Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and Its Fashionable Enemies

Author explains his arguments well. His dry sense of humor adds a nice touch as well.

I will forgo the standard adjectives that came to mind when I read this book: brilliant, stunning, breathtaking. That is a given when one reads David Bentley Hart. This book is a combination of alternative history, apologetics, and smash-mouth theology.Hart claims the Christian faith represented a revolution in the story of humanity (ix). It shattered the pagan cosmology (115) and introduced new categories of reality, the dimension of the human person for one. However, Hart's thesis is more subtle than that. He is not simply saying "Christianity has done a lot of good to the world; therefore, you need to belive,"--that would be a variant of the genetic fallacy that Hart so masterfully refutes. Rather, Christianity has its own telling of the story, a telling that reworks the categories of human existence within the framework of its own story.Over against the story is the narrative of modernity. Modernity's telos is that of freedom. Its highest ideal is putting trust in the absence of a transcendental. Its freedom is nihilistic. Modernity's current defenders, and this is the first half of Hart's book, retell the Western story in a way to demonize Christianity in their defense of modernity. Therefore, Hart meticulously shows how Christianity did not impede science (the chapter on Galileo is hilarious), burn witches (the Inquisition, despite its bad moments, actually limited the bloodiness of the State's persecution of heretics), or fight religious wars (the Crusades are actually a different case, worthy of a conversation but not under this topic).One slight criticism: Given Hart's thesis of the Christian revolution of thought and humanity, its shattering and rebuilding of worlds, it is rather surprising to see Hart end on so dismal a note. If the Christian Revolution is as powerful as he says and as I believe, and if the detractors of Christianity are slightly moronic, as appears to be the case, does this not ultimately point to the triumph of the Christian narrative? Of course, the word triumph needs to be carefully qualified.Conclusion:What many of Hart's readers might not realize with this book, but this is actually Hart's clearest piece of writing. Most of Hart's writing (*Beauty of the Infinite*), while beautiful, is borderline incoherent. This book, on the other hand, is understandable.EDIT: I've actually become more critical of this book in particular, and Hart in general over the past year. Hart is quite learned and makes a number of pointed responses to the "New Atheist Detractors." And to be fair, if the New Atheists are going to ridicule Christianity in the most scathing of terms, they need to be ready to play hardball. That being said, this book started well, had a nice historical review, but had one of the most lame conclusions I've ever read. Imagine Beethoven's 9th ending with everyone humming "Kum-by-yah." I mean, there is a major dialectical tension in this book. If Hart is correct on the Christian narrative, then how does his conclusion follow?!?

This book is a refreshing respite from the relentless onslaught of publications we've seen in recent years from the so-called New Atheists. If you've grown skeptical or weary of venomous titles like God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, The God Delusion, or The End of Faith: Religion, Terror and the Future of Reason, or better yet, if you've found something compelling in these titles, David Bentley Hart's book is worth reading.In Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and Its Fashionable Enemies, DBH seeks to expose the New Atheists for what they really are: popular and sensational writers who often rely on inconsistent, faulty and hyperbolic reasoning to advance their anti-faith claims. (I mean, really, "religion poisons everything"?) It is important to understand that this book is not a rant against atheism, but New Atheism. DBH laments the disappearance of yesteryear's logical and thoughtful atheists, people like Frederick Nietzsche who realized the rather frightening implications of their atheistic presuppositions. You will be hard pressed to find among the New Atheists a thinker like Sartre who will admit his disturbance in the face of God's absence, "for along with his disappearance goes the possibility of finding values in an intelligible heaven" ("Existentialism is a Humanism", 28). The terrifying implications, then, which Sartre had the courage to acknowledge, is that "[man:] is nothing more than the sum of his actions, nothing more than his life...[he:] commits himself and draws his own portrait, outside of which there is nothing" (37). Although he disagrees with their fundamental presuppositions, DBH does not try to hide his respect for the atheists of former times.It is also important to understand that this book is not a defense of "religion," but rather Christianity, and the ways in which Christianity revolutionized the culture from which it sprang and the ways it has continued to leave an imprint on our thinking, even when we refuse to give credit where credit is due.In an effort to try to correct some of the misconceptions about historic Christianity that have been popularized by the New Atheists and other postmodern thinkers, DBH steps into three roles: that of the philosopher, the historian and, to a lesser extent, the theologian. I liked him best as philosopher.In the opening chapter of his book, DBH does an excellent job of highlighting, in a very cogent and intelligent way, the most egregious errors of New Atheism. He reminds us that we all bring presuppositions to the table, and that any New Atheist who believes that he has been endowed with the gift of perfect objectivity - that he has somehow parted with the chains of bias that enslave people of faith - is simply deluding himself. He also argues quite well that one's belief in Truth or Beauty or The Good hinges on one's belief in transcendence. Hart demonstrates that the New Atheists' claims, brought to their logical conclusions, "would ultimately erase any meaningful distinction between good and evil, compassion and cruelty, love and hatred, reverence and transgression, and few of us could bear to inhabit the world on those terms" (23). What distinguishes the New Atheists from their more logical and brave predecessors is that they refuse to acknowledge the implications of their claims. To use a popular cliche, they'd like to have their cake and eat it, too.DBH as historian was certainly impressive, but I found it somewhat difficult to assimilate the many facts he presented into a coherent whole. I'm sure this is due to knowledge deficits on my part; he does assume, rightly or wrongly, that his readers will come to his text with an already-established foundation of historical knowledge. If you, like me, are largely ignorant of early Christian and Hellenistic history and culture, just hang on and try to enjoy the ride. Also, if you decide to read this book and are Protestant, you will probably be disappointed by that fact that he makes virtually no mention of the Reformation, even though he discusses people and events from that era. I realize that he himself is not Protestant, but how can a book that defends Christianity throughout the ages leave out the Reformation?DBH as theologian was not my favorite, but this is to be expected when a theologically conservative Reformed Baptist interacts with the ideas of a theologically liberal Eastern Orthodox. I don't fault DBH for allowing his theology to creep into his book - it is his book, after all - but he does take it for granted that his readers share his theological convictions, even ones that I'm not sure are widely accepted by the Christian community as a whole, like the doctrine of "divination."Overall this book is an engaging read and DBH is an impressive writer. Some Goodreads reviewers accused him of being a bit "snarky" and elitist, and I must admit, he is. Perhaps there were times when he could have tread more lightly on his opponents' views, but if any group deserves a dose of "snarkiness," it's the New Atheists. They've been asking for it, and DBH simply delivered.

This book is a revelation. It is an aggressive defense of Christianity against half-educated, nil-informed critics trying to make cheap bucks by bashing believers. It also serves to remind Christians of the power and splendor of young Chrisitanity.

It is difficult to over-praise this book, written by a man with the mastery of historical events, philosophy and theology at his finger tips. It is a calm, judicious and convincing defence of belief in a deity, particularly the Christian one. Atheists will find that some of their champions, particularly the Roman emperor Julian the Apostate, come in for a respectful handling though the author has little good to say of the contemporary crop of New Atheists. Moreover, opponents of Christianity will find that Hart does not shy away from or attempt to gloss over many of the grievous missteps that adherents of Christianity have made over the centuries.For me the core of the work is the setting out of the differences that Christianity has made during the last 2,000 years. This is not the usual set of triumphalist claims – We invented science! We invented western civilization! – that one often reads but an unfolding of the profound changes that the death of polytheistic paganism meant and the nihilism that a modern rejection of theism has brought.Hart’s work will unsettle some Christians and challenge fair-minded atheists but it is an indispensable work if one is honestly interested in the consequences of a belief in monotheism on the world and a look at what things might be like if Christianity faded in influence.

For the reflective, open and curious reader this is a great book. Hard to process at times but it also delivers a wry smile to the reader acquainted with the subject matter. DBH is forthright and clear thinking and the erudition persuaded me to have a read of The Experience of God, a survey of the world great religion's apprehension of the mind behind the universe. Like Chesterton, not easy reading, but well worth the effort.

This is not only a breathtakingly sweeping historical refutation of the delusions of Dawkins et al, men who mostly have NO training in history whatever and therefore perpetuate myths, not truths. (Ok, it's shooting fish in a barrel, but Dawkins' denunciation of tarot card readers showed him willing to take to minnows with an Uzi. PS. Yes, I have a history degree.)It's also incredibly funny. My favourite line: Roman pagans were certainly tolerant. In fact, they could tolerate just abotu anything. I've been banging on for years about how misty-eyed modern paganism is about its own past - though Ronald Hutton is an honourable exception - and it's good to hear it affirmed that ancient paganism was violent, gloomy, and fearful - which it WAS, as you can easily tell if you are a Hellenophile like me.It's also good to hear somebody getting it right about witches and the Catholic Church. How people like Philip Pullman can portray themselves as intellectuals when they fail to read even the most obvious textbooks has long been a mystery. (Presmably their 'sources' are silly fantasy genre fictions about kndly midwife witches living surrounded by herb gardens.)I can't fault Hart on much - he bigs up the Middle Ages on science a bit too much, but otherwise the book is amazing in its mastery of many diverse periods, and judicious and also beautifully written.One half of the world believes what the other half makes up. Unless you'd like to be in the numpty half, read this, especially if you are a secular humanist. Don't let it be a matter of faith, as it too evidently is for Dawkins. Test it, try it. You have nothing to lose but your delusions.

Great debunking on the secular myths of our age and the importance of Christianity...