Interview
With Author Father Thomas Williams
By Karna Swanson
ROME, JUNE 16, 2008 (Zenit.org).- Much of what atheists pass off
as fact in their charges against God and religion is really based on myth, says
Legionary of Christ Father Thomas D. Williams.
Father Williams is author of "Greater Than
You Think: A
Theologian Answers the Atheists About God."
“Though the atheists claim to represent the side of reason,” he asserts in his
book, “their arguments more often than not are ideological rather than
rational.”
In this interview, ZENIT asked Father Williams, a theology professor in Rome
and Vatican analyst for CBS News, to explain some of the common fallacies
perpetuated by atheism that he addresses in his book.
Q: What spurred you to write this book?
Father Williams: As you are undoubtedly aware, the last several years have seen
a surge in neo-atheist literature, with books such as Daniel Dennett’s
"Breaking the Spell," Sam Harris’ "The End of Faith,"
Richard Dawkins’ "The God Delusion," and Christopher Hitchens’
"God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything."
Several of these books have become bestsellers. The problem is, most people
only hear one side of the story. They become indoctrinated with the atheistic
arguments without ever hearing a reasoned response.
Many people have been confused by these books. Others worry about friends who
have read them, or simply would like good answers to the charges atheisms
brings against God, religion, and Christianity in particular. I wrote this book
to furnish clear, concise replies to the atheists’ charges.
The book lays out -- and responds to -- the chief claims of the neo-atheists in
five categories: (1) the case against God and religion, (2) the case against
religion’s benefits for society, (3) the case against religion’s compatibility
with science and reason, (4) the case against Christianity, and (5) the case
for atheism’s superiority.
Q: You say that the neo-atheists rely on myth rather than rational argument. Isn’t
that a little harsh?
Father Williams: Not really. If you look at the principal claims made by the
atheists against God’s existence and the role of religion in society, you find
that nearly all of their accusations distort the facts and repeat hackneyed
wives’ tales that don’t stand up to any serious rational or historical
analysis.
Q: For example?
Father Williams: Just to name a few, atheists claim that religion is inimical
to science, and that the Christian Church in particular sought to stamp out
scientific research. They charge that “religion kills” and has been responsible
for most of our wars and social ills. They say that religious belief requires
the renunciation of reason and the embrace of willful blindness. They assert
that religion does not contribute to moral improvement, and that it makes
people sour and sad, rather than joyful.
Along with charges such as these, they also add a few absurd, and sometimes
dangerous ideas about religion. For instance, Dawkins and Hitchens claim that
religious education is a form of child abuse, thus undermining the seriousness
of real physical and psychological child abuse.
They sow distrust in believers by asserting that they are trying to hasten the
end of the world. Thus Hitchens quotes Marx with evident admiration, where the
latter expresses his view that “the abolition of religion as the illusory
happiness of the people is required for their real happiness” ("God Is Not
Great").
Sam Harris goes so far as to proclaim that religious belief must be forcibly
stamped out, and states: “Some propositions are so dangerous that it may be
ethical to kill people for believing them” ("The End of Faith").
Q: Let’s take a specific case. How about religion and moral improvement? Obviously
religious belief doesn’t guarantee that a person will be morally good.
Father Williams: You’re right. But our atheist friends go a step further. They
question whether religion ever helps people to be better. Good people --
Hitchens used Martin Luther King Jr. as an example -- are good despite their
religion, and not because of it. They only recognize instances where people do
evil in the name of religion, while completely overlooking the immense good
done by religion, both at the personal and the social level.
Q: For example?
Father Williams: Let me appeal to personal experience for a moment. I know
literally hundreds of people who have turned their lives around thanks to a
religious conversion. I know men and women who have become faithful spouses,
overcome inveterate vices, and learned to become responsible citizens thanks to
a discovery of God in their lives.
Now let’s turn the question around. How many people do you know that have
overcome alcoholism or pornographic addictions, stopped cheating on their
spouses, or become more concerned and dedicated parents because they discovered
atheism? It simply doesn’t happen. Atheism offers no incentive to become better
or less selfish.
Q: Well, isn't that just your personal experience?
Father Williams: All the statistics we have at our disposal back this up. Look
at the recent studies concerning people’s generosity in donating money to
charities or giving time as volunteers. The believers out-give and
out-volunteer nonbelievers by a significant margin. In concrete terms, a
massive 2000 study of the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research found that
actively religious people donate an average of $2,210 per year, while
nonbelievers give a mere $642. Believers similarly volunteer much more time
than their irreligious counterparts.
We must remember, too, that it was the Christian Church, and not secular
humanists, who founded schools for the poor, orphanages, hospitals, soup
kitchens, Lazarettos, hospices and countless other charities.
Q: What about religion’s supposed hostility to science?
Father Williams: This is another canard that atheists proclaim but don’t
substantiate with data. Hitchens, for instance, writes that religion is “an
enemy of science and inquiry,” while Dawkins argues that religion actively
discourages scientific investigation.
History tells a different story. Science grew out of the fertile humus of
Christian culture. The Catholic Church, in particular, was at the forefront of
scientific investigation and sponsored scientific research the way it
patronized the arts. Some of history’s greatest scientists -- Newton, Pasteur,
Galileo, Lavoisier, Kepler, Copernicus, Faraday, Maxwell, Bernard, and
Heisenberg --were all Christians, and Gregor Mendel -- the father of modern
genetics -- was a Catholic priest. The Jesuit order in particular spearheaded
much scientific study.
Q: How do you handle the atheists’ attacks on Christianity in particular?
Father Williams: One of the frustrating things about these authors is the way
they blur all religions into one amorphous reality, as if there were no
difference between Franciscan monks and Islamic suicide bombers. But they do
take time out to specifically denigrate Christian beliefs along the way.
For example, Dawkins portrays the God of the Bible as a “malevolent bully,” and
characterizes Him as “the most unpleasant character in all fiction” ("The
God Delusion"). Both Dawkins and Hitchens claim that the four Gospel
accounts are worthless as historical texts, because of their internal
inconsistencies and stated intent to promote faith in Jesus. They even go so
far as to question the historical existence of Jesus Christ, and claim that
even if Jesus did exist, he never intended to found a church. Christopher
Hitchens goes further still, asserting that the Christian faith causes sexual
repression.
Because of the seriousness of these allegations -- most of them mere
repetitions of decades-old theories -- I try to answer each objection in turn. I
don’t have the space to do so here, but I do in the book.
Q: Why don’t you tackle just one for us here?
Father Williams: OK. To take just one example, we could look at the atheists’
skepticism regarding Jesus’ earthly existence. Did he really walk the earth
2000 years ago, or is he the product of a cosmic hoax, perpetrated by the
apostles?
Dawkins writes that it is possible “to mount a serious, though not widely
supported, historical case that Jesus never lived at all.” For his part,
Christopher Hitchens states that Jesus’ existence is “highly questionable.”
Obviously, none of us was present to empirically verify that a man named Jesus
in fact lived in Palestine 20 centuries ago. Yet the same skepticism could be
applied to any historical event, since history, as a science, is based on
trust. Everything we know about the past is handed down to us as a tradition,
which we accept on faith in the testimony of others. The existence of Socrates,
Caesar Augustus, Genghis Kahn and Abraham Lincoln is supported by historical
evidence -- documents and testimonies -- but then again, no more so than the
existence of Jesus Christ.
Along with the numerous biblical manuscripts referring to Jesus, pagan writers
such as the Roman historian Tacitus, Julius Africanus, Pliny the Younger and
Lucian of Samosata all reference Jesus’ existence. The Jewish historical record
is equally clear, with the ancient Jewish historian Flavius Josephus and the
Babylonian Talmud itself confirming Jesus’ human existence.
Denying the existence of Jesus is not fruit of objective scholarship, but of an
ideological agenda.
Q: Wouldn’t it be better to deal with these atheists in a more pastoral way,
rather than writing a refutation of their theories?
Father Williams: I agree that Christians need to reach out to these people and
to treat them with true Christian charity. Jesus died for each of them, and
loves them the way He loves you and me.
At the same time, the ideas they expound need to be addressed with clarity,
since they sow confusion for many people. St. Peter exhorted the early
Christians to always be ready to “make your defense to anyone who demands from
you an accounting for the hope that is in you”; he also added, “yet do it with
gentleness and reverence” (1 Peter 3:15-16). This is my intent.