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.

17And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18 they will pick up serpents with their hands; and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover."

Jesus is here speaking in symbolic, not literal, language.

One way to look at these various yet intimately related symbols:

"To cast out demons" means to defeat the enemies of Truth;

"To speak in new tongues" symbolizes the universal outreach of the Word of Good News to all humanity. Last time I checked, the Holy Bible had been translated into more than 2,200 languages.

"To pick up serpents with their hands" is to directly confront instances of evil that occur in daily life, to stand firmly in God's Truth for His Name's sake.

"And if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them" because they who stand in the Lord of Life are under His eternal protection.

Which is tantamount to saying that we humans are more than our mortal bodies; and our destiny is not a function of time, let alone of our own efforts; but of eternity — in the here and now and forever.

That "they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover" simply means that Truth and Light are the greatest disinfectants of all....

Well, different folks can engage these same symbols and come up with different meanings, based on their own observation and experience. Which is just as it should be, IMHO.

The point is, when it comes to symbolic language, there are no "right-or-wrong" answers. The Holy Scriptures are (IMHO) a direct appeal from God to individual human souls. It is an invitation to communication with Him. In His Book, He tells us of Himself "truthfully, but not exhaustively." He seeks communion with His children. The rest is up to us.

Thus it seems to me the Holy Scriptures cannot fruitfully be read as an "instruction manual." As anybody who has a car user's manual probably already knows, the type of language used in such publications is deadly literal. Symbolic language is never employed. I can hardly fathom it....

Symbolic language always points to the larger context in which it occurs. Questions of meaning and value can only be asked when such a context is present.

But "literal-minded" people will almost always miss this aspect of the problem.

Or so it seems to me.... FWIW

Thank you ever so much dear sister in Christ for your excellent essay/post!

Andrewc: EXPLAIN THE THIEF ON THE CROSS.

hen did Jesus tell the theif that he would be in heaven?

BEFORE Jesus Christ died, right?

The thief lived under the OLD Covenant who received the grace and mercy of the Lord. The NEW covenant was not inaugurated until Jesus Christ's death on the Cross, refer Colossians 2:12-17

12Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

13And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

14Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

15And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.

16Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:

17Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

Christ ended the Old Testament nailing it to his cross;

Remember that each of God's covenants was with a sacrifice -- and for the Jews in the OT, there was forgiveness of sins which involved an animal sacrifice at the temple -- and in the case of the New Covenant of Christ this was the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross

Baptism in the name of Jesus Christ is commanded after THE RESURRECTION read Matthew 28:18-20

18And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

20Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

or Mark 16:15-16

15And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
16He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

the thief was promised in the OLD Covenant while in his Passover Christ opened to all men the fountain of Baptism. He had already spoken of his Passion, which he was about to suffer in Jerusalem, as a "Baptism" with which he had to be baptized
Mk 10:38

38But Jesus said unto them, Ye know not what ye ask: can ye drink of the cup that I drink of? and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?

Lk 12:50

50But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished!

The blood and water that flowed from the pierced side of the crucified Jesus are types of Baptism and the Eucharist, the sacraments of new life.
Jn 19:34

34But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water.

1 Jn 5:6-8

6This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.

7For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

8And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

From then on, it is possible "to be born of water and the Spirit" Jn 3:5

5Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

in order to enter the Kingdom of God.

As I answered your question: EXPLAIN THE THIEF ON THE CROSS.