Purchasing One's Atheism Cheaply

[FlyingNarwhal]

David Bentley Hart's criticism of atheism is as follows:

The principal source of my melancholy, however, is my firm conviction that today’s most obstreperous infidels lack the courage, moral intelligence, and thoughtfulness of their forefathers in faithlessness. What I find chiefly offensive about them is not that they are skeptics or atheists; rather, it is that they are not skeptics at all and have purchased their atheism cheaply, with the sort of boorish arrogance that might make a man believe himself a great strategist because his tanks overwhelmed a town of unarmed peasants, or a great lover because he can afford the price of admission to a brothel. So long as one can choose one’s conquests in advance, taking always the paths of least resistance, one can always imagine oneself a Napoleon or a Casanova (and even better: the one without a Waterloo, the other without the clap).

I have to agree insofar as the "new" atheism rejecting the intellectually rigorous atheism of the old. Modern atheists can't hold a candle to Mackie, Ayer, Flew or Russell. From redefining atheism from the realm of the intellectual rigor into the realm of personal psychology, to forgoing analytical thinking in favor of pusillanimous rhetoric, to rejecting dispassionate examination for emotive expressions.

Atheism has lost the weight of intelligence it used to carry. It has become cheap.

And? So what if it is? It should be cheap, everything else is. Both Hart's quote and your own words imply that in order for atheism to not be considered "cheap" a majority of its adherents need to have undergone intense intellectual study into the reasoning behind their disbelief. But let's consider every other belief system on this planet. Are the majority of the members in any of those religions well versed in their beliefs equal to the standards you are holding against atheists? Let me take Hart's quote and switch a few words out:

The principal source of my melancholy, however, is my firm conviction that today’s most obstreperous believers lack the courage, moral intelligence, and thoughtfulness of their forefathers in faithfulness. What I find chiefly offensive about them is not that they are religious or believers; rather, it is that they are not religious at all and have purchased their belief cheaply, with the sort of boorish arrogance that might make a man believe himself a great strategist because his tanks overwhelmed a town of unarmed peasants, or a great lover because he can afford the price of admission to a brothel. So long as one can choose one’s conquests in advance, taking always the paths of least resistance, one can always imagine oneself a Napoleon or a Casanova (and even better: the one without a Waterloo, the other without the clap).

See what I mean? You are holding high standards towards atheism but are disregarding those standards when it comes to any of the other thousands of beliefs that inhabit the globe. So in response I would ask if you (and Hart) hold atheism to a higher standard because you also hold it in higher esteem, or is it because you wish to set unreachable limits in an attempt to discredit it?

If you are going to hold every atheist up to the intellectual fortitude of Mackie, Ayer, Flew, and Russell can I then hold every Christian up to the faith of Luther, Calvin, and Knox?