Toward the beginning of "The New Atheists," Beattie notes that she writes "from what [Richard] Dawkins describes as `the ditzily unreal intersection of theology and feminism.'" [Page 9] Dawkins's description betrays complete ignorance of the tough-minded theological arguments of feminists such as Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, Sallie McFague, or Beverly Harrison. Such total ignorance of the arguments one is engaging is unworthy of any scientist. But Beattie argues further that Dawkins's dismissal of feminist theologians as bimbos says a great deal about a failure of the specific version of Enlightenment rationality that Dawkins and the other "militant atheists" defend - namely the failure to live up to the ideals of moral progress supposedly inherent in it. Drawing on feminist critiques of modern philosophy, such as those of Simone de Beauvoir, Genevieve Lloyd, Carolyn Merchant, and Luce Irigaray, Beattie traces Dawkins's dismissal of feminist intellectual activity back to a tradition of associating males with superior rationality, which she sees in play from Aristotle to Darwin.

Beattie thus notes that misogyny is a feature of both religion and its secular counterparts, an insight that also applies to the violence that "militant atheists" see as unleashed monocausally by religion. But both religion and secularism also offer critical, necessary tools for resisting bigotry and violence. By looking at moral and ethical problems across the board, Beattie is able to shift the terms of debate from "religion" vs. "secularism" to "certainty" vs. "uncertainty." What Beattie ultimately discerns in the "militant atheists" she takes issue with is a horror of ambiguity - a horror which they then project entirely onto their religious fundamentalist counterparts. The disdain with which the "militant atheists" treat "moderate religion" speaks volumes as to their discomfort with the historical record, in which both religion and secularism can claim great humanistic achievements and horrific violations of human diginity. What Beattie achieves in her limpid, accessible prose is showing how the best religious and secular arguments embrace precisely the realm of moral and epistemological ambiguity as fertile ground for actually thinking deeply about things, instead of using slogans to cut down perceived opponents.

THE NEW ATHEISTS: THE TWILIGHT OF REASON & THE WAR ON RELIGION comes from an English Catholic feminist theologian who accepts some of the contentions of atheism while redefining the type of God rejected by these atheists and fostered by some religions. Instead she displays a historical and cultural acknowledgment of the foundations of these 'new atheist' beliefs, and examines the symbolism and underlying meanings of a different form of spiritual belief. Perfect for any religious holding.

Diane C. Donovan
California Bookwatch

This diatribe was an insult to intelligence, and boring in the extreme. The title was misleading, and was a total disappointment. Now I know what the dinosaurs must have felt when wanting a drink of water, at the La Brea tar pits! I could have spent the money in any of 10,000 better ways!
I simply can't say enough BAD about this. I rate this ZERO stars.They are forcing me to select 1 to 5 stars. I select one, just to publish this review, but please note I state ZERO in the review. Don't waste your money. Take your kid to mcdonalds or something!

Tina Beattie's The New Atheists is a welcome change of direction in a debate which has generated more heat than light over the last five years and which, quite frankly, has become increasingly tedious and uncivil. That debate, of course, is between the latest tide of militant atheists who defend what's come to be known as the "New Atheism" and their (mainly) Christian opponents.

The New Atheism for the most part is actually a rehashing of Old Enlightenment Atheism's insistence that scientific norms of rationality and verification are universal and therefore disenfranchise "religious" belief (an imperialism that critics generally call "scientism"). The genuinely new element in the New Atheism is its harsh condemnation of religious fundamentalisms, and its insistence that all religious belief, whether liberal or fundamentalist, feeds the flames of sectarian hatred and violence. It's not coincidental that the New Atheism is a post-9/11 phenomenon, or that it's especially popular in the U.S., which of course produces its own homegrown and obnoxious variety of (Christian) fundamentalism.

Most Christian responses to the New Atheism have thus far fallen short. They've generally either been evangelical defenses which displayed much fervor but little philosophical merit, or earnest attempts (by theologians such as Alister McGrath) to show that religious belief in fact can live up to the standards of scientific rationality demanded by New Atheists such as Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, and Harris.

But Beattie, to her credit, refuses to play this game. She argues that the very parameters of the current God-debate need to be called into question. They're too narrow, she claims, reflecting the worldview of a relatively small group of white intellectual males who've hijacked the discussion to fit their own militant allegiance to Enlightement reason. As such, the god they argue against is a strawman, a caricature of the deity in whom most theists believe. Beattie agrees with them that this god isn't worthy of worship, and tries to move the discussion away from traditional efforts to prove or disprove its existence toward a deeper, richer consideration of religious experience. In her final two chapters, she suggests that Godded experiences are best examined in terms of imagination, creativity, and symbol. To confuse the standards appropriate to their investigation with those suitable to the scrutiny of measurable and quantifiable objects in the world is to make an obvious category mistake. One is reminded here of Stephen Jay Gould's defense a few years ago of the two magistera thesis.

How ironic, that the debate over the "existence" of God which has exercised so many of us for the last five years might be largely based on a misunderstanding (willful or otherwise) of what believers mean when they use the word "God." One can only hope that Beattie's book will move the discussion in a less vituperative and more fruitful direction.