While I realize that your November cover article, „The Church of Non-Believers, was not trying to present an atheistic polemic, but was more a look at radical atheism as a cultural movement, I was disappointed with how the piece carelessly handled the glaring problems inherent in a God-less worldview. For instance, does Gary Wolf not recognize how „New Atheism's assertion that „[r]eligion is not only wrong; it's evil self-destructs in a philosophical framework that precludes a transcendent moral law? Like Kant, the atheist authors affirm reason as the supreme arbiter, yet repeatedly smuggle in absolutes of right and wrong to make their case. The best an atheist can substantiate is pragmatism, not morality, and Daniel Dennett‚s „default settings seem as fanciful as any mythology he accuses Christians of embracing. Dennett is right to see the alternative (life without a moral compass) as a „deep hole. This is just one reason atheism is existentially unlivable. I appreciate the author's introspection toward the end of the article, but would respectfully suggest he rethink his dogmatic stance that the demands of a rigorous intellectual argument for theism have not been met. William Lane Craig, John Polkinghorne, Ravi Zacharias, Wolfhart Pannenburg, Alvin Plantinga, and William Demski are just a few names of top-notch thinkers who handily defend the extraordinary claims of Christianity, demonstrating that they are neither repugnant to reason, nor without significant and convincing support.
Carey WaltonLititz, PA
