A few minutes of talking with me, and you’ll probably notice that I place a huge emphasis on the value of books. Needless to say, I read many, and own many (if you’re interested in a general overview of my bookshelves, my fiancee and I maintain a database on LibraryThing.com; feel free to browse). So, clearly I spend a lot of time reading and thinking about what I’m reading.
So, I’m now introducing a new feature on this blog; book reviews.
I just finished God’s Defenders: What They Believe and Why They Are Wrong, by S.T. Joshi. Now, Joshi is best known for his scholarship in the works of H.P. Lovecraft and other early 20th century authors of what is called “The Weird Tale,” a genre which later grows into Fantasy, Science Fiction, and Horror as we currently understand these genres. Joshi is also an unabashed atheist, and this comes through beautifully in this book.
Now, I certainly wouldn’t claim that God’s Defenders is a heavyweight work of philosophy. It doesn’t intend to be. Joshi has a very straightforward thesis: American religion has lost even the tenuous connection it once had to metaphysical, epistemological, and ethical philosophy, and has collapsed into a mire of obviously faulty argument based on “good manners” rather than “good logic.” Joshi argues that it is neither in our responsibility to humor these sacred cows, nor is it in our best interest.
Joshi begins his journey with noted “philosopher” William James, author of the classic Varieties of Religious Experience. I have not personally read Varieties, although I have read a few of his shorter essays and found them lacking greatly in substance. Nevertheless, James is well-respected as a Philosopher of Religion, and is cited rather positively even by atheists, such as Daniel Dennett in Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon. Joshi offers James no such respect and deference, and immediately goes for the throat, stating that James’s success is a direct result of the American desire “to feel that they were anything but the ruthless money-grubbing barbarians they in fact were and are” (p. 30). Joshi frames James’s argument with more skill and clarity than James would have preferred, and then summarily demolishes it both with skill and arrogant humor. By the time the chapter has ended, James no long appears the philosophical monument; he is now at best an object of pity, and at worst a disrobed fool.
Joshi then takes on G.K. Chesterton and T.S. Eliot, taking arguments out of the garb of beautiful prose and subjecting it to harsh daylight, something neither author’s position survives. Joshi makes it clear that literary quality and philosophical quality are not one and the same, and makes the outrageous (but very necessary) statement that artists should stick to their art and leave discussion of metaphysical and physical truth to those who actually have the background to discuss it. Joshi then progresses to the absurd (and more absurdly respected) C.S. Lewis, that acclaimed author of poorly-written, poorly-conceived, highly-racist Christian allegories for children. While most people would claim that this is “philosophically irrelevant,” this is precisely Joshi’s point; modern philosophy basically rejects any concept of religion out of hand, and the “great thinkers” that a vast majority of those who claim to be religious today are not schooled in philosophy at all, but rather receive their religious “philosophy” from absurd sources. One might assume that Joshi is acting in a consistently lowbrow manner by attacking, say, Jerry Falwell rather than, say, Kierkegaard, but few of the American religious have ever read Kierkegaard, and fewer still base their understanding on religion from his philosophical tenets. If the vast majority of America’s religious are getting their religious philosophy from Jerry Falwell rather than anyone with even a remote claim to philosophical worth, why should we even respect religion, especially when this “high and noble” institution is viciously calling for subjugation of women, abuse and disenfranchisement of non-heteronormative relationships, abuse of non-Christians, and legal imposition of religious ignorance in secular institutions of learning? Joshi’s answer is that we can’t and that we shouldn’t. If the only argument left for religion is that the religious are scared of letting go, we shouldn’t back off for fear of offending them. This is Culture War. We Atheists, Agnostics, and Secularists didn’t start it. We didn’t ask for it. We simply asked for a right to profess what we know to be true without being accosted, blacklisted, or jailed, which is less than the Religious Right would allow us. If the only argument the Religious Right can draw upon to defend their practice of oppressing tens of millions of people simply for disagreeing with them is that it’s rude to disagree with them, then we need to shout out that fact from every rooftop, and we need to make it very clear that manners are not a key issue when human rights are at stake.
Joshi argues this thesis well, and sets a great standard by engaging in exactly the kind of attack he claims that the rest of us should engage in. His attacks are not polite, they do not appeal to religious moderation; they simply call a spade a spade and move on. It is refreshing to see someone so completely honest and straightforward about this.
Gnathus’s Rating: (3.5/5)
