Marilynne Robinson’s review of Richard Dawkins’ work, above, suggests that she is indeed a “creationist,” holding that God created the universe–what else might a God do? Perhaps you mean to say that she is not a “young Earth creationist,” holding to the concept of six twenty-four hour days involved in the Creation.

I do not presume to speak for M.R., but I think the above distinction is important.

Having read none of their work, although familiar with their general point of view from various articles and reviews, my take on “new atheism” is second hand. My confidence is slightly greater with the existentialists, having read some of them - Camus, Nietzsche, Sartre - and familiar with the work of the others. With what then, do I compare my own position to theirs - and yours?

Well, I find myself caught in this very place between the cold rational logistics of scientific materialism and the frenzied beat of my own heart. As much as anyone, I truly lived the Existentialist dilemma - suffering years of chronic pain, I tried to commit suicide shortly after reading Sartre’s “Existentialism and Human Emotions”. Fortunately, the experience taught me to see what I did have to live for. I still return to similarly darkened places now and again, but with the advantage of remembering just how much of my reality can become a poisoned hallucination (as opposed to the other, more pleasant forms).

My understanding of Existentialism and the absurdity you’ve referred to is that it by no means forces nihilism or despair. But it does require a sort of vigilance - a subtle but steadfast recognition of the sheer pointlessness of it all. And scientific materialism - that as espoused, even prescribed, by the New Atheists - is to be seen as some sort of last word, as if a solved answer to the Big Questions. And to the extent that those blinded by religion are blinded, it is not this deeper Existential dilemma that pains them, but instead a yearning suffered upon them by the very deistic fantasy they’ve adopted.

I cannot speak for the New Atheists - as I have said, my familiarity with them is not great enough to do so. But there are a number of resonances with their movement that I find remarkably liberating. First, as you had mentioned, it is quite empowering to hear my own skeptical thoughts affirmed from such lofty places. (Did you hear, in London they’re putting up billboards!)

But secondly, and to the point of this discussion, I think the science underlying their position has truly given it much more resonance. As I see it, there exists a considerable difference between the cold mechanics of a godless existentialism, and a godless new atheism. If they were simply the same old story of a surgical removal of all the warm and reassuring glow of religion, there would not be much more to their words then passionate conviction.

But over the past half century humanism has undergone a radical transformation as advances in a plethora of scientific areas - from anthropology to biochemistry to sociology - have shed brilliant insights into what it really means to be human. As I mentioned earlier, my own understanding of what depression means and the role of brain chemicals in the human experience has a profound impact on the narrative I live my live within. There is still intense absurdity and paradox in living. Yet science has given us a great deal more perspective - dare I say humility - in assessing who we are, what we are: why we do what we do.

So yes, in my view the world is still absurd. But maybe not quite as absurd as it once seemed. After all - what does the toaster who first reaches consciousness say?

“OH SHIT I’M A TOASTER!” or something.

Sweeeeeeeeeet!!!!

I wish Jason Bourne would suffer a similar fate, so we no longer have the threat of another Matt Damon film adaptation.