The problem with the neo-atheists is that they represent a new anti-intellectualism of sorts.
Central to neo-atheism is the need to ridicule and belittle religious people. You might even say hatred is a necessary part of neo-atheism. These people hate religion, and they want to see it wiped out. And, they seem to be capable of telling all sorts of untruths (knowingly or not) in pursuit of their little jihad against religion. I have been shocked at their ability to make up quotes, for example. Part of the neo-atheist canon seems to be a belief that historical notables have said all sorts of things they never said. And Hitchens, for example, makes all sorts of claims about secret documents of the Catholic church, all of which is nutty and an apparent intentional misreading of documents. It is all rather bizarre, and contrary to the Western intellectual tradition. Over and over again, I have heard Sam Harris rebuked for intellectual dishonesty.
Although there are many sober, rational, thoughtful atheists, there seem to be no sober, rational, thoughtful neo-atheists; being bitter and nasty and cruel and harsh seems to be part of their make up. Having snide things to say about the religious seems to be a major selling point for them. In one sense, neo-atheism is a political stance, not a theological one. They hate religious people because they stand in the way of achieving various political ends. Neo-atheism is perhaps the dark side of Democratic party politics. You won’t find many conservatives among the ranks of the neo-atheists Mostly, you find avid, young, Democratic liberals who think they are much smarter than they are.
Mostly, they are kids who never really learned a lot about religion. They rely on half-baked prejudicial views of religion; they rely on South Park to tell them what religion is.
Which brings me to Dawkins. The problem is, he really doesn’t know a whole lot. He pretends to, but all of it is quite childish:
…Fr Crean begins rowing by outlining Prof. Dawkins’ essential argument, and what a weak argument it is. Dawkins says that God would have to be terribly complex to have invented the world and therefore he would have to be so very complex not only to have invented the world, but to keep it going and answer all those prayers and so forth, and who could have invented him then? An even more complex being and so on and so forth. Fr. Crean dismantles it immediately by showing us how God is not complex but simple. He explains the simplicity of God easily and clearly enough, and it is a concept that anyone even a little bit familiar with the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas would have not only learned, but understood. I don’t have time to explain it all here, but clearly the summa was not part of Prof. Dawkins’ homework in preparation for writing.
… He is relentless in his pursuit of Dawkins’ shallow arguments, false assumptions and logical fallacies, and as he goes Fr Crean continues to get into his stride. The chapter on Dawkins and the gospels is one of the best. Here Dawkins show his amazing ignorance. He tells us that the gospels are a collection of tales written long after the events and are no more historical than the stories of King Arthur. Fr Crean pulls out fact after fact after fact: the gospels are closer in time to any other ancient historical figure. Their language and knowledge of the ancient world are spot on. There are thousands more manuscripts and more textual evidence than for any other historical figure of the ancient world. One of the best moments is when he says one of the most ancient manuscripts of the gospel of John is not held in a monastic library in Egypt or Turkey, but just down the road from Prof Dawkins’ house in the Magdalene College Library in Oxford. Wasn’t Prof Dawkins aware of the existence of this priceless artifact in his own town? Clearly not.
The rout goes on through Dawkins’ sophomoric views on the origins of morality and the origins of religion. The chapter on Dawkins and the Catholic Church is my second favorite. Once again Dawkins astounding ignorance about the Catholic Church is displayed by Fr Crean. The poor Cambridge don is amazed and bewildered by Dawkins utter ignorance not only of the fine points of Catholic belief and behavior, but of the big picture as well. He simply doesn’t get it. To quote Terry Eagleton’s famous quip, “Reading Dawkins on theology is like reading a book on biology written by someone who has only ever read the Big British Book of Birds.