For indispensable reporting on the coronavirus crisis, the election, and more, subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter.

Professional complainer Charlotte Allen takes to the pages of the LA Times today to complain about her competition: the “superstar atheists” who professionally complain about religious believers.  People like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, P.Z. Myers, etc.

Which is fine.  Sometimes these guys are annoying.  And they certainly don’t need me to defend them anyway.  But after some fairly routine whining about how much she hates all these other whiners, Allen drops what’s rapidly becoming my all-time least favorite argument from the religious crowd:

The problem with atheists — and what makes them such excruciating snoozes — is that few of them are interested in making serious metaphysical or epistemological arguments against God’s existence, or in taking on the serious arguments that theologians have made attempting to reconcile, say, God’s omniscience with free will or God’s goodness with human suffering. Atheists seem to assume that the whole idea of God is a ridiculous absurdity, the “flying spaghetti monster” of atheists’ typically lame jokes. They think that lobbing a few Gaza-style rockets accusing God of failing to create a world more to their liking (“If there’s a God, why aren’t I rich?” “If there’s a God, why didn’t he give me two heads so I could sleep with one head while I get some work done with the other?”) will suffice to knock down the entire edifice of belief.

Please.  This argument has become ubiquitous lately (was there some secret meeting or something?), which I suppose is a confirmation of Drum’s Law: the more inane a complaint is, the more popular it becomes.  And this one is right up there.  Aside from the fact that if you so much as scratch any of these “serious arguments” you end up with a handful of air, the fact is that atheists have addressed them in sophisticated ways since the beginning of organized religion.  But they do it in journals and convocations and formal theses and other equally tedious venues, not in bestsellers at Barnes & Noble.  Just like religious believers, who are represented in the nation’s bookstores and chat show circuits by sophisticated tomes like the Left Behind series and the collected works of Robert “Possibility Thinking” Schuller.

If you want to believe, it’s fine with me.  But contra Allen, don’t pretend that atheists can easily get elected to public office, that creationism is no big deal, or that believers have gobs of sophisticated theological arguments that atheists have never had the guts to take on.  It may be comforting, but it just ain’t true.

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

We Recommend

Latest