The State of First Things, May 2010

A. Must-Read Articles
1. David Hart, "Believe it or Not"
This is a short version of his recent book Atheist Delusions, which is a review of the New Atheist literature (Dawkins, Hitchens, et. al.). He starts:
"I think I am very close to concluding that this whole “New Atheism” movement is only a passing fad—not the cultural watershed its purveyors imagine it to be, but simply one of those occasional and inexplicable marketing vogues that inevitably go the way of pet rocks, disco, prime-time soaps, and The Bridges of Madison County."
His analysis is quite perceptive, and one has to admire him for wading through the tiresome drivel passing for Avant Garde Atheism these days. It is quite sad that the New Atheists can't even be as good as the Old Atheists. Hart does conclude with the fact which cannot be emphasized enough--if one wants to be a serious atheist, one must first wrestle with Nietzsche, who more than anyone else willfully faced the horror of a world in which there is no God.

2. Goldman, "Quantum Leaps"
A rather interesting review of George Gilder's work, in particularly his latest book, The Israel Test. Gilder is one of those authors I want to like, but always just annoys me in the end--he is far too glib. In many ways, he is less an articulate thinker and more an enthusiast who writes well. Goldman does a great job putting Gilder's recent book in the context of his earlier books to show it is just one more example of poorly thought out enthusiasm masking as rigorous analysis. It's been a while since I read Gilder with attention; Goldman convinces me a) I haven't missed much and b) I should feel in no rush to reintroduce Gilder to my Reading Life.

B. Worth Reading
1. Weigel, "Truths Still Held"
This was interesting in that sort of way that makes you say "That's curious" before moving right along to the next article. Weigel look back at John Courtney Murray' s We Hold These Truths, and shows that it was a rather perceptive and prophetic analysis of the problems arising in American democracy starting in the 1960s. Murray identifies the inherited, foundational truths of the American Proposition: 1) God is sovereign over the nations; 2) All government exists by and with the consent of the government; 3) The state is distinct from society; and 4) Virtue is necessary for freedom. None of this is novel with Murray, but Weigel does a nice job showing the problems that arise when each of these propositions no longer is widely believed. The major limitation of this essay is that Weigel begins by noting that Murray is one of those people who has been claimed by all sorts of people, so Weigel claiming him now leaves one wondering just how true to Murray Weigel is.

2. Wyschogrod, " A King in Israel"
The general proposition that Israel should reestablish itself as a Monarchy is interesting--this is the first time I have seen an argument for Monarchy in a long time. (By the way, I became a Monarchist during Clinton's Impeachment hearings--I figured if we are going to elect buffoons as President, there isn't much harm in just having a buffoon for a King , and at least then I won't have to lament the fact that the leader was actually elected--there is something nice about the idea of blaming the incompentency of the Executive on a bad gene pool instead of on the limited judgement of the voting population. Incidentally, nothing since the Clinton Administration has caused the seductive appeal of Monarchy to lessen.) I was really annoyed at this article in the end, though, when Wyschogrod backs off arguing in favor of going and getting a new King in Israel and instead just argues for having an elected Regent to stand in for the absent King. Seriously, if you want to advocate monarchy, why not just advocate getting a new King?

3. Eastland, "O Homer, Where Art Thou?
A review of Mason's The Lost Books of the Odyssey: A Novel. Notable only because it made me think that Mason's book might be worth reading, emphasis on "might be." This is now on that list of books that if I keep seeing favorably mentioned, I'll pick up some day, but if I never hear of it again, it will vanish into the parts of memory dedicated to forgetting.


Generally, in this series I haven't listed all the mediocre articles or the bad ones, but this issue had one of those articles that really, really annoys me. Riechert's "Bitter Pill: A Cost-Benefit Analysis of Contraception" was literally sophomoric. It was posing as rigorous economic analysis, but it was instead painful to read. The sad thing is that I don't really disagree with the conclusions, but the analysis itself is the sort of thing that gives Christian Economists a really bad name.