On the one hand, I kind of enjoy any article that portrays atheists as dangerous and frightening, because I am not frightening*. The average 10 year old is larger than me, and I can barely lift a 10 lb (4.54 kg) sack of potatoes, so the only way I'm going to be frightening is in someone's histrionic, atheophobic flight of fancy.
The new atheists are on the march. They’re in bookstores. They’re on television. They’re everywhere. But nowhere is their effect being felt more than on college campuses and by young people. So invasive is the new atheist movement that in many ways their outlook has become the default mainstream culture.
For too long Christians have been a punch line for militant secularists. It’s time somebody punched back. And Mary Eberstadt’s new book “The Loser Letters” is an unexpected roundhouse to the new atheist movement. I read it last week and urge you to pick it up. (You can click on Amazon.com.)
“Christians are always at a moral disadvantage because we’re told to turn the other cheek,” said Eberstadt. “So there’s been a lot of playing defense. I’m trying to go on offense.”
She calls her book “apologetics for the Facebook generation.” And they need it.
Well, I don't know any "militant secularists" personally, do you? (I hear the uniforms are snazzy.) Also, um, if you are supposed to be turning the other cheek- I checked, it's still in the Bible- should you be Chuck Norrising all over anyone? Is the Bible your holy book you're supposed to be obeying or not? Honestly.
In an exclusive interview, Eberstadt said she’s not concerned that the new atheists are creating “an army of belligerent atheists. The ultimate danger is an army of ignorant secularists.”
Wtf is with the language here? In relation to atheists, so far, we have "militant", "army", "belligerent", "on the march", "invasive", "roundhouse", "offense" and "defense". Wow. Now that's some argument framing there. And really, I'm sick of the idea that one must have a freakin' PhD in theology to get by in the world. I'm sure she's not nearly so scared of the idea that while one billion people are Muslims, and we have terrible relations with the Muslim world overall, very few Americans have any clue what the basic precepts of Islam are. No, that wouldn't be useful at all. Never mind the fact that better than half of all atheists I know are far more knowledgeable about the Bible and Christian history than most Christians I know.
Eberstadt brilliantly defends the faith from radical New Atheism with wit and humor by telling the story of a young twenty something newly converted atheist with a rough history that unfolds throughout the book. Her attempts to iron out the problems she finds in atheism from the inside are devastating to the new atheist movement. Eberstadt is more than a match for Hitchens and Dawkins and their flying spaghetti monster.
And now I know what I need to know: get me a match, this book is an extended strawman. Neither Hitchens nor Dawkins came up with the FSM. (Never mind the fact that "newly converted atheist" is about the weirdest phrase I've seen in a while. Atheists self convert, nobody can do that for you.)
Eberstadt’s wit is so biting it might even make you feel sorry for the New Atheists. For one little moment anyway. But if you ask me, the New Atheists were asking for it. Never have such a humorless and self righteous crowd monopolized the cultural conversation. It’s high time someone started laughing at them.
Shorter: and they smell!
She says that biggest danger to not taking on the new atheist movement head on is not that atheists will necessarily convert everyone to atheism itself. She worries that it’ll have a “trickle down effect of being wishy washy Christians.”
Translation: they might actually start thinking about what they are believing and that's just death for fundamentalism!
The new atheists have pushed so hard to make people believe that all the big questions have been settled by Darwin and advanced scientific theories. To listen to them you’d think that anything else is simply superstition. She sees The Loser Letters as turning things around on them in a “ju-jitsu way” using their own theories and words against them.
Seriously? Ju-jitsu way? What? Also, no, atheists (I actually think she may mean scientists in this context) have not pushed hard to make anyone believe that all the big questions have been settled. Scientists are very honest about what they know and don't know. It's fundys who have every question answered: Goddidit.
In one sense the book mirrors what is going on in our culture and the damage secularism is doing, especially to young people. But it goes beyong diagnosing by supplying the much needed antidote of Christianity.
Wouldn't the Bible do that . . . oh, right, everyone already owns a Bible. Silly me.
“The Loser Letters” is a well deserved lampooning of the new atheism but done with humor and satire. But mind you, the book also packs an emotional punch. The final chapters where the narrator reveals herself more fully are heartbreaking yet, in the end, hopeful- which is really what Christianity is about.
But if you ask me, the New Atheists were asking for it. Never have such a humorless and self righteous crowd monopolized the cultural conversation.
ReplyDeleteDammit. I knew I was doing something wrong, what with all that smiling and laughing at telling jokes and shit. I keep forgetting to be that uncle that no one wants to sit next to at family dinners and whatnot.
It’s high time someone started laughing at them.
That's a remarkably Christian attitude. Oh, wait, no it isn't.
Really, that's the most fun thing about being a non-Christian. Apparently I'm allowed to be as much of a dick as I want because it's what I'm supposed to be in their little straw world. But if they're mean I can just be all, "That's very Christian of you..." and walk away with the goddamn moral high ground.
"To listen to them you’d think that anything else is simply superstition." Uh, well... Yeah, basically. (Okay, as you put it, no, obviously not "everything else." But take, for instance, the story of the man who wants doctors to wait to amputate his wife's gangrenous foot because, after six heart attacks since March, he wants his family's prayers to have more time to work. If that's not superstition doing real damage, I don't know what is.
ReplyDeleteAlso: A roundhouse? Tch, dot's a rude tink to say. Hy may take hyu hat for dot vun.
The new atheists are on the march. They’re in bookstores. They’re on television. They’re everywhere.
ReplyDeleteReading the phrase "on the march," my mind mentally superimposed the Imperial March on to the rest of the paragraph. Which was hilariously appropriate.
Duun duun duun da da-duun da da-duun...
She sees The Loser Letters as turning things around on them in a “ju-jitsu way” using their own theories and words against them.
ReplyDeleteSurprise! She knows nothing about Ju-jitsu. Using your opponents energy against them is a Judo philosophy: Ju-jitsu focuses on disabling your opponent as quickly and simply as possible. This often means integrating Judo techniques, but it's an entirely different philosophy.
And what she's doing by "trying to go on offense", is most certainly not based on Judo, which is an entirely defensive art. It's closer to Karate, or Boxing: a more aggressive "fight fire with fire" philosophy. Except I'm inclined to say that in her case, she's fighting water with fire.
I must admit, though, I'm tempted to read the book for the lulz. I'm sure as hell not paying to do so, though.
"“The Loser Letters” is a well deserved lampooning of the new atheism but done with humor and satire."
ReplyDeleteAs opposed to that other kind of lampooning, which is done with rage and footnotes?
As opposed to that other kind of lampooning, which is done with rage and footnotes?
ReplyDeleteHey! You're supposed to be dour and humorless. This here's one o' them New Atheist blogs.
Or some such. Either way, it's good I wasn't drinking anything, or you'd owe my employers a new laptop. And I'd have to explain why I was reading a blog while at work.
...
ReplyDeletesometimes, i'm almost jealous at all the attention atheists get.
then i remember that i'm on the list for the Stake [after various "trials"] and wake up.
it's to the point where i wish there WAS a Rapture - so all the non-christ-like "Christians" can be slapped in the face with how they have perverted and fucked over their religion...
The "Atheist Union Shop Steward" threatened to fine me because I was laughing too much. Yup, it's in the work rules book, I checked.
ReplyDeleteNo laughing, japing, or joy.
The idea that we can pass their churches, or simply, easily say, "I don't believe" and go our way with no repercussions is a source of outrage to some that I know.
Will someone have patience with a culturally-challeneged old man and explain the owl with "O RLY"?
Is the owl's name, "Orley"?
Is it a contraction for "Oh, really"?
Does the arctic owl indicate a latent desire to smoke a particularly noxious cigar?
Sarge, your second instinct serves you well. It is a "lolspeak" contraction for "Oh, really?", the accepted response to which is, "YA RLY."
ReplyDeleteAlso, the owl is probably a dirty, no-fun New Atheist since he's on THIS blog. Foul thing.
Does the arctic owl indicate a latent desire to smoke a particularly noxious cigar?
ReplyDeleteTo add to Cynical Nymph's explanation, the owl also looks somewhat confused. Ergo the point is that it's looking at you with an eyebrow raised saying, "Oh, really?"
And, generally, "O RLY?" isn't used to say, "Wow. You've made a wonderful and cogent point. Please elaborate for the betterment of all mankind."
It didn't pass the notice of the internet that the kooky head birther was named Orly Taitz. It just made everyone assume she was trying to start a new meme. And working way harder at it than it was worth.
And then we realized she was serious.
Geds, I had mercifully forgotten about Orly Taitz. That was mean.
ReplyDeleteThank you, guys, I try to keep up, honest, I do, but it's hard, so hard.
ReplyDeleteIt is gratifying to know, too, that in this case the owl is just an owl in the same way that the hypothetical disgusting cigar is just a cigar.
I also remember a kids radio program where there was an occasional charactor who was called "Little Orley". The program was No School Today, featured Big John and Sparky.
Thank you all for clarifying for an old man who finds himself increasingly bewildered.
Cynical Nymph, isn't the owl really a Fowl Thing?
ReplyDeleteSarge, I remember Little Orley and Uncle Lumpy and Big John and Sparky! (Crap, I'm old!) We had records of "Sparky and the Talking Train" and "Little Orley and the Happy Bird" that got played to death.
ReplyDelete