The National Catholic Review
John Jay Hughes

Some of us labor sweatily” in the search for God, Michael Novak writes, “others are borne on eagle’s wings.” That Novak himself finds the search a sweaty and laborious struggle is clear on every page of this powerful book. He wrote it, he tells us in his preface, “for people who, like me, have spent long years in the dark and windswept open spaces between unbelief and belief.” He is in good company. He gropes through darkness with people like Blessed Teresa of Calcutta, St. John of the Cross, Job and Moses, who, as Scripture says, “endured as seeing him who is invisible” (Heb 11:27).

Plato, Aristotle and all the ancients (with rare exceptions) knew—not merely believed—that there is a first principle of intelligence suffusing the world. Unaided human reason led them, as it can lead us, to acknowledge that God exists. Such knowledge still leaves us in darkness, however, about who God is. That God can be described only through metaphor is a central truth of both Judaism and Christianity. “No man sees me and lives,” God told Moses (Ex 33:20). Indeed, Scrip-ture speaks of the “thick darkness” encountered by those trying to draw close to God (Ex 20:21; 1 Kgs 8:12).

In the search for God, I realized long ago that I belong to those who are “borne on eagle’s wings.” Too simple-minded to feel the force of the arguments against God’s existence, from childhood I have believed it all: God, Trinity, angels, the communion of saints, sacraments, the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. For me it is all simply and obviously true. I resonate with the psalmist’s twice-repeated verse: “The fool has said in his heart, there is no God” (Ps 14:1; 53:1). How reassuring to discover recently that I too am in good company. Writing in the October 2008 issue of First Things, Richard John Neuhaus confides his own “enormous sense of relief” at discovering in his youth the confession of the Church of Scotland theologian, Donald Baillie, “that as long as he could remember he could not not believe in the existence of God.”

Why has God made belief easy for some but so difficult for others? Perhaps it is because those who “labor sweatily” are made of sterner stuff. Addressing those who find belief not merely difficult but impossible, Novak puts forth his “underlying thesis: that unbelievers and believers need to learn a new habit of reasoned and mutually respectful conversation.” Atheists and believers alike, Novak contends, stand on common ground. No one can reach God through the senses, imagination or memory; not even by a clear, distinct concept. “The only knowledge of God we have through reason…is dark—and by the via negativa, that is, by reasoning from what God cannot be. Direct empirical knowledge of God could only be of a false God.” Here too Novak is articulating a central affirmation of both Judaism and Christianity.

Throughout No One Sees God, Novak (who holds the Jewett Chair in Religion, Philosophy and Public Policy at the American Enterprise Institute) models the reasoned and mutually respectful conversation he asks of others. He calls Christopher Hitchens, one of today’s most articulate atheists writing in English, a friend and “one of the writers whose courage and polemical force I highly admire,” in particular for Hitchens’s willingness to criticize his ideological soul- mates when they are wrong on some important matter—“the acute threat from Islamo-fascism, for example.” Moreover, “Hitchens does his homework and he thinks clearly. If you go to debate him, you had better think things through rather carefully and well, for his is a well-stocked, quick, and merciless mind.”

Novak faults atheists, however, for their unwillingness to question their own positions. While claiming to “question everything,” the currently popular books of atheists like Sam Harris, Daniel C. Dennet and Richard Dawkins contain no evidence that their authors have ever questioned their own atheism or the cruelty and mass bloodshed perpetrated in the last century by totalitarian regimes claiming to be motivated by “scientific atheism.”

Though atheism is pervasive in American universities today, both in its hard version (hatred of religious belief) and its soft one (denial that there is such a thing as truth, but merely a myriad of opinions), “it has not proved persuasive to huge numbers of students, who hold their noses and put up with it. Why does atheism persuade so few? Our [atheist] authors never ask.” Moreover, “Everywhere on earth except Western Europe, religion is surging.” Atheists offer no explanation for this surge save as the triumph of superstition over enlightenment.

No review can possibly do justice to the riches offered in the pages of this book. Even at his most forceful, Novak maintains the courtesy and respect he asks of his opponents. An appendix reprints the lecture he delivered in London’s Westminster Abbey in May 1994, when he received the Templeton Prize, given annually to an “entrepreneur of the spirit” who has made an exceptional contribution to “affirming life’s spiritual dimension, whether through insight, discovery, or practical works.” The inclusion of this text is a plus—a ringing affirmation of the importance of truth, honesty and courage.

The Rev. John Jay Hughes is a priest of the Archdiocese of St. Louis and the author, most recently, of the memoir No Ordinary Fool: A Testimony to Grace (Tate Publishing).

Comments

John Sutton | 12/2/2008 - 5:50am
So many fools so much to teach and such a long way to go. So I shall make a start. God is a fairy tale creature - like pixies and unicorns. Just because you can imagine it does not mean that it exists. That is enough for now. Too much truth in one go may overload your unstable mentality.
Sasha | 12/1/2008 - 6:40pm
The question for atheists is whether there is evidence to believe in God. Even if these totalitarian regimes shedded blood, even if they killed billions, it still would not prove the existence of God one bit. If a society that believed in something, Santa, never killed anyone, would what they believed in automatically be true? While those in the Inquistion killed for God, Stalin and Mao did not kill for atheism. How can they, what would be the point? Stalin and Mao killed for ideology and political doctrines that happened to include atheism, but not because of atheism. Most humanists and modern atheists today want to promote science, healthy skepticism, free speech, and open questioning, the very opposite of what many religious and totalitarian regimes stand for.
Nicholas Clifford | 12/1/2008 - 2:51pm
Looks like an interesting book -- I may have to revise my ideas about Novak (as long as he avoids the socio-economic order)! Just a comment on atheist avoidance of "the cruelty and mass bloodshed perpetrated in the last century by totalitarian regimes claiming to be motivated by “scientific atheism.” Perhaps this is not so much avoided as explained away by orthodox atheists. Two ways to do it. First, they say, communism and fascism are themselves "religions," and since we know how evil religion is, why should we be surprised by the quasi-religious evils coming from the trinity of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao? Second: a more sophisticated approach from those like, e.g., Steven Weinberg, who in his recent essay in the NY Review of Books (25 Sept. 2008) warns atheists against looking for substitutes for religion like fascism and communism, "that copied characteristics of religion at its worst: infallible leaders, sacred writings, mass rituals, the execution of apostates, and a sense of community that justified exterminating those outside the community." Yet, it seems to me, just as an honest Christian must honestly face the Christian roots (perverted though they may be) of, say, the Inquisition, or the St. Bartholemew's Day massacre, or a myriad other terrible persecutions carried out in the name of God, so honest atheists must honestly face the secular roots (perverted though they may be) of, say, Auschwitz, or the Gulag or Mao's Cultural Revolution. These, and a myriad of other cruel efforts at social engineering, are carried out in the name of "science" -- either natural science(like Hitler's warped views of biology) or social science(like Marxist-Leninist efforts to build the ideal science. In other words, it is simply disingenuous on Weinberg's part to suggest that these evils are little more than copies of "religion at its worst." Can they not be seen also as "secularism at its worst?"
warrenwormhole | 12/1/2008 - 1:47pm
Why is it that those who profess a belief in a monothestic God cannot see that the simple combination of confirmation bias and our brains' propensity to identify intentional agents (both small and Large) in the world around us is the perfect storm that explains so much of all the hype Man has heaped upon religion for millennia. I also find it astonishing that countless books and articles are written by people attempting to refute the arguments of Dawkins, Harris, Dennett and Hitchens by using the same tired points that are thoroughly treated in each of the books themselves! Read the books, then find some original arguments for goodness sake. The rest of us are tired and are attempting to move humankind beyond two-thousand year old mythology.