Dinesh D'Souza: What's So Bad About Atheism?

This is a response to Ryan's post (and the interview with Dinesh D'Souza he discovered), found here.

I have a pretty different opinion of this interview. My parents are Christian, and though they brought me to church when I was younger, I never really identified with this—or any other—religion. It's not my intention to start a dispute over religion (these kinds of wars are often pointless and counterproductive), but I do think a non-religious viewpoint is needed.

D'Souza does not only say that "atheism is becoming more of an option for young people", he goes further, arguing that "atheism is more attractive to young people". He also claims that "new atheism accuses Christianity for being behind most of the war, suffering, and terrorism in the world". While I do agree that the atheist population has grown—especially among younger generations—I find it frankly a bit offensive and hypocritical of D'Souza to accuse atheists of blaming religion for suffering and tragedy in the world while so vehemently defending Christianity. I think that what D'Souza has done is misunderstand many people. I do not think that religion is to blame for the suffering of the world, but rather religious controversy. These are two seemingly similar opinions that are often lumped together, and inaccurately so. I doubt that all atheists are so hidden under their "garbs of morality" that they can reconcile with blaming the belief system of millions for wars that humans would have found reasons to fight anyway.

D'Souza calls many atheist writers "witty and stylish", but he forgets to count himself among them. He seems to do the invoke the same tactics, sinking to the level of the atheist authors that use "witty" language to denounce religion. D'Souza says quite plainly in his interview that his book, What's So Great About Christianity?, is meant to "challenge atheism and beat it". This goal seems very immature to me, because at the simplest level his book is merely retaliation against other published works, seeking to prove why he is right and they are wrong. I'm disappointed that D'Souza has described the aim of his work in such a way, because in my opinion this is how wars are started. I would have more respect for him if his book had stood alone as a modern and compelling work on religion, calmly proving why other beliefs aren't valid without him falling into the easy trap of "right vs. wrong" that was the tone of this interview.