In an anything-but-apologetic apologia, Mary Eberstadt challenges the many spokesmen (and they are almost all men) for the New Atheism in her satire, The Loser Letters. Reminiscent of Ted Turner’s infamous comment that Christianity is a religion for losers, the Loser in this book is God.
The intimidatingly intelligent Eberstadt has established herself as an incisive writer who engages explosive and controversial topics. She critiqued the practice of administering strong drugs to schoolchildren in an effort to promote better school performance in Why Ritalin Rules and extended her treatment of the topic in her book, Home Alone America.
She has exposed the effects of the sexual revolution and has chronicled developments from Anglican acceptance of contraception at the Lambeth Conference in 1930 to the denomination’s current warfare over homosexuality. She presents a uniquely perceptive view of pop culture with arresting titles such as Is Food the New Sex? and Eminem Is Right. She makes frequent, and provocative, contributions to the Wall Street Journal, Policy Review, Commentary, and First Things.
The Loser Letters, Eberstadt’s first published work of fiction, draws on a long satirical tradition from Juvenal to The Screwtape Letters. Eberstadt’s protagonist, a young woman named A. F. Christian (as in, “A Former Christian”), details the journey of her enlightened abandonment of her “cradle Dullness” (namely, her Christian faith) and her adaptation to atheism. Christian writes excited, star-struck letters to the self-described so-called “Brights” of the New Atheism, in which she gushes about the Brights’ superiority while candidly evaluating the weaknesses that limit the New Atheism’s ability to win new converts. With this device, Eberstadt delivers a gripping story line with a chilling twist at the end and, in the process, administers a smackdown of the New Atheism.
“It is difficult not to write satire,” Juvenal said in the tumult of ancient Rome. In the cultural tumult of modern America, Eberstadt makes the New Atheism seem easy to mock.
Why does she take on the New Atheists? As Eberstadt said at her book launch, “their movement has repeatedly assailed religious people as self-righteous, ignorant of history, and humorless, all the while remaining self-righteous, ignorant of history, and humorless itself to a quite remarkable degree.” As a result, “this movement aids and abets our cultural dumbing down.” On another level, you might call The Loser Letters a defense of western civilization itself.
A. F. Christian embraced atheism after reading the works of such “Brights” as Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, Michel Onfray, Victor Stenger, and Peter Singer. Leaving no stone unturned, Christian also cites the influence of Charles Darwin, Bertrand Russell, Sigmund Freud, and Nietzsche. Speaking in a wickedly irreverent and culturally aware style, Christian initially declares God’s non-existence and gradually develops second thoughts.
“Good writing is good thinking translated into visual form,” as Bernstein said, and “clear thinking is an indispensable prerequisite to clear writing.” True to form, Eberstadt’s clear and effective writing owes its success to the quality of her thinking. Yet, with abundant references to television shows and popular music, as well as Christian’s frequent concession that neither she nor the atheists she addresses are theologians, her approach makes for a light and easy read, presenting lofty topics in a readily accessible manner.
Christian addresses seven flaws in the atheists’ arguments for the non-existence of “that Loser,” the “biggest fraud of all time, cosmic zero, ultimate no-show” — sexual liberty, reason and logic, good works, art, converts to Christianity, the human family, and life issues.
Acknowledging that the current college pep cheer is “Let copulation thrive!,” Eberstadt shows that the atheists’ sexual mores now rule college campuses. Europeans also have abandoned in droves traditional values, resulting in the disappearance of marriage, children, and families. Yet the absence of boundaries has made a lot of people miserable, especially the women, as A. F. Christian compellingly argues, ultimately lamenting, “Ozzie and Harriet, come back — All is forgiven!”
Christian next takes up reason and logic, which the atheists argue are “totally in Our corner.” If atheists claim that most humans have relied on religion out of fear, A. F. Christian asks why the current batch of atheists are so sure that they are exceptionally brave and brilliant when compared to most humans from the dawn of time. They fail to explain why humans would have invented the Christian God who is hard to live with, “not the sort of supernatural easily cuddled up to.” Why wouldn’t Christians invent a deity who turns “bread into i-Pod minis and water into Grey Goose?” The sheer complexity and oddity of Christian theology, as C.S. Lewis noticed, “has just that queer twist about it that real things have.”
Addressing the topic of good works, A. F. Christian encourages the atheists to emphasize what Christians have done wrong rather than anything the atheists have done right. She recognizes that evils committed by Christians are legion and provide plenty of ammunition for atheists to unload on Christians. But although atheists might argue that a “disbelief in the immateriality or immortality of the soul” would not “make a person less caring, less moral, less committed to the well-being of everybody on Earth,” A. F. Christian is quick to point out the evidence to the contrary. American believers are more generous in every sense than the atheists, and Mormons in particular, she observes, would be sure to win a “goody-off contest” with the atheists. Christian contrasts the unbelievable 14,800 number of heat wave excess deaths in France with the overwhelming mobilization of assistance by churches for the victims of Hurricane Katrina. Christian also asks how many atheist families have adopted six, eight or ten children, including those with handicaps. She rightly notes that atheists “don’t want the kind of world in which Nature’s rejects, the sick, and the old, and the frail of any sort, flourish anyway.”
Taking up the question of architecture, music, sculpture, painting, literature, philosophy, and the artistic life, Christian next refers to George Weigel’s book, The Cube and the Cathedral, which uses Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris (representing religious art) and La Grande Arche de la Defense (representing secular art) to ask, Which culture would better protect human rights and the moral foundations of democracy?
Next, Christian laments the lack of other converts to atheism, and bewails the many converts from atheism to Christianity, including Alister McGrath, Evelyn Waugh, C. S. Lewis, Malcom Muggeridge, Graham Greene, Edith Sitwell, Siegfried Sasoon, Hilaire Belloc, G. K. Chesterton, Dorothy Sayers, and T. S. Eliot, and A. F.’s favorite convert, G. E. M. Anscombe.
In her next letter, Christian questions whether the New Atheists have any connections with women, children and families. She notes that many atheists have been childless or not in a real family themselves. A. F. Christian argues that “It’s familial love that first gives people the idea of infinite love,” and that “it’s families that make people religious, not vice versa,” a point Eberstadt addressed in another article. The atheists’ ignorance or lack of interest in family life or marriage may also be why atheists do not win more converts. Women across the world are more likely to attend religious services, pray, and teach their children their beliefs. Christian asserts that human families and especially the ties between women and children are the “chief enemies of Atheism”; a problem which the atheists have yet to adequately address.
Christian then explores the life issues, finding that the atheist position on abortion is unanimously in favor of it. Despite a few historical examples of atheists against abortion (including Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton), atheists are all for it now. The pro-life movement has a youthful face, and the younger generation recognizes that they are the “first truly disposable one,” which “puts extra pressure on all of today’s kids to find a meaning in life.” People can recognize that practice of abortion on demand leads to suffering, not just of the fetus but of others too. Christian worries that opposition to abortion draws more young people to the Loser’s side and away from atheism.
Ultimately, Eberstadt describes this as a “volume poking some overdue holes in one more tremendously successful celebrity enterprise that’s gotten very big — and very, very full of itself.”
The Loser Letters is a must-read for anyone interested in the current atheism debate, for believing parents, and for readers who enjoy a good black comedy with deep themes. I, for one, cannot wait for the response from the Brights. Bring it on!
March 28th, 2010 | 3:13 pm | #1
Thanks for highlight this wonderfully witty book. I’ve read the online excerpts and you are right, it’s a must read. My wife and I plan to read it together. Mary Eberstadt has done a wonderful service in placing her comments within satire because, as you rightly point out, the form of her book is just as important as its content. Thanks again for sharing. I am definitely getting the book, and soon!
March 29th, 2010 | 7:32 am | #2
[...] on the Evangel blog, Gayle Trotter reviews Mary Eberstadt’s new book, The Loser Letters: The Loser Letters, Eberstadt’s first [...]
March 29th, 2010 | 9:39 am | #3
A good review of a noteworthy book, but one minor correction–J. R. R. Tolkien wasn’t a convert, and I don’t believe Eberstadt cites him as one.
March 29th, 2010 | 10:15 am | #4
Thanks for the feedback. I’ve updated the post.
March 29th, 2010 | 10:23 am | #5
I don’t get why this character is supposed to “a former Christian” or indeed an atheist. Nothing in that synopsis makes them sound like anything other than as 100% Current and Always Has Been (and Has No Interest In Being Anything Other Than) Christian as Eberstadt herself. She sounds like a “convert to vegetarianism” who eats nothing but raw flesh at every meal and biltong for snacks.
March 29th, 2010 | 10:27 am | #6
Derek –
Perhaps you should read the book and not just the review …
… just sayin’ …
March 29th, 2010 | 10:33 am | #7
Too much other stuff to do in the temporal realm, so I’ll save it for the afterlife, OK?
March 29th, 2010 | 11:26 am | #8
Well, the statements in the review make me pretty leery… but I will still read the book. From the sound of things though, I foresee a lot of strawman fallacies and poor arguments that are going to be presented.
For example, why would man invent a god that is hard to live with? I don’t know, but there have been worse gods that had been invented in the past. Look at the Aztecs who had human sacrifice on a regular basis to appease their gods. I think they were a little hard to live with too.
The strawmen that all atheists now are pro-abortion, anti-family, anti-”rejects” is just slanderous atheist-bashing. Or is that the satire?
All atheism is, is a lack of belief in a god or gods. I am not “pro-abortion” and I’m a “new Atheist”.
The idea that atheists are against the handicapped is also ridiculous. The greater the biodiversity of people, the better chance at long term survival of humanity. The writer’s views seems to indicate a poor understanding of evolutionary theory.
Again, I will read the book, but I am already starting to wince.
March 29th, 2010 | 11:55 am | #9
@Brian
The book actually quotes the New Atheist authors directly. The point on Freud and why would we invent a god who was so hard to live with involves the fact that this God invents laws which go against what we want to do.
The mention of the Aztec gods seems to be a red herring here. The sacrifice of the captured for example don’t have a bearing on the behavior of the Aztecs… what was done was done to other people, so if one embraced the morality of sacrificing others, it didn’t really affect what they did themselves.
March 29th, 2010 | 12:13 pm | #10
Arnobius of Sicca,
Side note: The Aztecs actually sacrificed their own people as well as ones they conquered.
As to having a god that invented laws which go against what we want to do… it brings up Plato’s question, is it moral because your god said so? i.e. the stance taken by the author was refuted thousands of years ago. Way to beat a dead horse.
As to quoting the “New Atheist” authors directly, I failed to see any of their writings that describe “the atheists’ sexual mores” that “now rule college campuses.” Do the New Atheists write some erotica that I’ve missed?
I am a Skeptic, a worldview which includes being skeptical of atheism. I would be interested in logical and well thought out arguments against atheism, however this review makes it appear as if the book is just filled with strawman arguments.
ex. Atheists aren’t interested in marriage? Really? Then why do married atheist couples have a lower incidence of divorce than Christians?
March 29th, 2010 | 12:25 pm | #11
Brian,
I’m confused as to what evolutionary advantages the handicapped possess. You say they increase biodiversity, and this means that the species as a whole can adapt better.
Imagine those famous black and white moths. Because they had a lot of biodiversity, they survived. As the story goes, before the Industrial Revolution, most of the moths in England were white, while only a few were black. The black ones were easily spotted, and were at a disadvantage. You might say they were handicapped.
But along came the Industrial Revolution with smoke stacks and coal and soot, turning lots of places a dark black. The black moths that were once at a disadvantage are now perfectly camouflaged, the white moths are the ones that are ‘handicapped’. But because the species was biodiverse, it survived much better than if there were only white moths or only black moths.
I just can’t imagine the conditions under which the physically or mentally handicapped have an evolutionary advantage.
You can certainly argue that there is much more to ethics than ensuring the future of the species, or that Eberstadt’s argument is a Reductio ad absurdum. But to cite the logic used against the Bright position and claim that it actually vindicates it is cheating, I think.
March 29th, 2010 | 5:59 pm | #12
Sorry, but wishing doesn’t make it so. I feel sorry for those who cannot accept that their imaginary friend isn’t real. I hope that they will someday find reason and think rationally.
March 29th, 2010 | 7:17 pm | #13
Sorry, but saying that Jesus isn’t God, and by extension, saying that He isn’t Lord and Savior doesn’t make it so. I feel immense sorrow for those who cannot accept this reality. I hope someday that they will someday find Reason and think Rationally.
March 29th, 2010 | 9:42 pm | #14
Yes and saying Zeus isn’t god doesn’t make it so, or Allah, or Vishnu, or Poseidon, or Rah, or Bail, or Satan, or ………..(insert name of God or whoever) I feel immense sorrow for all those who think these Gods aren’t God. Ha Ha Ha. What kind of logic is that?
As for generosity of Christians? It’s not hard to give to your church. You are giving the money to yourself. Hymnals, choir robes, books, films quarterlies, parking lot, sanctuary, salaries, playing fields and etc. But less than 1 percent goes to charity and most of that to members of the church in need. Charity, generosity. Bulogna!!!
March 29th, 2010 | 10:39 pm | #15
Intimidating Intelligence Dims the Brights
Actually, give the Brights enough (air) time and they’ll voluntarily dim themselves.
March 30th, 2010 | 7:16 am | #16
Two things bother me about the book’s views on charity.
First, I am really very curious to know how donations from atheists compared to donations from religious people after the Katrina disaster. (The comparison to French donations after the heat wave are completely useless because the disaster was so different – nobody was homeless from the heat – and because different countries are different even apart from religiosity – Italy is more religious than France but not more charitable.)
I mean, about 5% of Americans are atheist and so I would guess that about 5% of the donations after Katrina came from atheists. The author of this book and the author of the review seem to assume that atheists would have given less. But, I don’t know, maybe they actually gave MORE! (Before you jump to conclusions, remember that some televangelists were telling their followers that God had punished New Orleans for its sins, and that atheists like me gave money precisely because we believed that it was up to people to help those in need because there is nobody else to do it!)
As I said, I think it would be very interesting to see the numbers on that. My own experience leads me to believe that atheists are much more charitable than the prejudices against them would suggest…but I honestly don’t know because I do not have any data on it.
However, whether that prejudice is justified or not, I do question the whole logic of this argument.
Suppose someone came up with a lie which was guaranteed to make anyone who believes it donate more money to charity. For example, suppose there was an e-mail being forwarded around on the Internet which looked like an official message from the IRS promising that anyone who gives twice as much in charity in 2010 as they did in 2009 would owe NO taxes at all this year. Anyone who believed it would give a lot more in charity, right?
Now consider these two questions:
If I tried warning people that this supposed promise of a reward from the IRS was actually fake, would you criticize me for doing so?
If I could prove to you that the e-mail really did increase charitable donations from people, would YOU believe it?
If you answered no to either of these questions, then you ought to rethink the logic behind the idea that discussing whether religious people are more charitable than atheists is a reasonable way to critique the “new atheists”.
Anyway, this sounds like an interesting book. So far, I’ve only read the review. I hope to find time to read the book also.
Thanks for bringing it to my attention,
Alex
March 30th, 2010 | 7:36 am | #17
(Just to follow up on my previous posting, I worry that one sentence may not have been clear. When I said
“If I could prove to you that the e-mail really did increase charitable donations from people, would YOU believe it?”
I meant, would you believe that the e-mail was TRUE, that the IRS really would forgive those taxes, just because it made people more charitable?
If not, then even if religious people are more charitable — which I seriously doubt — then that is no argument against atheism.
-Alex)
March 30th, 2010 | 10:19 am | #18
David C Miller,
Your explanation of the moths illustrate my point very well. As to physical and mental handicaps, I would make the point that the black moths could have been considered a physical handicap.
I realize though that you’re probably talking about more severe handicaps. Well, genetics and the environment are incredibly complex. We know that technology can alleviate the hardships faced by the handicapped, like mechanical spring legs outpacing normal runners now, so physical handicaps might not be as harmful as once thought.
We also don’t know if a “harmful mutation” might be beneficial a generation later. What if that mutation also yields a natural resistance to a super-flu bug? What if that mutation is harmful, but allows a future generation to have a further mutation that is beneficial and represents a leap forward?
My point was that the greater the diversity, the higher the odds that some parts of humanity will survive large changes in our environment. The idea that atheists want a pure species, devoid of handicaps, is ridiculous. How many atheists wouldn’t support Stephen Hawking?
March 31st, 2010 | 3:09 pm | #19
I am a Skeptic, a worldview which includes being skeptical of atheism.
For what it’s worth this late in the party, skepticism is, by its very definition, not a world view.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact