If You're Going to Be an Atheist Do It Right!

Ok, to be certain I am a theist - and hence prepared for the onslaught of venom likely to be attracted by this missive. The idea is to express certain observations I have made through my exchanges with atheists and through the material I've read that's been generated by the atheist/theist debate. 

Take it in good humour too - that's how it's meant...at least in part.

1. If God doesn't exist then stop hating him. Truth: I've interacted with folks who claim to be atheists but hate God with a passion. Now if God doesn't exist why would you hate him? Wouldn't that be like hating Santa? Or hating the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Proper atheists just hate people who believe in God and/or religion. But hating God means acknowledging his presence which would render you a theist...and that won't work in the whole endeavour to not believe in God. Which takes us to point 2.

2. Since there is no God then everything is our fault. Right, as we proceed with hating and ridiculing everyone who isn't us (and we theists have fabulous experience doing this - I'm willing to give lessons...for a small fee) one must remember that religion is completely man made and therefore religion is not the problem at all, but mankind who invented it. So, the obvious solution to this religion business is to round up all theists into camps and systematically destroy...oh wait. Aright forget that - did that, didn't go down well. But clearly it's something to consider. Bear in mind that when it comes to culling you do have the White Supremacists, Doomsday Cults and the Hadron Collider to contend with so act fast before stocks run out!*

3. If everything is a product of evolution then so is religion. Let's be fair now. Evolution suggests that all we are is a product of what we were, and what we are is producing what we are becoming...or something. So, if everything we are, from our moral compass to our opposable thumbs is a product of evolutionary forces, why too isn't religion? And if it is then why be upset about it? One may as well be upset with a volcano for erupting. That's what is does - erupt. So religion is some kind of moral volcano, yes causing mass destruction and flight cancellations, but leaving in its wake a crusty foundation that eventually provides the basis for life and...R&B or snooker, among other things.

4. Kick a friend or stranger - it's ok! The absence of a final judgement is relieving even for a theist, I will admit that. With no objective morality imposed by God or after-death accountability, anything goes! Right and wrong are completely subjective and based on cultural mores, contexts and POV's. In fact, that POV that morality is subjective, itself is based on cultural mores, contexts and POV's and is therefore as valid as any other POV which makes all POV's equally valid and invalid, and therefore allows us to go and randomly kick someone! Further, folks who rape, steal and kill are simply acting in accordance to their specific genetic and cultural influencers - which takes us to point 5. 

5. Science has all the answers, so stay away from everything else. To be a proper atheist one must avoid all other frivolous pursuits and interests lest you find yourself engaging in some metaphysical consideration like philosophy, or even literature, history and Sesame Street, none of which are products of science (never mind that science is a product of Philosophy - that doesn't count...because I say it doesn't)! History is definitely not a science - you can't observe the past - and then you have to make up stuff about things like Stonehenge and the Easter Island Heads, which were probably just the teen hangouts of their time. Look at the sprawling malls of today. Surely they are destined to be considered Mecca's of worship and plasma TV's household gods by future archeologists (well after the nuclear winter has subsided).  It would also be appropriate to refer to one's child as 'offspring' and should be made patently clear to them that you really don't 'love' them per se, but are simply acting out one's genetic programming and endeavouring to perpetuate the species, it's nothing personal. They really shouldn't get all excited about 'daddy coming home'  as it offers negligible advantage in natural selection. 

6. Listen to nothing a theist has to say. Let's face it, theists are irrational. Only a set of lunatics would believe in an invisible all knowing, all loving, all powerful God and try to be 'better' and 'righteous'. Hence nothing a theist says or does can or should be trusted. If there is anything a theist invented, discovered or produced - DO NOT ACKNOWLEDGE IT! This would only encourage them. If a theist shouts 'get out of the way a truck is coming!' at you, stand your ground they are chatting their usual groundless, irrational rubbish. Wait for an atheist, who is far more trustworthy, to warn you of the oncoming vehicle and then, and only then should you take evasive action. If no atheists are present then natural selection has done its work!

*If one seriously considers culling, the possibility that a pure blood atheist spontaneously believes exists, as some have been known to do. This can be easily remedied by culling all those who have the possibility/propensity for any faith-based approach. 

Twerp Gizznick & The Great Fault: A Short Story

Twerp Gizznick wondered why his ship wouldn't do what he wanted it to. The thing it was doing was crashing and it absolutely refused to stop. His two 'companions' were far too pleased that it was all going wrong for Twerp to be of any help. But as it was, sparks were flying, flames were flaming, explosions, smoke and other indications of crashing filled the ship. Whether he liked it or not, the ground of the planet they were apparently going to die on, was exceptionally exicted to see the ship and was rushing to give it an almighty hug.

--------------------------------------------------------

If you haven't guessed, our story starts with Twerp. Despite his name, Twerp was not actually a twerp*, he was a regular guy who had the name Twerp. Now though the story starts here, lots of stuff happened long before the story started - but it wouldn't make much sense to tell you about the time RJ Miffy tripped on a slice of pizza and was suddenly, though not surprisingly, killed by a wayward piece of pepperoni, because it has nothing to do with the story - which is why we are starting with Twerp.

Twerp believed in the Great Fault. Now I know your next question: 'is there anything I can snack on right now?'. I don't blame you - I feel like snacking myself too, but instead I'll explain who the Great Fault is, while you get the snack.

Who's Fault?

The Great Fault is, many people believe, the one who created the Universe - or at least what we think is the Universe. The reason he is called the Great Fault is because the people in the Universe, being very annoyed to have come into existence, blamed the initiator of their existence for having started the whole bothersome problem commonly known as 'Life', and at some point during It (i.e. Life) they will say 'It's his fault!' or they will at least think and/or feel it. Generally, most if not all people, credit the Great Fault with all of Life's trouble. If you have a vague sense that someone apart from yourself is responsible for getting you drunk or somehow getting you into trouble with child services - it's the Great Fault that's, in theory, at fault. However you slice it, even if you are at fault, you never would have made any errors had you not come into existence - and that is really the Great Fault's fault. Or so the theory diddles. Now you may have noticed I have referred to the GF as 'he'. I honestly don't know if he is a he - but it makes the story shorter so just go with it.

At any rate, after eons of being blamed for stubbed toes, bad debt, ugly spouses and gastric acid, it only made sense to call him the Great Fault. Now quite a few people continued to be annoyed at having come into existence and spent inordinate amounts of time arguing with the Great Fault about the many things they would have preferred to do than exist (the fact the he never argued back - or at all only exacerbated their frustration). Oddly, they also complained about ceasing to exist and thought it was a bad idea to have to do that too, they thence created a lot of excitement whenever someone they knew ceased to exist. It was at points like this where they would say 'It's his fault' most of all. Ironically, while many young people complain to their parents that they should let them do this or that 'because everybody is doing it', they rarely said that about ceasing to exist - and everybody most certainly does that. But very few people stand in line to try it out for size. Nonetheless, at some time or another we are all behoved to give it go.

Twerp and the Kill Deaders

Now, where were we? Oh yes, we were 'here', where the story started. Now, 'here' is not here, nor is it now. It is some other where and some other when. And, who again? Yes, Twerp! Twerp thought the Great Fault was much nicer than most people did and spent lots of time trying to find him in order to straighten out the whole argument, and prove that it was all a huge misunderstanding. Twerp wasn't the only one who sought the GF for these reasons. There were a few who did, and inevitably they were called, yes, The Great Fault Finders. Now, it would have made more sense to have called them the Great Fault Seekers/Lookers/Trying-to-Finders or something like that, as they had not yet found the Great Fault. But, the Great Fault Finders was much easier to make jokes about and sold more magazines, so it stuck.

Twerp was very good at looking for the Great Fault, so good in fact, that he was followed by others who also wanted to find the GF, but for a different reason. They wanted to kill the GF. Now the odd thing about these 'others' is that they did not believe in the Great Fault at all. They believed that the Universe was created when Nothing exploded and became Everything. However, they were just as annoyed and inconvenienced, as everyone else, for having come into existence. It's just that they were very angry and annoyed at Nothing...for exploding.

These 'others' were two. One was named Princess Mi Mi and the other was Zag T Fenk. Princess Mi Mi, wasn't a princess - largely because he was not born from royalty and was a man. He liked to wear a pink tutu. This was strange because Mi Mi was large - about 10 feet tall and a good 4 feet across - and hairy. I know what you're thinking and it's not that at all - he just liked to wear that particular pink tutu. Pure and simple. The fact that he was so large and had a convincingly powerful and deadly weapon that swung from his side by a leather strap, prevented anyone, in their right mind, from telling Mi Mi to reconsider his fashion options. Indeed, he had suspected a few of having disapproved and assisted them into non-existence. Or at least reduced their existence to what can be called 'smithereens' where they could no longer think, breathe or play video games (the last undoubtedly being the worst of the three!). Mi Mi referred to his trusty weapon as his 'precious Thunder Blam' - it was a relationship that bordered on romantic.

Zag T Fenk will be examined some other time. But both he and Mi Mi were part of a loose association of people who didn't believe in the Great Fault but wanted him dead nonetheless. The loose association didn't have a name, but called themselves the Kill Deaders. At least someone somewhere called them the Kill Deaders, so we will too.

Nat Twakkling

The Kill Deaders didn't like Fault Finders - the feeling was generally mutual. When they saw each other on the street or in a restaurant - completely by chance - they would both begin to point** out how idiotic the other was for believing, or not believing, what they did about the Great Fault...or the Exploding Nothing, as the case may be. Both groups severely criticized each other for being cliquish, bigotted, foul mouthed and having annoying nasal voices. These constant conflicts caused both groups to become cliquish, bigotted and foul mouthed. The nasal voices was only an unfortunate coincidence and not a result of their view of the universe. Twerp, thankfully, did not have a nasal voice - neither did Mi Mi - but Fenk did. This made Fenk several times more disagreeable than he already was. You'll eventually see what I mean (to give you a little pripse, Zag always spoke like an over-enthusiatic radio jockey).

But, I've digressed far too long. This story is about a particular episode in both Twerp's and the Kill Deader's search for the Great Fault. Although Twerp found the two mildly (but incessantly) irritating, they ended up becoming reluctant travelling companions. It is how the three became travelling companions that is the potentially fascinating thing.

*twerp |twəːp| (also twirp)

noun informal

a silly or annoying person.

ORIGIN late 19th cent.: of unknown origin.

Source: Apple Mac Dictionary

**This exchange is known as Nat Twakkling. It can involve at least 1 participant from each side. The loser is the first participant to be reduced to tears or threaten to take legal action.

What is Love? Your Views Please...

To be sure a question mired in cliché. But the actual practice of the subject may be a most rare occurrence indeed, so we shouldn't dismiss it too quickly. I intend to elaborate on the subject but crave your perspective.

Please, in your own words or the words that best fit your personal understanding...

Thanks,

CY

Thoughts On God, The People Who Need Him & The People Who Don't

Even though much harm has been done in the name of God, much good has been done too. But good doesn't make headlines, moreso, the good is often done in an individual life that only knows they are better off for the faith they have found. As much as Christians are saved from the 'world' (not planet Earth but the idolization of outward appearance, material possessions and self-centred thinking)  the world (planet Earth) is saved from them. As much as some insist there is no God and/or a need for one, some folks need God.

The reality of the world tells us that there are some problems in it. Not all the problems are caused by or even remotely related to religion. Despite being capable of unimaginable savagery for whatever reasons, some have emerged to find decency and compassion because of their encounter with God, as they perceive him. Others say that such people are weak, deprived and dysfunctional with a twisted sense of morality that needs external motive in order to seek goodness. Very true! Jesus came to help exactly this kind of person.

Respect is due to those who have no faith to speak of, yet possess a deep sense of morality  exemplified through character and lifestyle. But such persons shouldn't disdain their weaker brothers and sisters who find the need for supernatural help - and somehow receive it. If God is where one finds morality and hence a transformation for the better - what is wrong with that? Indeed, it is this faith that is preventing some from adding a little more breaking-and-entering, adultery and awkward vacations to the planet. But again, what doesn't happen doesn't make headlines.

In truth, we all seek to become 'better' - or at the very least wish to. But what does 'better' mean? Perhaps more patient, honest and forgiving - more courageous, loving and faithful (in relationships). Even Stephen Hawking suggested that we launch a 'program of systematic self-improvement of the species' employing our knowledge of evolution (Collins, 2007). Not surprising as we all want a better world. We also tend to think that our way is the best way to achieve that goal which leads inevitably to a world that demands the need to be better.

Somewhere along our journey though, we all seem to ask questions like: 'is this it?', 'can't we do better?', 'can I change?', 'what's wrong with me/the world/my Mother-in-Law?' We ask these questions because we recognize that something is wrong and if we raise the questions in the first instance, we are very likely correct. If you raise these questions but are wrong to do so, then something is wrong with you.

Often when folks query anothers position they are really wondering why others aren't more like them. They are, perhaps without a holy document like a Bible or Koran, presuming to know the best course of mankind using themselves as the touchstone. And like many 'believers' are consumed by a sense of superiority due to their privileged position of knowing and being the most perfect incarnation of what mankind is meant to be (vegetarians, republicans and Colombian drug lords, among many -or all- others, are also prone to such thinking).

The faithed are often (rightly) criticized for asserting that they and only they know the right. This of course could never be true and some of the unfaithed attest to that because  they and only they know what is right. We see that the problem isn't peculiar to faith or skepticism. But we can agree that there is a problem so insidious that it manages to participate even in the very solution.

Many, of a variety of ideological persuasions, agree that love is the universal answer - but vehemently disagree on what love is - introducing: square one.

Book Review: Language of God by Francis Collins

This is one the best apologetic works put out by the side of faith in this new debate around faith, science and skepticism.

That Collins is head of the Human Genome Project adds a hefty amount of credibility to his argument proposing harmony between science and faith. Even more convincing is that he defends science itself against forces (including irrational and incomplete ideas) within religion that would counter basic facts of nature as well as cogent, tested and accepted theories. He is not just an apologist for the Divine but for the natural as well.

Collins successfully guides both skeptics and believers through the essential definitions, arguments and theories of each approach so both can have a clearer understanding of the other and even their own position. There is no doubt that Collins is both a devoted (and accomplished) scientist and theist.

Apart from sharing some of his personal journey from atheism to faith and the role science played thereof, he shows with great effort to be impartial and tolerant of all views, just how the beauty, intricacy, structure and harmony of the human body & DNA, the universal  Moral Law  and the cosmos itself points to a Divine presence. He also counters some of the primary arguments of atheism's more prominent figures including Dawkins. His complete lack of hostility, his logic and scientific expertise make him a worthy opponent.

The reader will be encouraged not just to consider their own knowledge and approach but equipped with a mercifully simple introduction to scientific and spiritual concepts with which they may not be familiar. The atheist is given alot to consider (some might find parts of his argument too metaphysical) and the theist is educated and encouraged not just by a scientist but a man with an admirable understanding of God's nature.

Finally, Collins offers his own alternative theory to circumvent the irrationality of Creationism and the lack of rigour in Intelligent Design, but considers the reality of a universe governed by the interaction of the laws of physics, chemistry and evolutionary biology as revealed by science. He calls this approach BioLogos.

Unquestionably worth a read for persons of all persuasions.

Writers Note:

Collins includes an appendix where he discusses Bioethics broaching issues like cloning, stem cell research, genetic mutations and disease and the implications thereof on healthcare policy. Indeed he even touches on the current healthcare debate now raging in the USA. He does so with great objectivity and responsibility considering the many arguments for against each issue. Ensure you  read this section as well.

TV gameshow offers atheists 'salvation' - CNN.com

This interesting - pretty topical and cutting edge I think.

What do you say?

TV gameshow offers atheists 'salvation' - CNN.com.

What the Hell?! Loving God VS Fiery Furnace

The Burning Question

No one wants to end up on God's BBQ pit - if it exists. Indeed the spectre of hell has turned many off of the idea of the 'Bible God' or the idea of any god at all.  But what exactly is hell? It defintely isn't Dante's Inferno or the many visions throughout religious art history of demons torturing condemned souls. According to Revelation, hell's purpose is to imprison satan and his demons (along with those not in the Book of Life) - not to provide employment for them (although God knows in this economy...).

What happens after death has always been a moot point for philosophers, religious adherents, sceptics and atheists alike. Even the Pharisees and Saducees didn't see eye to eye on the issue, the former not believing in life after death. We know that intra-faith disagreements exist on this issue and are as controversial as inter-faith disputes. The beliefs vary from those who think that the soul is destroyed in hell rather than tortured, then there is the idea that punishment is only for a limited time commensurate with one's sins, then hell is eternal and most attractive of all: there is no such thing as hell only 'the grave' or 'Sheol' and hell is really just representive of death - Hades - the 'place of the dead'.

We all hate punishment when we are the recipients. Some enjoy meting it out - others attest that 'this is gonna hurt me more than...', you know the refrain. But hell, as frightening as it is, has many lessons for us and may be far more real before death only coming to frution after the 'silver cord' is cut. So, assuming there is life after death - and that a super-heated retirement home for satan is a part of it - let us proceed.

What Goes Up...

We can safely conclude that hell is about punishment - whatever we believe about the experience or length of the punishment - that is the purpose. Punishment is nothing new to life before death. It is built into our judicial systems, moral systems, constitutions, cultures and even our instincts. Because we say things like 'that's not fair', as CS Lewis pointed out in Mere Christianity, it seems we have a sense of justice floating around in our heads. When we are 'unfaired' we expect that justice should be done. However, if we are the 'unfairer' we tend to think mercy, leniency and our turbulent past filial relationships ought to be seriously considered.

In reality justice is often not carried out. Despots die peacefully in their sleep full of years, or rapists commit their atrocities undiscovered -  that is unfair. Unjust. Perhaps the notion of hell arose because of such great impunity? The idea that no one can escape justice by death, even if eluded in life,  is very appealing to the oppressed - not so much to the oppressor. But it has a modicum of fairness, doesn't it?

Some think that God, if he loved us and gave us free choice/will, shouldn't then turn around and punish us for exercising that gift. Here is the view of one blogger:

Free will must be unconstrained by external circumstances. God tells us that we have free will to accept or deny him. But then threatens that we will be punished in life and burn in hell upon death if we deny him. Free will no longer exists when one choice comes with the threat of violent consequences. [emphasis added]

This writer seems to think that free will means the absence of consequence. The implication of the last sentence is that we should be free to assault someone, but it would be unfair if they retaliated because they would be disrespecting our free will to administer a kick-butting curb stomp on them. Everything has a consequence - good, bad or benign. That is a physical law: 'what goes up must come down' (at least on Earth) and 'for every reaction there is an equal and opposite reaction'.

...Must Come Down

I don't think God is saying that 'if you disobey me I will send you to hell', so much as 'if you don't listen to me the very things I warned you about will turn around and bite you in the rear'. We teach our children this stuff - 'if you scoop hot coals into your lap, you wil be burned' say the Proverbs (6:27 & 28). We teach kids about consequences so they can see the sense in rules - the principles - the character. However, rules cannot convey character or experience - they can only pass on a hollow edict. But it is this experience that seprates children and adults. We know kids shouldn't touch the stove, but because they haven't had the scalding of their life yet - curiosity can win out over obedience...and common sense.

Punishment teaches consequence and consequence helps us realize that we are not islands, that what we do and who we are affects our immediate environment. We see this played out in broken homes, destroyed marriages, estranged children, psychological disorders etc. The whole adultery commandment wasn't to spoil our fun - it was so we wouldn't ruin our families. The converse is true - a whole family, as far as is possible, is likely to be better off than a divided one, and it is no coincidence that much of the 10 Commandments revolve around the  mircocosm of family and neighbours.

Hebrews (12:10) points out that we discipline (or punish) our children as far as we see fit - as best we can to help them be good citizens. Indeed we attempt to do this as a state and have real trouble determining the crime/punishment balance. God, Hebrews says, punishes us so we can become better people (12:10-13). Not just so someone can say 'Ha! Vindication!' but so even the perpetrator can benefit from punishment (note that Hebrews says 'endure hardship as discipline' v7). Punishment is part of love. Parents who love their kids punish them. Indulgent, coddling parents will pay for their lack of discipline with spoilt brats.

One can discipline without love - but one cannot love without discipline.

Being Human or Doing Human

God is often villified by some for not carrying out fairness in ways some think he should - say famines, victimized children and other like tragedies. This indignation says something about or sense of justice - it says that we have one. But we must be willing to apply our sense of justice to ourselves as much as we apply it others - as much as we apply it to God.

Which is worse; to have a crime committed against you, or to be the criminal? What about committing a crime or getting caught - which is worse? In truth whether one is caught or not - consequence occurs. Getting caught is the final and least important part of a crime or sin. The most devastating part of a crime/sin is arriving at the place that allows one to commit it in the first instance. The tragedy in the idea of hell is not going there - it's qualifying. Even if there is no external consequence for certain actions, there is always an internal consequence: a deadening of the conscience, a disregard for the violated principle, a degradation of character, and so on.

Some might argue that not believing in God is no sin. But if God is/represents love, mercy, patience, peace and all other higher virtues of character (and I believe him to be these things) then would it not be a sin to reject such things? No one would consider these virtues to be undesireable. A world without them - now that is hell.

CS Lewis gives the most realisic depiction of hell I think there is. No flames, pitchforks or forked tails - just people and their attitudes. The same attitudes they held in life only without the sugar (in the case of hell) and without the sour (in the case of heaven). Lewis, even implies (some might be happy to know) that one can opt out of hell - but persons in either place are there because that is where they really wish to be. 'But who would choose to be in torment?' you ask. People make that choice every day in life when they choose wealth over family, an affair over their spouse, abuse over patience, greed over honesty, a grudge over forgiveness, isolation over community, fear over peace etc. Lewis' hell depicts persons who simply refused to let go of a pattern of destructive thought - a pattern that becomes their eternal reality.

Keller (The Reason for God, 2008) points out in Jesus' story of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31),

that though their statuses have now been reversed, the rich man seems blind to what has happened...He does not ask to get out of hell...there is increasing isolation, denial, delusion and self-absorption. When you lose all humility you are out of touch with reality. No one ever asks to leave hell. The very idea of heaven is a sham to them.

Keller cites Lewis' Great Divorce as well,

Hell begins with a grumbling mood, always complaining, always blaming others...You may even criticize it in yourself and wish you could stop it. But there may come a day when you can no longer. Then there will be no you left to criticize the mood or even to enjoy it, but just the grumble itself, going on forever like a machine...In each of us there is something growing, which will be hell unless it is nipped in the bud.

Good For Nothing?

Undoubtedly, running from punishment or consequence is no motivation to be 'good' - not for long anyway. Ideally the inherent value, common sense and benefits (personal and communal) of 'goodness' should be motivation enough to pursue higher principles and virtues. In my opinion, it is the abdication of this understanding for 'do it or else' or 'because I said so' morality (which is no morality at all) that causes us to be obsessed with guilt and punishment . I don't think God wants us to obey him 'because he said so', rather I believe he wishes us to share his understanding and righteous character and be guided thereof. 'Do it or else' morality, which is often a technique of parents, requires no thought for the adherent or explanation from the authority. No one benefits in this scenario.

To be sure, love and freedom do not equal impunity or permissiveness. Strong moral character is not achieved by accident - nothing worth pursuing ever is, and as no one is perfect, perhaps what is a major consideration is the overall tenor of our character and outcome of our lives. Of course, objectors to these ideas may not be concerned only with the consequence, but the system of redemption. That is another discussion.

A Theist, an Atheist & Why One is Good for the Other

An Enlightened Opposition = An Enlightened Defence
One can hardly refer to the theist/atheist debate without citing Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens or Dennett. Indeed, these proponents of skepticism and downright contempt of religion (primarily the Christian faith it would seem), have eclipsed their believing counterparts – no outstanding names come to mind when one thinks of apologia, apart from CS Lewis who is no longer with us. But there is a very good reason for that – apologists have not had to work very hard for a rather long time – so now is the time when their names should be made.

Individual Christians and their communities/churches who engage in a programme of proselytising, have probably found themselves having to dig deeper and farther than ever before in the face of challenges from staunch doubters armed with all the objections of the aforementioned authors and personal anger and disillusionment. No more are the pious clichés, go-to scriptures or threats of hell and damnation sufficient to fill the pews.

This is the best thing that could have ever happened to the modern day Christian church.

Years of blind faith, ‘do as I say’ doctrine, shallow knowledge of the Bible and its attendant history, scientific ignorance and  discouragement of intellectual curiousity, hypocrisy and little focus on the philosophical arguments behind morality and righteousness have not only weakened the authority of the Church but likely contributed to the growing ‘unbelief’. The church could have not survived long under such conditions. Indeed, the popularity of evangelical churches and attrition of traditional churches (like Catholic, Methodist and Anglican) might have been a result of the  more rigorous and inclusive approach of the former. But the rise of the Neo-Atheist is the kick in the pants every theist needed.

Knowledge Demands Character

The type of Christian being formed out of the crucible of atheism is a more curious, educated, thoughtful and considerate version of his fire-breathing, closed-eared counterpart (though the latter is still present and accounted for). The proliferation of apologetic material, though often aimed at the skeptics, is really a boon for the believer. This literature and its authors are providing a platform and template for communities of believers to follow that don’t include bigotry or amorphous relativistic conviction. Rather it encourages inquiry, rational thought and the willingness to entertain conflicting arguments and ideas. The result: a tolerant believer who can convey his beliefs with equanimity and authority.

The vitriol and sometimes dehumanizing rhetoric from some proponents of atheism bears such a striking resemblance to the uglier side of Christian fundamentalism that the more ‘enlightened’ believers are apt to recognize themselves in it. Seeing the destructiveness of an emotion-led argument can go a long way in discouraging someone from going down that road. That an argument may be sound almost does not matter in the face of its inconsiderate and condescending delivery. But still, the soundness of much of the atheist argument continues to generate more rigorous scholarship amongst the layperson and the theologian.

The Enemy Within?

Another very important point of contact on this issue, is where the ‘old-school’ Christian meets the new ‘enlightened’ set. The Christian community can be as harsh and unforgiving to itself as it has proven to be to outsiders. This internal venom is also a great motivator for change within the Church. If anything has been proven, it is that faith is resilient and usually thrives under external opposition – it is internal divisiveness and disunity that can destroy it. The internal battle lines have yet to be drawn in this latest Renaissance of Faith – but this is likely to happen once the ongoing external battle cools down. And Christians may provide more bitter opposition for each other than any atheist.

Atheists: No God, just whining | Charlotte Allen | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

Atheists: No God, just whining | Charlotte Allen | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk.

Here is a polemic rant - the very parallel of many atheist rants which I have either read or been subject to. It's not my style as a theist though I understand the position. What do you think?

Undercover At An Evangelical University : NPR

Undercover At An Evangelical University : NPR.

An interesting experiment with somewhat suprising results.

But Seriously: Neo-Atheists - The Fundamentals

Dogma Isn’t Just For The Religious

In the past 2 years or so, I’ve met more atheists and agnostics than in the over 16 years since I came into my own understanding of faith, God and spirituality. There seems to be either a proliferation of atheism or at least a pronounced vocalization thereof. I’ve met those who were once well known and committed believers disillusioned by hypocrisy, irrationality and guilt or those who never got bitten by the faith bug at all.

Most of my contact with the sceptics came through the Amazon Religion & Spirituality forum. I started participating in the forum some time early in 2007 because I felt it necessary to put my faith to the test. Could I open it to criticism and examination and still leave with it intact? I noticed that threads were started and dominated primarily by vociferous, dogmatic and sometimes insulting and very angry atheists. They preached the evils of religion with all the fervour of a Puritan and proselytized their doctrine of logic, evolution and science with the meticulousness of a Pharisee.

I was amazed at the striking similarity they bore to myself in my zealous and often misguided days of spiritual youth. Many referred to Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens – the Apostles of Neo-Atheism – in their rants. They railed against ‘godbots’ and ‘fundies’ and scoffed at ‘scripture slinging’. They had a language of their own and created a society within the forum that had its own mandate and purpose: to ridicule religious adherents, to confound their arguments and hopefully disprove and remove their faith. It was a particular delight for some to see believers leave in a huff with scriptures in their wake, fire & brimstone on their breath and frustration tainting their ‘peace in Jesus’ (most religious participants were of some variant of Christianity including myself).

But Atheists Make a Good Point

In truth, I learned quite a lot from these neo-atheists, if not a lot, then a few very significant things. They were right about many issues including the reluctance of some religious folk to question the rationality of their beliefs, the over-emphasis on guilt as motivation, the contribution of religion to war, prejudice and oppression throughout history and that many adherents know very little about their own faith and therefore argue very unconvincingly in their efforts to win others over – especially those who have no fundamental belief in the Bible and therefore cannot accept it as a platform for argument.

These things caused me to examine and question the evolution and progress of my faith. Indeed I was forced to ‘practicalize’ Biblical tenets– to express them in non-biblical terms, in real terms. I was forced to look at the questions to which I either had no answer or never really thought about before. The logic and science behind Noah’s ark and the flood; death, violence and war in contrast to Grace, forgiveness and peace; the role of the devil in mankind’s moral quest and idea of morality outside of religion. It was an adventure that was both frightening and exhilarating. I teetered on the edge of my faith attempting to navigate a landscape that included scientists, witches, homosexuals, Jews and others – and many of them (if indeed they were what they claimed) were perfectly decent folk.

My assumptions and prejudices surfaced like never before. It was easy to condemn acts and lifestyles from the pulpit in a context where most agreed. But to do so in such a liberal environment, and to those who (in some cases) were so respectful of my own faith and position was brand new.  It made me consider the humanity that is often absent in mouth-frothing condemnation of others that has so defined much of religion. It made consider my view of Jesus himself and how he interacted with ‘sinners’.

Pearls & Swine – But Who’s What?

However, despite forging great rapports with some of the most vehement of non-believers the dehumanizing rhetoric, anger, ridicule and hostility continued – indeed flourished. Many threads, despite attempts to engage in reasonable discussion would devolve into a closed commiseration of atheists comparing notes on the virtues of their stance and the inferiority of both religion and the religious. It was the latter point that I found to be most disturbing. All viewpoints are open to deconstruction but to attack an individual’s personhood and freedom to believe as they will is very the thing of which religion has been guilty. The very thing these neo-atheists condemned. But a common response when challenged on this was justification. Many felt they had a right to launch these attacks because of abuse they experienced at the hands of religion and its proposers, because of the relative silence and ostracism of atheists over the years, according to some forum participants.

Still, I found it odd that for persons who had no faith in God, they felt an amazing amount of emotion about the things God did or was supposed to do, according to my or others faith. Some were very angry with the subject they claimed never existed. ‘Why would he let so much pain and misfortune afflict the world?’, ‘why create hell?’, ‘if he is all-powerful why doesn’t he just fix this place?’, they would often ask – truly, we all ask these questions from time to time. But I counter that if one does not believe in God then there is only one other responsible for the state of the world, and therefore only one who has the remedy: mankind. But they rarely argued that point. Some would simply condemn religion for emphasizing how sinful mankind is – but they were doing the same thing by pointing out the reality of human suffering often at the hands of humanity itself.

I was unquestionably disturbed by the approach of some of the neo-atheists and oft argued that their attitude betrayed something about human nature itself. Religion had committed no crime – men had, with religion as their weapon and, I concluded that there seemed to be a movement on the rise that was about to engage in the same crime but with a different weapon. I posit that atheists actually have the opportunity to exercise morality and reasoned argument in exemplary ways because of their non-religious stance. They are not burdened by the baggage religion can bring; the guilt, tradition, formality, heady zeal and practical restrictions. They have no motivation for goodness except goodness itself – no heaven or hell to compel or terrify them, just life, history, morality and science. But I fear many have simply thrown atheism’s hat into the ring of superiority, judgment and self-righteousness that often defines the debate around faith instead of standing outside that ring where they actually belong.

True Respect For All

In the end, my experience taught me that wherever we go we take our character with us. Our personal beliefs, ethos and attitude will ring true regardless of what we may say we believe, or not believe.  The forum, the last time I visited is still dominated by atheists, perhaps all the more, but I still believe in God and I still do my best to follow the teachings of Jesus albeit with a new sense of understanding, curiosity and openness to others. I am left convinced that whether we believe in God or not – whether he is real or not…we sure need him, and now more than ever.

C. Arthur Young

But Seriously: If There is a God - Why so Much Suffering?

'If there is a God, why is there so much suffering?'.

So controversial is this question that some voluntarily give up faith in God because of the unbearable reality of human suffering and death. It is a sort of 'revenge through unbelief' because God hasn't conformed to a particular perspective.

But there are a few assumptions one makes when taking a stance of 'unbelief' due to suffering:

1. Assumption of Omnipotence & Omniscience. Can we determine what is the best case scenario without absolute knowledge & power? The only way we can assume to know the best way to 'run the universe' is if we have the knowledge & ability to do so. One would have to go about managing the interaction between billions of personal choices, actions & attitudes and the impact of collective choice, not to mention the movements of nature itself and ensure the best possible outcome in the face of contradictory desires, agendas and purposes. Any volunteers (let's hope no bankers put their hands up)? Because one has the power to do something doesn't mean it's a good idea, pain-deprivation is not even recommended as a good parenting technique ('spare the rod and spoil the child'). Perhaps the Divine intervenes constantly and in ways that we do not even perceive. Perhaps we are living in the best case scenario and if you were God you would be doing exactly what God is doing, whatever that might be. But our distinct and glaring lack of omniscience, omnipresence and omnipotence leaves us sorely underqualified for the job.

2. Assumption of Suffering. Is all suffering pointless & evil? I think we know the answer is 'No'. People who overcome great adversity or live with seemingly insurmountable challenges are some of our greatest inspirations: The handicapped child filled with joy & laughter, the abused wife and mother who finds love & strength, the martyr who liberates a nation, the bleeding man who dies on a cross. Indeed, suffering often inspires a virtue that without it would be absent in some of us: compassion. It gives some a purpose in life - to help others. Pain can put our lives into perspective, allowing us to see what is really important. If the Bible suggests somewhere that life is painless I could understand the abandonment of faith - but it does the exact opposite and repeatedly acknowledges, not just the reality of suffering in this world, but its cause and value.

3. Assumption of Responsibility. Can we believe it is God's job to ensure 'painlessness' yet expect to have free-will? We can't have both. Much of humankind's pain is self-inflicted and product of free-will. The 'if I were God' argument is played-out every day in our choices when we try to be God rather than be like God. Hence we see bloodshed, rape, poverty, greed etc. Much pain is the result of 'playing God' and doing so very badly. Perhaps our responsibility is to contribute to the reduction of suffering in our sphere of life through honesty, generousity, forgiveness, fidelity, humility etc. We can't abdicate our responsibility to pain we have caused or to alleviating suffering because God is 'in charge', If anything, faith in God should spur us to action rather than blame shifting. Consequently, one is behoved to acknowledge religion's contribution to suffering and perhaps to correct former errors 'in the name of God' as far as possible. As it is, when mankind has been in 'the position of God' he has often made very ungodly choices, hence, '...absolute power corrupts absolutely' rings true more often than not.

4.The Assumption of Death. Death certainly is the source of some of our greatest suffering in this world - as common and universal as it is, we all do it, but that doesn't make it easy. The loss of loved ones and the inevitability of our own death are weighty even to contemplate, not to mention experience. There is a part of us that thinks we should not die - or at least that we should do so only according to our 'rules'. Ideally, one's death should be meaningful and heroic or a quiet passing full of years, surrounded by loved ones with a fulfilling life of success behind us. This of course is not reflected in reality for a great many of us. Death is a certainty - the variable is when and how - we are left to consider how we live, while we live. Jesus faced our greatest of fears most admirably - it suggests that not even God considered himself above suffering and death. Somewhere in there is the secret to dealing with that Dark Veil.

5. Assumption of Alternatives. As much as we consider all the 'what ifs' they don't matter in the face of the great 'What Is'. Unbelief in God doesn't alleviate suffering or remove our responsibility for the way the world is. Indeed, if one claims there is no God then there really is no one else responsible for the suffering in the world but mankind himself (and impartial nature). The Bible suggests that God allows some suffering - even causes it, so we are technically allowed to question the reason behind said 'allowances', hence point 2. In the end we are left with no alternative but to actually do something about our human condition. Life as we know it is not just the best case scenario - it is the only scenario. But we have a say in how this scenario develops.

Rather than ask 'what's God's purpose in all this - just to watch us stumble over our awkward imperfection?', perhaps it is a partnership between us and the Divine. An exchange and interaction between acquiescence & self-determination, surrender & proaction, faith & reason. A balancing act of allowing God to be God and man to be man, while not ignoring the reality of cause and effect or the power of faith and hope to influence our inner and outer reality.

For a working example of victory through tragedy check here.