offensive.
Bowevei, he must account foi why these Eastein ieligions - Buuuhism, Binuuism,
anu Shinto - might not fit into his mouel that all ieligion is evil anu violent. Fiist, he
points out that Binuuism, uespite oui Westein unueistanuing of it, has actually hau
a faiily violent showing. Be ieminus us of the violent actions taken by the Tamils
(who, in ieality, consist of a vaiiety of ieligious tiauitions but aie pieuominantly

1S
Ibiu, 7, 12-1S, 1S
14
Ibiu, S1
1S
Pointing out that Bitchens ielies on an essentialist notion of ieligion uoes not, howevei, excuse the
vaiious ieligious people who also subsciibe to essentialist anu univeisal uefinitions. It is often the
case that ieligious believeis themselves aie the most effective in piomoting such attituues. It will
become eviuent that the Analytic Theists examineu in the following section (mainly William Lane
Ciaig) aie equally guilty of such offenses.
16
Ibiu, 192
C}R: volume 1, Issue 1 42
Binuu), the social injustices that iesult fiom the caste system, etc. Shinto, like Zen, is
wiitten off as a "quasi-ieligion," theiefoie haiuei to pin uown.
17
Buuuhism, Bitchens
notes, can eithei be uesciibeu as "not a ieligion at all," oi uesciibeu as iiiational,
minuless, anu at times, violent.
18
Thus, Buuuhism is eithei less violent because it is
less ieligious, oi it is moie violent than we think. Eithei way, Bitchens makes it fit
into his scheme. The Eastein tiauitions, fuitheimoie, aie uefineu as "ieligions"
using a Westein constiuction of the teim. At this point it shoulu be cleai that
Bawkins anu Bitchens iely on at least thiee misguiueu, westein-centiic uefinitions
of ieligion: (1) ieligion is piimaiily about belief, (2) the question of belief in uou
shoulu be constiucteu as scientific hypothesis about the question of uou's existence,
anu (S) ieligion is a univeisal, tianshistoiical, anu tianscultuial phenomenon.

The Analytic Theists employ the same methouology as the New Atheist, only
to piove the opposite point: uou uoes exist. Religion, accoiuing them, is uefenuable
thiough analytic ieasoning, scientific inquiiy, anu vaiious pioofs. William Lane
Ciaig anu Chau Neistei co-euiteu !&/* ()* !&&/5* !&/* ()* !4"$3D* F.:* G"%("C(#'* (#* !&/* ()*
,"$)&#$B%"*$#/*,")?&#)(B%"5 a book of essays that piesent vaiious aiguments foi the
existence of uou. In the intiouuction to the book Ciaig wiites, "As you ieau thiough
the following pages we challenge you to caiefully weigh the aiguments anu
eviuences on both siues of these issues anu, as Augustine exhoiteu, follow the tiuth
wheievei it leaus."
19
Religious Tiuth, accoiuing Ciaig, can be founu within the laws

17
Ibiu, 2uS
18
Ibiu, 199-2u4
19
!&/*()*!&&/5*!&/*()*!4"$3, Euiteu by William Lane Ciaig anu Chau Neistei, (Illinois: Inteivaisity
Piess, 2uu9), 1u
C}R: volume 1, Issue 1 4S
of physics anu logic anu can be aigueu with eviuence. In effect, what we have heie is
a competition between New Atheists anu Analytic Theists centeieu on the question
of uou's existence. Ciaig wiites,
"0ui piimaiy objective in compiling this book is to answei challenges
auvanceu by the New Atheists' wiitings anu otheis iaising objections
to belief in uou anu Chiistian faith. Bespite oui oveiall impiession of
the New Atheists' wiitings as fiesh packaging foi 'tiieu, weak, anu
iecycleu aiguments' (to boiiow a phiase fiom Alistei anu }oanna
Collicutt Ncuiath's assessment of Bawkins's -."* !&/* 0"%1)(&#), they
aie making much moie heauway with theii message than many
ieligious believeis aie willing to aumit."
2u


It woulu be one thing if the Analytic Theists uisiegaiueu the New Atheists
aiguments as "missing the point," oi "not ielevant to questions about uou," but they
uo not uo this. Rathei, they pioceeu by constiucting aiguments that appeal to
scientific ieasoning, logic, anu physical eviuence. As Ciaig points out, they have
uiawn upon theii "leauing thinkeis iepiesenting a wiue iange of expeitise - fiom
cosmology, astiophysics anu biology to New Testament stuuies, theology anu
philosophy - to join in iesponuing to these aiguments anu claims."
21
Accoiuing to
the Analytic Theists faith is not to be unueistoou as unfetteieu belief in the
impiovable anu inexplicable; faith in uou can be testeu, aigueu, anu justifieu with
eviuence. Religion, theiefoie, is a mattei of having the coiiect beliefs.
I will be using only one essay in this collection to show the ways in which the
Analytic Theists iely on the same notion of ieligion as the New Atheists. To
uemonstiate the consistency of these themes acioss the essays in the collection,
take note of some of the titles: "Eviuence of a Noially Peifect uou" by Paul K. Nosei;

2u
Ibiu, 9
21
Ibiu, 9-1u
C}R: volume 1, Issue 1 44
"uou anu Physics" by }ohn Polkinghoine; anu "uou anu Evolution" by Nichael }.
Nuiiay. In each of these essays, the authoi appeals to eithei scientific eviuence,
ieason, oi logic to piove the existence of uou. William Lane Ciaig engages himself
with Richaiu Bawkins's aiguments against the existence of uou to show that (1)
Bawkins is wiong, anu (2) that the existence of uou can* be pioven using the same
methous of aigumentation (anu assumption that belief in uou is cential to ieligion).
William Lane Ciaig's essay "Richaiu Bawkins on Aiguments foi uou" takes
up the question of uou's existence in iesponse to Richaiu Bawkins's -."* !&/*
0"%1)(&#. Besciibing what makes a goou aigument, Ciaig wiites,
"But befoie we look at specific aiguments, we neeu to be cleai what
makes foi a goou aigument. By an aigument I mean a seiies of
statements (calleu piemises) leauing to a conclusion. To be a goou
aigument, an aigument must meet thiee conuitions: (1) it obeys the
iules of logic; (2) its piemises aie tiue; (S) its piemises aie moie
plausible than theii opposites. So uefineu, aie theie goou aiguments
foi uou's existence."
22


Ciaig's answei is "yes." But his answei is of less concein to us. Rathei, this papei is
conceineu with the methous he utilizes to come to any answei. Ciaig views the
question of uou's existence to be a cential ieligious question. If this question weie
not cential to his beliefs about ieligion, he woulu likely uismiss the New Atheists foi
misunueistanuing the meaning of ieligion anuoi the "concept" of uou. But he uoes
not. Be finus much ieason to woiiy anu, theiefoie, ueuicates much time anu space
to iesponu.
Ciaig conceives of uou as being inextiicably inteitwineu with the natuie of
ieality. If uou exists, he can be explaineu within the laws of physics, oi natuie. Be

22
Ibiu, 14
C}R: volume 1, Issue 1 4S
believes this so fiimly, that, if uou is pioven by such laws, he believes atheism must
be pioven wiong by the same laws. 0n the New Atheists (especially uiiecteu at
Bawkins), he wiites, "To suggest that things coulu just pop into being uncauseu out
of nothing is to quit uoing seiious philosophy anu to iesoit to magic."
2S
The Analytic
Theist's anu the New Atheist's positions must be giounueu in ieality - ieality which
is infoimeu by scientific eviuence, logic, anu high plausibility. 0nsatisfieu with the
New Atheists' explanation foi the beginning of the cosmos, Ciaig posits the theistic
stoiy, "Theie seems to be only one way out of this uilemma, anu that is to say that
the cause of the univeise's beginning is a peisonal agent who fieely chooses to
cieate a univeise in time. |.j We may theiefoie concluue*that a peisonal Cieatoi of
the 0niveise exists, who is uncauseu, beginningless, changeless, immateiial,
timeless, spaceless anu unimaginably poweiful."
24
(Italics mine) This explanation,
accoiuing to Ciaig, is moie in accoiuance with the laws of natuie anu physics.
Next, Ciaig looks to the "moial aiguments" foi pioof of uou's existence.
Because an in-uepth exposition of each of these aiguments woulu take up too much
space, I will enu this section shoitly by summing up, once again, the methouological
appioach iathei than the inteinal aigumentation. The moial aigument between the
Analytic Theists anu the New Atheists foi uou's existence is not a mattei of uegiee
of goouness to a gieatest goou, but iathei, about the "objective ieality of moial
values anu uuties to theii founuation in ieality."
2S
Theiefoie, it is not that Analytic
Theists have eithei bettei oi woise moials; moiality itself is eithei a theistic

2S
Ibiu
24
Ibiu, 17
2S
Ibiu, 19
C}R: volume 1, Issue 1 46
conception oi an atheistic one, both of which must finu giounuing in this woilu.
Ciaig's moial aigument, of couise, is constiucteu to piove, via logic, that uou uoes
exist.
26

Thus, we see the Analytic Theists, much like the New Atheists, subsciibing to
essentialist conceptions of ieligion, whethei it is asciibeu to the othei, oi uefenueu
as its own. While the New Atheists see all "ieligion" in this fashion, the Analytic
Theists focus on "the Chiistian Faith," which occupies the same space that "ieligion"
holus in New Atheist ciitiques. That is to say, although the Analytic Theists may not
feel comfoitable calling the Chiistian faith "ieligion," they uo iesponu to the New
Atheist attacks on ieligion as thieatening to something cential to theii faith.
"Religion," be it the "Chiistian faith," oi "ieligion in geneial," accoiuing to both siues,
is a mattei of cognitive belief that is subject to intellectual aigumentation anu
scientific eviuence. The next section, which looks to the woik of Talal Asau, will
piimaiily function to uisaggiegate this univeisal anu cognitive belief-centeieu
uefinition of ieligion that both the New Atheists anu Analytic Theists iely upon. In
othei woius, by tiacing the constiuction of the categoiy of "ieligion," it will become
eviuent why the afoiementioneu conveisations have come to think of ieligion in this
way, anu why it iemains impoitant to challenge such naiiow, anu laigely
uniepiesentative, categoiical uefinitions.
Talal Asau begins tiacing the uevelopment of the mouein notion of "ieligion"
by looking to eaily post-enlightenment thought. Religion, at the time, was

26
Ciaig's Noial Aigument: "Beie's a simple moial aigument foi uou's existence: (1) If uou uoes not
exist, objective moial values anu uuties uo not exist; (2) 0bjective moial values anu uuties uo exist;
(S) Theiefoie, uou exists. What makes this little aigument so poweiful is not only that it is logically
iionclau but also that people geneially believe both piemises." Ibiu, 18.
C}R: volume 1, Issue 1 47
unueistoou to be an "eaily human conuition fiom which mouein law, science, anu
politics emeigeu anu became uetacheu."
27
While the spheies of law, science, anu
politics weie unueistoou to be in line with the incieasing emphasis on iationality
anu logic, ieligion was thought to be, in a way, less matuie. Bowevei, many
challengeu this notion, insisting "ieligion has an autonomous essence" which can be
uefineu "as a tianshistoiical anu tianscultuial phenomenon."
28
Asau points out that
such univeisal uefinitions of ieligion aie not tiue to the C$4(&1) foims of "ieligion"
that have existeu ovei time anu location, anu fuitheimoie, that the veiy act of
"uefining" ieligion is itself a histoiically uiscuisive piactice. Be wiites,
"It is pait of my basic aigument that socially iuentifiable foims,
pieconuitions, anu effects of what was iegaiueu as ieligion in the
meuieval Chiistian epoch weie quite uiffeient fiom those so
consiueieu in mouein society. |.j Ny aigument is that theie cannot
be a univeisal uefinition of ieligion, not only because its constituent
elements anu ielationships aie histoiically specific, but because that
uefinition is itself the histoiical piouuct of uiscuisive piocesses."
29


In oiuei to giounu his claims in histoiical piactice, Asau focuses on Cliffoiu ueeitz,
who, like many otheis, has offeieu an essentialist anu univeisal uefinition of
ieligion.
Su
Pait of my aigument is that the New Atheists anu Analytic Theists have
ieuuceu ieligion to the cognitive question of belief in uou in ways that uoes not pay
iespect to the vaiiety of possible elements which make up one's ieligious iuentity.
Asau agiees when speaking about ueeitz's uefinition of ieligion: "Cognitive
questions aie mixeu up in this account with communicative ones, anu this makes it

27
Asau, 27
28
Ibiu, 28
29
Ibiu, 29
Su
ueeitz's uefinition of ieligion: Religion is "(1) a system of symbols which act to (2) establish
poweiful, peivasive, anu long-lasting moous anu motivations in men by (S) foimulating conceptions
of a geneial oiuei of existence anu (4) clothing these conceptions with such an auia of factuality that
(S) the moous anu motivations seem uniquely iealistic." Ibiu, 29-Su.
C}R: volume 1, Issue 1 48
uifficult to inquiie into the ways in which uiscouise anu unueistanuing aie
connecteu in social piactice."
S1
The pioblem with focusing on belief only, as the New
Atheists anu Analytic Theists uo, is that many of the piactitionei's claims aie
abstiacteu to a uegiee wheie they no longei make sense. Pioving the ieality of
tiansubstantiation uuiing the Euchaiist, foi example, caiiies little to no weight,
when uisassociateu with all of its othei (non-cognitive belief) elements.
"It is a mouein iuea," Asau tells us, "that a piactitionei cannot know how to
live ieligiously without being able to aiticulate that knowleuge."
S2
The bounuaiies
between the ieligious anu the seculai, in othei woius, have not always been uiawn
in the same way. Foi centuiies the authoiity of the Chuich, with its uoctiine,
piactices, anu cieeus, iemaineu cential to uominant conceptions of what ieligion
consisteu of.
SS
A shift occuiieu, accoiuing to Asau, which alteieu pie-Refoimation
conceptions of ieligion to moie pointeu uefinitions of ieligion. Be wiites, "In latei
centuiies |.j uiscipline (intellectual anu social) woulu |.j giauually abanuon
ieligious space, letting 'belief,' 'conscience,' anu 'sensibility' take its place. G13*3."&4:*
A&1%/* )3(%%* B"* #""/"/* 3&* /"+(#"* 4"%('(&#6"
S4
This neeu to uefine ieligion woulu take
shape uuiing the Eaily Nouein peiiou of Euiopean histoiy, which champions
ieason, logic, anu the natuial sciences. Thus, we aie pioviueu with attiactive
uefinitions of ieligion that attempt to ieconcile the spheies of chuich theology anu
post-Enlightenment thought. This leaus to an emphasis on belief, Asau says, which
"meant that hencefoith ieligion coulu be conceiveu as a set of piopositions to which

S1
Ibiu, Su-S1
S2
Ibiu, S6
SS
Ibiu, S9
S4
Ibiu
C}R: volume 1, Issue 1 49
believeis gave assent, anu which coulu theiefoie be juugeu anu compaieu as
between uiffeient ieligions anu as against natuial science."
SS

By this time, howevei, many othei ieligions hau alieauy been iuentifieu
aiounu the woilu anu not all of them hau sciiptuie. This maue it moie uifficult to
constiuct a univeisal uefinition of ieligion that woulu incluue vaiious "ieligions"
while still upholuing the cential authoiity of sciiptuie. The iuea of sciiptuie became
less essential (oi non-essential) to uefinitions of ieligion; theiefoie, anothei shift
occuiieu. uou's woius (sciiptuie) weie no longei of highest authoiity; iathei, uou's
woiks (natuie) "became the ieal space of uivine wiiting, anu eventually the
inuisputable authoiity foi the tiuth of all sacieu texts wiitten in meiely human
natuie."
S6
"Natuie" becomes the univeisal eviuence foi tiuth while sciiptuie meiely
contains tiuth, but is ultimately subject to eiioneous human inteipietation. This
becomes mateiializeu in the conveisations between New Atheists anu Analytic
Theists, who constiuct theii aiguments in iesponse to funuamental iealities about
natuie.
This methouology, howevei, uoes not necessaiily uevelop in iesponse to
funuamental tiuths about the woilu, but iathei fiom paiticulaily Chiistian
pioblems. Asau explains, "I want to emphasize that the iuea of Natuial Religion was
a ciucial step in the foimation of the mouein concept of ieligious belief, expeiience,
anu piactice, anu that it was an iuea uevelopeu in iesponse to pioblems specific to
Chiistian theology at a paiticulai histoiical junctuie."
S7
When evangelizing

SS
Ibiu, 4u-41
S6
Ibiu, 41
S7
Ibiu, 42
C}R: volume 1, Issue 1 Su
thioughout the woilu, Chiistian missionaiies woikeu out of the assumption that
"ieligion" shoulu be able to "affiim something about the funuamental natuie of
ieality," otheiwise it shoulu be consiueieu plain "nonsense."
S8
Asau ciiticizes ueeitz
foi contiibuting heavily to the notion that ieligious theoiy anu piactice must be
essentially cognitive, wheieby ieligion can be cleanly uefineu anu iuentifieu.
S9
Such
a cognitive conception of ieligious belief is a histoiical uevelopment. Changes in
belief have occuiieu ovei time anu by location, thus, Asau is coiiect to say, "what
the Chiistian believes touay about uou, life aftei ueath, the univeise, is not what he
believeu a millennium ago - noi is the way he iesponus to ignoiance, pain anu
injustice the same now as it was then."
4u

Fuitheimoie, the cential authoiity placeu on belief is unwaiianteu, foi, as
Asau notes, "belief" (especially the westein-constiucteu cognitive foim of belief) is
not a common chaiacteiistic of all ieligions.
41
Belief is always ielateu to one's
society anu the set of piopositions the society functions upon. "At any iate," Asau
explains, "I think it is not too unieasonable to maintain that 'the basic axiom'
unueilying what ueeitz calls 'the ieligious peispective' is #&3 eveiywheie the same.
It is pieeminently the Chiistian chuich that has occupieu itself with iuentifying,
cultivating, anu testing belief as a veibalizable innei conuition of tiue ieligion."
42

It becomes oui iesponsibility, theiefoie, to challenge the mouein cognitivist
notion of ieligion, which is espouseu by the New Atheists anu Analytic Theists alike.

S8
Ibiu, 4S
S9
Ibiu, 44
4u
Ibiu, 46
41
Ibiu, 48
42
Ibiu
C}R: volume 1, Issue 1 S1
Religion cannot be extiacteu fiom its liveu foim; theiefoie, when we speak about
ieligion we must speak about how ieligious symbols aie constiucteu anu
implementeu within a social-stiuctuie anu psychological piocess. Asau explains,
when he wiites, "Religious symbols - whethei one thinks of them in teims of
communication oi of cognition, of guiuing action oi of expiessing emotion - cannot
be unueistoou inuepenuently of theii histoiical ielations with nonieligious
symbols."
4S

Theiefoie, when New Atheists anu Analytic Theists leveiage ciiticisms oi
supply justifications foi anu against "ieligion," oi "belief," we must question theii
founuational assumptions. The ielevant question to ask is not "Boes uou exist." but
iathei, what uoes belief oi uisbelief in uou mean to those who finu value in the
question. It is my contention that people finu ieligious meaning outsiue cognitive
belief. They finu value in piactice anu iitual, in expeiiencing the woilu thiough a set
of unquestioneu assumptions. When askeu what iole ieligion plays in peoples lives,
I woulu be suipiiseu to heai a iesponse that iefeiences the logical soununess of the
ontological oi teleological aigument foi uou's existence. I am not convinceu that
people finu value in theii ieligious lives because the scientific eviuence is
peisuasive. Likewise, I question the New Atheists in theii appioach. Why, if, as they
claim, oui leauing scientists, physicists, anu evolutionaiy biologists can piove that
uou uoes not exist, aie people in geneial laigely unconvinceu to leave theii faith.
Peihaps it is because people aie not ieligious oi iiieligious foi these ieasons. It is

4S
Ibiu, SS
C}R: volume 1, Issue 1 S2
not that the New Atheists anu Analytic Theists have the wiong answeis; iathei, they
aie simply asking the wiong questions.



(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
C}R: volume 1, Issue 1 SS
/0"10-2%&34+(


Asau, Talal. !"#"$%&'(")*&+*,"%('(&#D*0()9(?%(#"*$#/*,"$)&#)*&+*7&A"4*(#*H.4()3($#(3:*
$#/*I)%$@. Baltimoie anu Lonuon: The }ohns Bopkins 0niveisity Piess, 199S.

Ciaig, William Lane. "Richaiu Bawkins on Aiguments foi uou," In !&/*()*!&&/5*!&/*()*
!4"$35 euiteu by William Lane Ciaig anu Chau Neistei, 1S-S1. Illinois:
Inteivaisity Piess, 2uu9.*

Bawkins, Richaiu. -."*!&/*0"%1)(&#. New Yoik, NY: Fiist Naiinei Books, 2uu6 anu
2uu8.

ueeitz, Cliffoiu. -."*I#3"4?4"3$3(&#*&+*H1%314"). New Yoik, NY: Basic Books, 197S.

Bitchens, Chiistophei. !&/*()*2&3*!4"$3D*E&A*,"%('(&#*7&()&#)*8C"4:3.(#'. New Yoik,
NY: Bachette Book uioup, 2uu7.