The Evangelical atheist

Militant atheism was furthest from my mind this Christmas season, yet has been brought to the forefront by some recent comments on the post of "We had a Merry Christmas". It struck me as odd why such a benign post would elicit such a response, then it occurred to me that the response in and of itself was evangelical, so to speak... soliciting converts to 'the truth'.

Of course, as soon as I googled "Evangelical atheist" I was rolling on the floor, for the third hit down on the page was a link to Urban Dictionary which read:

"evangelical atheist - 2 definitions - See [asshole] An evangelical atheist is one who not only believes there is no god or other supreme being, but is obsessed with convincing everyone around them to become an atheist too, usually through hard-line intolerance (the kind they accuse other religions of). ." Don't believe me? Google it.

Ted Peters had this to say on the subject "It used to be that atheists didn’t bother anybody. They simply stayed home from church on Sunday and avoided praying. The social impact was minimal. "

Click here for the rest of a well reasoned article in response to Richard Dawkins: http://www.counterbalance.net/new-atheism/index-frame.html

It is not the argument that I find of interest, but the fanatical and zealous way in which it is delivered. This is not the calm and reasoned presentation of logic, but a vicious diatribe. It is the irrational extreme of Denis Diderot's "Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest". It is the mindset of the soviets, that in 1918 summarily executed 10 orthodox hierarchs and founded The Society of the Godless (an actual organization, not a commentary on soviet society). It is this 'enlightened' viewpoint that resulted in the closing of hundreds of churches, the slaughter of 80 bishops, and a quick trip to the Gulag for thousands of clerics.

One wonders if the fanaticism of the response would have been directed at the author had he "had a happy solstice"? Or if some underlying rage at either organized religion or Christianity is the root cause. I would like to point out to our secular friend a tenet of that most secular of documents, "The Universal Declaration of Human Rights": "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance." I might also point out that the founding document of our nation, in instituting the separation of church and state, says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

I might point out Mark Vuletic's (an atheist) words on the subject: Atheism has a comparatively small public voice, but it is a voice that many believers hear. However, when they listen to this voice, they often hear little more than slurs and insults. When interacting with atheists, believers are frequently met with the same arrogance and condescension, the same hatred and vitriol, the same bigotry and prejudice, as atheists so often receive from believers. In short, believers tend to encounter in atheists exactly what they have been taught to expect... If we wish to shatter once and for all the myth that atheism and immorality are inseparable, we must not deny believers the compassion, tolerance, patience, and understanding that humanists are supposed to extend to all.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/moral.html

One wonders why someone so obviously convinced of their own moral, logical, and scientific superiority needs to resort to such vile rhetoric in attempting to convince others of the superiority of their position. I have had many friends in my life who have been non-believers, and while the majority of them were more appropriately termed agnostic, I have found the atheists among them to be rather vain, based upon the supposed 'infallibility' of their beliefs. I generally find anyone with absolutist views, whether atheistic, scientific, or religious to be rather intolerable. Even that great philosopher of the Scottish enlightenment, David Hume, contended that meaningful statements about the universe are always qualified by some degree of doubt.

One often finds atheists who advance the argument that religion has been the cause of most of the evil one finds in the historical record, while overlooking the likes of Stalin, Hitler, and Pol Pot. They also overlook the great contributions to peace that science as brought, like Bows and Arrows, Guns, Bigger Guns, and that all encompassing advance of apocalyptic Biblical (or Bhagavad Gita) proportions, the H-Bomb. The argument that religion is evil overlooks the common factor in all evil, us. It is not the nature of religion that institutes such occurrences as the Spanish Inquisition, but the flawed nature of man. One might make the argument that evil stems from absolutism, for most if not all of the evil in our history has stemmed from absolute positions, be it fascist, communist, racist, or theist. It is the belief in one's absolute superiority that propagates throughout history as manifestations of absolute evil, horror, and inhumanity.

While a firm advocate of the separation of church and state, I have always believed that religion, in the form of comparative theology, should be taught in school. Separation of church and state seeks to prevent the establishment of a state religion (Establishment Clause), it was (IMHO) never intended to erase religion from society (Exercise Clause), and while it is possible to separate religion from state, it is virtually impossible to separate religion from culture. Religion, like art and science, is part of the cultural heritage of man, all men, Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, or any number of other faiths. In a free public context such displays promote interaction and tolerance.

The 'Christmas Tree Controversy' is one that is particularly irksome. The public expression of faith should be something cherished in our society, the freedom of religion (not freedom from religion) being one of our great nations founding principles. It seems that far from offering religious freedom, we are in the foolishness of political correctness attempting to ban religion from the public space, as if it were something shameful in this enlightened age that should be hidden away like porn... it's okay, but only in the privacy of your own home. I would have no problem with a creche in the town square, any more that I would have a problem with a Jewish, Muslim, or any other display. Living overseas, I can say I took no offense to Buddha's Birthday celebrations and found them educational, and even fun. I take no offense at being greeted with "Īd mubārak" (Blessed Eid), nor would I take offense at being invited to have a Happy Ostara (Wiccan) . To take offense at the proffered good will of others, whatever the reason is petty and small.

What I do take offense at, although I would not prohibit them, are atheist displays such as the one in Olympia, Washington that read "At this season of the Winter Solstice may reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds." I don't oppose the viewpoint, I don't believe it but I don't recommend banning it, but that the display is more of a negative assault than a profession of belief. It is no more acceptable than fundamentalists pointing out Jews as the killer of Jesus in a Hanukkah display or the protesting by the Westboro Baptist Church at the funerals of military members. By all means celebrate your beliefs, celebrate Galileo's Birthday (Feb 15) if it makes you happy, put a whole calendar of Scientific Holidays together, but a 'celebration' putting down other peoples beliefs and customs should be beneath you.

All of this serves to illustrate one main point, that extremism is not the sole domain of religion, one can find extremists of all points of view from religion, to science, to politics, to sociology. The only rational approach is one of cautious restraint and dialogue. No one has ever advanced their own position by attacking the beliefs of others, unless that advance came solely from intimidation.

Until you come to the table with something positive to offer, you just come across as vulgar, barbaric, and mean...

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

~Finntann~