Posted on 05/11/2008 6:32:22 PM PDT by Thorin
Posted by Tom Piatak on May 10, 2008
In response to my recent piece on science and religion, one of the commenters, GM, took me to task: “you may want to consider and ask why atheists seem angry. There’s no indication that you understand why.” I have to confess, GM was right: I do not understand why some atheists are so angry.
I have no trouble understanding that some people cannot give intellectual assent to faith, and I have long known atheists and agnostics. But none of the atheists and agnostics I know are angry. In fact, they respect the role Christianity played in creating our civilization and plays today in the lives of millions. This attitude is unsurprising, since my nonbelieving friends are conservatives, and it is hardly possible for a conservative to hate the font of Western civilization. Not so the “new atheists” such as Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and PZ Myers, and their followers, who are defined by a bitter, all-consuming hatred of Christianity. We are a long way from the wistfulness of Dover Beach.
If anyone doubts the existence of this rage, I invite him to peruse the websites of Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers and such online forums as “Raving Atheists.” Once there, he will find a universe of people who regularly prattle on about how smart they are and how stupid believers are--there is a move afoot for atheists to identify themselves as “brights,” and Dawkins modestly bills his website as a “clear-thinking oasis"--and who think it a telling point to compare belief in God to belief in “the Flying Spaghetti Monster.” Not all the new atheists are equally angry--PZ Myers was taken aback when Christopher Hitchens called for the mass murder of Moslems at an atheist gathering--but none of them appears capable of approaching religion with equanimity. Only a disfiguring rage could lead the angry atheists to brand Benedict XVI, a gentle lover of felines and Mozart, who has also written dozens of books, a “sanctimonious monster,” in Myers’ phrase, or a “completely undistinguished human being,” in Hitchens’ words. This rage is directed at more than such unlikely targets as the Pope. Indeed, Dawkins’ website is now hawking a video in which he and Hitchens, Harris, and Dennett expore the question of whether religion is the “root of all evil.”
What a strange focus of inquiry for the angry atheists, all of whom grew up in America and Britain, one a nation with no state church, and the other a nation whose religious establishment is famously mild. I will admit, wondering whether religion is the “root of all evil” is not a question that naturally comes to mind when I Iisten to Christmas carols, or go to church and join with people who gather together out of a common love, or when I encounter any of the numerous examples of Christian charity that dot the American landscape. I am not led to wonder whether religion is the “root of all evil” when I read what social scientists have found, such as University of Virginia psychology professor (and atheist) Jonathan Haidt, who writes on his website that religious believers are “happier, healthier, longer-lived, and more generous to charity and to each other than are secular people.” (Hat tip to Russell Seitz for linking to Haidt on his blog). I am not caused to wonder whether religion is the “root of all evil” when I consider the history of the past century, which saw the most murderous war in human history fought for purely secular reasons, atheist regimes murder at least 100,000,000 people, and the great evil of Soviet Communism overcome in large part because the visit of Pope John Paul II to his homeland helped inspire a then unknown electrician and his compatriots in their strike at the Gdansk shipyards, a strike that saw the workers decorate the gates to the shipyard with images of John Paul and Our Lady of Czestochowa and which ended when that electrician, Lech Walesa, signed the Gdansk agreement with an oversized souvenir pen bearing a picture of the Pope, a pen so large that anyone watching on television was bound to be reminded of the one institution that had stood up to Communism from its beginning. I did not wonder whether religion was the “root of all evil” when I went to Europe last spring, and admired the great cathedral of Paris, marveled at the stained glass in Chartres, and was overwhelmed by the treasures of Italy, from the wonderful frescoes in Assisi, to the Caravaggio masterpieces lurking in a side altar in the neighborhood church five minutes from our hotel in Rome, to the glories of St. Peter’s and the apogee of Western art found in the Sistine Chapel, where Michelangelo vividly portrayed man’s origin on the ceiling and man’s destiny on the wall.
These are obvious points, but they do not trouble the new atheists, who are so removed from the way ordinary people experience religion, and so infatuated by the brilliance they detect in themselves, that they never seriously consider them. (Those interested in a more detailed response to the new atheists might enjoy my review of Hitchens’ atheist manifesto). GM informed me in the same post where he chided me for not understanding why atheists are so angry that “Dawkins and Myers...do not discount religion’s past role in culture a la Bach et al., both for good and ill.” But they do try to discount Bach. Both Hitchens and Dawkins claim that before Darwin, men had to believe in a creator, so it was possible for a genius like Bach to believe. But this is an evasion. Bach, who placed an invocation to God on each of his manuscripts--a practice also followed by Haydn--did not believe in an abstract, impersonal creator; he believed in the same God that the Christians so despised by the new atheists do today. Belief that the universe was in some manner created does not entail belief in Christianity or in any religion, and Bach and his contemporaries knew this. As Pascal, another genius on the level of Bach, wrote in the memorial of his own intense religious experience that he always kept with him, “Fire. God of Abraham, God of Isaac, God of Jacob, not of the philosophers and the scholars.”
Indeed, even many years after Darwin, geniuses continue to be found among those whose belief would disqualify them from the fellowship of the “brights.” To take just two examples, I suspect that Waugh and Tolkien will continue to be read and enjoyed long after the only place it will be possible to find a book by Christopher Hitchens or Sam Harris will be the dusty backshelves of university libraries.
If anything, the constant need of the new atheists to belittle religious belief suggests a defensiveness, a need to reassure themselves that they are right. Not to mention its obvious obtuseness. Anyone wondering how an intelligent person could believe in “magical wafers” should wonder instead how anyone who has listened to this could ever refer to the Eucharist in such a manner, whether he believes in transubstantiation or not. Anyone who thinks “the Flying Spaghetti Monster” is the equivalent of God might wonder instead why no one who believes in such nonsense has ever written anything like the St. Matthew Passion
The new atheists would do well to ponder the wisdom of Charles Murray, who told Reason in an interview that “I’m not a believer, but I am also not nearly as confident as intellectuals were 50 or 60 years ago that I do know the truth. I am much less willing to say, boy was Johann Sebastian Bach deluded [because he believed in God].” And they might also ponder the words of Thomas Fleming, who wrote in his The Morality of Everyday Life that “After two thousand years the Christian religion, especially in its more traditional forms, is a vast treasury of philosophical and theological thought, poetry and art, ritual and custom. Even if there were no God and Christ were no greater than Mohammed, Christianity would offer the possibility of a rich and passionate life undreamed of by the village atheists who join objectivist circles and sue schoolteachers who tell Bible stories in class.” Or who go about making fools of themselves on the internet.
Misery loves company.
Because these athiests are Marxists who’s god is the State, and the state is a jealous god.
And 800 years ago they killed half a million for the same reason
Like Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and the Kims, the various Popes killed for one reason: maintaining absolute power.
There's your problem, not atheism, or religion.
It's an amazing straw man you set up there. You must be so, well......broadminded......
*rolls eyes*
In one case it is merely insanity; on the other, it is simply an extreme case of "misery-loves-company."
If I know that I was nothing before I was born, I am nothing now, and I will be nothing when I die, how dare anyone else have the hope of a higher fate?
Why should I embrace laws, ethics, morals and even civilization? Who decided it's important anyway?
As for science, it's settled. Just because it can't answer the most fundamental questions of creation doesn't mean we are closed minded, or anything...
I think one of the reasons for the anger is that the “freethinking utopia” has been such a disaster. The collapse of Christianity in Europe was supposed to usher in a new golden age of enlightenment, but instead it’s created an atmosphere where Islam, one of the most primitive religions on earth, is poised to become the dominant force there within a century.
Western atheists in the 19th & 20th centuries never gave Islam much thought because it wasn’t a significant factor in most Western nations. Christianity was the sole enemy as far as they were concerned, and once it was driven from a central role in community life, a new golden age would supposedly arise. Instead, those European nations are filled with secularized drones who merely want to live out the rest of their lives on a nice pension and then die. They don’t give a damn what happens to their nations after they’re gone. Militant atheists have come to realize that Christianity was a necessary ingredient in the success of the West. Knock Christianity out and you don’t get utopia, you get a shallow, empty culture filled with people too pessimistic and hedonistic to reproduce, followed by Islam.
And so there’s an increasing rage among atheists. As Mark Steyn once put it, for secular, socialist nanny states to survive, they need the family values and birth rates of a religious society. Otherwise the ponzi scheme collapses. So having purged Christian values from Europe, the secular elites have had to import fundamentalist Muslims to try to keep the scheme going. It’s frustrating to atheists that their societies are, for all practical purposes, dependent on religious people. So they lash out in rage, the way a spoiled child hates his parents.
Now that is, pardon my candor, a dumb question.
First of all, ignorant people aren't aware that they are ignorant. Point #2: ignorant people have no qualms about making up numbers, or quoting some obscure rant that does exactly that.
So where does that leave us?
How about insisting on documented numbers from historical sources?
If the ranter is claiming that during the official period of the "Inquisition" all executions, wars and other normal regional killings were religiously based, then all bets are off.
I’m almost 58yo, and I the closest I ever came to meeting an atheist (that I know of) was in Hammerfest Norway, and she said she was a pagan. Where are all of them, and how do you get people to say they are?
For atheists, THIS is “all there is”. They have nothing to look forward to or anyone to lean on with power. It’s a ad life for them - but it is THEIR choice.
“It is true that about 500 years ago, Christian fanatics killed about 10,000 people over a 100 year time period (about 100/year) in the name of the Roman Catholic church
And 800 years ago they killed half a million for the same reason
Like Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and the Kims, the various Popes killed for one reason: maintaining absolute power.
There’s your problem, not atheism, or religion. “
Correction, as a Christian, and Bible based, don’t label ME a Catholic. Catholics are not Christians. Limit your reply to Catholics since they are the ones that murdered others in the name of Catholicism.
...Or any of the things that they consider immoral.
The thing is; most atheists are living a lifestyle that, if they would admit it, they themselves conciously or subconciously believe is immoral.
I never said it was about religion.
Yeah just write off the Church Jesus Christ Himself Founded... Yeah that Pope benedict XVI looks like a real Zealot on his recent USA visit..
The Catholic Monks of Europe lead the Western Civilization Read a Little History! In New and innovative Agriculture Wineries Mettalurgy Augauducts Education Charity etc..
The benedictine Monks of England had the Most Advanced Mettalurgical Furnaces to start the Industrial age They were stymied by Henry 8th by disbanding Them ... as they did in France later on..
If anything, the constant need of the new atheists to belittle religious belief suggests a defensiveness, a need to reassure themselves that they are right.
Can we say "Teeny tiny gonads?" Of course we can, unless the Religion Moderator smacks us in the teeth.
...and they hate being reminded of it.
“In God We Trust”
The end will have the final say. I happen to believe life has a purpose, and I feel sorry for those who think that this is all there is. I just say a quick prayer for them and move on.
Do you have any idea why you didn't steer clear of this one? Pretty provocative heading, I'd say.
The atheists I know are former Christians who are angry because they didn’t get what they prayed for.
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.