When Atheists Attack (Each Other)

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.

Just what is it that you really want to know? Is it whether the *tribals* are saved by faith, or whether they will be saved having never heard of Jesus before?

I'd guess for JCB, it's the latter.

In any case, he keeps nattering away about the salvation prospects of "tribals" who have not heard the message of Jesus Christ, demanding to know whether they can be "saved."

In a much earlier post, I told JCB that I do not know the specifics of how God judges in such matters. I do know that Jesus Christ died for all men, including *tribals.*

And you are so right, metmom, to insist that men are not saved by dogma, but only by the Person of Christ, Who says of Himself:

I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine.

As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.
And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd. — John 10: 14–16

To me, this says that even the *tribals* will hear the Voice of Christ on Judgment Day, and will thus have the opportunity to embrace or deny Christ — and be judged saved or condemned accordingly.

I suspect this will not clear up matters for JCB. But I did try.

Thank you, dear sister in Christ, for your many trenchant essay/posts on this matter!

Sorry, I missed this post somehow. I wasn't ignoring it to not respond to it but have been exceedingly busy at home.

Romans 2:12-16 12For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. 13For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. 14For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them 16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

Now, God is certainly going to be aware that not everybody had the opportunity to hear about Christ. This passage above by Paul, seems to address the issue.

There are a couple considerations.

One is that God says that there will be people from every tribe, tongue, and nation. One thing that is commonly held to be true by Christians is that there is an age of accountability, at which a person becomes accountable for their sin that they willfully committed. That indicates that there is an age at which sin is not credited to the individual. That age varies as a matter of opinion. So a child that dies before a certain age, will be saved, covered by Christ's atonement.

As a result of that, what with the death rate among children in some cultures, an awful lot of "tribals" will be in heaven. It's only the few people who make it into adulthood who have the decision to make whether to follow God or not. CS Lewis makes that observation in, I believe, The Screwtape Letters.

The other thing is that this verse seems to indicate, is that those who follow God's Law from their conscience will be saved.

My thought on this, and this is just a conclusion that I've come to and others will no doubt disagree, is that God will judge them based on whether they would have accepted Christ, had they heard about Him here on earth.

Anyone who truly desires to follow God will not be cast out. If they have never had a gospel witness of Jesus' death and resurrection for their sin, that is hardly a matter over which they have control.

God is just and will judge justly. That doesn't mean the way that everyone thinks He should but with true justice; impartially, without playing favorites.

I do know that Jesus Christ died for all men, including *tribals.*

Let me get this straight, bb: you 'know' this because you choose to believe it, or is your 'knowing' it independent of your will? From your posts, it seems to be the former. Here is why:

You write: To me, this says that even the *tribals* will hear the Voice of Christ on Judgment Day, and will thus have the opportunity to embrace or deny Christ — and be judged saved or condemned accordingly

So, the "tribals" will decide if they are saved or not? Salvation is in the hands of men and not God, i.e. their decision! One is saved by "approving" of God, by embracing Christ, by human will and decision and God is simply waiting on them to decide which way they will go, and he will oblige?

I am not saying it's right or wrong, but it's a novel, if not somewhat narcissistic type of soteriology given that all Christians pray "Thy will be done."

I take it, then, that you believe it really doesn't matter what one believes as long as one "approves" and "accept" Jesus as the Savior? In other words, even the Unitarians who deny Jesus is God, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Gnostic, etc., anyone, no matter what their theology or doctrine, are assured salvation as long as they accept Jesus? Coming form someone who claims to be Catholic, that is rather strange, imo. You sound more like a Universalist for sure.

God will judge them based on whether they would have accepted Christ, had they heard about Him here on earth.

That certainly comes close to those of the houshold of "faith".... who though they had not seen... they nevertheless looked ahead for His coming.

I also think there are various levels of resistance to the promptings of God as He draws men to Himself. He does move the soul of a person but some get sidetracked along the way...they cannot identify the stirring in themselves... and when God meets them thru whatever means He might use, to take them further along the path to Himself, they deny or resist Him. Human nature does not change...it is in a state of rebellion against any authority higher than itself.

Also ...Truth is hard to accept when one has lived years believing and perpetuating a lie. Man's ego is a powerful thing..and pride the downfall of many a man. We live in a time of a great battle for the souls of men...neither side will be letting go easily...but one or the other will indeed win that soul....

The decision ,critical for all eternity, is man's choice what He will or not believe. And the "authority" he's been given to make that choice is His alone....on this side of eternity.... only.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.