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.

One of the other explanations for the empty tomb came from someone who insisted a wild animal got in the tomb from another, unknown opening and ate the body. Course, it must have been a very neat critter because there was no blood, no torn grave clothes, a neatly folded face cloth in a corner, no noises made that would have alerted the ARMED Roman guards, and no speck of human remains left over. Also, the opening was never discovered. It still neglects to answer the profound change in the disciples AFTER seeing the risen Lord as well as the growth of the early church.

It is really amazing the imagination of some people who will conjure up any story except the actual one verified by those who testified of its happening. The article posted earlier by Matchett was brilliant and covered some undeniable proofs of the resurrection. It is indeed the cornerstone of the Christian faith and without it we have nothing. No wonder the enemy of God still seeks to deceive others concerning it.

From http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Beyond+a+Reasonable+Doubt, I found what "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" really means:

The standard that must be met by the prosecution's evidence in a criminal prosecution: that no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts except that the defendant committed the crime, thereby overcoming the presumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty.

If the jurors or judge have no doubt as to the defendant's guilt, or if their only doubts are unreasonable doubts, then the prosecutor has proven the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the defendant should be pronounced guilty.

The term connotes that evidence establishes a particular point to a moral certainty and that it is beyond dispute that any reasonable alternative is possible. It does not mean that no doubt exists as to the accused's guilt, but only that no Reasonable Doubt is possible from the evidence presented.

Beyond a reasonable doubt is the highest standard of proof that must be met in any trial. In civil litigation, the standard of proof is either proof by a preponderance of the evidence or proof by clear and convincing evidence. These are lower burdens of proof. A preponderance of the evidence simply means that one side has more evidence in its favor than the other, even by the smallest degree. Clear and Convincing Proof is evidence that establishes a high probability that the fact sought to be proved is true. The main reason that the high proof standard of reasonable doubt is used in criminal trials is that such proceedings can result in the deprivation of a defendant's liberty or even in his or her death. These outcomes are far more severe than in civil trials, in which money damages are the common remedy.

I believe the proofs of the resurrection are more than sufficient to meet the standards necessary for its acceptance as truth.

but not to Persians or the Jews.

Not quite -- Persians did convert to the Assyrian Church of the East which was probably more numerous (my guess) than in the Romaoi Empire until the 4th century. They spread east to India, Mongolia even China.

I think at one point 10% of Persia's population was Christian.

The only reasons it did not spread further was that

Zoroastrianism was too tied in to the identity of being Irani -- even now we see calls for Iran to return to this and Irani Shi'ism is a way to distinguish itself from the Arabs
Theodorus made Christianity the official religion of the Romaoi Empire. Now, if your enemy has an "official religion" whose adherents are in your Empire, those people are a threat. Then the persecution started under Shapur II

Among the Jews -- yes, Christianity did spread -- note that the Apostles went to spread Christianity initially among the Jews and meeting in their synagogues etc. This was pretty successful in India where the Keralite Christians were initially descended from Jewish stock and also in Ethiopia/Yemen

Christianity as a Jewish sect posed no deep dangers to their ethno-religious group until AD 69 and the admittance of gentiles. By adding in Gentiles and removing the strictures of Judaic law, this then meant that a Christian was no longer necessarily of the Jewish nation -- assimilation dawned and I'm not surprised human sentiment pulled people back from this step.

====================

Conclusion: while both Jews and Persians had strong ethno-religious identities tied in to their religions , I don't see Christianity as being particularly unappealing for religious reasons to either Persians or Jews.

Sufiism is a bit of a quandry, yes. It mixes together the mysticism of Assyrian Christianity with Hinduism (some aspects). I'm heavily prejudiced against Islam, but yes Sufis are quite different from Wahabbis -- the opposite extreme

Wahabbis are very sola scriptura in their way, down to saying "this is what the Prophet wore, so no barbers or ..." and "why read anything else besides the Koran".

One branch of the Sufis are the dervishes -- the whirling is to get into a trance and experience community with the divine in their opinion.

however, back to the discussion, the reason I left out Sufi'ism -- besides my prejudice ! -- is that it still holds to the Koran, which is a highly contradictory book imho. A lot of the times it dances on the edge, coming close to rejecting most of the Koran and at other times holding it to be a purely mystical book -->Andrew, this is what I meant. To the Sufis and to some sub-sects of the Shias, especially Ismailis, the Koran and hadiths are not above critical appraisal, while to Sunnis they hold that what they read in their interpretation is correct, hence some reading the second half of the Koran (kill the infidels!) and others the first half (people of the book)

As I said treats the inexorable much like Hinduism -- sing and dance and ignore the horror awaiting or just let's play with the theological construct

The term "Born-Againism" is to describe much of those who call themselves as such (much, but of course not all).

that is not even the name of any denomination -- the names change every day, unfortunately the term describing the meta-group makes more sense than listing down tomorrow's Central-Western subgroup of MenoPresylutecostabaptoquakamishist split into the South-Central-Western and the South-East-Central-Western branches

Nevertheless I was wrong to use the blanket term "Hinduism" the fact is that the singing and the dancing of the B-Aers is more akin to the Naga worshippers or those worshipping Bhavani or Ayappa rather than to Arya Samaj folks or even to the Aiyangars/Iyers

Most definitely these song and dance only folks are not what Jesus preached -- they have taken one aspect, one 'virtue' and taken it to its extreme. This virtue, in the absence of the other virtues is as bad or worse than a vice.

To be just song and dance without detailed, deep study is as bad as to be dry text without the joy. The balance is lost, the tying force that brings the loss of fear of the inexorable abyss is gone in both of these extremes and they lead to despair in one and delusion in the other.

The main problem is the separation or compartmentalisation of God and of His worship -- it is not this OR that, but this AND that.

The other problem with the BA-ers is the very terminology as goml noted -- there is a very good orthodox explanation here

Salvation is the divine gift through which men and women are delivered from sin and death, united to Christ, and brought into His eternal kingdom. Those who heard St. Peter's sermon on the day of Pentecost asked what they must do to be saved. He answered, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38). Salvation begins with these three steps: 1) repent, 2) be baptized, and 3) receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. To repent means to change our mind about how we have been, to turn from our sin and to commit ourselves to Christ. To be baptized means to be born again by being joined into union with Christ. And to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit means to receive the Spirit Who empowers us to enter a new life in Christ, to be nurtured in the Church, and to be conformed to God's image. ..
New Birth is receipt of new life. It is how we gain entrance into God's kingdom and His Church. Jesus said, "Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God" (John 3:5). From its beginning, the Church has taught that the water is the baptismal water and the Spirit is the Holy Spirit. The new birth occurs in baptism where we die with Christ, are buried with Him, and are raised with Him in the newness of His resurrection, being joined into union with Him in His glorified humanity (Acts 2:38; Romans 6:3-4). The idea that being "born again" is a religious experience disassociated from baptism is a recent one and has no biblical basis whatsoever.

To replace this with a dedication is a new construct is bluntly, innovative theological nonsense.

It is born of two things, first, a compulsion to deny, and a misunderstanding of, the efficacy of the sacraments and second, a reliance on bad translations (as goml pointed out) of the New Testament which are themselves read out of the context of what we believe and believed at the time of the definition of the canon of the NT

The “Baptismal Instructions” of +John Chrysostomos give clarity

“Are we only dying with the Master and are we only sharing in His sadness? Most of all, let me say that sharing the Master’s death is no sadness. Only wait a little and you shall see yourself sharing in His benefits. ‘For if we have died with Him,’ says St. Paul, `we believe that we shall also live together with Him.’ For in baptism there are both burial and resurrection together at the same time. He who is baptized puts off the old man, takes the new and rises up, `just as Christ has arisen through the glory of the Father.’ Do you see how, again, St. Paul calls baptism a resurrection?”

don't read just this, but also refer +Cyprian of Carthage, +Clement of Alexandria and +Cyril of Jerusalem to get a clearer idea of what orthdoxy have always believed od Apostolic Times.

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.