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.

The gates of hell shall not prevail against His church, which is not an institution nor magisterium nor a bunch of old men in dresses. His church is made up of all true believers who have been graced with faith in Jesus Christ as Lord, King, God and Savior.

Amen! I guess those who their entire lives have had it drummed into their heads that the ruling hierarchy is THE church are mentally unable to grasp the truth of what we are trying to say. I was surprised to read in the Vatican II document that at least the idea that others can be save outside of the Roman Catholic Church was proclaimed. They could have worded it differently, I think, but to come out and admit that the grace of God reaches outside of their Church and people can be saved was a positive step. Now, of course, many Catholics disagree with that - and it certainly does seem to contradict earlier Papal decrees to the affect that no one can be saved outside of them - but I thought it was quite generous of them. Nevertheless, our God does not need their permission to save all those who come to him in sincere faith. I just wish some here could understand the point that the "church" is all of us Christians and that God looks at the heart and not the sign outside on the building we attend.

And as far as "where do you go for the important part, to take it to the church?", we have the Holy Bible that is our source for all doctrines of the Christian faith.

BB. You should that doesn't wash. Even sola scriptura churches differ on important matters, Calvinists vs. Arminians, etc.

There are clear cut rules spelled out in Scripture for how a church is to deal with members who are involved in public sin.

We don't even agree on what the Church is in Scripture.

It doesn't work, BB. Look around, it flat does not work. You just start another church if you disagree.

Jesus said where two or more of us are gathered together in his name, he is right there with us.

Look around on here. It's reduced to one. "Just me and the Bible, that's all I need."

That's not the Church established by Christ, not the Church of the Apostles. They did not become martyrs for the church of each individual's interpretation, nor for two people and Jesus. But for One Church, Holy and Apostolic, universal in its faith.

thanks for your post.

Ah, is that why we have Calvinists who say Calvinism = Christianity

a. "The doctrines of grace (Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace, Perseverance of the saints) are the warp and woof of the biblical gospel cherished by so many saints for centuries." John Piper, TULIP, The Pursuits of God's Glory in Salvation, 2000, back cover blurb.

b. "God's plan of salvation revealed the Scriptures consists of what is popularly known as the Five Points of Calvinism." and "Calvinism is pure biblical Christianity in its purest and clearest expression." Leonard J. Coppes, Are Five Points Enough? The Ten Points of Calvinism, 1980.

d. "I do not ask whether you believe Calvinism. It is possible you may not. But I believe you will before you enter heaven. I am persuaded that as God may have washed your hearts, He will wash your brains before you enter heaven." C.H. Spurgeon, Autobiography of Charles H. Spurgeon, n.d., American Baptist Society.

e. "We believe with the great Baptist preacher, Charles Haddon Spurgeon, that Calvinism is just another name for Christianity." John H. Gerstner, Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth: A Critique of Dispensationalism, 1991.

f. "We hold and assert again and again that the truth which Calvin preached was the very truth which the apostle Paul had long before written in his inspired epistles, and which is most clearly revealed in the discourses of our blessed Lord Himself." C.H. Spurgeon, Autobiography of Charles H. Spurgeon

g. "Calvinism is evangelicalism in its purest and only stable expression." B.B. Warfield, Calvin and Augustine, ed. Samuel G. Craig, 1956.

h. "Calvinism is the Gospel and to teach Calvinism is in fact to preach the Gospel." Arthur C. Custance, The Sovereignty of Grace, 1979.

we have the Holy Bible that is our source for all doctrines of the Christian faith. God has not left us rudderless as he provided his Word, the indwelling Holy Spirit AND our local church leadership for resolution of problems regarding the truth of the faith and church discipline.

Look, the Bible is the standard yes, but on what basis do we say that say it is right to believe in the True Presence of Christ in the Eucharist (Anglican/Lutheran) or not? This is central to the former's faith and is part of the denomination's plan of salvation.

Yet others take up the Bible and disagree based on their own interpretation.

The Bible is inerrant, but human beings as individuals can and do make flawed interpretations, even well-meaning, but flawed.

Take another central matter of faith -- do we still have spiritual gifts like prophecy or talking in tongues amongst us (Pentecostals) or not (Presbyterians)? Some pentecostals would say that one has to demonstrate the former to show that one has achieved salvation, others will disagree.

The problem comes that both may interpret verses differently - and in this case, both cannot be correct, right?

Instead, what we in orthodoxy have is the passing down of the teaching, the interpretation of the scripture from Christ through the Apostles. At the end of Christ's ministry, after the Resurrection He taught His apostles one last time and what He taught could not be contained in all the books of the world -- this was the interpretation of the word, Christ's description of this to these simple fishermen etc. who were His Apostles

God did not and has not left us rudderless -- His interpretation and the practices which we practise is what He gave as rudders.

Why did the Early Christians believe and practise a faith that was similar to what we celebrate in the Divine Liturgy/Mass when we read in The Didache written in AD 70 (Apostolic Times), it reads as a description of the Mass/Divine Liturgy

Concerning the Eucharist
- 9:1 Concerning the Eucharist, give thanks this way.
  9:2 First, concerning the cup: We thank you, our Father, for the holy vine of David your servant, which you made known to us through Jesus your servant. To you be the glory forever.
  9:3 Next, concerning the broken bread: We thank you, our Father, for the life and knowledge which you made known to us through Jesus your servant. To you be the glory forever.
  9:4 Even as this broken bread was scattered over the hills, and was gathered together and became one, so let your church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into your kingdom. To you is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ forever.
  9:5 Allow no one to eat or drink of your Eucharist, unless they have been baptized in the name of the Lord. For concerning this, the Lord has said, "Do not give what is holy to dogs.
After the Eucharist
- Before all things we thank you because you are mighty. To you be the glory forever.
  10:5 Remember, Lord, your church. Deliver it from all evil and make it perfect in your love, and gather it from the four winds sanctified for your kingdom which you have prepared for it. For Yours is the power and the glory forever.
On the Lord's day
- 14:1 On the Lord's day, gather yourselves together and break bread, give thanks, but first confess your sins so that your sacrifice may be pure.
- 14:2 However, let no one who is at odds with his brother come together with you, until he has reconciled, so that your sacrifice may not be profaned.
- 14:3 For this is what the Lord has said: "For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is great among the nations, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure offering; for my name is great among the nations, says the of hosts. . . . For I am a great King, says the Lord of hosts, and my name is reverenced among the nations."

These are what we practise today, the beliefs and practises handed down from Christ Himself through the Apostles. The pure sacrifice is not a repeated one but a participation in the One pure, purest Sacrifice -- that in which the High Priest Christ gave of Himself.

Thank for your post, too. I don't know if it is worthwhile to keep on discussing this point, but I will try once more. The Apostles and the early Christian martyrs died for what exactly? I believe they died for their faith. The faith in Jesus Christ as Messiah/Savior/Incarnate God with us. They did NOT die for the "church". They were all members of the body of Christ which is the universal church. The word church is from ekklesia which means, among other things, a called-out assembly. The word was actually used in the Old Testament when God called out an assembly of his people.

I hope you can understand that what we choose to call ourselves or what box we check on a form asking for religion or what local church we attend does not amount to anything in God's economy unless there is a heart felt faith in him and in what he reveals to us within the pages of his Bible. Sure there are different beliefs on many minor issues such as leadership hierarchy or order of worship or how certain sacramental rites are performed and on whom they are performed. There are even differences on some semi-major points, I get that, but what I am sincerely trying to get across is there is only one, holy church that is made up of ALL believers in Jesus Christ as savior. They may be from different cultures, parts of the world, the past, even within various denominations, but they all have that one thing in common and that is their faith in Christ. They believed the Gospel as preached by Jesus as taught to the disciples as passed on to the local people as passed on to the entire world as we STILL know it today.

Please don't try to convince me that the Roman Catholic Church is that true church because I know it is not. The reason why I know is because when I was personally in it I did NOT know the gospel. I was NOT saved because I did not even understand my own need to come to faith in Jesus Christ. I was never taught that it was a decision that I personally had to make to trust in him to save me. I have no doubt that there are many others in every other church out there who are just as ignorant as I was. Being a member of the church, participating in all the rituals, attending all the services, etc. was NOT what saved me. I had to come to Jesus Christ and trust in him to be my savior. I read for myself in the Bible what God said I needed to do to be saved and it was BELIEVE IN THE LORD JESUS CHRIST. God took it from there and I have grown in my faith and learned his word from personal study, from reading the works of theologians, from pastors, from Sunday School teachers, from Bible studies and Bible College. I did not stop at simple faith (easybelieverism I think you called it). God moved me along and the Holy Spirit illuminated the truth in my heart.

Enough of my preaching, sorry. I hope you can see that a church is not an organization or denomination but THE church is that spiritual body of Christ that he binds together in that one faith, one hope, one baptism (the baptism of the Holy Spirit when we come to Christ). Jesus IS God and his prayer has been answered because we are one in him. Don't major on the minor stuff. The main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing. And that main thing is the Gospel.

If you're still awake, I hope you have a peaceful night.

Heck, BB, even *you* can. :) Love does not force. You can reject God, you can willingly separate yourself from God. You can't blame "death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers…" if you do. They cannot separate you, but you can. You can make that choice. You can blame God for death, for your losses, blame Him for your suffering, you can hate God for it, you can reject what you once believed. You have free will. Unless.. Are you a Calvinist too? :)

I don't have to be a Calvinist to understand the clear teaching of Scripture that says when we are born again into the family of God he will never leave us, forsake us, cast us out OR lose us. Now that last part gets missed. He will LOSE nothing but will raise us up again on the last day. That tells me that when we genuinely place our trust in Christ we become a new creation, a child of the living God, a joint heir in Christ. We are indwelled with the Holy Spirit of promise and he is our earnest payment - like a down payment - on our eternal life.

Now can a Christian go through times of doubt? Yes, I admit I did. Can a Christian go through times of rebellion against God? Yep, did that too. But does that mean I was saved, then wasn't, then was, then wasn't, and now am again? Nope. That isn't the deal. We have been sealed until the day of redemption. Only the King breaks the seal, we cannot. A Christian going through those times I described never really loses his faith, he never totally stops believing, because he can't. The Holy Spirit does not leave us EVER. There is always that Spirit bearing witness with our own that we are His. There may be times of doubt, of sin, of rebellion, but our Heavenly Father never stops loving us, never leaves us, never deserts us, and always draws us back to Him. The key to all this: does the person truly, in his heart confess that Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior? Has he really placed his trust in him to save him? Has he admitted he is a sinner who needs a Savior? When this happens, and only God sees the heart, then he has promised everlasting life. There is nothing we do to deserve or earn his grace and mercy. You said earlier you trusted in God's justice and mostly his mercy. Well, let me assure you his justice was satisfied when Jesus died on the cross. When he said, "It is finished.", it was, The price for our freedom had been paid and his resurrection from the dead was the proof that God accepted it. He offers us his everlasting mercy, love and grace. It is ours through faith.

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.