This one will be a bit off the normal for me, but I feel it is necessary. The reason that I feel it necessary is because the subject of this post feels it necessary to create disharmony towards others. A decidedly un-Christian like thing to do. Before I get into this, most of the post I'm replying to is included here as is necessary to demonstrate why I feel the way I do about it. The link to the original is included.
--------------------------------------------------
timeline graph is at
http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/9234/occamsrazorbu0.jpg
'Atheism Remix' - Understanding and Answering the New Atheism
http://www.christianpost.com/article/20080811/-atheism-remix-understanding-and-answering-the-new-atheism.htm
Atheism is not a new concept. Even the Bible speaks of the one who tells himself in his heart, "There is no God."
Mon, Aug. 11, 2008 Posted: 11:21 AM EDT
Atheism is not a new concept. Even the Bible speaks of the one who tells himself in his heart, "There is no God." Atheism became an organized and publicly recognized worldview in the wake of the Enlightenment and has maintained a foothold in Western culture ever since. Disbelief in God became part of the cultural landscape in the 1960s when TIME magazine published a cover story--"Is God Dead?"--that seemed to herald the arrival of a new secular age.
Fortunately, atheism is not a new idea. It is the base thought, the wellspring from which existential angst flows, and the requisite pre-cursor to religion of any kind. When he states that atheism has become an organized world view I have to choke back the coffee ready to spurt out of my mouth. Organized? I have no clue what dictionary he uses, but he should read the entry for organization again. From www.m-w.com:
Main Entry: organized
Function: adjective Date: 1817
1 : having a formal organization to coordinate and carry out activities
2 : affiliated by membership in an organization (as a union)
Atheism is neither of these! He then follows up with blaming TIME magazine for heralding the arrival of a new secular age. Let's look at that another way, with some objectivity. What TIME magazine did was question the validity of religion in view of it's appearance of waning, albeit opaquely. From the TIME article at http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,835309-1,00.html
Even clergymen seem to be uncertain. "I'm confused as to what God is," says no less a person than Francis B. Sayre, the Episcopal dean of Washington's National Cathedral, "but so is the rest of America." Says Marty's colleague at the Chicago Divinity School, the Rev. Nathan Scott, who is also rector of St. Paul's Episcopal Church in Hyde Park: "I look out at the faces of my people, and I'm not sure what meaning these words, gestures and rituals have for them."
Nevertheless, atheists have represented only a small (if vocal) minority of Americans. Surveys estimate that atheists represent less than two percent of the population, even as the larger group of "unaffiliated" includes over fifteen percent.
A small vocal minority? What he means is that all of Christendom has been unable to persuade a handful of people to change their minds. Failed to do so. and continues to fail to do so, but blames the small group of vocal listeners for the failure of the the Christian message to convince them. As can be gleaned from the TIME article, society and the church itself coerce people to belong to the church et al as "silent atheists."
Atheists have published books, held seminars, presented their views in the media, and honed their points in public debates. As a worldview, atheism is over-represented among the intellectual elites, and atheists have largely, though not exclusively, talked to their own.
Over-represented? Ok, stop laughing. What he means is that (and this will seem negative) the majority of Christians that he knows are not intellectual and not elite. Elite, meaning: d: a group of persons who by virtue of position or education exercise much power or influence (from m-w.com) Now ask yourself why Christianity is not 'over-represented' in the intellectual 'elites' demographic? Then he follows with "... talk to their own", again intimating that atheists are a group, organized, a kind of social club. This is completely not true. If atheists happen to get together and speak of not believing in god, it's a quick and dull conversation, like two women who despise football discussing the pros and cons of the penalty for clipping. Atheists have no reason to bring up 'not believing in a god' in conversation because it is really not on their mind. It's not a creed we live by. Speaking of the 'elite', try this link: http://www.alternet.org/story/95109/
Until now. Get on an airplane, settle in for a flight, and observe what other passengers are reading. You are likely to see books representing a new wave of atheism as you look around the cabin. The so-called "New Atheists" have written best-sellers that have reached far beyond the traditional audience for such books. Books by Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens have spent weeks and months on the best-seller list published by The New York Times. Clearly, something is happening.
Uh, yes, something is happening but not what he is trying to get you to believe. Rather than atheists numbers growing rampantly, we see public evidence of Christian ranks diminishing. Why does he think these books are doing so well? Perhaps he doesn't want to admit that his bible is failing to capture the attention of people who think for themselves. Perhaps the message he espouses does not hold via answers when compared the cold light of scientific investigation of the world around us. Remember, the church et al used to tell us the world is flat.
The New Atheism is not just a reassertion of atheism. It is a movement that represents a far greater public challenge to Christianity than that posed by the atheistic movements of previous times. Furthermore, the New Atheism is not just another example of marketing an idea in the postmodern age. The New Atheists are, in their own way, evangelistic in intent and ambitious in hope. They see atheism as the only plausible worldview for our times, and they see belief in God as downright dangerous - an artifact of the past that we can no longer afford to tolerate, much less encourage.
When he calls atheism a 'far greater public challenge' he insinuates that Christianity has gone relatively unchallenged previously, and that somehow this group of people who are NOT organized, have no clubs, have no meeting houses, are going to convert the Christians to be... well, not Christians; by challenging them to thinking critically about life. As I remember things, people have been challenging the human race to think critically about the world for hundreds if not thousands of years. So what changed? I believe that what changed is that now people are starting to pay attention. We'll get into that a bit more further down.
UPDATE: I want to feel comfortable with the words I use and their greater intent. It's taking some time to complete this post because I wanted to research a bit. In the way of a correction, atheist are in fact creating clubs, meetings, gatherings, and even places to do so. This is something that I, even as an atheist, was unaware of until this week. I have to say that pseudo militant atheism is probably not my style, but there is room for it in the greater community. (slappy comment next) After all, how many wars were started due to a non-belief in a god?
You can Google for groups of atheists if you want to know more. Alternatively, YouTube has some good videos from such groups also.
Here is where he starts to get a bit nasty, dogmatic, and, well... a bit crazed with propaganda.
They see science as on their side, and argue that scientific knowledge is our only true knowledge. They argue that belief in God is organized ignorance, that theistic beliefs lead to violence and that atheism is liberation. They are shocked and appalled that Americans refuse to follow the predictions of the secularization theorists, who had assured the elites that belief in God would be dissolved by the acids of modernity. They have added new (and very important) arguments to the atheistic arsenal. They write from positions of privilege, and they know how to package their ideas. They know that the most important audience is the young, and they are in a position to reach young people with their arguments.
There we have it. It's quite alright for the church to indoctrinate the young to believe in a deity, but not ok for anyone else to give them more information so that they can make up their own minds. There is a similar blog post over at AiG http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/01/16/new-atheists who also claim the right to be sole source of mind numbing indoctrination of the young in society. His assertion that atheists have some kind of advantage is wrong, and the surge in vocal atheism is due (IMO) to the Christian's assertion that the western world was founded on Christianity and should be ruled by it. In the USA, this is arguably what we like to call "flame bait".
It becomes clear that the New Atheism has exploited an opening presented by significant and seismic changes in prevailing patterns of thought. In this light, the contributions of philosopher Charles Taylor become especially helpful. We must acknowledge that most educated persons living in Western societies now inhabit a cultural space in which the conditions of belief have been radically changed. Whereas it was once impossible not to believe and later possible not to believe, for millions of people today, the default position is that it is impossible to believe. The belief system referenced in this formula is that of biblical theism--the larger superstructure of the Christian faith.
Here, again, I have to take an opposing view. Theist and atheist alike no longer believe in Zeus, Apollo, Thor etc. Science has long ago shown these deities were false beliefs. Essentially atheists only believe in one less deity than Christians. I am confused how we who are living in the societies he describes would not accept that further scientific exploration would lead to the fall in belief of this one remaining deity? Why would the trend not continue? He does agree with the trend as it has played out so far, right? Well, except for the "flat Earthers", "Young Earthers", and a few other cults. So, overwhelmingly, we as a species agree on the way this play has gone so far.
In terms of our own evangelistic and apologetic mandate, it is helpful to acknowledge that only a minority of those we seek to reach with the Gospel are truly and self-consciously identified with atheism in any form. Nevertheless, the rise of the New Atheism presents a seductive alternative for those inclined now to identify more publicly and self-consciously with organized nonbelief. The far larger challenge for most of us is to communicate the Gospel to persons whose minds are more indirectly shaped by these changed conditions of belief.
Ok, here he makes a certain kind of sense... if you are able to accept that he believes it is a mandate from God that he and other Christians convert you and I to their particular form of insanity. Not just any form of religion worshiping the God of Abraham, but their particular sect. He's not about to settle for you converting to Catholicism or Islam. No, you must worship as he does and donate your time and money to 'his' causes.
The greater seduction is towards the only vaguely theistic forms of "spirituality" that have become the belief systems (however temporarily) of millions. These are people who, as Daniel Dennett suggests, are more likely to believe in belief than to believe in God.
The Christian church must respond to the challenge of the New Atheism with the full measure of conviction and not with mere curiosity. We are reminded that the church has faced a constellation of theological challenges throughout its history. Then, as now, the task is to articulate, communicate, and defend the Christian faith with intellectual integrity and evangelistic urgency. We should not assume that this task will be easy, and we must also refuse to withdraw from public debate and private conversation in light of this challenge.
Here he talks about defending the Christian faith. Defending it from what? Did Christ advocate that Peter attack the guards who came to arrest Jesus? I think even in the philosophical sense of the word defend, he advocates an offense with his words. An offense with a single-minded goal of converting all to his sect's particular values. This is not Christ-like, and in view of a secular society it offends the intellect of critical thinkers and those who would not have the country run by preachers.
In the final analysis, the New Atheism presents the Christian church with a great moment of clarification. The New Atheists do, in the end, understand what they are rejecting. When Sam Harris defines true religion as that "where participants' avowed belief in a supernatural agent or agents whose approval is to be sought," he understands what many mired in confusion do not. In the end, the existence of the supernatural, self-existent, and self-revealing God is the only starting point for Christian theology.
Sounds like lucid thought?
Followed by:
God possesses all of the perfections revealed in Scripture, or there is no coherent theology presented in the Bible. The New Atheists are certainly right about one very important thing--it's atheism or biblical theism. There is nothing in between.
How does he 'know' that God possesses all these things? How can anyone know? There is no proof of the existence of God, much less what his existence consists of. Oh yeah, it's in the Bible... as we know that it was written/inspired by God himself because it tells us this. When he notes that it can be only biblical theism or atheism he negates the value or worth of the Jew and the Muslim, the Buddhist and the Hindu. I state here and now, evangelical Christians are bigots and racists and they feel justified in their beliefs because a book tells them to be so, not critical thinking or compassion.
This is adapted from my new book, 'Atheism Remix: A Christian Confronts the New Atheists' (Crossway Books), which has just been released and is available through your local bookstore.
Adapted from R. Albert Mohler Jr.'s weblog at www.albertmohler.com.
___________________________________________________
R. Albert Mohler, Jr. is president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. For more articles and resources by Dr. Mohler, and for information on The Albert Mohler Program, a daily national radio program broadcast on the Salem Radio Network, go to www.albertmohler.com. For information on The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, go to www.sbts.edu. Send feedback to mail@albertmohler.com. Original Source: www.albertmohler.com.
R. Albert Mohler, Jr.
Christian Post Guest Columnist
There we have it. A vaguely worded call to arms among the Christian faith. No physical violence is spoken of, nor approved, but you would not expect a Christian Jihad to look exactly like an Islamic one. In all of his rant, he failed to mention why there is a call to convert everyone in the universe to Christianity. Lets look at that for understanding:
http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/mission/george_khodr_christian_mission.htm There is a bit of word on that. If this is viewed with the fact that Zionists, neocons, and Muslims believe that they can force the second coming of god by creating the prerequisites of Armageddon, then you have a reason for converting atheists to Christianity: For the war. Yes, that is a bit far out. Remember that the average christian is "following orders" and not debating theology with great minds of our time. We have already established the precept that "I was just following orders" is not an acceptable defense.
I truly believe that if every person was made to learn history, the inner-workings of the catholic church, the inside details of how their sect came to be, why there are so many sects etc. they would begin to question the word of the leaders of their church, and in fact all churches. It is not necessary to prove to them that evolution is true, only ask them to question the authority of their own religion. I would never question their faith, but I would question the veracity of the leaders whose words they believe. From www.m-w.com, faith by definition is:
1 a: allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b
(1): fidelity to one's promises
(2): sincerity of intentions2
a (1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God
(2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
b (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof
(2): complete trust
(3): something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of
religious beliefs
In the link I gave about why Christians are 'called' to witness, the integrity of the witness is discussed. In this, I challenge Christians to examine in depth the integrity of the leadership of their church and religious sect, both currently and historically. If your message is spread by blatant sinners, how good is the message?
Yes, that is not a good argument, but it is only offered as inspiration to question the foundations of christian beliefs and their origins. R. Albert Mohler Jr. incites Christians to oppose atheism, to defend Christian faith while forgetting to explain why such should be done. It is assumed by both RAM and his presumed readership that the reasons are known and proven. I say they are neither.
Christ advocated that followers be witnesses by deed, not word. He hung out with sinners, prostitutes and taxmen, not to mention the unclean and those dying of diseases. He advocated that your actions should convince others, not simply your words. I think I'd like to see more of that kind of Christian, and less of the kind that is going to war against atheists. In their zealotry, it is this type of Christian that would report you to DHS for being non-christian and thus unpatriotic or suspect.
I am reasonably certain that the founding fathers of the USA really did not want that kind of situation. That might be why 'one nation under god' and 'in god we trust' were no where to be found in the first years of the USA. Yes, added later by zealots and those wishing to not offend them. I think it's time to rethink this idea that Christianity == good and everything else == bad. Anyone teaching or professing such notions should perhaps be ridiculed, especially if they are indoctrinating young children, old and vulnerable people, and trying to insinuate such beliefs into the legislative and judicial systems.
Just some thoughts for a Sunday
