Here are some recent headlines regarding atheism:
- The Unenlightened Atheist
– EO takes issue with the atheist claim that atheism is linked with the
Enlightenment, when it is clear that Enlightenment thinkers were
absolutely NOT anti-faith.
Many atheists who make this mistake are simply unaware of Western
intellectual history. For the rationalists of the Enlightenment era
were able to trust in reason precisely because they were
theists or deists and believed in a transcendent, rational God. To
think otherwise was considered, as the philosophers often noted, the
height of absurdity.
- 4 Utopian Communities That Bombed Miserably – Hearkening back to my post on The Failed Atheist Experiment of Liberal, MO, Neatroma
has a nice intro to some other utopian communities, based on
transcendentalism, political anarchism and vegetarianism, pacifist
Christianity (Shakerism), and "pure" capitalism, all of which failed.
Perhaps we should learn that utopias are doomed to fail until Christ
brings in His kingdom. - Why Atheism Is Selling . . . Books – First Things talks about why atheism is selling books, but perhaps not winning mindshare.
In Michael’s view, there’s an odd defensiveness about all these
books—as though they were a sign not of victory but of desperation.
Everywhere on earth except Western Europe, religion is surging. Each of
the authors admits that most people, especially in America, do not
agree with him. Each pictures himself as a man who spits against the
wind. Each rehearses his arguments for atheism mostly, it seems, to
convince himself….Still, there are reasons Sam Harris started the flood. The attacks
of September 11 fit in here somewhere: the sudden unavoidable awareness
of Jihadism and radical Islam put a weapon in the hands of opponents of
religion….A more immediate reason for these books might be simple partisan
politics. In the enduring anger about the 2000 election—and
particularly after all the values talk that followed the 2004
campaign—there was a general sense on the left that the evangelicals
had become a defining force in American politics. It wasn’t enough to
mock and despise them; they must be actively attacked, as the confident
New Yorkery class sneer was converted into a hard grimace, a kind of
permanent anxiety about the breeding herds of Red America.
My sense of the best-selling neo-Atheist book trend is that it’s a reaction to the recent aggressive and arrogant stance of conservative religion (in this country, xianity in particular). Atheism is certainly a respectable and coherent world-view, and the writers in question make a strong case for it. The idea that they come across as defensive or desperate or rehearsing all this just to “convince themselves” is mere whistling in the dark by the author (he wishes!). The power of radical religion must and will be confronted.
My sense of the best-selling neo-Atheist book trend is that it’s a reaction to the recent aggressive and arrogant stance of conservative religion
Actually, the author sort of mentions that, though not in that manner – that it is a reaction to the perceived threat and power of religion, as experienced in the 9/11 attacks and the last two presidential elections.
He also mentions that there was a previous spate of religions books that were successful, so publishers are looking to fan the flames and do something new.
It is good that religion is kept in check by opposing views.
Atheism is certainly a respectable and coherent world-view, and the writers in question make a strong case for it.
And writers supporting xianity make a strong case too. So how do we tell the difference? I think that atheism is intellectually respectable, but practically and spiritually, it is quite literally bankrupt, if not evil. Atheism on a grand scale has produced the world’s greatest horrors because, like the well-meaning communist systems that used atheism as a given, they meant well but totally misapprehended the nature of man , his need for God, and the reality of sin. See Atheist Atrocities.
The power of radical religion must and will be confronted.
Sure, but it should be confronted with balanced, healthy religion, not atheism, liberalism, or syncretism.
I agree that such officially atheistic systems as communism were evil. However, they substituted a crypto-religious system of worship of the state, the party, and/or the workers for official religion (with much the same results), for one based on worship of a supernatural deity. The point is that there are different forms of atheism as there are different forms of religion, some worse than others. I don't think that any society has suffered from too much reason and skepticism, nor from a strict separation of church and state.
btw: Your assertions about the "nature of man" are just that: assertions. What is this "need for God" and "reality of sin" but assumptions on your part. I think that too much religion can lead too evil as well.
However, they substituted a crypto-religious system of worship of the state, the party, and/or the workers for official religion (with much the same results), for one based on worship of a supernatural deity.
The real issue is, people MUST worship something – that is, look to something outsides of themselves for government, wisdom, service, and power. Atheism replaces God with state – it has to, and offers no other alternative. And that's why it fails (in addition to the fact that giving man ultimate power corrupts).
Your assertions about the "nature of man" are just that: assertions. What is this "need for God" and "reality of sin" but assumptions on your part.
Yes, well, assumptions to the contrary are just that as well. But not all assumptions are equal. In fact, assumptions lie at the base of every model, and if the model incorporates reality well, and makes good predictions, than you may consider those assumptions to be good. My assumptions are not grounded in opinion, but I am prepared to support them via history.
In addition, i think that assumptions to the contrary (man is basically good) have proven repeatedly to be false. The real truth is that man is basically good and evil, and we need a system of government and spirituality that reflects that. And I argue that xianity has the most realistic, empowering, and liberating view, while not losing sight of the falleness of mankind.
The real issue is, people MUST worship something
Really? ‘sez who?
The real issue is, why MUST people worship something? In fact, the very problem is that people are worshiping something.
You confuse a state atheism with the philosophy. I agree that worshiping the state is a great evil, but I also think worshiping anything is a greater evil. The atheist attempts to short-circuit this primitive reaction and replace it with a reasoned approach to reality. Why posit some invisible (or visible) super being and then bow down before it? I think basing one’s life on reason and its sisters yields far better results. If I am going to make an assumption, I will assume that evidence is more powerful than revelation, and that a clear-eyed view of reality better than one based on fear and superstition.
btw: I agree with your final paragraph up to your prescription of xianity for the basis of government and philosophy. I think that turning to religion is the worst alternative because it lets loose all the powers of irrationality, fear, hatred, and superstition, and then places them in the hands of priests and other religious shysters (often in cahoots with the gov’t.). I think the best system for mankind is the one we live under – one which keeps religion at bay and which is designed to limit power with checks and balances while establishing the institutions which are needed to both govern and watch over itself – and doing this while leaving maximum freedom for the individual to pursue happiness. It allows us individuals to be jealous of our freedom, and therefore watch the gov’t with the eagle eye for corruption and tyrannical trends (eg, King Bush). Religion does the opposite: it burdens us with fear and superstition and control by others; it gives absolute power into the hands of other humans in the name of some invisible god; it seeks to limit freedom and free inquiry in the name of myths like the “falleness of mankind” and the infallibility of its holy books. It is the tyranny of unreason and the domain of a “holy” darkness which shrouds the mind of man and makes him into a subject rather than a citizen. No thanks.
The real issue is, why MUST people worship something? In fact, the very problem is that people are worshiping something.
Well, there is a little semantics here, but basically, whatever is your highest authority, whatever ideas, ideals, or projects you serve with your energies and time, that is the thing you are worshiping.
In Christian parlance, we all are made for such worship – worship is not just singing hymns or serving deities – it is whatever we spend our lives on. Or as Bob Dylan said during his brief Christian music days, "you gotta serve somebody."
You confuse a state atheism with the philosophy.
I think that any philosophy worth more than an intellectual exercise must be implemented. If you say that atheism was not meant to be applied to governing, I would say great, let's keep God in government, or at least, in society. But modern atheists want to rid society of faith, perhaps not by force, but they do see it as evil.
I think basing one's life on reason and its sisters yields far better results.
Well, such a safe but self-limiting system may be fine for those without the knowledge, courage or faith to explore and live by faith, but they should hardly feel that their narrow manner of living is superior, nor force such a handicapped model on the rest of us.
If I am going to make an assumption, I will assume that evidence is more powerful than revelation, and that a clear-eyed view of reality better than one based on fear and superstition.
That's your assumption, but not necessarily the best. In fact, as I have oft repeated, we ought to use our reason to identify trustworthy sources of revealed or recorded knowledge and wisdom. In this manner, we can reject spurious sources of revelation without recklessly throwing them all out.
I don't think that 'evidence' is necessarily more powerful, nor more accurate than revelation – in fact, not only is evidence usually incomplete, in the case of historical evidence, it is highly subject to misunderstanding based on our pre-suppositions. And i don't view faith as a life of fear and superstition, but one of hope and promise.
Your consistent polarizing of faith and reason are really the problem of most atheists or secularists – they have absolutized the two ends of the spectrum, and have lost or discarded any ability to describe how faith and reason can or ought to work together. In effect, they have chopped off one of their legs in order to not have to coordinate walking with two. But such coordination is natural, and it is actually unnatural to have to hobble on just the one leg of reason – just as bad as hobbling on the lone leg of faith without reason.
And the life of reason is, I hate to tell you, not the clear-eyed view you think it is. In fact, it is fraught with errors because of man's limitations, not to mention his penchant for fraud and lying. But reason should not be abandoned due to abuses (nor should faith), but rather, we should control for such abuses.
"I pity the fool" who lives by either faith alone or reason alone, and while the man who follows a false faith (like Islam) without reason will be much worse off, I don't think that the man who lives by reason alone is really going to do better than the one who follows Christianity by faith alone – in fact, I think that Christian faith alone is to be preferred above reason alone.
But even so, the christian who abandons reason is going to have problems. This is why I subscribe to The Wesleyan Quadrangle, which has a very useful and cogent explanation of how faith and reason interact.