 |
|
Anti-Social Tendencies of Atheism
Friday, May 25, 2007
I don't know what atheists are more dogmatic about: 1) the claim that they are rational or 2) that theists are a danger to society.
It is probably immaterial which is the most important; both are essential to the atheist cause - but neither is actually true.
Richard Dawkins is a member of a growing class of celebrity atheists, and he stakes his career on these two arguments.
His latest book, called The God Delusion, attempts to systematically dismantle the respect that Christianity has been accorded in the West.
|
|
|
Dawkins is disturbed that religion continues to get a free ride in our society. "Religion," says Dawkins, especially the religion of the God of Abraham, "has had too much respect." So he has set out to change that.
For Dawkins and his cohorts, the way to change this is through an aggressive public relations campaign. Dawkins contends that up 'til now, religion has been treated with kid gloves. But if you expose the evil and irrational nature of religion, then religion is done. And, although his primary target is so-called "right-wing" Christianity, Dawkins isn't discriminating. All religion needs to be exposed, even "moderate" religion.
I have already written and rebutted this kind of argument in several of my columns. So it is unnecessary to say much more. However it's worth repeating that atheists are propagandists and not rational debaters when they claim that religion is solely responsible for all the evil in the world.
Atheists need to hear this: "rational" people do not advance intellectually dishonest arguments for the sake of their cause. To be rational, one must be "sensible" and that means at the very least, being "honest". Rational people don't invent things to gain credibility and they don't spread lies. Yet, this is precisely what Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens are doing when they accuse religion of being the world's source of evil, but ignore atheists like Stalin and Mao and Hitler.
Another atheist who clearly hasn't appreciated this point is Austin Cline. He has a website dedicated to rebutting theists. He says that my kind of "conclusion," that all those people murdered in Russia by Stalin and by Hitler in Germany, cannot be laid at the feet of atheists or atheism. These atrocities never happened "in the name of atheism" he says.
He reasons like this: "Atheism isn't a principle, a cause, a philosophy, or belief system that people fight, die, or kill for." It's just like being killed by a tall person, says Cline. You don't blame "tallness" when someone is murdered by a tall person. "People don't get killed in the name of being tall and the same is true of atheism".
Cline's game of philosophical dodge-ball is infantile. He is also being remarkably dishonest regarding the nature of atheism. My greatest quandary is whether I would look too much like a fool by even trying to interact with his absurd comments. Is this a case of, "don't answer a fool according to his folly, lest you become like him"?
However, some might find his sophistry persuasive so there is risk in not rebuffing Cline. Therefore, Cline needs to be answered, lest he think he is wise in his own eyes.
So atheism isn't a "principle, or a cause," or a "system of belief"? It is just a "thing" that someone holds out in mid-air, so to speak! Call it bare-atheism. But if that's true of atheism, the same can be said about theism. Can't it also be true that theism is just a bare idea that does not necessarily lead to any particular logical actions that can be tied to theistic presuppositions?
The failure with Cline's argument is that it doesn't line up with reality. No idea is bare, least of all an idea as foundational as theism or atheism. The question about God essentially drives everything humans do.
Put another way, no one holds to a governing idea like atheism or theism in a vacuum. "Bare" anything is impossible. People hold these theological premises as part of - as foundational to - a system of thought. Theism is either Christian theism, or Judaic theism or Islamic theism, or Deism or even Polytheism, and atheism is either secular-humanism or communism or libertarianism (in some cases). And on that note I challenge Cline to show me one atheist who isn't a humanist.
The basic foundation to every system of thought is predicated on this question: is there a God or not?
Which leads me to another fallacy in Cline's argument - the fallacy of irrelevant analogy. Cline's appeal to "tallness" is irrelevant. Tallness is a physical feature, and as that, it is a completely different animal from something like a governing principle. "Tallness" is a passive, physical trait, that doesn't necessarily influence the way people act. A governing principle however is not a physical trait, and it is not passive, it influences everything we think, speak and act on.
And that is why Cline's argument is ridiculous. Cline says that "people don't fight, die or kill for [atheism]".
That's right Cline, people are killed for believing in God, not for not believing in God.
But it's like I said, Cline's argument is foolish and it is intellectually dishonest.
Thankfully, not all atheists are as dishonest as Cline. At least in Dawkins' case there is a willingness to admit to atheism's anti-social tendency. Dawkins says that atheists should work to do away with the social respect accorded to people of faith.
However this begs a question: how long will it take Dawkins' academic disrespect of theists to turn into political oppression?
After all didn't Stalin, Mao and Hitler begin with disrespect of Christians on rational grounds also?
| Yours for our culture, |
Tristan Emmanuel |
| ECP Centre President |
Hardcover
$39.95 cdn, $28.95 us
 |
|
Softcover
$23.95 cdn, $18.95 us
|
|
WARNED
Canada's Revolution Against Faith, Family and Freedom Threatens America by Tristan Emmanuel
This book is essential reading for both Americans and Canadians even though it is more particularly directed to our American friends. Both countries face a serious challenge to their cultures. This book exposes the radical exploitation of Canada at the hands of extremist activists, leftwing politicians and a plethora of crusading activist judges, who are using their status in Canada to get at America. Their aim is marriage. But the prize is America. They want to use marriage as a weapon to systematically destroy the Judeo-Christian civilization of North America, but to do that they need America to "go gay". Gay "marriage" will open up America to the rest of the demands of the homosexual political movement. Everything from school curriculum to parental rights, adoption, the age of consent and religious freedoms will be up for grabs once gay "marriage" is made legal in America. Unless socons in both countries unite and work to resist these political opponents, we can kiss our continent good-bye.
|
|
|
|
|