- Hardcover: 256 pages
- Publisher: Wiley-Blackwell (21 Nov 2008)
- Language English
- ISBN-10: 1405183624
- ISBN-13: 978-1405183628
- Product Dimensions: 16 x 2.8 x 23.6 cm
- Average Customer Review: 2.0 out of 5 stars See all reviews (2 customer reviews)
- Amazon Bestsellers Rank: 4,268,492 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
- See Complete Table of Contents
Is God A Delusion: A Reply to Religion's Cultured Despisers
and over one million other books are available for Amazon Kindle .
Learn more
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Did you know you can trade in your old books for an Amazon.co.uk Gift Card to spend on the things you want? Plus, get an extra £5 Gift Certificate when you trade in books worth £10 or more before June 30, 2012. Visit the Books Trade-In Store for more details. |
Product details |
More About the Author
Product Description
Review
"Makes an elegantly argued response … that is refreshing in several respects. Neither polemical nor defensive … he brings into the contemporary fray many philosophers who reasoned well about God long ago. He looks squarely in the face of the contemporary horrors that many have used to argue for God′s non–existence and still comes off the theodicy battleground with a sense of God as ethico–religious hope, ′the substance of things hoped for.′ The clarity of his presentation should make this book useful after atheism has finished its moment in the sun." (Publisher′s Weekly Religion Update)
"Reitan′s execution is truly remarkable, maintaining both sympathy with the criticism of exclusive and closed–minded religious views while exposing fallacious and closed–minded attacks on human expression of religious belief and hope.… Highly recommended." (Choice Magazine)
"In the book you get two things for the price of one. 1– An intro to the philosophy of religion and 2– a fun, readable, and vigorous critical response to the New Atheists." (Tripp Fuller, Homebrewed Christianity)
"Reitan′s resurrection of the phrase ′cultured despisers′ underscores one of the most compelling purposes of his book, namely, to show that the arguments of today′s articulate atheists are rehash of yesteryear′s angst." (Religion Dispatches)
Review
"Clear, penetrating, and thought–provoking, Reitan′s work is a bracing tonic for those in danger of being lulled into intellectual sleep by the strident claims of the ′new atheists′."
—Kenneth Miller, Brown University
—Kenneth Miller, Brown University
"This is by far the best response to the ′new atheists′ I know of –– well researched, subtle, full of powerful argument and yet accessible to all educated people."
—Thomas Sullivan, St. Thomas University
Inside This Book
(Learn More)
Suggested Tags from Similar Products(What's this?)Be the first one to add a relevant tag (keyword that's strongly related to this product)
|
What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item?
Customer Reviews
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
Format:Paperback|Amazon Verified Purchase
This isn't really one book but three. The first, and possibly intended as a basis for the other two, is a rehash of the ideas of ultra-liberal theologian and member of the German "Higher Criticism" clique, Frederick Schleiermacher (1768-1834).
For reasons best known to the author, we are never given much of an introduction to Schleiermacher and his ideas, though various details do emerge if one reads between the lines. For example, Schleiermacher did not believe in the Resurrection. On the contrary he supported the rather ludicrous idea that Jesus was taken down from the cross before he was completely dead and was therefore able, in the cool quietness of the tomb, to revive, take off his shroud without unwrapping it, get dressed in clothes that didn't exist, remove a roughly circular stone which sealed the tomb (a) all by himself, and (b) without the guards noticing what was going on.
He was then, despite being so close to death on Easter Friday that he fooled experienced Roman soldiers, went off northward to meet up with various disciples, etc., none of whom seemed to notice the severity of his condition.
In this way, according to Schleiermacher and his like-minded colleagues, Jesus affected a major hoax which led to the birth of a world-wide religion which will be 2,000 years old in a couple of decades time.
The essence of Schleiermacher's activities is that, in an attempt to counter the criticisms of religion made by supporters of the so-called "Enlightenment" he sold the farm. That is, he gave away everything that distinguished Christianity from some kind of fairy tale, an action which scientists have been riding on ever since,
In particular, Schleiermacher and his chums completely detached their religious ideas and beliefs from Christian scriptures, though how one creates a coherent concept that bears any relationship to authentic "Christianity" without making use of the scriptures is a question Reitan never answers. He simply advocates a similar rejection of scripture with no rational explanation whatsoever.
Yet despite all this, Reitan insists that Schleiermacher was "arguably the most important Christian theologian of the last three centuries. Though this is a claim that makes no sense at all unless we suppose that Schleiermacher was genuinely claiming to be the willing victim of the hoax he *alleged* Jesus committed at the time of the crucifixion.
Finally, on this particular topic, Reitan fails to explain that he is effectively flogging an equine on the point of decease, because Schleiermacher's ideas have long since been soundly rebutted and now attract very few supporters. To mix the metaphors, he is urging us to sign up to a doctrine that doesn't even have the strength to stand up straight.
The second thread in the book is Reitan's responses to the claims of the "Four Horsemen" of new atheism, and their groom, Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, Hitchens, Stenger (in alphabetical order).
Despite the back cover claim that the book avoids the kind of vitriolic responses allegedly put forward by "religious conservatives" in favour of seeking "a more balanced view", Reitan makes some fairly pungent and telling comments, especially in regard to Dawkins. Thus:
"And so I bought Dawkins' book. And as I read it I was taken in by his *swagger*. Dawkins is clearly confident, writing as if he knows what he's talking about. The only problem is that, as often as not, he has no idea what he's talking about." (Reitan, page 101)
I have seen that opinion expressed many times in relation to "The God Delusion" and Reitan's criticism is certainly justified. But it still reads like a pretty vitriolic comment to me. As does this comment on Hitchens' book "God is Not Great":
"Instead of offering his own account, Hitchens' strategy seems to be this: if it is good, noble, or tends to inspire compassion , then it isn't 'religion.' It is 'humanism' or something of that sort. With no clear definition to guide him, Hitchens is free to locate only that which is cruel, callous, insipid, or banal in the camp of religion, while excluding anything that could reliably motivate the heroic moral action exemplified by [Dietrich] Bonhoeffer and [Martin Luther] King. When 'religion' is never defined, but in practice is treated so that only what is poisonous qualifies, it becomes trivially easy to conclude that 'religion poisons everything.' "
(Reitan, page 19)
Unfortunately, as well as making some very pithy, accurate, and at times quite inspired observations, Reitan is also capable of echoing "Dawkins' Error". That is to say, when he steps outside his own specialist field it is not unknown for him to be very obviously blinded by the "swagger" of Dawkins and co., to support claims about which he *seems* to know far too little to be able to offer a genuinely informed opinion.
Lastly, as an extension of his running commentary on Schleiermacher, the author attempts to offer an alternative version of his "theistic" ideas as a rival to both orthodox Christianity and atheism.
At this point Reitan's presentation disappears into the stratosphere, a clear demonstration of what Francis Schaeffer called "upper storey" thinking, by which he meant offering analyses that are flights of fantasy that have no basis in people's everyday lives. In practical terms, Reitan stakes his whole case for his/Schleiermacher's view of things on such ephemera as Simone Weil's version of mysticism and a belief that we know the reality of God when we *feel* completely dependent. Even, it seems, if we don't actually know what we feel dependent on.
This is a terrible shame.
Reitan actually provides a very reasonable and rational definition of the essential difference between science and religion as early as page 99. Yet for reasons I found totally obscure, instead of developing this idea and applying it to the current discussion he goes straight back into a scathing assessment of Dawkins and his misinterpretation of the first three of Thomas Aquinas' "Five Ways". It seemed to me to be a massively wasted opportunity that the book never recovers from in the remaining 125 pages.
For reasons best known to the author, we are never given much of an introduction to Schleiermacher and his ideas, though various details do emerge if one reads between the lines. For example, Schleiermacher did not believe in the Resurrection. On the contrary he supported the rather ludicrous idea that Jesus was taken down from the cross before he was completely dead and was therefore able, in the cool quietness of the tomb, to revive, take off his shroud without unwrapping it, get dressed in clothes that didn't exist, remove a roughly circular stone which sealed the tomb (a) all by himself, and (b) without the guards noticing what was going on.
He was then, despite being so close to death on Easter Friday that he fooled experienced Roman soldiers, went off northward to meet up with various disciples, etc., none of whom seemed to notice the severity of his condition.
In this way, according to Schleiermacher and his like-minded colleagues, Jesus affected a major hoax which led to the birth of a world-wide religion which will be 2,000 years old in a couple of decades time.
The essence of Schleiermacher's activities is that, in an attempt to counter the criticisms of religion made by supporters of the so-called "Enlightenment" he sold the farm. That is, he gave away everything that distinguished Christianity from some kind of fairy tale, an action which scientists have been riding on ever since,
In particular, Schleiermacher and his chums completely detached their religious ideas and beliefs from Christian scriptures, though how one creates a coherent concept that bears any relationship to authentic "Christianity" without making use of the scriptures is a question Reitan never answers. He simply advocates a similar rejection of scripture with no rational explanation whatsoever.
Yet despite all this, Reitan insists that Schleiermacher was "arguably the most important Christian theologian of the last three centuries. Though this is a claim that makes no sense at all unless we suppose that Schleiermacher was genuinely claiming to be the willing victim of the hoax he *alleged* Jesus committed at the time of the crucifixion.
Finally, on this particular topic, Reitan fails to explain that he is effectively flogging an equine on the point of decease, because Schleiermacher's ideas have long since been soundly rebutted and now attract very few supporters. To mix the metaphors, he is urging us to sign up to a doctrine that doesn't even have the strength to stand up straight.
The second thread in the book is Reitan's responses to the claims of the "Four Horsemen" of new atheism, and their groom, Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, Hitchens, Stenger (in alphabetical order).
Despite the back cover claim that the book avoids the kind of vitriolic responses allegedly put forward by "religious conservatives" in favour of seeking "a more balanced view", Reitan makes some fairly pungent and telling comments, especially in regard to Dawkins. Thus:
"And so I bought Dawkins' book. And as I read it I was taken in by his *swagger*. Dawkins is clearly confident, writing as if he knows what he's talking about. The only problem is that, as often as not, he has no idea what he's talking about." (Reitan, page 101)
I have seen that opinion expressed many times in relation to "The God Delusion" and Reitan's criticism is certainly justified. But it still reads like a pretty vitriolic comment to me. As does this comment on Hitchens' book "God is Not Great":
"Instead of offering his own account, Hitchens' strategy seems to be this: if it is good, noble, or tends to inspire compassion , then it isn't 'religion.' It is 'humanism' or something of that sort. With no clear definition to guide him, Hitchens is free to locate only that which is cruel, callous, insipid, or banal in the camp of religion, while excluding anything that could reliably motivate the heroic moral action exemplified by [Dietrich] Bonhoeffer and [Martin Luther] King. When 'religion' is never defined, but in practice is treated so that only what is poisonous qualifies, it becomes trivially easy to conclude that 'religion poisons everything.' "
(Reitan, page 19)
Unfortunately, as well as making some very pithy, accurate, and at times quite inspired observations, Reitan is also capable of echoing "Dawkins' Error". That is to say, when he steps outside his own specialist field it is not unknown for him to be very obviously blinded by the "swagger" of Dawkins and co., to support claims about which he *seems* to know far too little to be able to offer a genuinely informed opinion.
Lastly, as an extension of his running commentary on Schleiermacher, the author attempts to offer an alternative version of his "theistic" ideas as a rival to both orthodox Christianity and atheism.
At this point Reitan's presentation disappears into the stratosphere, a clear demonstration of what Francis Schaeffer called "upper storey" thinking, by which he meant offering analyses that are flights of fantasy that have no basis in people's everyday lives. In practical terms, Reitan stakes his whole case for his/Schleiermacher's view of things on such ephemera as Simone Weil's version of mysticism and a belief that we know the reality of God when we *feel* completely dependent. Even, it seems, if we don't actually know what we feel dependent on.
This is a terrible shame.
Reitan actually provides a very reasonable and rational definition of the essential difference between science and religion as early as page 99. Yet for reasons I found totally obscure, instead of developing this idea and applying it to the current discussion he goes straight back into a scathing assessment of Dawkins and his misinterpretation of the first three of Thomas Aquinas' "Five Ways". It seemed to me to be a massively wasted opportunity that the book never recovers from in the remaining 125 pages.
17 of 29 people found the following review helpful
Most religion isn't religion anyway, so Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and the New Atheists are wrong
30 April 2009
Format:Paperback
Eric Reitan is clever, almost too clever. What he wants to do is to respond to contemporary religion's cultured despisers, and he uses Schleiermacher as a model throughout, because Schleiermacher did the same thing back in 19th century Germany.
The problem is a simple one. If you reinterpret religion radically, as Reitan does, then religion's cultured despisers turn out to be right, after all, because they are condemning the same kinds of thing that Reitan condemns. Reitan creates a shadow religion, which very few people believe or practice, and calls it true religion, which, he suggests, may be presumptuous. Well, it is presumptuous. It also defeats his purpose, for most religion is not as Reitan describes it, a matter of belief that the universe trends towards the good, and that faith is a matter of trusting in the religious-ethical hope that all the evils and harms of existence will be redeemed by the infinite personal spirit whose essence is love.
This is simply not the way most religions function. As A.C. Grayling says in his little book "Against All Gods": "... those who would escape into clouds of theology for their defence miss the point made by religion's critics. The great mass of religious folk believe in something far more basic and traditional than the vaporous inventions of theology, and it is on this that they repose their trust, and for which some - too many - kill an die. ... Moreover, the deeply forested hideaways of theology start from the same place as ordinary supersititious faith, so laying an axe to this root brings it down too." The point is that most people cannot live in the rarefied atmosphere of Schleiermacher and Reitan. They live in the world where terrible things happen to them, and they need assurance that not only is God loving infinite spirit, but that God loves them (in particular). In order to capture the popular mind - which religions must do if they're going to be religions - they have to make promises, and show that these promises are somehow fulfilled. That's where miracles and reliable revelations come in. Without these external assurances (while someone like Simone Weil may be content to be in a place where God is completely absent, where enduring the void and suffering evil just is our contact with God) most people would not be able to tolerate the evils that befall them with trust. But these are just the kinds of things that make religions into what Reitan calls exclusive ideologies.
Religions are very easy to create - new religions are born and die by the dozens every year - but they are very hard to sustain. The world's great religions have discovered the secret, and a lot of that depends on things which are only, according to Reitan, contingently related to religion. But Reitan can only say that, and expect to be listened to, precisely because religions have been created and sustained by precisely the kinds of things Reitan holds to be incidental to true religion, because religious people's faith does depend on certainty and belonging, on the one hand, and exclusion and denial on the other.
According to Reitan these are features of fundamentalism, and the atheists to whom he is responding, he claims, are fundamentalists too, because, just like fundamentalists, they demand certainty, and cannot live with indeterminacy. There are so many things wrong with this way of proceeding that it would take a book to respond adequately. However, let me say this much. At the end of his book, after redefining religion, Reitan says that "It's now time to directly consider whether religion IN THIS SENSE 'poisons everything'." (209; my emphasis) However, this is clearly not a response to Hitchens, because Hitchens didn't have 'this sense' in mind at all. He had ordinary, garden variety religion in mind, the kind that sustains community and preserves tradition. Reitan's religion couldn't do that. It piggy-backs on religious projects that can. And so his response is not to the 'New Atheists' at all. In fact, in many respects, Reitan's book is a response to most religions as they now exist, and he finds them wanting, just as the 'New Atheists' do.
Of course, the 'New Atheists' wouldn't agree with Reitan's redefinition of religion. They'd think, and rightly, I believe, that there is no sound basis for claiming that the cosmological argument provides room for the validity of religious experiences, not because they long for certainty, but because they tend to think that evidence is important, and the Principle of Sufficient Reason, and the search for ultimate explanations - it's still not clear to me how the existence of a god could be thought to explain the existence of the universe - simply do not provide much in the way of evidence. Reitan has defined God in such a way that empirical evidence is not available. All he is left with is the Principle of Sufficient reason and religious-ethical hope. I don't think he could sustain a religion on this basis, but he might be able to grab the coat-tails of one!
The problem is a simple one. If you reinterpret religion radically, as Reitan does, then religion's cultured despisers turn out to be right, after all, because they are condemning the same kinds of thing that Reitan condemns. Reitan creates a shadow religion, which very few people believe or practice, and calls it true religion, which, he suggests, may be presumptuous. Well, it is presumptuous. It also defeats his purpose, for most religion is not as Reitan describes it, a matter of belief that the universe trends towards the good, and that faith is a matter of trusting in the religious-ethical hope that all the evils and harms of existence will be redeemed by the infinite personal spirit whose essence is love.
This is simply not the way most religions function. As A.C. Grayling says in his little book "Against All Gods": "... those who would escape into clouds of theology for their defence miss the point made by religion's critics. The great mass of religious folk believe in something far more basic and traditional than the vaporous inventions of theology, and it is on this that they repose their trust, and for which some - too many - kill an die. ... Moreover, the deeply forested hideaways of theology start from the same place as ordinary supersititious faith, so laying an axe to this root brings it down too." The point is that most people cannot live in the rarefied atmosphere of Schleiermacher and Reitan. They live in the world where terrible things happen to them, and they need assurance that not only is God loving infinite spirit, but that God loves them (in particular). In order to capture the popular mind - which religions must do if they're going to be religions - they have to make promises, and show that these promises are somehow fulfilled. That's where miracles and reliable revelations come in. Without these external assurances (while someone like Simone Weil may be content to be in a place where God is completely absent, where enduring the void and suffering evil just is our contact with God) most people would not be able to tolerate the evils that befall them with trust. But these are just the kinds of things that make religions into what Reitan calls exclusive ideologies.
Religions are very easy to create - new religions are born and die by the dozens every year - but they are very hard to sustain. The world's great religions have discovered the secret, and a lot of that depends on things which are only, according to Reitan, contingently related to religion. But Reitan can only say that, and expect to be listened to, precisely because religions have been created and sustained by precisely the kinds of things Reitan holds to be incidental to true religion, because religious people's faith does depend on certainty and belonging, on the one hand, and exclusion and denial on the other.
According to Reitan these are features of fundamentalism, and the atheists to whom he is responding, he claims, are fundamentalists too, because, just like fundamentalists, they demand certainty, and cannot live with indeterminacy. There are so many things wrong with this way of proceeding that it would take a book to respond adequately. However, let me say this much. At the end of his book, after redefining religion, Reitan says that "It's now time to directly consider whether religion IN THIS SENSE 'poisons everything'." (209; my emphasis) However, this is clearly not a response to Hitchens, because Hitchens didn't have 'this sense' in mind at all. He had ordinary, garden variety religion in mind, the kind that sustains community and preserves tradition. Reitan's religion couldn't do that. It piggy-backs on religious projects that can. And so his response is not to the 'New Atheists' at all. In fact, in many respects, Reitan's book is a response to most religions as they now exist, and he finds them wanting, just as the 'New Atheists' do.
Of course, the 'New Atheists' wouldn't agree with Reitan's redefinition of religion. They'd think, and rightly, I believe, that there is no sound basis for claiming that the cosmological argument provides room for the validity of religious experiences, not because they long for certainty, but because they tend to think that evidence is important, and the Principle of Sufficient Reason, and the search for ultimate explanations - it's still not clear to me how the existence of a god could be thought to explain the existence of the universe - simply do not provide much in the way of evidence. Reitan has defined God in such a way that empirical evidence is not available. All he is left with is the Principle of Sufficient reason and religious-ethical hope. I don't think he could sustain a religion on this basis, but he might be able to grab the coat-tails of one!
Most Helpful Customer Reviews on Amazon.com (beta)
Amazon.com:
9 reviews
28 of 37 people found the following review helpful
A Brilliant Defense of Religion Grounded on Belief in a Good God
1 Jan 2009
Format:Paperback
This book is so rich in powerful argument, profound insight, and deep scholarship that I cannot, in a brief review, do any real justice to it. What I can do is indicate the central propositions the book defends (with great success, in my opinion) in the hopes that doing so will tempt others to read it themselves.
As the subtitle of the book indicates, one of the chief inspirations of Reitan's philosophical theology is Friedrich Schleiermacher, whose celebrated Speeches on Religion to its Cultured Despisers founded what Karl Barth called a new epoch in Christian thought. In fact Schleiermacher is commonly (and rightly) regarded as the father of the liberal theology of the 19th century, a kind of theology that has, unfortunately, been eclipsed (especially in popular culture) by the reactionary "primitivized Orthodoxy' (to borrow and apt phrase of Tillich) commonly known as fundamentalism. The theology of Schleiermacher, like that of Aquinas and Leibniz (both of whom have also influenced Reitan), was informed by deep learning and profound philosophical thought. This, however, is true of all the greatest theology of the Christian Church, from St. Augustine to Wolfhart Panneberg. What separates Schleiermacher from most theologians who came before him and after him, is the emphasis he placed on what he took to be the root of theology, something he describes in the Speeches as "the intuition of the infinite in the finite". This intuition or sense (or feeling), an intuition that might be called "mystical", is not to be confused with the interpretations of the world, the self, or God which might be developed out of it. And, as Reitan carefully explains in chapter 1 of his book, this intuition, which IS piety according to Schleiermacher, and is also the basis of religious thought, (i.e. conceptualizations of reality in light of it) is, by its very nature, inclusive. It is inclusive because the infinite, by ITS nature, is inclusive of the finite as ground and cause, and so any living sense of the infinite will drive us out of ourselves into union with the other finite beings which are sustained in the bosom of the infinite. Furthermore, any living intuition of the infinite leads to the awareness that, however carefully we may work out a theology based on this intuition (and all who have read Schleiermacher's systematic theology know how carefully and how rigorously he worked out his theology), we can never exhaust it and so must be glad, nay eager, to listen to others who have had an experience of the infinite, even if they interpret it differently. Thus for Schleiermacher, as for his student Reitan, any form of religion that thunders anathamas at the sincerely held religious doctrine of others, or that seeks to use religion as a pretext for violence, is not real religion at all, but a corruption of it. Reitan works out Schleiermacher's profound train of thought here with great care and vigor and, in so doing, shows that the moral attacks made on religion by contemporary cultured despisers of it miss their target, even as the cultured despisers of Schleiermacher's day did. What they attack, in fact, is not religion but its corruption.
In the second chapter of his book Reitan shows that the cultured despisers of religion mistake the good God of theism with the idol of superstition. Reitan does admit that many second and third rate "theologians' are partially to blame for this since may of them do not worship a God who could be called good in any meaningful sense, but rather an idol who rules tyranically over the universe, ready to strike down all those who these "theologians" dislike (e.g. gays, heretics, atheists, liberals, etc.) In this chapter Reitan brilliantly appropriates the thought of Plutarch and Zoroaster (the ancient Persian Prophet who founded the now nearly dead Zoroastrian religion) to argue for the proposition that only a being worthy of worship could truly be called "God", and that goodness, understood as the creative and preserving power of love, is the most important of all "God making" properties.
In chapter 3 Reitan continues his assault on the God of superstition by attacking both the divine command theory of ethics, a theory that emphasizes God's power to the point of robbing the term "good" of all meaning, as well the literalist interpretation of Scripture championed by fundamentalists, an interpretation that falsely seeks to rob the human being of the right, nay the duty, to use what his reason tells him about the ethical to test the truth of all purportedly revealed moral doctrines.
In the next two chapters Reitan defends Aquinas's and Leibniz's cosmological proofs for God's existence from certain misguided attacks on them. Reitan does not, in these chapters, attempt to defend, or even explain, Aquinas's and Leibniz's arguments for the conclusion that there is only ONE uncaused cause of all other beings, and that this cause is the all good, all knowing, and all powerful God of theism, contenting himself with the more modest claim that their arguments for the existence of an uncaused and necessary being make it rational to believe that the empirical world is sustained in existence by a being which transcends it. In this way Reitan seeks to strengthen the case for the veridicality of Schleiermacher's intuition of an infinite being lying behind and within all finite beings.
In the 7th chapter of his book Reitan examines religious consciousness, noting that many persons besides Schleiermacher have had mystical experiences of an infinite being. He also, in this chapter, is at pains to note that there are different kinds of mystical experience (relying here, in part, on the celebrated studies of James an Zaehner) and also that different people may, quite reasonably, interpret experiences of the same sort in different ways. Sam Harris is a particular target of Reitan's keen dialectic in this chapter since Harris arrogantly asserts, without argument, that all true mystical experience will attest to the truth of the Buddhist "no self" doctrine. Relying on both Lotze and Schleiermacher Reitan presents powerful arguments for the proposition that the sense of the loss of self that many mystics report can just as reasonably (or perhaps more reasonably) be given a theistic interpretation as a Buddhist one, and that such an interpretation is closed only to those who dogmatically insist that the good God of theism is an illusion.
In chapter 8 of his book Reitan explicates and defends a Lutheran interpretation of faith as trust in a good God who delivers human beings from sin and death, and he shows that this trust, if it is to be true to itself, cannot be used as a pretext to persecute homosexuals, or heretics, or atheists, etc. Reitan further shows that such a trust is eminently reasonable (even thought not rationally irresistible) and that it has nothing in common with believing in Santa Clause or fairies.
In chapter 9 Reitan confronts the problem of evil, admitting that, while there are insights to be gained from many of the classical Christian theodices, none has really solved the problem. But he argues, persuasively, that this fact is no more sufficient to make faith in a good God irrational than the fact that biologists have not solved certain problems facing the theory of evolution makes it irrational to continue to believe in that theory.
Finally, in the last chapter of the book Reitan launches into a stinging attack on those who insist that religion is the cause of all the greatest evils in the world. Reitan shows that certain far from admirable traits of the human mind (e.g. a need for absolute certainly, a laziness in the face of the daunting task of creating a truly just society, a fear of the other, etc.) can, if unchecked, lead humans to an ideology with divides the world into the children of light and the children of darkness. Religion can, and has, been used as a way of achieving this division, but as Reitan correctly notes, so have race, ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation, etc. And these things, unlike religion, have no inherent power to say "No" to the tribalism that so often takes possession of mankind. Religion, however, if it is true to itself, does have such power since it is rooted in the intuition that there is an infinite good that is present in, with, and under all finite beings.
This book is a gem and I fancy that in writing it Reitan has made his 19th century guru both happy and proud.
As the subtitle of the book indicates, one of the chief inspirations of Reitan's philosophical theology is Friedrich Schleiermacher, whose celebrated Speeches on Religion to its Cultured Despisers founded what Karl Barth called a new epoch in Christian thought. In fact Schleiermacher is commonly (and rightly) regarded as the father of the liberal theology of the 19th century, a kind of theology that has, unfortunately, been eclipsed (especially in popular culture) by the reactionary "primitivized Orthodoxy' (to borrow and apt phrase of Tillich) commonly known as fundamentalism. The theology of Schleiermacher, like that of Aquinas and Leibniz (both of whom have also influenced Reitan), was informed by deep learning and profound philosophical thought. This, however, is true of all the greatest theology of the Christian Church, from St. Augustine to Wolfhart Panneberg. What separates Schleiermacher from most theologians who came before him and after him, is the emphasis he placed on what he took to be the root of theology, something he describes in the Speeches as "the intuition of the infinite in the finite". This intuition or sense (or feeling), an intuition that might be called "mystical", is not to be confused with the interpretations of the world, the self, or God which might be developed out of it. And, as Reitan carefully explains in chapter 1 of his book, this intuition, which IS piety according to Schleiermacher, and is also the basis of religious thought, (i.e. conceptualizations of reality in light of it) is, by its very nature, inclusive. It is inclusive because the infinite, by ITS nature, is inclusive of the finite as ground and cause, and so any living sense of the infinite will drive us out of ourselves into union with the other finite beings which are sustained in the bosom of the infinite. Furthermore, any living intuition of the infinite leads to the awareness that, however carefully we may work out a theology based on this intuition (and all who have read Schleiermacher's systematic theology know how carefully and how rigorously he worked out his theology), we can never exhaust it and so must be glad, nay eager, to listen to others who have had an experience of the infinite, even if they interpret it differently. Thus for Schleiermacher, as for his student Reitan, any form of religion that thunders anathamas at the sincerely held religious doctrine of others, or that seeks to use religion as a pretext for violence, is not real religion at all, but a corruption of it. Reitan works out Schleiermacher's profound train of thought here with great care and vigor and, in so doing, shows that the moral attacks made on religion by contemporary cultured despisers of it miss their target, even as the cultured despisers of Schleiermacher's day did. What they attack, in fact, is not religion but its corruption.
In the second chapter of his book Reitan shows that the cultured despisers of religion mistake the good God of theism with the idol of superstition. Reitan does admit that many second and third rate "theologians' are partially to blame for this since may of them do not worship a God who could be called good in any meaningful sense, but rather an idol who rules tyranically over the universe, ready to strike down all those who these "theologians" dislike (e.g. gays, heretics, atheists, liberals, etc.) In this chapter Reitan brilliantly appropriates the thought of Plutarch and Zoroaster (the ancient Persian Prophet who founded the now nearly dead Zoroastrian religion) to argue for the proposition that only a being worthy of worship could truly be called "God", and that goodness, understood as the creative and preserving power of love, is the most important of all "God making" properties.
In chapter 3 Reitan continues his assault on the God of superstition by attacking both the divine command theory of ethics, a theory that emphasizes God's power to the point of robbing the term "good" of all meaning, as well the literalist interpretation of Scripture championed by fundamentalists, an interpretation that falsely seeks to rob the human being of the right, nay the duty, to use what his reason tells him about the ethical to test the truth of all purportedly revealed moral doctrines.
In the next two chapters Reitan defends Aquinas's and Leibniz's cosmological proofs for God's existence from certain misguided attacks on them. Reitan does not, in these chapters, attempt to defend, or even explain, Aquinas's and Leibniz's arguments for the conclusion that there is only ONE uncaused cause of all other beings, and that this cause is the all good, all knowing, and all powerful God of theism, contenting himself with the more modest claim that their arguments for the existence of an uncaused and necessary being make it rational to believe that the empirical world is sustained in existence by a being which transcends it. In this way Reitan seeks to strengthen the case for the veridicality of Schleiermacher's intuition of an infinite being lying behind and within all finite beings.
In the 7th chapter of his book Reitan examines religious consciousness, noting that many persons besides Schleiermacher have had mystical experiences of an infinite being. He also, in this chapter, is at pains to note that there are different kinds of mystical experience (relying here, in part, on the celebrated studies of James an Zaehner) and also that different people may, quite reasonably, interpret experiences of the same sort in different ways. Sam Harris is a particular target of Reitan's keen dialectic in this chapter since Harris arrogantly asserts, without argument, that all true mystical experience will attest to the truth of the Buddhist "no self" doctrine. Relying on both Lotze and Schleiermacher Reitan presents powerful arguments for the proposition that the sense of the loss of self that many mystics report can just as reasonably (or perhaps more reasonably) be given a theistic interpretation as a Buddhist one, and that such an interpretation is closed only to those who dogmatically insist that the good God of theism is an illusion.
In chapter 8 of his book Reitan explicates and defends a Lutheran interpretation of faith as trust in a good God who delivers human beings from sin and death, and he shows that this trust, if it is to be true to itself, cannot be used as a pretext to persecute homosexuals, or heretics, or atheists, etc. Reitan further shows that such a trust is eminently reasonable (even thought not rationally irresistible) and that it has nothing in common with believing in Santa Clause or fairies.
In chapter 9 Reitan confronts the problem of evil, admitting that, while there are insights to be gained from many of the classical Christian theodices, none has really solved the problem. But he argues, persuasively, that this fact is no more sufficient to make faith in a good God irrational than the fact that biologists have not solved certain problems facing the theory of evolution makes it irrational to continue to believe in that theory.
Finally, in the last chapter of the book Reitan launches into a stinging attack on those who insist that religion is the cause of all the greatest evils in the world. Reitan shows that certain far from admirable traits of the human mind (e.g. a need for absolute certainly, a laziness in the face of the daunting task of creating a truly just society, a fear of the other, etc.) can, if unchecked, lead humans to an ideology with divides the world into the children of light and the children of darkness. Religion can, and has, been used as a way of achieving this division, but as Reitan correctly notes, so have race, ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation, etc. And these things, unlike religion, have no inherent power to say "No" to the tribalism that so often takes possession of mankind. Religion, however, if it is true to itself, does have such power since it is rooted in the intuition that there is an infinite good that is present in, with, and under all finite beings.
This book is a gem and I fancy that in writing it Reitan has made his 19th century guru both happy and proud.
4 of 4 people found the following review helpful
A review for religious progressives
6 April 2011
Format:Hardcover|Amazon Verified Purchase
Eric Reitan's book, Is God A Delusion?, has been a book I have enjoyed reading very much and one I'll return to reread. I must confess, up front, that much of my own religious persuasion is similar to Reitan's but ER's defense of progressive religion has a novelty to it that I found quite refreshing. His apologetic is up-to-date, grounded in scholarly study and very often creative. Who'd have thunk to incorporate Schleiermacher, Leibniz and Weil as central heroes for a progressive faith?
Poking around a bit on his blog, I noted Reitan originally started the book as a response to the Christian Right. With the barrage of neo-atheist books by Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris et al, Reitan decided to tackle the "fundamentalisms" on both sides. I myself would have preferred more attention to the more refined philosophical challenge of atheistic thought instead of the "softballs" served up in the many facile, simplistic quotes in the book from the Dawkins crowd. However, the neo-atheists have certainly succeeded in directing the spotlight on what our national religious discussion is all about so I concede the need to zero in on them.
I'd like to say, though, that I have a great sympathy for atheists and agnostics in general, especially in their more respectful, less strident dispositions. They have a great deal to say and have certainly made some very cogent critiques of religious absurdities and arrogance. Reitan shares that respect, frequently assenting the reasonableness of the atheist view but just that it is not the ONLY reasonable viewpoint. Overall, I appreciated Reitan's graciousness, but also his firmness in a number of places, calling out the fundamentalistic tendencies of the neo-atheists.
There is so much that Reitan discusses in the book that is beyond the scope of a quick review. But I'd like to highlight an important aspect that I believe will appeal to those religious progressives like myself.
Reitan reasons that the religious yearning within humanity towards transcendency occurs universally (not saying everyone experiences it) in all times, cultures, and conditionings and is a vital clue to how the transcendent makes itself known. To heavy-handedly constrict this religious phenomenon into a brittle, doctrinal authoritarianism is to misrepresent it as well as to deny that the experience is real because it isn't scientifically/objectively verifiable. Both reactive poles are the fundamentalisms that threaten to obscure what is knowable more by our mystical intuitions.
The compass points to this transcendent mystery are its goodness and the hope it fosters in those who have profoundly experienced it. True religion ennobles rather than debases. Religious fundamentalists that propagate hate and factionalism are inauthentic representatives of this greater reality, encrusting true religious experience into distorted human facsimiles. Likewise, the deniers of it essentially end up dismissing what may be the latent human genius in enabling the human species to evolve to deal with our tragic human plight.
Ultimately, Reitan takes religion to a place of heightened vulnerability by making our mystical subjectivities as the fulcrum of our religious explications. Many will demand more certitude, tangible substance and definition to enable religion to survive in an often hostile world of competing ideals (or simply to prove itself). I myself tend to identify with his aim. Many religious progressives are learning to live with uncertainty and still maintain a robust sense of faith. Reitan's urging, via Schleiermacher, to remain true to our religious intuitions (the signals of transcendence), I believe, is sage wisdom and charts how we can sort out the essential from the not so essential to help coalesce the spiritual sensibilities of the many.
Of course, this is the icing on the cake of a book (for some way too sweet) that delves into everything from the cosmological argument to the problem of evil. No doubt, many will demur with Reitan's overall argument but for religious progressives of all persuasions, he has provided a hopeful, inspiring book to forward the adventure.
Poking around a bit on his blog, I noted Reitan originally started the book as a response to the Christian Right. With the barrage of neo-atheist books by Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris et al, Reitan decided to tackle the "fundamentalisms" on both sides. I myself would have preferred more attention to the more refined philosophical challenge of atheistic thought instead of the "softballs" served up in the many facile, simplistic quotes in the book from the Dawkins crowd. However, the neo-atheists have certainly succeeded in directing the spotlight on what our national religious discussion is all about so I concede the need to zero in on them.
I'd like to say, though, that I have a great sympathy for atheists and agnostics in general, especially in their more respectful, less strident dispositions. They have a great deal to say and have certainly made some very cogent critiques of religious absurdities and arrogance. Reitan shares that respect, frequently assenting the reasonableness of the atheist view but just that it is not the ONLY reasonable viewpoint. Overall, I appreciated Reitan's graciousness, but also his firmness in a number of places, calling out the fundamentalistic tendencies of the neo-atheists.
There is so much that Reitan discusses in the book that is beyond the scope of a quick review. But I'd like to highlight an important aspect that I believe will appeal to those religious progressives like myself.
Reitan reasons that the religious yearning within humanity towards transcendency occurs universally (not saying everyone experiences it) in all times, cultures, and conditionings and is a vital clue to how the transcendent makes itself known. To heavy-handedly constrict this religious phenomenon into a brittle, doctrinal authoritarianism is to misrepresent it as well as to deny that the experience is real because it isn't scientifically/objectively verifiable. Both reactive poles are the fundamentalisms that threaten to obscure what is knowable more by our mystical intuitions.
The compass points to this transcendent mystery are its goodness and the hope it fosters in those who have profoundly experienced it. True religion ennobles rather than debases. Religious fundamentalists that propagate hate and factionalism are inauthentic representatives of this greater reality, encrusting true religious experience into distorted human facsimiles. Likewise, the deniers of it essentially end up dismissing what may be the latent human genius in enabling the human species to evolve to deal with our tragic human plight.
Ultimately, Reitan takes religion to a place of heightened vulnerability by making our mystical subjectivities as the fulcrum of our religious explications. Many will demand more certitude, tangible substance and definition to enable religion to survive in an often hostile world of competing ideals (or simply to prove itself). I myself tend to identify with his aim. Many religious progressives are learning to live with uncertainty and still maintain a robust sense of faith. Reitan's urging, via Schleiermacher, to remain true to our religious intuitions (the signals of transcendence), I believe, is sage wisdom and charts how we can sort out the essential from the not so essential to help coalesce the spiritual sensibilities of the many.
Of course, this is the icing on the cake of a book (for some way too sweet) that delves into everything from the cosmological argument to the problem of evil. No doubt, many will demur with Reitan's overall argument but for religious progressives of all persuasions, he has provided a hopeful, inspiring book to forward the adventure.
37 of 54 people found the following review helpful
Wrong question
29 Dec 2008
Format:Hardcover|Amazon Verified Purchase
Reitan begins with an attack against people like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, calling them "New Atheists" without explaining why the adjective "new" was necessary and what he meant. Would he be a "New Apologist" then? He tried to garner support and sympathy by flattering people of all religions, but tripped up when he concluded his Introduction with this comment: "We must find ways, not to stamp out religion, but to let true religion loose upon the world." (Reitan's emphasis) Which was that true religion he had in mind? His own belief seems clearly to be Christian (but which model?); and that being so, was he then really empathetic to Sikhism, Islam, and all the other religions he fawned over? At page 61 he distinguishes "the god Hypothesis" from "the God Hypothesis". Who was his "God"? We won't find the answer in this book.
He then turned to Bertrand Russell and Christopher Hitchens and other atheists and criticized them for not defining god. Then he stated that his students, when asked, all gave very different meanings to "god". Faced with the problem of defining god, he stated: "And if, as most theists would agree, God transcends our finite understanding, wouldn't it be better to define "God" in a way that makes our understanding of the divine susceptible to development in the light of critical reflection? What we need is a definition that points us to something without presuming to describe every key detail; a definition that gets all of us "looking in the same direction" so that we can have a debate about the properties of what we're looking at." What is he saying? His finite intelligence cannot describe god, so he has to lower the standard and define god in a way so that it is sufficiently nebulous for theistic apologists to evade hard questions? The answer can be seen in his next paragraph. He sensed that he would be laughed at (he called it the atheists' indignation) and so he arrogantly stated, "Get over it"; he stated that since the God Hypothesis is incomprehensible (he called it "transcending science") there's no point having a scientific debate about the existence of god.
It is well and fine to debate with theologians about the existence of god, but it is not meaningful to engage people who try to pass off theology as science and philosophy. Scientific and philosophic debates are disciplined discourses with clear rules founded on clarity and honesty; not on vague terms that permit the user to evade, hide, and shift his ground every time he gets cornered. Can Reitan justify his claim that the "cause of the trouble is a fundamentalist insistence that one ought to accept without question that some text or institution or prophetic leader articulating the very will of God?" Isn't this a circular argument? Who is a fundamentalist? It seems that he would be someone who disagrees with Reitan. There are thousands of interpretations in Christianity alone, not to mention the thousands of sub-disagreements. Every one of the their theistic followers pray to something they believed to be their one true god; but if there was just one true god, he is a very mischievous one for telling his followers different things and cause them to kill and maim each other. The same god, the god of Abraham, the god of Moses, is telling his followers the Jews, the Christians, and the Muslims that all of them are right. It is no use saying that the ones who advocated killing each other are the fundamentalists and they are wrong. Shouldn't the definition of who a fundamentalist is be subject to scrutiny, or should we just accept Reitan's word without question. He wouldn't like that, would he? Only fundamentalist do such things.
Reitan called Dawkins a philosophical novice because (or so Reitan believed) he did not understand Aquinas. Reitan and Aquinas believed in God (and since Aquinas was Christian, Reitan's belief must be Christian) because everything in the universe must have a cause except the first cause. They (Aquinas and Reitan) realised that if they don't put a stop to this then they are stuck in an infinite regress - turtles all the way down. So why is this first cause so personal that he needs and wants to be worshipped? Why not just a bang from a bag of gas? Reitan would believe that a bag of gas must have a first cause. So, can he explain why a bag of gas can't be the first cause that he believed must exist; a cause that had no cause? How does he differentiate his idea of the first cause (his "god") from a bag of gas?
Space does not permit a more comprehensive critical review. The reminder of the book that expressed the old standard defences of theism and Christian were written in similar vein - poor definitions, incomplete arguments and circular arguments. For example, in defending theodicy, he placed the blame(as most theists do) on man (the victim) and not god, the presumed almighty and all good. It is man's free will, he stated, when referring to the evil caused by man. What of the evil caused in natural disasters like Hurricane Katarina? Such evil if caused by god, would be redeemed by god. How? And how does Reitan know that? Perhaps we were not mean to question him on this either. If god cannot be defined or identified, and does not exist, the question, "Is God a delusion?" makes little sense. The more practical question would be, "Is Reitan deluded?"
I would not say don't read this book, but I would say read it but also read the counter-arguments (Amazon has a list of books on atheism); in both cases, read all the arguments critically. It may be useful to read Michael Philips' "Undercover Philosopher" first so that one will be more wary of deception planned as traps for the more naïve and unsuspecting mind.
He then turned to Bertrand Russell and Christopher Hitchens and other atheists and criticized them for not defining god. Then he stated that his students, when asked, all gave very different meanings to "god". Faced with the problem of defining god, he stated: "And if, as most theists would agree, God transcends our finite understanding, wouldn't it be better to define "God" in a way that makes our understanding of the divine susceptible to development in the light of critical reflection? What we need is a definition that points us to something without presuming to describe every key detail; a definition that gets all of us "looking in the same direction" so that we can have a debate about the properties of what we're looking at." What is he saying? His finite intelligence cannot describe god, so he has to lower the standard and define god in a way so that it is sufficiently nebulous for theistic apologists to evade hard questions? The answer can be seen in his next paragraph. He sensed that he would be laughed at (he called it the atheists' indignation) and so he arrogantly stated, "Get over it"; he stated that since the God Hypothesis is incomprehensible (he called it "transcending science") there's no point having a scientific debate about the existence of god.
It is well and fine to debate with theologians about the existence of god, but it is not meaningful to engage people who try to pass off theology as science and philosophy. Scientific and philosophic debates are disciplined discourses with clear rules founded on clarity and honesty; not on vague terms that permit the user to evade, hide, and shift his ground every time he gets cornered. Can Reitan justify his claim that the "cause of the trouble is a fundamentalist insistence that one ought to accept without question that some text or institution or prophetic leader articulating the very will of God?" Isn't this a circular argument? Who is a fundamentalist? It seems that he would be someone who disagrees with Reitan. There are thousands of interpretations in Christianity alone, not to mention the thousands of sub-disagreements. Every one of the their theistic followers pray to something they believed to be their one true god; but if there was just one true god, he is a very mischievous one for telling his followers different things and cause them to kill and maim each other. The same god, the god of Abraham, the god of Moses, is telling his followers the Jews, the Christians, and the Muslims that all of them are right. It is no use saying that the ones who advocated killing each other are the fundamentalists and they are wrong. Shouldn't the definition of who a fundamentalist is be subject to scrutiny, or should we just accept Reitan's word without question. He wouldn't like that, would he? Only fundamentalist do such things.
Reitan called Dawkins a philosophical novice because (or so Reitan believed) he did not understand Aquinas. Reitan and Aquinas believed in God (and since Aquinas was Christian, Reitan's belief must be Christian) because everything in the universe must have a cause except the first cause. They (Aquinas and Reitan) realised that if they don't put a stop to this then they are stuck in an infinite regress - turtles all the way down. So why is this first cause so personal that he needs and wants to be worshipped? Why not just a bang from a bag of gas? Reitan would believe that a bag of gas must have a first cause. So, can he explain why a bag of gas can't be the first cause that he believed must exist; a cause that had no cause? How does he differentiate his idea of the first cause (his "god") from a bag of gas?
Space does not permit a more comprehensive critical review. The reminder of the book that expressed the old standard defences of theism and Christian were written in similar vein - poor definitions, incomplete arguments and circular arguments. For example, in defending theodicy, he placed the blame(as most theists do) on man (the victim) and not god, the presumed almighty and all good. It is man's free will, he stated, when referring to the evil caused by man. What of the evil caused in natural disasters like Hurricane Katarina? Such evil if caused by god, would be redeemed by god. How? And how does Reitan know that? Perhaps we were not mean to question him on this either. If god cannot be defined or identified, and does not exist, the question, "Is God a delusion?" makes little sense. The more practical question would be, "Is Reitan deluded?"
I would not say don't read this book, but I would say read it but also read the counter-arguments (Amazon has a list of books on atheism); in both cases, read all the arguments critically. It may be useful to read Michael Philips' "Undercover Philosopher" first so that one will be more wary of deception planned as traps for the more naïve and unsuspecting mind.
Were these reviews helpful?
Let us know
Customer Discussions
|
This product's forum
Active discussions in related forums
Search Customer Discussions
|
Related forums
|
![[Start the discussion]](http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/02/x-locale/communities/discussion_boards/start-new-discussion-sec._V192198663_.gif){kind=small}
Listmania!
Look for similar items by category
- Books > Religion & Spirituality > Christianity > Theology > Philosophy
- Books > Religion & Spirituality > Religious Studies > Nature & Existence of God
- Books > Religion & Spirituality > Religious Studies > Philosophy
- Books > Science & Nature > History & Philosophy > Reference
- Books > Science & Nature > Nature > Reference
- Books > Society, Politics & Philosophy > Philosophy
- Books > Society, Politics & Philosophy > Social Sciences
Look for similar items by subject
Feedback
- Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images?
- I am the Author, and I want to comment on my book.
- I am the Publisher, and I want to comment on this book.
|
