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.

Ok, you police those attacking my Church.

How about you respond to issues as you see them and stop viewing others who disagree with you as "attacking your church"? Couldn't you by your definition be guilty of the same thing every time you disagree with someone else? Would you be attacking THEIR church? Let's stop acting like we are in a war and more like we are at a round table talking with friends. Can we at least try that?

Honestly, BB, are there no requirements for being a Baptist, Methodist, OP, etc? If there is nothing key to distinguish them, why do they exist as separate entities?

Of course there are "requirements" for joining a local church organization. I would hope the prospective member sits down with a membership committee or board and they discuss such things as the person's relationship with Christ among other things. Only after they are confirmed in their faith are people able to formally join a church's membership. Of course, visitors are always welcomed. As far as separate entities, it comes down to usually things like customs or organizational hierarchy. I guess I could ask you why there are dozens of "Catholic" rites out there.

Aren’t you defending your church when you defend it’s confession, faith, beliefs, etc?

No, I'm not. I am defending what I believe is Scripturally true. As a non-Catholic, I am still catholic, in that I believe in what was always and everywhere believed as the true faith, the orthodoxy as spelled out in the Bible. I do not need to defend why Southern Baptists only baptize people old enough to have made a personal decision for Christ rather than babies. I think that can be proven from Scripture, but I don't get heartburn if others want to baptize their baby to show dedication of the child to God with promises to raise the child in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. That child will still need to accept Christ as Savior when he is old enough to understand.

If you can’t identify these and be ready to defend them, then, IMHO, you are not worthy of them, and you shouldn’t be attacking those who are.

Okay, not so sure what you mean by I am not worthy of "them". And to reiterate, I do not attack anyone. I challenge what they personally believe and I talk about why I may or may not agree with what they believe. If a topic addresses something that interests me, I may post my thoughts. This IS a forum designed for exactly that. I do not think anyone should be forced to say anything they do not want to. The Free Republic Religion Forum is not an arm of the Inquisition nor a Gestapo. We should be able to participate freely and without fear. Don't you think?

Thanks for your reply.

How about you respond to issues as you see them and stop viewing others who disagree with you as "attacking your church"?

How could you read some of the posts on RF and *not* see it as an attack on the Church?

I'm not talking about all of them of course.

Let's stop acting like we are in a war and more like we are at a round table talking with friends. Can we at least try that?

Love to. I try to measure my response according to the poster;I don't flame, I sincerely attempt courtesy, though I don't always to some posters. I respond mostly in kind to the specific issue and argument.

I respond without vitriol such as "The RCC is a counterfeit church as they reject The Almighty God's Word as The Final Authority and base their 'I'm all yours, Mary' church on man made teachings and idolatry."

And there's much worse on here. If you're after reducing this stuff, you're pointing in the wrong direction.

Okay, not so sure what you mean by I am not worthy of "them".

Worthy of belonging to a Christian Church. We are called to defend the faith, to martyrdom if necessary.

What kind of Christians hides the church he/she is a member of during a debate on a religious forum? Maybe if you belonged to the "Church of the Folks Living in the Red House in the 600 Block of Maple Street in Cleveland, Ohio, 94567."

I honestly can't believe the question has gotten this far and so far afield and off topic when a simple " I belong to a LCMS Lutheran Church" or "I'm a Unitarian Universalist" or whatever would suffice.

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.