Posted on 05/01/2011 7:24:18 AM PDT by 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.
LOL!
sure speak louder than words and your actions BY your words say you are not a fair nor honest skeptic. I have yet to read anything that sounds like sincerity. If your beliefs were put on a scale the atheist side would by far outweigh the theistic side. How long are you going to pretend to ride the fence?
There is a good reason for that. Atheists simply do not make up fantastic stories, or appeal to "verticals" or "spiritual knowledge" and other intangibles. They certainly do not insist on talking snakes and donkeys, nor do they claim that a true atheist can walk on water or cure disease by chasing "evil spirits" out of someone, or claiming that dead people just get up and walk away after being dead for several days, or live inside a fish's stomach for three days, or that the Sun stood still for a whole day, etc.
If they did, I can assure you that the preponderance of my posts would be directed at asking them just how do they know such things. Very few atheists I have encountered actually claim 100% certainty that God doesn't exist. If atheists who come to debate issues on the FR, so simply epxlain their opinions, were of the Richard Dawkins type, I would certainly say a lot more to them. In fact I have written a scathing letter to Richard Dawkins who is for some reason blaming and crusading against God! What exactly did God do to him?
Now, betty boop got up this morning and decided she is getting tired of me "jerking her around" because I told her in all sincerity (which you deny me!) that proving that God exists would be the greatest discovery ever. How dare I say such a thing, and subject the God of her choice to "tests"?
You ask me why is there a preponderance of my posts that suggest to the exceedingly suspicious if not paranoid hat I am a dishonest cyber-atheist? When someone, like betty boop says that my world is not reality but hers (filled with transcendetals, along with talking donkeys and snakes) is, do you honestly expect me to sit back and simply take such stupidity without saying something?
You and bb must be very spoiled or have acquired well trained "yes men" in your lives who never oppose your hyperbolic conclusions. As for my views on organized religions, theology, the Bible, etc. I think I read much more diversified sources than most people do and form my opinions on the basis of much broader input, or as FOX News would say try to be "fair and balanced".
Maybe I just see things differently that others. You know, when I find out that Matthew 28:19 originally didn't appear to have the trinitarian formula in it, I begin to wonder when was it put in. I don't consider your scriptures to be holy or written by God, but by men. That doesn't make me an atheist.
At any rate, you should address the issues at hand and not read my mind. If you disagree with my observaitopns, that's fine. If I make a factual error, such as I did with the Edict of Milan, and I am corrected, I stand corrected. There is no need to psychoanalyze and get under anyone's skin. Stick to the issues, and stay away from character-assasinations.
Nailed it as usual, Kosta!
Wonderful post!
Who said it does? We were talking about influence and/or success. Christianity succeeded because it became a state religion of the only superpower in the western world. Plain and simple. It's "phenomenon" is not proof that it is true.
Besides, Jesus said the road to destruction was wide and many would find it but the road to life was narrow and few would find it. That sure sounds to me like numbers mean little in the scheme of things. It is what is truth that matters and whoever seeks for truth with "all their heart" will find it.
You choose to believe what men wrote in the Bible. In the real world, numbers do count (no pun intended). Size matters.
I would like to read that.
I am afraid that you are incorrect on this point kosta. Hellenization was very evident among Jews in Israel. Where do you think "Decapolis" came from (Mt 4:25, Mk 5:20; 7:31) and pigs. Different sects within Judaism at the time responded differently, zealots resisted strongly, the sadducees were favorably inclined towards it. The common man felt both sides of the tension, being hellenized to various degrees based upon location and social status.
Yet many are just attacking and insulting the folks -- like I gave the example of the Born-Again behavior in South Canara -- it set back not only the BA's spreading of the Word, but set back that of the Church's momentarily.
"rebuking and reproving false teachings." is not the same as insulting a person or his (non)beliefs as traitorous or worse.
Also, kosta, you forget the Jews of Ethiopia and India and Yemen -- all outside the Hellenic world and all by and large untouched by Hellenizm. Christianity spread over there pretty well among the Jews/Israelites in those places
That is a wrong mixture of cause and effect
Christianity succeeded in the Romaoi Empire inspite of incessant persecutions right up until 311 AD
Marcionism, Gnosticism, Mazdaism all threatened -- and the last was especially tolerated by the 'manly Romans'
Yet Christianity still spread.
===================================
It did not succeed due to state intervention, rather inspite of it
===================================
No matter how powerful Constantine was, he could not have unbanned a religion that was reviled by the majority of the populace -- Rome had been tossing it's emperors out left and right right since the end of Commodius in 196 AD. It's like say a Christian overthrowing the Sauds today and removing the ban against the Bible and Crucifix there -- it would not be possible unless there was already a large number of Christians, even crypto-Christians who would support this move
===================================
Secondly, this does keep a wrong Eurocentric focus -- Christianity spread well in Persia, in Ethiopia, in Armenia, in India, among the Naiman Mongols etc. -- among these there was no state sponsorship even in Ethiopia or Armenia until the 300s and even then, in Armenia's case, it was a difficult decision that a Zoroastrian, heavily Persian influenced country would become Christian -- before the Romaoi Empire did
So whatever the factors for Christianity becoming majority religion in Europe does not account for its spreading in Asia or Africa.
===================================
Size does matter -- I agree with you, and the size of a religion does count.
Really? Ask an atheist how the universe came into existence. I seem to recall Dawkins suggesting aliens "seeded" the earth with life (the Ben Stein documentary) - of course he fails to explain how the aliens came to be. Atheists make up even more fanciful stories than you would like to admit. For example, the subject of the resurrection that we have been discussing on this thread. Are their theories any less fantastic than what really happened? And accounting for intangibles - things we don't experience with our senses - they do so all the time. Ask one to explain wind or gravity or emotions or any number of other "intangibles". I believe you'll find they are no more helpful than the eye witness testimonies of events in the first century that you deny. You have failed to offer anything other than tacit denial for anything that makes you uncomfortable to admit such as the reality of the resurrection.
Now, betty boop got up this morning and decided she is getting tired of me "jerking her around" because I told her in all sincerity (which you deny me!) that proving that God exists would be the greatest discovery ever. How dare I say such a thing, and subject the God of her choice to "tests"?
I can't say that I blame her. You have done little more than mock whatever she has said. You seemed to totally miss her point that an eternal, omnipotent, all-knowing Creator of the entire universe(s) - who reveals he is a spirit - could actually be reduced to some provable entity that everyone could see and smack their heads exclaiming, "Oh, wow, now I get it! I believe, I believe!". God actually did make himself known to people in the past through various means but that was for quite specific purposes. Do you think he should just be available at the snap of the fingers to any and all who expect "proof"? He also DID become a man and appeared in a bodily form to thousands and thousands of people. His name was Jesus - which means God with us. He performed many miraculous deeds which were witnessed by those various people. Some believed and some, incredibly, chose to not believe he was who he claimed to be. This even happened after the most amazing of all the miracles in that he came back to life after a sure execution and walked and talked with people for over a month - not just a one-time event. Those people were still alive when the accounts of the times were written. Legend and myths do not get created over such a short period of time and definitely NOT when the real live people are still walking around who could blow the story out of the water if it was untrue. Also, the stories told at the beginning did not change to more outlandishness later on. They remained as first stated. Jesus will one day return and all eyes will see him. Every knee will bow and everyone confess that he is Lord to the glory of God, just not right now and definitely not just any time a person demands proof. Jesus said those who believe without seeing are blessed. I believe they are blessed with seeing way more than a physical Jesus.
You and bb must be very spoiled or have acquired well trained "yes men" in your lives who never oppose your hyperbolic conclusions. As for my views on organized religions, theology, the Bible, etc. I think I read much more diversified sources than most people do and form my opinions on the basis of much broader input, or as FOX News would say try to be "fair and balanced".
No, I have not lived a sheltered life nor have I any "yes men" around to avoid challenges to my beliefs. In fact, I had every reason to stay in the religion I was born into, but like you I challenged what I had been taught. I knew within my very soul that there was something missing. Something left out and I needed to find it. I didn't decide to leave the church based on any personal reasons. I simply found the truth from the very Word of God - the Bible - and it spoke to my heart that it was the truth I was searching for. Jesus said his sheep would hear his voice. Well, I did and my life was changed. This didn't mean that I avoided trials and doubts later on. I challenged my own "hyperbolic" conclusions. I stumbled with the best of them but God never stopped calling me back to him and I never stopped believing in him. He always forgave my failures and he never stopped working within me to sanctify my heart and mature me in the faith. Though I would not want to go back to the early days, I am grateful for them and how far I have come and I understand that I am who I am because of all the things God allowed in my life. I see his plans for me - plans for a future full of hope. He still is working on me and I still fail at times.
You had answered earlier that you were brought up in the Eastern Orthodox Church but that you did not choose that for yourself it was done to you. Perhaps you have never come to understand your need for a personal one-on-one relationship with the Lord. It is not anything that another can do for us. It is a heart understanding of our need for a savior to redeem us from the penalty of our sins. We admit we have sinned and come short of the perfection of God and that we do not deserve or could ever merit eternal life with him. We accept that Jesus Christ - God in the flesh, the Son of God - made the payment for our sins in our place by his death on the cross. He rose again so that we can know the payment was made. We, by faith, trust in him as our savior. God says that whosoever believes in him would have eternal life. We become children of God, born again - born from above - into his family and are indwelled by his spirit so that we henceforth can walk in newness of life.
Now, I know you may have skimmed past that last paragraph because you have heard it all before. But just consider this, if you have never, of your own accord, accepted Jesus Christ as Savior, you have never been a Christian. Going to church does not mean it. Being baptized doesn't mean it. Having family in the church doesn't mean it either. It is only when you, personally, say to God you will trust in him to save you, you will accept the gift of eternal life, that you really become a Christian. I know with every fiber of my being that once you sincerely do this, your eyes will be opened and all this stuff we have been saying will make sense. God loves you and you are here for a reason, why not drop the pride and resistance and take that step of faith. Maybe then, it won't seem so stupid and unbelievable.
Also, as I noted, humanity has this innate need to believe in something -- even the Jarawa, I'm sure believe in some force or something, even in Albania people beleived in the state -- human beings need to believe in something or someone or the sense of anarchy is too much for our minds.
An agnostic is a more logical and humanly bearable position and yet the agnostic is still, as LeG put it "looking at the world with the eyes of a child, but not the naivety"
I disagree with you kosta on making up fantastic stories -- I regard cosmology as evidenced by hawkings to be the creation of religion as it is based on speculation. As an engineer -- if I can measure it, it's science, anything else is speculation and fits in the bounds of religion, any religion.
I can use Hawkings theories to speculate on how the universe started but that is speculation and holds as much water as a Jain monk or a Sanyasi or an Imam or a Pastor giving their proof by their logic.
Very few atheists I have encountered actually claim 100% certainty that God doesn't exist. If atheists who come to debate issues on the FR, so simply epxlain their opinions, were of the Richard Dawkins type, I would certainly say a lot more to them. In fact I have written a scathing letter to Richard Dawkins who is for some reason blaming and crusading against God! What exactly did God do to him? -- true, Dawkins makes atheism into a religion!
And I agree. I think it is never proper to hatefully insult someone who is sincerely seeking the truth. However, what may appear to someone as insults is not meant as such and is really a reproof of the false doctrines. It must be judged on a case by case basis. I think it is a good rule across the boards on Free Republic to avoid personal attacks and making the post "about" the person rather than the person's beliefs. Sure the moderators on the thread outside the Religion Forum are not as strict, but it doesn't mean we should ignore the rules.
Well spoken kosta/betty -- and that's what I've been railing against for months
Kinda. But I believe that it should properly be considered "Eskimo wisdom".
You mentioned it, but gave no particulars. Neither did you state exactly what the Born-Agains did or said to incite violence.
My pardons, I thought I had :0
Actually, I did -- in post 3301
A slap on the face serves no purpose but to push people away from the word. Let me give you the example of South Canara in India. The Catholics and Syriac Orthodox had been living there for millenia and pretty peacefully with the neighboring hindusConversions to Christianity were slow but steady
Then the Born Againers come with no knowledge of the locals and print pamplets saying Hindu gods and goddesses are demons -- they distribute these. The Hindus get pretty indignant and throw stones and attack Christian places of worship -- of course the only ones visible are the Catholic and Orthodox ones....
The attacks began after allegations of forced conversions, land grabbing and distribution of inflammatory literature targeting Hindu gods by the New Life Church - a fringe Protestant group operating in the state- surfaced.Now, the Bajrang Dal used this as an excuse to attack Christians who have been living there since the time of St. Thomas the Apostle.
The Sister's of Poor Clare's Monastery was attacked and the Body of Christ was desecrated
So, no, a slap does not work -- it negates our cause of spreading the Word.
Looks like multiple excuses were given. Not just a perceived insult by Born-Agains. But this event is not in isolation.
Violent activities against Christians have been on the rise as evidenced by this 1999 article.
Anti-Christian Violence on the Rise in India
Plus this from the Bajrang Dal "official website" indicates a group of people eagerly anticipating "insults"
Bajrang Dal activists take up arms, June 13th, 2001
...Besides firearms training, Bajrang Dal activists are taught martial arts, including judo and karate.
``They are also taught how to use a knife to defend oneself from being knifed,'' said the convener.
These camps are being held with an eye on Ayodhya, contend the convenors. ``We have to create the same euphoria which existed when the Babri Masjid was demolished,'' said Hari Dixit, a VHP leader.
... Meanwhile, the Bajrang Dal has chalked out an elaborate training programme for Hindu youth. In August, about 50,000 Bajrang Dal workers, drawn from all over the state, will be taught trishul warfare.
I don't believe people who profess to be born-again use martial training as a part of their doctrine. Neither do they wish for a return to an attitude which was prevalent before a violent event(Babri Masjid)
In short, I do not accept your example of an insult. Here is a link to what I believe is the born-again group being discussed.
Here is a portion of what they believe.
If Jesus is to be considered relevant in today's world, he has to fulfill at least 3 criteria:
1. His teachings should not be forced upon anybody,
2. His character should be morally exemplary,
3. He has to somehow be above the changes of "time".
Jesus never compelled anybody to follow him, nor did his true followers threaten anybody into Christianity. If He had,
then he would have lost the credibility to invite us to accept him. If will is disregarded, then a loving, meaningful relationship becomes impossible.
South Canara is in the south.
I had visited Raigad (in the neighboring state) and met folks from that area, and yes, this was caused by the New Life Fellowship being more than silly with their pamphlets
It's silly to publish pamphlets sayings someone's deities are demons -- that doesn't help convert folks...
I don't know the details of who printed this, whether they acknowledged it as over-zealousness or not, but my point was that it was printed, it was a slap and it only pushed back the message of the Gospel.
That's not what I am saying. I used the conjunction, 'if', i.e., in case that; granting or supposing that; on condition that...
I don't know what language he was speaking to Nic. My point is that it doesn't matter either way. It doesn't matter because even if "again" is a faulty or excessively loose TRANSLATION of the Greek, as you have pointed out, how in the world does the fact that a Latin or English translator mistranslates something lead to the conclusion that the original author "made it up"? That is a non sequitur.
Your own example shows that anothen never meant "again".
I agree. That's why I posted it, and why I said "freely granted". Let's just stipulate it.
Nicodemus' reaction is simply non sequitur. It is a real mystery how Nicodemus, assuming he understood Greek, could have (mis)understood genneti anothen as "born again" (or better yet "born anew") rather than "born from above".
That's why I highlighted part of Robertons's comment in red:
But the misapprehension of Nicodemus does not prove the meaning of Jesus..
Nicodemus could probably count to two with reference to the word, "born", don't you think? Regular natural childbirth, PLUS this being "born from above" that Jesus is talking about. Maybe Nic is thinking in 1+1=2 terms. The fact that he doesn't seem to quite "get it" as evidenced by his excessively literal question about entering into a mother's womb a second time is an express part of the account. It doesn't in any way whatsoever lead to a conclusion that John "made it up".
The Gospels contain many accounts or instances of people misaprehending Jesus' words or missing his point. So what? The fact that people react like dunderheads sometimes about some things means that an account of some person not fully grasping some concept is fictitious?
Why you think a faulty translation could be dispositive of whether or not an original author just made the whole thing up as a fiction is beyond me.
Cordially,
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.