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.

Thanks in advance for any relevant replies, dearest Betty Boop!

Wow. You set the bar very high there, dear James: What I say must be "relevant." But — relevant by what standard? Lacking that, I do not have a clue as to what you consider "relevant."

I dunno. Maybe it's just that "I'm from Venus, and you're from Mars." (I never read the book, but like the symbols.)

Or maybe it's because my "picture" of reality is different than yours; for mine includes what, for lack of a better term, can be called Spiritual reality. You rule this out in principle. (And then will not allow anyone to question you closely about this.)

I'll try to answer your questions, last to first, and hope my replies are "relevant."

#3: "As we know now, mammalian cloning is a reality. If you were cloned with a muscle cell of yours, and brought to life through the application of known science, would this clone have a soul? What is its mode of salvation? How would it affect your very own?"

Yes we know mammalian cloning is "a reality." We have Dolly the Sheep as proof. The problem I have with your question is: Dolly the Sheep does not have a soul to worry about. I sense you are "kludging" the distinction between man "as animal" (i.e., biological being) and man "as man" (i.e., noetic being, an imago Dei). Dolly doesn't have a soul to worry about; she can pose to her own mind no such question of this kind, for the simple reason that she is not a self-conscious being. Self-aware, probably. But not self-conscious.

If you lose such distinctions — as you must, dear James, if you forbid any understanding of man that includes a spiritual extension — then man is "just a mammal." And if you do that, then you have to account for why Dolly doesn't propose scientific and philosophical theories, build cities, write novels or operas, etc., etc. If ultimately there is no distinction of note as between Dolly and a man (which is evidently your view), then why can man do math, and why can't Dolly?

I really don't know where you want to take that one, dear James.

#2: "What is the mode of salvation for those born mentally deficient? Are they damned?"

I have no idea of the particulars, James. Except to note that a God of truth, justice, and mercy does not hold innocents accountable for what they were helpless to prevent.

#1: "What is the mode of salvation for, say the stillborn infant, of a member of a tribe that has not yet heard of your religion? Is it damned?"

I don't think such a child is "damned." Damnation can only come from God, not by human creeds. The Lord blames no one for "innocent ignorance."

Well, that probably makes total sense to you, dear JCB! Thank you so very much for the conversation.

Hello, dearest Betty Boop!

The 'relevance' refers to your earlier reply.

"You rule this out in principle. (And then will not allow anyone to question you closely about this.)"

Actually, no. I did make it a point to mention that I am not ruling out any "spiritual reality" in principle - only your (and other believed) versions of it, for the reason that they have flaws in them.

Talking about the earlier referenced flaws, you said:

"Yes we know mammalian cloning is "a reality." We have Dolly the Sheep as proof. The problem I have with your question is: Dolly the Sheep does not have a soul to worry about. I sense you are "kludging" the distinction between man "as animal" (i.e., biological being) and man "as man" (i.e., noetic being, an imago Dei). Dolly doesn't have a soul to worry about; she can pose to her own mind no such question of this kind, for the simple reason that she is not a self-conscious being. Self-aware, probably. But not self-conscious."

This has little to do with what I asked. Are you outright stating that it is impossible to clone a human being (a mammal)? I am asking you to consider a cloned human being - your clone. Now answer what was asked, please.

"The Lord blames no one for "innocent ignorance."

So, would it be fair to assume that a tribal born in a faraway island, or for that matter, a feral child, is assured salvation? Would it then also be fair to say that it is better to be still-born and dead, or born to be a feral human being and suffer momentarily, for an easy, assured salvation?

Thanks for the reply, dearest Betty Boop!

Just because you can clone a sheep doesn't necessarily mean you can clone a human being — especially if the latter is a different order of being than the former.

Not to mention that, IIRC, the sheep Dolly didn't exactly measure up to indices of vitality and longevity, in comparison with natural-born sheep.

There is no conceivable clone of me. So why trouble me with such nonsense as the state of the soul of my clone?

Protoplasm may be clonable. But how to "clone" the information that makes an existent being uniquely what it is?

Spare me your "feral child." It is a complete strawman. Are you going all "Rousseau" on us, with the sudden production of a "feral" (human) child? The putative "noble savage" who is 100% mammal?

Such a being would be unsuitable for any human society ordered on liberty, truth, justice under equal laws. Such a "feral child" couldn't even be considered fully human in such a society....

Hello again, dearest Betty Boop!

Just because you can clone a sheep doesn't necessarily mean you can clone a human being — especially if the latter is a different order of being than the former.

Not to mention that, IIRC, the sheep Dolly didn't exactly measure up to indices of vitality and longevity, in comparison with natural-born sheep.

There is no conceivable clone of me. So why trouble me with such nonsense as the state of the soul of my clone?

But cloning is within the realms of possibility, isn't it? After all, wasn't an embryo that was a clone placed in a woman's womb, but failed to implant, some years ago? Wouldn't such an embryo still be human? Leaving this aside, assume the clone exists, as I asked earlier. This is a thought experiment, and it is important that you answer because it investigates the modes of salvation that your adopted dogma can address.

That said, what happens to this Betty Boop clone, dearest Betty Boop?

Spare me your "feral child." It is a complete strawman. Are you going all "Rousseau" on us, with the sudden production of a "feral" (human) child? The putative "noble savage" who is 100% mammal?

Irrelevant, dearest Betty Boop! I am, as I made it abundantly clear quite early on, investigating the modes of salvation your dogma allows, and how they apply to possible situations. Are you claiming that human ferals don't exist? Address them, dear Betty Boop! Why shy away?

Such a "feral child" couldn't even be considered fully human in such a society...

So, feral children aren't human, dear Betty Boop?

Thanks for the replies, as usual!

This is a thought experiment, and it is important that you answer because it investigates the modes of salvation that your adopted dogma can address.

Dear James, I do not have "an adopted dogma." Rather, I have been adopted into the Great Hierarchy of Being, of which God, Man, World, and Society are the dynamic, mutually engaged partners....

If a cloned embryo placed into a woman's womb "fails to implant," then maybe it wasn't human to begin with. I say this from first-hand experience of a "false pregnancy" attributable to a zygote. It was a very sorry time in my life. But the fact remained, at no time was that "zygote" a human child. It was just a tissue mass run amok.... And Nature "took care of it." There was nothing that I could do about it.

Anyhoot, the zygote and its fate had nothing to do with the issue of salvation of souls, neither its nor mine. It never had one. But I still have one.

James, if one of us sees through the filter of "dogma," I'd say that person would be you, not me. I gather you really do see a clear path from the cloning of Dolly, to the cloning of humans....

But I do not see it. For reasons already indicated.

Thanks for writing, dear James!

I gather you have not understood a single word I wrote.

No, I think you've just found yourself incapable of answering how your adopted dogma accommodates the salvation of an isolated tribal community (many of which exist, even today) - which was my goal all along - because your "universal prescription" fails the universality test. The tribals are either "saved" due to their innocence, or damned, due to their specific lack of faith. If the former, then it would be better to be a tribal member in ignorance, than to have to worry about placing faith in superstition (talking donkeys, snakes, living inside fish, etc.) against the force of reason (Pascal's Wager?), for the said "salvation". You are incapable of answering that, and that frustration seeps through, name calling and all.

So, what is it again, dearest Betty Boop, are those tribals saved in ignorance, or not?

Remember what you wrote: "You can't get any of these people to answer a straight question! Then, they just tend to slither away — but usually, not before a parting insult..."

Is that... is that you, dearest Betty Boop?!!

Thank you oh so very much for your outstanding, illuminating essay-post, dearest sister in Christ!

Regarding "This attitude of not permitting questions regarding their premises — questions that would immediately explode the system" — as "the general tactic employed by ideologists in discussion" — I'd say some of our collaborators here at FR daily show that they are definitely using this tactic. You can't get any of these people to answer a straight question!

That has certainly been our experience these many years.

Then, they just tend to slither away — but usually, not before a parting insult to their collaborator and his/her religious tradition (CHRISTIAN. They only seem to go after Christians. Go figure!)

Truly, our correspondents rarely attack any other belief. But that is to be expected:

For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. - 2 John 1:7

And I note the mocking use of term "dearest" in the conversation which followed your wonderful essay. And, as usual, that conversation has been directed away from the very issues you addressed here.

Thank you so very much for that beautiful Scripture, dear brother in Christ, and for sharing your insights!

In God's perfect justice, we individually build the scales whereby we will be individually judged:

Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. - Matthew 7:1-2

Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven: - Luke 6:37

Blessed [are] the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy. – Matt 5:7

And God's salvation is perfect. Man cannot save himself. Our new life is His doing, not ours.

But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. – John 1:12-13

Jesus 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. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit. - John 3:5-8

But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. - Romans 8:9

Those who are aborted, or die very young, or are physically or mentally impaired, or born into cultural isolation will look to His mercy and compassion:

But thou, O Lord, [art] a God full of compassion, and gracious, longsuffering, and plenteous in mercy and truth. - Psalms 86:15

But no man can claim the right to be saved.

And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to [our] father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. - Matthew 3:9

It is a gift paid for by the precious blood of the Lamb of God, Jesus.

What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost [which is] in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?

For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's. - I Cor 6:19-20

God's Name is I AM.

Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they [also] which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.

I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. - Revelation 1:7-8

So, it would be better to remain "blind" - in ignorance of the dogma - like an isolated tribe - and not be accountable (and therefore guaranteed "salvation" and "paradise"), than to possess the "knowledge," and be forced to be so?

They are moving the goalposts as they see fit, JCB, making a religion to their own liking, playing gods.

The plain fact is the Church (I mean the Catholic Church) teaches that you must be "in the Church", not necessarily in communion with Rome, but (baptized) and living a Christian life to be saved.

The Protestants believe that no works will save you, but only faith in Jesus Christ as your God and savior, as per the New Testament. Unlike the traditional Church, the Protestants do not consider infant baptism by itself to be salvific because the NT says you have to be baptized and believe in order to be "saved". Since baptized babies cannot believe that settles that. Mormons, on the other hand, baptize the dead and "save" them that way!

However, the Catholic Church also leaves room for those who never knew God, as being "innocent". Thus stillborn and unbaptized babies are believed to be saved by the merciful God (although this is rather new; for the longest time the Western Church believed, but not dogmatically, that such babies end up in Limbo)

Yet, the Bible is clear that only those who believe in Jesus will have eternal life, i.e. be "saved". Period. Thus, stillborn or completely mentally incapacitated babies who die who cannot believe cannot be saved, as per the NT. This is when the "with God all things are possible" get-out-jail card is used to "save" even those who cannot be saved (remember unbaptized babies have the original sin upon them which can be removed only by baptism, and sin = death, so therein lies the rub).

So, chances are you will get as many answers as there are believers. Each will shape their belief according to how they feel and what they are comfortable with. Which in itself makes anyone who is searching or doubting pull his hairs out. The impression is that there are as many Christianities as there are Christians.

But you run into the same problem with the other monotheistic religions, Judaism Islam, Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc. Every one of them is shaped and asserted according to how each individual member sees things subjectively or, as they would say, spiritually.

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.