Book Reviews

Atheist Manifesto -  Michel Onfray

 

I am not sure I should review this book. Onfray is not well-known in our country. So why bother to comment? But he is wildly popular in continental Europe, and usually the way continental Europe is now we will eventually become. Europe is farther in its atheism than we are here in America. So it is interesting to see the road atheism will lead. With continental European atheism, the masks are off! In America we have atheists who say that atheists can be nice, moral people. They can be just as moral as Christians. For Onfray, that is absurd! He calls these types of atheists as atheistic Christians. They say there is no God but they still cling to the values of Judeo-Christianity. He says we must be more radical with our atheism. If there is no God, then all bet’s are off. Although Onfray criticizes Dostoevsky when he had his character in the Brothers Karamazov say “If there is no God, then everything is permitted!” But it is hard to see how this is not true in Onfray’s atheism. A moderate atheist (Onfray’s “atheistic Christian”) may say that an atheist does not have to go as far as Onfray – that an atheist can still hold to Christian values such as loving your neighbor, honoring the free will in others, etc. But the issue is not whether an atheist can still hold these values, but why should he bother. A moderate atheist must refute Onfray. He must show where he is wrong. If Onfray is not refuted, then how can the moderate atheist guarantee us that once our society becomes atheistic that the next phase is not the unlimited hedonism advocated by Onfray?

 

Onfray’s big push is the joy of living without God. This means a life of materialism. I am sure that does not consciously mean materialism as in money, like in the song “Material Girl” by Madonna. But this idea is not far off. After all, money is tangible. You can see it and hold it in your hands. With money, you can buy material things. And that fits with Onfray’s view of the world – there is nothing except what can be actually seen and held. Now, think of the implications of that! Can you see Love? Can you hold Love in your hand? So according to materialism, Love does not exist. Yes, sex exists. That is physical. That is an act between two physical bodies. But love? Does free will exist? Onfray comes right out and says NO! There is no free will. After all, free will is not something that you can hold in your hand, or see. It is immaterial. And since there is no free will, there is no personal responsibility. A criminal is not responsible for his actions. There is no guilt. He should not be punished, but only treated for his condition. But think of the implication of this! Man can be incarcerated against his own free will (oh I forgot, there is no free will) in order to be treated. So then what is stopping the government from incarcerating non-criminals for treatment? Onfray believes that religion is dangerous to society. Well, then, that must mean that religious people need to be treated by the government as well! Why not? Is it because religious people are not guilty of doing wrong? That cannot be, since in Onfray’s world there is no guilt. So incarceration and forced treatment would not be based on who is guilty but who is potentially dangerous to society. And since Onfray sees all religious people as potential dangerous, then one can see how all religious people would be locked up, separated from the rest of society, and deprogrammed for their own good of course. Welcome to Onfray’s Brave New World!

 

It is because of his materialistic view of the world that Onfray sees no value in prayer. To him, prayer is worthless since there is no God. There is no increase in knowledge from prayer. I feel sorry for Onfray’s seeing value in something only if it increases our knowledge in the physical world. There are many priceless activities that do not increase our knowledge. Does viewing a sunset increase our knowledge? Does holding one you love in your arms increase your knowledge? Does going for an evening walk increase your knowledge? Let’s put aside the existence of God in prayer. I just cannot see how one can argue that prayer has no value at all. Even scientists are finding the value of prayer. They are finding that those who pray actually do live longer and healthier lives than those who do not pray.  See the following:

 

http://www.holisticonline.com/Remedies/Depression/dep_spirituality.htm

http://gateway.nlm.nih.gov/MeetingAbstracts/ma?f=102284347.html

http://1stholistic.com/prayer/hol_prayer_proof.htm

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-21071939.html

http://www.plim.org/PrayerDeb.htm

http://health.discovery.com/centers/althealth/prayer/tapinto.html

 

Now, an atheist may object that these subjects are not only Christians, but also non-Christians as well. But this is not a problem for me as a Catholic. The Catholic Church has the fullness of truth. But other non-Catholics and non-Christians can also have truth as well – not other truths besides what the Catholic Church teaches but in areas where these non-Catholics agree with the Catholic Church. God is rich in mercy, and could extend His mercy even beyond the Catholic Church, even if all that the person may agree with the Church on is that there is a God who deserves our worship, as long as the reason he is separated from the Church is out of sincere ignorance. So a Catholic has no problem with God touching non-Catholics or even non-Christians through their prayers.

 

Other atheists object that this is a mere placebo effect. That is hard to see in some of these cases. A placebo is when the subject is expecting a certain result and that result happens. But most people pray not because they expect that prayer would lower their blood pressure or lengthen their lives. They pray because they want answers to their prayer. So unless they are actually praying for lower blood pressure, I do not see how this is a placebo. But even if it is a placebo, that is not the point I am making. I am not here arguing that this proves that God exists. I am arguing that, placebo or not, there are benefits to prayer. So Onfray is wrong. And since there are tangible benefits to prayer, it cannot be said that religion is nothing but a danger to society. If it was just the therapeutic value of prayer, religion contributes much to our well-being.

 

Onfray spends much time attacking asceticism, showing that religion is a hater of the world and all that life has to offer. But Onfray is looking at religion as a hostile outsider. He sees the glass half empty, when those on the inside see it as half full. Asceticism is not because we hate life. Asceticism is because we love life. Even the secular world sees the value of asceticism. Look at joggers and other exercisers. They are huffing and puffing. They are pushing themselves to their limits. They say no pain, no gain! Why do they punish themselves so much? Are they haters of life? No, of course not! They are willing to put up with some temporary pain or inconvenience now for some benefits later. Some are doing it to look better to the opposite sex. Some are doing it to be healthier. Some are doing it to be able to live longer. But no matter what it is, they are will to sacrifice now for a future benefit.

 

The same can be said for religious asceticism. Asceticism is giving up an immediate joy for some future joy. I got news for Onfray. We have been for years living in a materialistic society. We value the material over the immaterial. We value things over relationships. How often do parents tell their children to turn off their ipods at the dinner table instead of talking to them! How often do we sit in front of television set for hours instead of communicating to friends and family members. And then there is a problem with obesity! We value that piece of chocolate cake, which we can see and taste, over overall health, which we cannot see and feel until much later. To all these things, asceticism helps us to achieve the proper balance. So a person who is obsessed with television may give it up for Lent. A person who eats two much food may give that up. Everything we give up is so that we learn that other things are more important. So an ascetic is not someone who hates the world, but someone who loves it. He loves it that he wants to experience all the fullness of life. But original sin has warped our desires, so that we easily become obsessed with one area of life at the expense of everything and everyone else.

 

 

But a person who does not develop an inner life does not develop that perspective and strength to balance every thing else in his life. Left to his own desires and wounded by original sin he becomes obsessed with food over overall heath, with sex over love, with money over relationships, and with things over people. The best things in life are free. The best things in life are also immaterial – love. But to really be open to love, we at times must force ourselves to put aside material things.

 

 

Most of the attacks that Onfray makes on religion are using the machine gun approach. He just sprays everywhere, with bullets flying. He brings up one attack over another. Rat-a-tat-tat. He presents so many attacks that it would take ten volumes of books to refute him. But what gets me is that with all his attacks he not once used an outside source. There are no footnotes. There is no bibliography at the end. If this was a paper submitted to a graduate school, he would receive an F. There is no way to tell where he received his evidence. Are some based on hearsay? Are some based on urban legends? It is hard to say. I myself work as a computer programmer within the pharmaceutical industry. The pharmaceutical industry, being heavily regulated by the FDA, has to document everything. The motto is “If it was not documented, it did not happen”. I think this is a good rule, which is usually applied to the world of scholarship as well – except for Onfray. Since Onfray makes accusations without citing any source for documentation, I do not see why we should assume that any of it happened the way Onfray said it did.

 

I will only dealt with one accusation he made, and that is his accusation that the Catholic Church was complicit with Hitler in exterminating the Jews. As always, Onfray give many examples show the Church was complicit, but he cited no sources. Well, I just want to give one source. It is a Jewish source, which I would think is the best authority to determine whether the Church was complicit with Hitler or not.

 

The vindication of Pius XII has been established principally by Jewish writers and from Israeli archives. It is now established that the Pope supervised a rescue network which saved 860,000 Jewish lives - more than all the international agencies put together.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/piusdef.html

 

The Catholic Church was responsible in saving 860,000 Jewish lives! That is more than all the other international agencies put together. But Onfray would argue that the Church could have done more. Should’ a! Could’ a! Would’ a! The Church still saved more people than all others. Yes, more could always have been done. That is not the issue. The issue is that the Church did do a lot!

 

This is just one example of how Onfray plays fast and furious with the truth. But then again, if there is no God, there is no truth. So then why bother being truthful? Since Onfray does not believe in right or wrong, why should we trust him? Would it be wrong to lie if you thought that the lie would be beneficial to society? Since Onfray believes that religion is dangerous to society, why would Onfray let something as archaic as truth stand in his way of freeing society from all religions? Is not telling the truth one of those Christian values from which we should we ourselves? I, as a believer, am as a tremendous disadvantage. I still believe that I must tell the truth, even when the truth may hurt the advancement of the Christian religion. But I do not trust Onfray holding the same ideals. So unless he can give me his sources so that I can verify, I must remain cynical.