Posted on 12/23/2006 7:01:57 AM PST by Clive
This time of year makes atheists especially cranky; O Little Town of Bethlehem, played in a shopping mall, does nothing to lift the spirits of an unbeliever. But even by seasonal standards, the letters attracted by my column last week on The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins, demonstrate astonishing vehemence. They leave the impression that atheists are sensitive about their non belief and easily hurt by criticism.
A friend of mine, who used to run a radio program about religion, noted recently that "militant atheists were our most intolerant and angry listeners." The atheists I've lately heard from bring such passion to their hatred of religion that they can be fairly classed as religious fanatics.
Dawkins and people like him pour ridicule on believers. But, as evolutionists, they can't credibly explain why hundreds of different civilizations across the globe have felt the need to believe in a divine force. Billions of people have accepted what Dawkins considers are stupid, easily refutable and harmful ideas. How did those beliefs evolve? Were they an evolutionary advantage?
Dawkins thinks they may be the result of a misfiring or by-product similar to the reason moths immolate themselves in candles. Over eons, moths evolved a system of navigation based on light from the moon; this still usually works, but sometimes light from a candle (or another source) fatally tricks them. In the same way, Dawkins suggests, humans evolved a system of thought that has led them astray.
Children who obey adults have a "selective advantage" in evolution. They are more likely than disobedient children to survive because they won't have to learn on their own that, for instance, crocodile- infested rivers are dangerous. "Natural selection builds child brains with a tendency to believe whatever their parents and tribal elders tell them." But this valuable quality can go wrong, allowing parents to pass on their crazy religious ideas to the young. Dawkins has more trouble explaining how, in each civilization, the first wave of parents acquires religious convictions.
Atheists (my atheists, anyway) think that if you do not accept atheism outright then you're likely to accept the Bible literally -- which hasn't been true, in the case of most Christians and Jews, for generations. One reader demands to know whether I believe human life began 6,000 years ago when God created the first man and woman. No, I don't, and I hardly know anyone who does.
Atheists are arguing against a literalism that has never been accepted by anyone who is likely even to hear of Richard Dawkins. One reader demands I ask myself why I'm so sure of my beliefs. But I'm not. In fact, my beliefs hardly deserve the word "beliefs" and I'm certainly not religious in any traditional sense. My strongest belief is that a gigantic mystery still dominates this entire realm of thought.
Dawkins, and apparently most militant atheists, don't seem even slightly interested in the fact that something almost inconceivably mysterious happened at the birth of the universe. As a result, they can bring little of interest to any conversation about the origins of life.
Last March, astronomers (working with data from a NASA satellite circling the Earth since 2001) concluded that time began 13.7 billion years ago, a trillionth of a second after the Big Bang. At that instant the universe (as a New York Times writer put it) expanded "from submicroscopic to astronomical size in the blink of an eye." Why would it want to do that?
I have no idea, but we now know that at least one planet that developed in the universe, Earth, would develop elements of genetic material that would make life possible though not, of course, inevitable.
Thomas Nagel, the philosopher, recently pointed out that if we are to believe evolutionary explanations, and therefore that the necessary seed material existed at the time of the Big Bang, we have to realize that there is no scientific explanation for the existence of that material in the first place. A complete understanding of evolution would involve answering a question as complex as evolution itself: "How did such a thing come into existence?" We have done nothing but push the problem one step back.
Or, as Stephen Hawking put it, "Why does the universe go to the bother of existing?" On that point we are all ignorant -- and only a little closer to knowledge than our ancestors who believed that sacrificing a goat would bring good crops. The profound intellectual failure of atheists lies in their fundamentalist-like aversion to the words, "We don't know."
Steven should have consulted me on this pont also, before maundering on. Such a chatterbox.
Anyway, I would have told him, "The Universe matters, or else we'd never mind."
I say "Merry Christmas" to them because I'm extending them greetings because of my holiday, not because I'm trying to convert them. If they interpret that the wrong way, they're just looking to pick a fight anyway.
Absolutely correct.
The only problem I have with that possibility is that most of the accounts of his life were written within the lifetime of the eye-witnesses.
It's the same problem today's "holocaust-deniers" have - too many eye-witnesses - too many people that can attest to the facts...
It's also very difficult to believe that his disciples - to a man - would accept a gruesome death (or banishment to an isle prison in the case of John) in support of known hoax.
This loosely ties in with what C.S. Lewis was writing about decades ago. His thesis was that all people are "hard-wired" to believe in more than the existential world, in something larger than one's self.
But when God is removed from the equation, this can take many, perhaps bizarre, forms.
In true atheism, one's self becomes one's God (this also works for Communism,) which explains why such believers take perceived insults so personally, even when no insult is present or implied.
If environmentalism is the adopted religion, then God is "Gaia," even if not accompanied by ceremony.
In Nazi Germany, the State was God.
With little expansion, this expands to Druidism, Wicca, animal-rights activism, a host of other things.
The common thread is "fervor." The "annointed" have the same zeal as any traditionally religious person, but it guides their actions into sometimes unrecognizable realms.
But without the moral compass of a God-based faith, things quickly spin out of control. Just look at the headlines on any given day.
Public whipping of the protesting atheist would work wonders. However- Sigh!-that would take more strength of character than our society presently exhibits.
Yeah, we could import some Mutaween from Saudi Arabia where they really know how to whip unbelievers!
S'matter with you!?
I had not thought of importing people to fill the necessary function of administering the whippings. However, that may be a good stop gap measure until Americans regain their health and strength and then take over the job. Good Post!
Just doing the public humiliations and punishments that Americans won't do.
I disagree that you would need to import Christian Protectors of Vice and Virtue.
I see plenty of potential recruits every day. The Prince of Peace would be proud.
You got it! Like the time he whipped the trash out of the temple.
I would definitely support more of that.
If his followers lied about Christ why did they not recant. They were persicuted, humiliated, hunted down and killed. I wouldn't die for a lie, how about you?
It must be a sad existence not to believe in anything meaningful, and to enjoy casting doubt on anything that might lead to meaning.
You are denigrating meaning, my friend. May you find truth before you die.
Not just that, but Merry Chrismas is at its heart a Christian Holliday, but it has ALSO become an American/Western secular Holliday so wishing someone a happy Christmas Holliday shouldn't offend Anyone!
"But, as evolutionists, they can't credibly explain why hundreds of different civilizations across the globe have felt the need to believe in a divine force."
The fact that different civilizations worshipped bulls, snakes, the sun, and invisible men in the sky provides no proof that any of them were correct. The only explanation needed is man's proclivity for superstition, which is probably already out there somewhere.
I agree with you, and that's part of the reason I go around saying "Merry Christmas" to everyone with a big smile. And I am not afraid to get into a fight with anyone, though I don't tend to fight with fists but with cold, clear, British-style words. But I can understand that in a community in which christians are a minority, it might be an understandable decision to tell employees not to have fights with customers. There are a lot of them around here who would sue at the drop of a hat.
You've got a spanking fetish.... It's OK--lots of people do.
I used to say "Merry Christmas" until Bill O'Reilly annoyed me enough to switch to "Happy Holidays".
Do you find it equally difficult to accept that nineteen people would crash the planes they had taken over into skyscrapers?
If not, how do you differentiate between one suicide and another?
If so, how do you avoid the conclusion that Wahabi Islam is the true religion?
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.