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.

because "John" was wiring under (presumed) inspiration and could not make a an error.

Missed the point. It was not that John made a mistake in retelling what Jesus told Nicodemus, just that even if Jesus spoke to him in Hebrew or Aramaic, it was written in Greek.

Verse 3 and 5 show that there is nothing to indicate that a man must be born the second time. It simply says unless or except.

What would be the difference in saying a man MUST be born again/from above to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven and unless or except he is born again/from above to enter? Either way a spiritual rebirth takes place in order for entrance into the kingdom.

That argument falls through simply by the fact that even as early as AD 250 Church officials thought John's Gospel was written by two authors (Dinoysius of Alexandria, a bishop), and modern scholarship clearly shows that john's Gospel is heavily interpolated and edited by someone else, and is full of non-sequential interpolations.

Some church officials but certainly not enough that the book was omitted from the recognized canon. No Christian denomination today either rejects the Gospel of John from their Bible. Modern scholarship does NOT clearly show anything of the kind. More like personal opinion, and biased at that. Besides, why would anyone be permitted to add to the revealed words? To be interpolated would mean someone added to the text at a later date and there is no evidence - convincing evidence - that any new doctrines or changed teaching entered into the text later. There are many earlier manuscripts of the book to compare with later ones. Where is the proof the book was modified in any substantial way?

If God gave us reason he gave us reason so we would understand and know things, not just react to things, i.e. not merely accept things blindly. Otherwise your reason is for naught.

I agree, in fact God said, "Come and let us reason together..". So the God of creation is not an enemy to reason nor to knowledge or intellect. And he has NOT left us to accept things "blindly" at all. He told the Jewish people during the Old Testament times that he would tell them things through his prophets before those things happened so that when they happened exactly like he said they would, they could then trust him. He said that the idols they worshiped were unable to do such things. Through some of these prophets he performed miracles that not only the children of Israel saw but even the enemies of God observed - and were terrified. He has left us the written revelations that told of historical events as well as future times - some we are experiencing in part only now. All these things prove that God did not expect us to blindly believe. Faith is still what he expects of us but it is not a blind faith at all.

I am not prideful. I claim no knowledge from "above' or "vertically" or via some special divine tractor beam. I am asking those who do and they tell me I am prideful for asking! Your own Bible says that those who believe have the "mind of Christ". Why is it pride if I ask why?

I don't know your heart, but I read your arguments over the years and do not see a person who has budged an inch towards the truth of God. It is NOT prideful to ask, of course not, but to ask and then respond with derision and childish sounding arguing every time someone dares try to give you answers sure can be interpreted as pride. You demand proof but then never define what kind of proof counts to you. I can prove I went to Bible college, but would you just take my word for it? I think the kind of pride God despises is the kind that refuses to trust in him and accept what he has seen fit to reveal about himself. It is a kind of stubbornness that stomps its feet at God hardening their hearts unless he responds to them on their terms or not at all. I am absolutely sure that if anyone surrenders in humility before God he will lift them up and give them every reason to be as sure of him as others have been. I have no doubts today at all about God. I may not understand all that he permits in my life and the world but I trust him completely. I know him in a personal way that is not even possible to adequately relay. It just must be experienced individually. I pray for you often and hope one day you will be able to say, "I know as I am known."

It was not that John made a mistake in retelling what Jesus told Nicodemus, just that even if Jesus spoke to him in Hebrew or Aramaic, it was written in Greek.

You can't use translational error as athe reason because it was written supposedly under "inspiration", boatbums, and therefore free from any error, incluidng translational errors. And yet, we know some OT verses are misquoted in the NT. How's that possible?

The problem with John 3 is that you have Jesus saying one thing (one has to be born [not re-born!] from above or from heaven) and Nicodemus talking about man crawling back into his mother's womb! It doesn't follow. To which Jesus responds "except one must be born [not re-born!] of the water and the spirit...flesh is flesh and spirit is spirit" clearly saying that those born [not re-born!] of the spirit are not flesh! This is not what Jews believed or taught nor is it anything that is in the Torah. No observant Jew would say such a thing.

There are many earlier manuscripts of the book to compare with later ones. Where is the proof the book was modified in any substantial way?

I provided you with a very serious and respectable link.

Unfortunately, that sure sounds like what happens. It's like the liberal media, if anyone wants to publish a book critical of conservatives or conservative ideas, they are lauded, asked repeatedly to appear on broadcasts, sought to speak at colleges and overall hailed as geniuses. The only thing is, most of them can hardly sell more than a first printing, if that. Those who agree with them are in the minority and the news and commentary programs that invite them are rarely in the top ten of ratings systems. Their viewership is bottom rung. Not to mention their writing is hardly considered intellectually brilliant or even as well written as a junior college term paper.

It is sad to note that so many people fall prey to liberal thought in the realm of religious studies. How many universities today have conservative Christians heading up their theology programs? How many college students come home from their first year totally disillusioned and doubting everything they were ever taught about their Christian faith? Don't get me wrong, I think we should all be challenged on what we believe and why we believe it but certainly we should know that there IS truth to be known out there. Nobody should just blindly follow a faith. We are told to study God's word and to meditate on it night and day. I just wish people were more picky on who they allow to season their belief systems.

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.