When Atheists Attack (Each Other)

Evolution News and Views ^ | April 28 2011 | Davld Klinghoffer

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

The squabble between Darwin lobbyists who openly hate religion and those who only quietly disdain it grows ever more personal, bitter and pathetic. On one side, evangelizing New or "Gnu" (ha ha) Atheists like Jerry Coyne and his acolytes at Why Evolution Is True. Dr. Coyne is a biologist who teaches and ostensibly researches at the University of Chicago but has a heck of a lot of free time on his hands for blogging and posting pictures of cute cats.

On the other side, so-called accommodationists like the crowd at the National Center for Science Education, who attack the New Atheists for the political offense of being rude to religious believers and supposedly messing up the alliance between religious and irreligious Darwinists.

I say "supposedly" because there's no evidence any substantial body of opinion is actually being changed on religion or evolution by anything the open haters or the quiet disdainers say. Everyone seems to seriously think they're either going to defeat religion, or merely "creationism," or both by blogging for an audience of fellow Darwinists.

Want to see what I mean? This is all pretty strictly a battle of stinkbugs in a bottle. Try to follow it without getting a headache.

Coyne recently drew excited applause from fellow biologist-atheist-blogger PZ Myers for Coyne's "open letter" (published on his blog) to the NCSE and its British equivalent, the British Centre for Science Education. In the letter, Coyne took umbrage at criticism of the New Atheists, mostly on blogs, emanating from the two accommodationist organizations. He vowed that,

We will continue to answer the misguided attacks [on the New Atheists] by people like Josh Rosenau, Roger Stanyard, and Nick Matzke so long as they keep mounting those attacks.

Like the NCSE, the BCSE seeks to pump up Darwin in the public mind without scaring religious people. This guy called Stanyard at the BCSE complains of losing a night's sleep over the nastiness of the rhetoric on Coyne's blog. Coyne in turn complained that Stanyard complained that a blog commenter complained that Nick Matzke, formerly of the NCSE, is like "vermin." Coyne also hit out at blogger Jason Rosenhouse for an "epic"-length blog post complaining of New Atheist "incivility." In the blog, Rosenhouse, who teaches math at James Madison University, wrote an update about how he had revised an insulting comment about the NCSE's Josh Rosenau that he, Rosenhouse, made in a previous version of the post.

That last bit briefly confused me. In occasionally skimming the writings of Jason Rosenhouse and Josh Rosenau in the past, I realized now I had been assuming they were the same person. They are not!

It goes on and on. In the course of his own blog post, Professor Coyne disavowed name-calling and berated Stanyard (remember him? The British guy) for "glomming onto" the Matzke-vermin insult like "white on rice, or Kwok on a Leica." What's a Kwok? Not a what but a who -- John Kwok, presumably a pseudonym, one of the most tirelessly obsessive commenters on Darwinist blog sites. Besides lashing at intelligent design, he often writes of his interest in photographic gear such as a camera by Leica. I have the impression that Kwok irritates even fellow Darwinists.

There's no need to keep all the names straight in your head. I certainly can't. I'm only taking your time, recounting just a small part of one confused exchange, to illustrate the culture of these Darwinists who write so impassionedly about religion, whether for abolishing it or befriending it. Writes Coyne in reply to Stanyard,

I'd suggest, then, that you lay off telling us what to do until you've read about our goals. The fact is that we'll always be fighting creationism until religion goes away, and when it does the fight will be over, as it is in Scandinavia.

A skeptic might suggest that turning America into Scandinavia, as far as religion goes, is an outsized goal, more like a delusion, for this group as they sit hunched over their computers shooting intemperate comments back and forth at each other all day. Or in poor Stanyard's case, all night.

There's a feverish, terrarium-like and oxygen-starved quality to this world of online Darwinists and atheists. It could only be sustained by the isolation of the Internet. They don't seem to realize that the public accepts Darwinism to the extent it does -- which is not much -- primarily because of what William James would call the sheer, simple "prestige" that the opinion grants. Arguments and evidence have little to do with it.

The prestige of Darwinism is not going to be affected by how the battle between Jerry Coyne and the NCSE turns out. New Atheist arguments are hobbled by the same isolation from what people think and feel. I have not yet read anything by any of these gentlemen or ladies, whether the open haters or the quiet disdainers, that conveys anything like a real comprehension of religious feeling or thought.

Even as they fight over the most effective way to relate to "religion," the open atheists and the accomodationists speak of an abstraction, a cartoon, that no actual religious person would recognize. No one is going to be persuaded if he doesn't already wish to be persuaded for other personal reasons. No faith is under threat from the likes of Jerry Coyne.

[metmom]

You think it escaped His attention that some people wouldn’t hear the gospel presented? That He was caught off guard?

He’s not going to be sitting up there on Judgment Day confronted by a crowd of people who never heard of Jesus and say to Himself, “Oops, I forgot about these guys. What do I do with them now?”

You know, after seeing your warped view of God, it’s no wonder you don’t believe in Him. I wouldn’t believe in the kind of God you postulate either.

Why don’t you try the real God for a change? He sure beats cold the thing you made up that you reject.

[MrB]

That’s rather interesting.

Atheists in rebellion to the Creator make up a fake God in order to reject Him,

and “liberal” “Christians” make up a fake God in order to accept Him, but on their own terms.

I think the latter are in far more dire spiritual straights than the former, because they are deceived. The former KNOW they are in rebellion, and at least have a chance of redemption.

Only those who realize they’re sick seek a doctor.

[metmom]

Exactly.

And if someone is so concerned about whether the heathen are going to hell when they’ve never heard the gospel, why don’t THEY go and take the gospel to them and solve the problem instead of making someone’s eternal destiny a philosophical construct with which to justify one’s rejection of God?

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

Wow, is this thread still going on? I had forgotten about it till this morning!

[James C. Bennett]

Nobody can be saved without faith.

Those who are without a verbal witness of the gospel are less accountable than those to whom the gospel has been presented repeatedly.

With greater knowledge comes greater accountability.

So, what you're saying is that the tribals, for the fault of being unaware of the Gospels, will be doomed due to the lack of faith, due to ignorance?

If the tribals who are without verbal witness are less accountable due to ignorance (and consequently, more likely to be saved) wouldn't ignorance therefore become preferable to certain knowledge of the dogma, in the context of being saved?

[James C. Bennett]

The speaker of this question HAS heard the Gospel, and is without excuse.

Presenting an exception to the rule that salvation requires faith collapses the entire dogma of this chosen faith. That is why it is important to answer as to what happens to the tribals who haven't heard the Gospels. As a purely philosophical exercise. Why should there be any fear, tacit hesitation and/or reservation in answering this? Are there no answers?

[James C. Bennett]

Re: 2116

Brilliantly stated!

[James C. Bennett]

They can't answer you, because the answer, one way or another, exposes weakness in their story. So, they will dance around it, quote their books, invoke verticals and horizontals, smother you with mile-long copy-and-paste articles from their favorite chosen authorities, or simply try to insult you, describing what you said as having a distinct "odor", and what not, but in the end it all means one thing: they have nothing.

So far, Metmom is the only one who has honestly and without meaningless distraction, dared to answer the questions. I appreciate her concise, direct, and to-the-point reply. Let's see how that reply fares in the test...

[MrB]

First let me state that you are without excuse, then I will address the “tribals”.

Every human has “general revelation” in creation as his guide to seek God. What he does with that is his choice. What atheists have done with it is to call it all a big accident, and their revelation of truth stops there.

There are many accounts of “tribals” who, after responding to general revelation, were sent a missionary to provide the special revelation of the Gospel.

Now, can you give me examples of “tribals” who responded to general revelation and DIDN’T receive further revelation? (I know, you can’t prove a negative.)

[James C. Bennett]

Now, can you give me examples of “tribals” who responded to general revelation and DIDN’T receive further revelation?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/05/080530-uncontacted-tribes-photo.html

[MrB]

You know they responded to creation and sought the Creator?

[James C. Bennett]

Now, can you give me examples of “tribals” who responded to general revelation and DIDN’T receive further revelation? (I know, you can’t prove a negative.)

You do realise, don't you, for the stated purposes of this exercise, tribals in the past who have passed on without receiving the said dogma are also applicable candidates for the same? Are they "saved" in spite of ignorance (and thus, the lack of faith IN YOUR CHOSEN DEITY) or not?

[James C. Bennett]

You know they responded to creation and sought the Creator?

So you're implying that they could have done that, and thus "saved" themselves. Of what use then are the Gospels, the Old Testament, and all the myriad verses, if there are paths to "salvation" outside of these? Also, what is to say that what they sought was their concept of Yahweh and not Krishna?

[MrB]

By “passed on”, do you mean the tribe all died out?
If they did not respond to general revelation in creation by seeking the Creator (ie, “faith”), then they are held to account for dismissing that revelation.

I note that you seem, typically, rather hostile.

There’s no need to worry. God is not a some sort of cosmic rapist that will force you into His presence for eternity when you choose not to be. No need to be angry. Thy will be done.

[MrB]

I did not imply another path. There is only one path, that of Grace through Faith in Jesus.

Krishna can’t save because Krishna is a false, non-existant god who inherently can’t respond to seekers. Krishna is an irrelevant concept.

I’m curious as to your intent. Are you attempting to justify to yourself your rejection of faith? Or are you attempting to convince others to follow your path?

[James C. Bennett]

By “passed on”, do you mean the tribe all died out?

Needn't be so. Even one individual who's died, suffices.

I note that you seem, typically, rather hostile.

LOL, really?! Would it be because of all the open and/or thinly-veiled insults thrown at in lieu of replies, and the meaningless self-congratulatory pats in the back after the fact? Anyway, don't worry yourself into a frenzy over my temperament. I'm always cool as a cucumber.

There’s no need to worry. God is not a some sort of cosmic rapist that will force you into His presence for eternity when you choose not to be. No need to be angry. Thy will be done.

LOL, thanks for your concern! There, feeling better now?

---

Getting back on topic:

If they did not respond to general revelation in creation by seeking the Creator (ie, “faith”), then they are held to account for dismissing that revelation.

And if they did seek this "creator," how is it possible to tell who this "creator" is? How is the ambiguity resolved?

   The Bhagavad-Gita.

 

Chapter VIII

 

 

ARJUNA: WHO is that BRAHMA? What that Soul of Souls,
The ADHYATMAN? What, Thou Best of All!
Thy work, the KARMA? Tell me what it is
Thou namest ADHIBHUTA? What again
Means ADHIDAIVA? Yea, and how it comes	5
Thou canst be ADHIYAJNA in thy flesh?
Slayer of Madhu! Further, make me know
How good men find thee in the hour of death?f
KRISHNA: I BRAHMA am! the One Eternal God,
And ADHYATMAN is My Being’s name,	10
The Soul of Souls! What goeth forth from Me,
Causing all life to live, is KARMA called:
And, Manifested in divided forms,
I am the ADHIBHUTA, Lord of Lives;
And ADHIDAIVA, Lord of all the Gods,	15
Because I am PURUSHA, who begets.
And ADHIYAJNA, Lord of Sacrifice,
I—speaking with thee in this body here—
Am, thou embodied one! (for all the shrines
Flame unto Me!) And, at the hour of death,	20
He that hath meditated Me alone,
In putting off his flesh, comes forth to Me,
Enters into My Being—doubt thou not!
But, if he meditated otherwise
At hour of death, in putting off the flesh,	25
He goes to what he looked for, Kunti’s Son!
Because the Soul is fashioned to its like.
Have Me, then, in thy heart always! and fight!
Thou too, when heart and mind are fixed on Me,
Shalt surely come to Me! All come who cleave	30
With never-wavering will of firmest faith,
Owning none other Gods: all come to Me,
The Uttermost, Purusha, Holiest!
Whoso hath known Me, Lord of sage and singer,
Ancient of days; of all the Three Worlds Stay,	35
Boundless,—but unto every atom Bringer
Of that which quickens it: whoso, I say,
Hath known My form, which passeth mortal knowing;
Seen my effulgence—which no eye hath seen—
Than the sun’s burning gold more brightly glowing,	40
Dispering darkness,—unto him hath been
Right life! And, in the hour when life is ending,
With mind set fast and trustful piety,
Drawing still breath beneath calm brows unbending,
In happy peace that faithful one doth die,—	45
In glad peace passeth to Purusha’s heaven,
The place which they who read the Vedas name
AKSHARAM, “Ultimate;” whereto have striven
Saints and ascetics—their road is the same.
That way—the highest way—goes he who shuts	50
The gates of all his sense, locks desire
Safe in his heart, centres the vital airs
Upon his parting thought, steadfastly set;
And, murmuring OM, the sacred syllable—
Emblem of BRAHM—dies, meditating Me.	55
For who, none other Gods regarding, looks
Ever to Me, easily am I gained
By such a Yôgi; and, attaining Me,
They fall not—those Mahatmas—back to birth,
To life, which is the place of pain, which ends,	60
But take the way of utmost blessedness.
The worlds, Arjuna!—even Brahma’s world—
Roll back again from Death to Life’s unrest;
But they, O Kunti’s Son! that reach to Me,
Taste birth no more. If ye know Brahma’s Day	65
Which is a thousand Yugas; if ye know
The thousand Yugas making Brahma’s Night,
Then know ye Day and Night as He doth know!
When that vast Dawn doth break, th’ Invisible
Is brought anew into the Visible;	70
When that deep Night doth darken, all which is
Fades back again to Him Who sent it forth;
Yea! this vast company of living things—
Again and yet again produced—expires
At Brahma’s Nightfall; and, at Brahma’s Dawn,	75
Riseth, without its will, to life new-born.
But—higher, deeper, innermost—abides
Another Life, not like the life of sense,
Escaping sight, unchanging. This endures
When all created things have passed away:	80
This is that Life named the Unmanifest,
The Infinite! the All! the Uttermost.
Thither arriving none return. That Life
Is Mine, and I am there! And, Prince! by faith
Which wanders not, there is a way to come	85
Thither. I, the PURUSHA, I Who spread
The Universe around me—in Whom dwell
All living Things—may so be reached and seen!
Richer than holy fruit on Vedas growing,
Greater than gifts, better than prayer or fast,	90
Such wisdom is! The Yôgi, this way knowing,
Comes to the Utmost Perfect Peace at last.
Here endeth Chapter VIII. of the Bhagavad-Gîtâ, entitled
“Aksharaparabrahmayôg,” or “The Book of
Religion by Devotion to the One Supreme God”	95

 

 

 

Who cleave, who seek in Me
Refuge from birth and death, those have the Truth!
Those know Me BRAHMA; know Me Soul of Souls,
The ADHYATMAN; know KARMA, my work;	100
Know I am ADHIBHUTA, Lord of Life,
And ADHIDAIVA, Lord of all the Gods,
And ADHIYAJNA, Lord of Sacrifice;
Worship Me well, with hearts of love and faith,
And find and hold Me in the hour of death.	105
Here endeth Chapter VII. of the Bhagavad-Gîtâ,
entitled “Vijnânayôg,” or “The Book
of Religion by Discernment”

[James C. Bennett]

I did not imply another path. There is only one path, that of Grace through Faith in Jesus.

Now this brings us back to the question: Are those tribals saved due to ignorance or not? They certainly could not know of Jesus and the crucifixion!

[kosta50]

Are they "saved" in spite of ignorance (and thus, the lack of faith IN YOUR CHOSEN DEITY) or not?

So, let's assume that in order to be saved one must believe. In order to believe you need fallible humans to tell you who or what (they believe) the "true God" is. Only then can the hearer of the Gospels be saved, by "accepting Christ" as his Lord and Savior. It seems that the decision that ultimately decides one's salvation or perdition is put into the hands of man, not God.

If it is up to man to decide if he is saved or not, then that means God simply sits and waits on man to "approve"! Who is serving whom here?

Whose will is done? Man's or God's? No one asks you if you want to be born, and no one asks if you want to die. Everyone dies. Now, all of sudden, some have the "choice" if they live on, or not!

[kosta50]

did not imply another path. There is only one path, that of Grace through Faith in Jesus.

Because MrB says so?

Krishna can’t save because Krishna is a false, non-existant god who inherently can’t respond to seekers. Krishna is an irrelevant concept

Because MrB says so?

Who's MrB? Are you God?

[kosta50]

Atheists in rebellion to the Creator make up a fake God in order to reject Him, and “liberal” “Christians” make up a fake God in order to accept Him, but on their own terms

So, what proof do you have that conservative Christians, specifically MrB, didn't do the same? Or that Unitarian Christians? or Mormon "Christians"? Or Catholic Christians? Or Protestant Christians? Or Gnostic Christens? Or Coptic Christians? They all believe one way or another in a (slightly) different God.