Light On Dark Water

Further Thoughts on Hart vs. the Atheists

Something that's really striking about most of the atheist commentators on that post is their anti-intellectualism. "We're plain simple folk here. We don't need none of your hi-falutin' nonsense about metaphysics."

They're like people who know some simple arithmetic resisting algebra. "None of your slippery x and y stuff, now. Nothing but plain numbers for us, numbers we can count with!"

Or the people who think Charlie Parker was just playing random notes, or that people only pretend to like classical music out of snobbery.

They don't know what Hart is talking about, and they're proud of not
knowing, and they don't want to know. There are a few exceptions, but very few.

Maclin Horton
, , ,

20 responses to “Further Thoughts on Hart vs. the Atheists”

  1. Janet Cupo

    I am reading this article little by little. I think it’s going to take a bunch of littles.
    AMDG

    Reply
  2. Craig

    “I once heard a man call this age the age of demagogues. Of this I can only say, in the admirably sensible words of the angry coachman in “Pickwick,” that “that remark’s political, or what is much the same, it ain’t true.” So far from being the age of demagogues, this is really and specially the age of mystagogues. So far from this being a time in which things are praised because they are popular, the truth is that this is the first time, perhaps, in the whole history of the world in which things can be praised because they are unpopular. The demagogue succeeds because he makes himself understood, even if he is not worth understanding. But the mystagogue succeeds because he gets himself misunderstood; although, as a rule, he is not even worth misunderstanding.”
    –Chesterton

    Reply
  3. Mac

    Craig, I’m not sure who you’re saying is the demagogue and who the mystagogue in this context.

    Reply
  4. Janet Cupo

    “None of your slippery x and y stuff, now. Nothing but plain numbers for us, numbers we can count with!”
    I love this. It makes me think of the dwarves who are for the dwarves.
    AMDG

    Reply
  5. Mac

    That’s interesting, because I think I had some idea like that floating around in my mind when I wrote that.

    Reply
  6. Louise

    None of your slippery x and y stuff, now. Nothing but plain numbers for us, numbers we can count with!
    This wouldn’t bother me in the slightest if it weren’t for the the fact that these people are almost constantly talking about how stupid/unintellectual believers are!
    I shouldn’t be angry at all – they are just silly children.

    Reply
  7. Louise

    Oh poop! I made everything bold!

    does that fix it?

    Reply
  8. Janet Cupo

    It’s interesting how a tag in the combox can change the entire sidebar. It’s probably good that it only effects the thread you are posting on.
    AMDG

    Reply
  9. Mac

    It’s fixed now. The reason your attempt to fix it didn’t work for older comments, Louise, is the descending sort order (most recent first)–your fix needed to go before, time-wise, and below, display-wise, the one that had the problem, and of course there’s no way you can do that. If they were displayed in ascending order, the ones later than your fix would have been fixed.
    In case you wanted to know…

    Reply
  10. Louise

    Thanks. 🙂

    Reply
  11. Jack

    Have you read this by Hauerwas? It concurs with Hart’s conclusion that contemporary atheism, especially American, is uninteresting, but this is because “the God most American’s say they believe in is just not interesting enough to deny.”
    http://www.livingchurch.org/news/news-updates/2010/3/9/americas-god

    Reply
  12. francesca

    That looks like a good article. I’ve printed it off to read it more carefully.

    Reply
  13. Craig (cnb)

    Believe it or not (wink), the “Craig” who quoted Chesterton was not me! It seems an odd coincidence — but, as Chesterton once said, “Coincidences are spiritual puns.” So make of that what you will.
    For what it is worth, I also do not know what to make of that quote in this context.
    I’ve just posted something about Hart’s essay at my own blog. That, too, seems a nice coincidence, or whatever.

    Reply
  14. Janet Cupo

    That IS strange, Craig.
    AMDG

    Reply
  15. Mac

    I’ll go and read that shortly, Craig.

    Reply
  16. Mac

    I’m in maybe 75% agreement with the Hauerwas piece, Jack. I agree with the general view of the country’s religious history and character. But I think he sells contemporary American Protestantism, or maybe rather I should say evangelicalism, pretty short. I think there are more people who have a better grasp on the problems with too close an identification with nationalism than he does. I don’t go much for attempts at probing the depths of the American psyche for explanations for things like the “war on terror” (as I came to reject such explanations for the Vietnam war). They always give the impression that the writer takes it for granted that there was actually nothing much to worry about, and so some more mysterious explanation must be found. These are not completely without value but I think they misread the situation(s) in several ways, or maybe just leave out a LOT.

    Reply
  17. Robert Gotcher

    Boy, one could really create chaos by making a “Call yourself Craig in comboxes” day event in Facebook.

    Reply
  18. Mac

    Since getting on Facebook I’ve been amazed at the crazy things people create fan pages etc. for. Some are quite funny.

    Reply
  19. Louise

    On FB, I am a fan of “Not being on Fire.”
    LOL!

    Reply
  20. Mac

    That’s very funny. I never join things, though, because I’m already way too distracted.

    Reply

Leave a reply to francesca Cancel reply

Instagram / TikTok / X

Designed with WordPress