Bible Bashing Bestsellers?

Steven D. Levitt, author of the widely popular book Freakonomics, asked his blog readers a few days ago why all these "anti-God" books have been selling so well. In the last two years, Atheists have made a dent in the bestseller list with books such as Daniel Dennett's Breaking the Spell, Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion, Victor Stanger's God the Failed Hypothesis ,Christopher Hitchens' God is Not Great, Sam Harris' Letter to a Christian Nation, David Mill's Atheist Universe and John Allen Paulos' Irreligion (coming out Boxing Day 2007).

But Levitt, who is after all an economist, cannot grasp the motivations behind people who buy "anti-God books." Since he doubts that religious people would spend time or money reading why they are wrong, he wonders, "Do the people who despise the notion of God have an insatiable demand for books that remind them of why? Are there that many people out there who haven’t made up their mind on the subject and are open to persuasion?"

Levitt received dozens of responses (178 at last count). Most readers gently pointed out that people care about God. A lot. In the words of one blogger, "'apatheism' is much less common than you imagine." Others went on to say that Atheism is a belief-system and requires nurturing and mulling over details like any other "faith." This is especially true since Atheists are the most hated minority in America. But all this talk of where the "anti-God" market comes from got me to thinking if this is more about an "anti-Bible" market. After all, as many responders noted, this deluge of books declaring that God is Not Great is more a reaction to Judeo-Christian religion than the esoteric spiritualism trumpeted by authors such as Deepak Chopra and Karen Armstrong.

Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, and Hitchens each include numerous mentions of the Bible's inconsistency and inapplicability to 21st century life (I have not read Stangers' or Mill's book, though I would be willing to bet that they could not avoid mention of the Bible either). Dawkins, for example, responds to Stephen Jay Gould's suggestion that religion has a different sort of truth then science does by asking: "To which chapter, then, of which book of the Bible should we turn--for they are far from unanimous and some of them are odious by any reasonable standard?"

Dawkins and others seem to be under the impression that the Bible is the infallible foundation of faith. But many people these days are "freelance monotheists" (as Armstrong calls herself) who considers the Bible to be more a poetry of the sacred than a history of the profane. This crowd can "Amen" to much of these books, only pausing to add that where these authors looked at the evidence and said "no," they have decided to say "yes."

Perhaps we can say these books are more about "To Hell with the Bible" than declaring that God is Dead. Aren't people more enraged when Bible creeps into science textbooks, political debates, and social policy than when people gather to pray after a disaster? I may be accused of pointing out the obvious on these posts, but isn't Bible bending what is really on people's minds?

(The above picture is from the website of the James Randi Foundation.)

One Nation Under God

Americans across the country are stocking up on fireworks and hamburgers in preparation for Fourth of July week, and newspaper columns are taking the opportunity to reflect on the US institution as vital to the 4th of July as BBQ: the myth of American exceptionalism.

It was John Winthrop who imagined America as "the city on the Hill," a country that would be a shining beacon of liberty and hope to the rest of the world. As a nation founded on ideas rather than ethnicity, defining America's values has been both a unifying and dividing national project.

In his new book, Americanism: The Fourth Great Western Religion, David Gelernter argues that because America's identity has so grounded itself in its values, Americanism, like Zionism in Israel, has come to resemble a religion.

"Most nations are based on no principles; they are based instead on shared descent or ethnicity," Gelernter, a professor of computer science at Yale told the Washington Post, "The United States is different. It has a religion because it must have. Without one, it is a band of displaced persons and little more."

According to Gelernter, the Bible has been the common unifying source able to bond the nation together. It is what we use to discuss how we should rehabilitate criminals (a debate that Paris Hilton reignited), approach immigration, elect our politicians, conduct business, and curb overpopulation. In fact, Gelernter believes the Bible is so essential to the US, our current state of cultural confusion and cynicism is the result of the systematic elimination of the Bible from public life.

Ann Coulter would agree and points to liberals as the culprits. "Everything liberals believe," says Coulter, "is in elegant opposition to basic Biblical precepts." In her book Godless: The Church of Liberalism, Coulter argues that liberals are attacking the Judeo-Christian roots that hold-up America. In addition to their love of Dawinism, environmentalism, and acceptance of homosexuality, according to Coulter "[Liberals] deny the Biblical idea of dominion and progress, the most ringing affirmation of which is the United States of America." (You can read chapter one of Coulter's book here.)

Actually, argues Cullen Murphy in his new book Are We Rome?, it is America's ability to adapt and assimilate to new ideas that has lead to its prosperity; our failure to assimilate to new ideas and our ignorance of the outside world will lead to our demise. (Read Salon's review of Murphy's book here).

Take the rise of Pentecostalism in Africa, for instance. The American-bread brand of Christianity, with its prosperity gospel and promise of healing diseases such as AIDS and cancer, is beginning to over shadow the European colonial religions of Catholicism and Protestantism. American evangelists come to Africa and instantly gain popularity--making a fortune on the promise to raise the fortunes of others.

According to Reuters, US politicians such as Sen. Sam Brownback encourage these missionaries to Africa as part of the biblical call to serve the poor. (As a side note, Brownback's new book From Power to Purpose: A Remarkable Journey of Faith and Compassion outlines how he was able to overcome his hatred of the Clintons and how he came to realize through studying the Bible that his only constituent was God.)

America's continual instinct to frame our interactions with the world in religious terms--from alleviating poverty in Africa to improving relations with Cuba (Bush recently said "One day the good Lord will take Fidel Castro away")--has also fueled the global anti-Americanism.

This is an ambivalent moment in US history. On one hand the early start of the 2008 presidential election has already revealed how important it is for candidates to tie their beliefs to the Bible. On the other hand, Christopher Hitchen's new book God is Not Great is the surprise best-seller of the summer. Yet, this struggle, which seems so critical to the future of America, has also been a part of every stage of our past.

Gelernter argues that Americans needs to unite through religion, I would argue that America thrives on the debate. On Thursday Christopher Hitchens debated Al Sharpton on the existence of God. No one made any new arguments but what was fascinating was the palpable excitement from the audience clearly loving the friction. Maybe we're not "One Nation Under God" but "One Nation that Talks a Lot About It."