Richard Dawkins, militant atheist and author of The God Delusion, has begun a new campaign intended to embolden anti-religionist atheists everywhere. Taking a cue from the gay rights movement, his “OUT Campaign” encourages atheists to be open and bold about their lack of faith:
Atheists are far more numerous than most people realize. COME OUT of the closet! You’ll feel liberated, and your example will encourage others to COME OUT too. (Don’t “out” anybody else, wait for them to OUT themselves when they are ready to do so).
The scarlet letter (A for Atheist) is brilliant, I must say, harkening back, of course, to Hawthorne’s book The Scarlet Letter. Of course, the anarchists already have a fix on the use of the letter A, but when I see this shirt, I’ll be sure to think either “Absolute Fool” (see foolsheart.com), Arrogant Rationalist, Anti-Religionist, or Argumentative A**. I’m glad they are labeling themselves, it will make it easier to round them up and put them into camps ;).
OK, OK, don’t get upset, you irritable atheists – that last comment was a joke. We all know that rounding up people was something that the Social Darwinist eugenicist Nazis did, not Christians. We have no more intention of rounding up atheists than we do gays. Really. It’s just the fear mongers among you who make you think that’s a reality. Just watch the news and you can see who is rounding up dissidents and killing them, OK? Islamist radicals and atheistic Communists.
And don’t remind me about how heretics and atheists were persecuted by the “Church” – we’re all very sorry, OK? Besides, Catholic atrocities don’t count against us Protestants, since we were persecuted by the corrupt anti-Christ Popes too. And don’t forget, the witch hunts of the Protestants were an isolated historic event, only killing a very few people (25) compared to the millions killed by atheistic communism.
Back to the OUT campaign. Al Mohler has a nice post on this, in which he remarked:
Truth is not determined by numbers, but influence often is.
It will be interesting to see how many militants he can arouse for social action.
What is also interesting is that Dawkins is not just on an anti-Christian rant, but to his credit, he is against ALL religion and superstition.
The Times [London] reports that Dawkins is launching a new television series in Britain devoted to exposing false beliefs concerning religion and the paranormal. According to Dawkins’ restricted worldview, there is little difference there.
I guess in this sense, he will be doing us a favor. While Christian faith may not yield to every demand that Dawkins’ scientism puts forth, the application of the scientific method to superstition, false historic claims, and charlatans can only strengthen healthy faith, and weed out obvious liars. James Randi would be proud.
But as the London Times notes, not every feature of healthy faith can be measured or proven by double-blind empirical studies – such things as archetypes and the nature and reality of the life to come contribute to the richness and goodness of humanity (arguably). Note Dawkins equivocation on this:
As far as Dawkins is concerned the truth is indeed out there, but too many of us are looking in the wrong direction. I put it to him that his assertion that these unverifiable beliefs “undermine our civilisation” flies in the face of the importance of richness of myth and religious belief to our artistic and cultural inheritance. His answer is straightforward: “I suppose that’s an aesthetic judgment.”
Now if only militant Islamists, the true enemies of humanity, would wear a big letter on their shirts (a red A for the bloody Allah whom they serve?), that would be a Good Thing (TM).
And actually, for those of us Christians who are EX-atheists, buying and wearing one of these shirts could be a great witnessing tool. When an excited atheist comes up to us to talk about our shared hatred of God, you could then tell him, “oh yeah, I USED to be an atheist, but then, I met Jesus.” If only I was an ex-atheist, I would pull this bait and switch ploy regularly ;).
I disagree with you 100% in this article and most of stories here. You write well and seem to believe what you write with strong conviction. That is the only reason that I am writing this now.
The god that created the diversity of life on this planet had a twisted sense of humor and a love of irony.
I see it everyday in how one Christian can hate another Christian because of their disagreements in how god loves them. Being the most fragmented religion that has been reformed, rewritten, and has evolved (irony) from a philosophy of love into a message of intolerance.
Rogerebert
Admittedly, this was a bit of a provactive piece.
But the problem of Christians not loving one another is one that you present very one-sidedly. First of all, you ignore the very real and tangible love that is in most biblical churches, and the great works of love and mercy that Chrsitians have done throughout the ages, and presently.
One evidence is the recent book and study showing that Christians are more generous in giving to charities, even non-religious charities, than the non-religious.
Second of all, the problem is not loving others is one of maturity, not necessarily one of doctrine. This is why Jesus and the writings of the apostles repeatedly reiterated that we are supposed to grow in LOVE.
Thirdly, many people (not you, per se) are confused about what love is, thinking that telling the truth is NOT part of spirituality. But as we know, love and truth work together – to fail to tell someone that adultery or promiscuity or homosexuality is sinful is to fail in love. How we tell them may be important ("speaking the truth in love"), and certainly, most immature Christians (me included) fail to consistently deliver truth in this manner.
Fourthly, and as you mentioned, Christians should be ashamed at their lack of love. We should be growing in love and learning what that means in real terms. But this does not mean that Christianity is somehow against love.
Tolerance of evil is not a virtue, it is cowardice. You might also enjoy Tolerance – The Last Virtue of a Declining Culture. Thanks for posting.
My approach: hate the religion, love the religionist.
That's not a bad approach, but perhaps you should also evaluate the religion's progenitor.
For example, I not only loathe the teachings of Islam, but the life and teachings of its founder, Mohammed.
And while I am not a fan of bad Christian religion, I admit that there is healthy faith, and I love Jesus and his teachings. Perhaps you should do more than evaluate the religion or the religionist, but the founders of said religions. That's where the real decision is at.
The founder of your religion threatens eternal torture to those who refuse to kiss his feet. Why worship such a man?
If it's true, it's not a threat, it's a loving warning. It would be unloving NOT to tell us if it WERE true. So there you go.
Is it a threat to tell people that eating certain foods leads to life and health, while others lead to sickness and early death? No, though you could threaten people with such information.
Irrelevant. Since Jesus claimed to be God, he invented Hell. Such a concept is, in itself, disgusting and evil and to be reviled.
Scriptures teach that hell was not made for man, but for Satan and the fallen angels.
Second, just like we each choose sin, which is not God's fault, we likewise reject his offer, so again, not necessarily his fault.
Third, real love requires justice. Do you want a forgiveness without justice? You don't care if Hitler goes unpunished? Was his "hell on earth" good enough for you? Is God unjust if he does nothing about evil?
Fourth, I think you underestimate the wickedness of sin, yours included. You think it's not that bad. The reality of hell may be a just punishment for sin, esp. for rejecting the the death of Christ on your behalf.
Fifth, a better question than "do I like it" is "is it true?" While our sense of right and wrong and what is logical does play in to determining if we think something is true (and just), sometimes we do not like the truth, but that doesn't make it untrue.
It could be that "you can't HANdle the truth!"
Really? Please provide proof for your assertions. How else can I judge their validity?
Please provide proof for your assertions. How else can I judge their validity?
It really depends on what you will accept as proof. For example, prove to me that dark matter exists. I’m not saying it does not, but can you offer direct empirical proof? Not exactly. But there are other compelling proofs and indirect experiments we can do to disprove or prove our model.
So, I would venture to say that we have different types of evidence, which decrease in the direct nature of their observability:
1. Direct Empirical proof – can we directly measure or observe the phenomenon as it occurs?
2. Indirect Emprical proof – can we directly measure or observe the effects of the proposed phenomenon?
3. Historical proof – can we create a model that simply and logically explains existing data, and predicts future findings?
In all three cases, we should try to falisfy our hypothesis. If we try to falsify it and can not, then we are more sure that the explanation is correct.
So, the question is, if the Bible claims that Jesus and the apostles said that there is a hell for those who do not believe, should be believe them?
This actually brings up many other questions:
1. How reliable are the scriptures? Can we measure or confirm their accuracy?
In some matters, yes. We can assess their historical accuracy by comparing them to archaeological and historical evidence.
We can compare their logical and wisdom assertions against what we know works or does not work. For example, if the Bible teaches that it is better to be a lender than a borrower, can we confirm such in our own experience or experiments?
We can assess them for internal consistency. Do they flatly contradict themselves?
If we believe that, in general, the earlier manuscripts were more accurate, how accurate are our copies, and what is our level of confidence (quantitatively speaking) that we have a good copy of the originals (95% confidence?)
2. If we accept that the Bible is a good record of what Jesus taught, then we can look at his teachings and examine them for validity.
Not only can we use the utilitarian approach mentioned above (does it work?), but we can look, for example, at his lifestyle and teachings. Are they reasonable? Do they reflect a man whom we might like to emulate?
Regarding his more fantastic claims about heaven and hell, while we can’t confirm those directly, we can ask some questions. If he was a crazy man, would that conclusion be consistent with the other things he taught, and with the way he lived and carried himself, or would that not really make sense?
3. Do we find that his followers believed his extraordinary claims?
This is most often an approach applied to proving the resurrection. If Jesus died and did rise from the dead, does this explain the disciples’ behavior better than the alternatives, like the proposition that his disciples deceived everyone by stealing the body and claiming that he rose from the dead (a conspiracy, or lie)?
The typical answer is that the disciples’ actions are best explained by assuming that Jesus actually DID rise from the dead. Why? When he was captured, they all fled. In fact, they went back to their old jobs. Then something happened which emboldened them to start preaching that he rose from the dead. So boldly, in fact, that all of them were willing to die for that claim, to a man. Would all 12 be willing to die for a lie? You could guess that they were all really crazy, but that’s not really very believable. You could say that they THOUGHT they saw him rise from the dead, but that he did not. That’s a little more believable. But then, what deception changed their minds from scared and hopeless to believing?
4. The things we can prove should lead us to ask if we should take on faith the things that we can not.
Ultimately, these things are to be taken on faith – not blind faith, but the kind that recognizes that the things that CAN be proven have been, and so we extend the benefit of the doubt for things we can not yet confirm.
This is what Augustine meant when he said (I think it was him) “Before faith comes, reason is king – after faith comes, reason is servant.” Reason identifies a trustworthy source of truth, by assessing the things it can understand and confirm. Then, like a child not yet ready to understand Calculus, it trusts the teacher because addition and multiplication turned out to be true.
Ultimately, these things may not be understandable to us. And even more, God may not prove them to us, because “without faith, it is impossible to please God.” Even Jesus said “blessed are those who do NOT see the things you disciples have, and yet believe.”
If you can not DISprove such assertions, that is no reason to think them untrue. However, if the source of these claims passes the other tests mentioned above, you may have reason to believe these claims are true.
And that’s the best you will get. God will not jump through hoops for us. Jesus also indicated that, believe it or not, people can see miracles and still not believe. Even the Jews, who were led through the desert with a constant pillar of fire (talk about miracles) did not believe. Why? I’m not sure, it’s something about human nature.
Jesus went on to say that if the evidence you have been given is not enough, you will not believe it even if a man comes back from the dead. In other words, the testimony of creation, and of His recorded words, and of the people whose lives have been changed, is all you get. Maybe you get a miracle, a close encounter with death, an angelic visit, who knows. Some people have.
But incontrovertable proof? You’ve got lots of proof to consider above. Not enough? I’m not sure what more I can say.
There is one more test you can perform, but I'm not sure if you have the courage to do it. Pray earnestly "Jesus, if you are who the bible says you are, come into my life and change me. Otherwise, I just can't believe this mess. It's up to you."
Then go on living and see what happens, or does not. Dangerous, subjective experiment. I bet your logical mind will tell you "that's not logical, so don't do it." But what harm is there in trying? I dare you. Unless you are… chicken.