Garrison is winning when she’s fighting back the “New Atheists” at the gate with her wit, but she’s even more convincing when she espouses personal stories to add a foundation. She even admits that she may be criticized for bringing her emotions into the conversation. Instead of taking away from the dialogue, however, Garrison’s stories of her upbringing, the loss of her parents, and the realities of her own faith journey add a poignant backbone to this book that many others lack.
The New Atheist Crusaders and Their Unholy Grail is one of the more satisfying “retort” books on the market. It is funny, simple, and intelligent. Garrison knows her limitations and plays in her own “sandbox,” giving a much-needed breath of fresh air to the often-stagnant subject matter and raising the bar of one of the most heated (and outlandish) debates of our day.
Article comments
1 - David Windhorst
Debating things such as the role of religion in society and the evidence for a deity are "outlandish"?
2 - Jordan Richardson
No, the caricatures, tone, and foundation of the modern debate are often outlandish and, luckily, ripe for satire.
The debate itself has been occurring since the beginning of time and is of central significance to our lives, at least for the most part. There are those who obviously feel no reason to debate or even discuss the idea of spirituality, God, gods, religion, atheism, and so on.
I often envy those people.
3 - duane
Jordan, you say the author is Unrelenting in her desire to expose the “New Atheists” for what they are.....
What are they? And what exactly is a "New Atheist"? Thanks.
4 - Jordan Richardson
The "New Atheist" is essentially a sort of "pop term" that was created to refer to the latest and seemingly sudden crop of atheist authors and atheist literature that seemed to arrive around the same time to capture in on current events. Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and Richard Dawkins are the three Garrison focuses on here, but Christopher Hitchens is often considered one of them too. She was unable to procure any material from Hitch's book, sadly (his publishers would not allow her to excerpt god is not Great), but he does remain one of the more popular of the "group."
I'm always a little wary using that term, namely because the brand of atheism is certainly not new. I think the term is used to describe the approach of these individuals more than the philosophy, as they appear to be almost evangelical (with some exceptions) in their approach and make the case that the atheists have been the "silent majority" for far too long, especially in the United States.
That's not to say that there aren't fair messages within the group, as I've enjoyed the books Garrison discusses immensely as well.
For more on the "New Atheists" and some of the paragons of the "movement," check this out and possibly this one.
Hope that helps.
5 - Jennifer Bogart
Hmm, curious to know your definition of a 'fundamentalist' as well :). I might fall into that classification in your opinion. Oh no! There may be one in your midsts ;).
6 - Jordan Richardson
Jennifer, I can assure you that there are MANY fundamentalists in my midst (try an entire family!) and I'm more than pleased to spend time with them, eat with them, drink with them, and discuss theology with them.
I think the point of Garrison's book and of this entire discourse is to laugh at ourselves for all of the interesting things we believe and all of the ways we believe them.
Specifically, I think "fundamentalist" is really a relative term, just like "left-wing" and "right-wing" are relative terms. It all depends on where you stand. In terms of this particular book, fundamentalists are generally defined as Biblical inerrantists, conservatives, etc. It may be inaccurate and stereotypical, but that's generally how the public discourse runs in these circles.
I think labeling, sadly, tends to be easier than getting to know people individually.