Atheists and evangelicals often find themselves on opposite sides of the cultural battle line -- and those battles are becoming more frequent. The rise of "New Atheism" via best-selling books by Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, and the emergence of what I call "Constitutional Evangelicalism" comprised of Christians more likely to know the Second Amendment than the Second Commandment, has inflamed the tensions between the two groups.
But the new breed of atheists and evangelicals may have more in common than they'd like to admit.
For example, some within New Atheism are proselytizing their beliefs with the fervor, and in some cases anger, more often associated with evangelicals. From an international ad campaign on buses dismissing belief in God, to rallies at universities inviting students to exchange their Bibles for pornography, atheists are no longer content with a live-and-let-live approach to those adhering to religion. Instead, they are actively trying to convert (or is the word un-convert?) the masses.
Last October NPR reported that Christopher Hitchens told a packed crowd at the University of Toronto, "I think religion should be treated with ridicule, hatred and contempt, and I claim that right." He told NPR, "If I said to a Protestant or Quaker or Muslim, 'Hey, at least I respect your belief,' I would be telling a lie."
Of course not all atheists agree with Hitchen's evangelistic approach. Paul Kurtz, a more traditional atheist, worries that the rhetoric of Hitchens, Dawkins, and others will actually set the movement back.
"I consider them atheist fundamentalists," Kurtz says. "They're anti-religious, and they're mean-spirited, unfortunately. Now, they're very good atheists and very dedicated people who do not believe in God. But you have this aggressive and militant phase of atheism, and that does more damage than good."
I can't help but see the irony. It appears some New Atheists are incorporating the very traits they've often condemned about evangelicals -- intolerance, dogmatism, and now even the church's penchant for schism. It seems anything can be turned into a religion, even anti-religion.
But evangelicals should take no delight in pointing out the speck in the atheists' eye while a log remains firmly lodged in our own.
The common criticism levied on atheists by evangelicals is that they are prideful -- seeking to live "above God" with no regard for his existence or instructions. Atheists, the argument says, have given up on a theistic universe in favor of a humanist one -- a world in which purpose and truth are fluidly defined by the individual or at best one's community. As a result, some Christians view atheists as adrift, lost, and susceptible to all kinds of error and evil. The solution, say these evangelicals, is to embrace a life "under God" by submitting to his ways.
This "over God" versus "under God" split is what has led to a great many cultural conflicts about same-sex marriage, abortion, stem cell research, public display of religious symbols, prayer in school, and even last month's decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to retain "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance despite arguments from atheists that it violates the First Amendment.
But in their attempts to conform the United States' law and society to God's commands, these culturally crusading evangelicals have exchanged the Gospel of Jesus Christ for a Gospel of Morality. And in the process many of my evangelical sisters and brothers find themselves guilty of the very sin they peg on atheists -- seeking a position of authority above God. Let me explain with a few examples.
Shortly after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, one evangelical leader made the following statement, for which he subsequently apologized:
I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say, "You helped this happen."
Sadly, these kinds of judgments are not uncommon. Other church leaders made similar remarks after Hurricane Katrina in 2005 and following the earthquake in Haiti. Presumably, according to the logic within these proclamations, the way to prevent terrorist attacks and natural disasters in one's country is by earning the Almighty's affection and protection through moral behavior, adherence to prayer, traditional family values, and frequent worship.
This "life under God" approach also applies to individuals. Countless evangelical teens have been taught that if they abstain from sexual activity before marriage God will bless their sex lives after the wedding. Evangelical parents clamor for "biblical" parenting methods guaranteed to result in moral, obedient children. And I've counseled a distraught business owner in my church who believed that if he gave generously to Christ's work, God would prosper his company.
The problem with this "life under God" view of the world, apart from the obvious fact that it doesn't work, is that it is predicated on fear and control rather than love. What drives many who buy into such an approach is not love for one's Creator, but a desire to control God as a means of survival and advancement. Whether an ancient culture sacrificing a virgin in the volcano, or contemporary conservative evangelicalism, the "life under God" view inevitably results in human attempts to control the divine through ritual, morality, and dogmatic manipulation of others.
The great irony is that while claiming submission to God, those advocating a life under God are actually seeking control over him through their religiosity. Pray X, sacrifice Y, avoid Z, and God's blessings are guaranteed. They have reduced God to a predictable, controllable, even contemptible formula. Some evangelicals condemn the atheists for exalting themselves over God without realizing they are guilty of the same sin by other means.
Don't assume that I'm painting all evangelicals with this broad brush of hypocrisy. I am an evangelical, and there are many among us who recognized the danger of exchanging the message of the New Testament for a false message of national morality. But I believe both the New Atheists (advocating life over God) and the Constitutional Evangelicals (advocating life under God) are far closer in their values and worldview than either would like to acknowledge. They are two sides of the same coin. But there is a third dimension; a third way between "live over God" or "live under God." There is also "life with God" -- the Good News of Jesus Christ.
Skye Jethani is an ordained pastor, managing editor of Leadership Journal, and the author of The Divine Commodity: Discovering a Faith Beyond Consumer Christianity. He blogs at www.SkyeJethani.com.
Follow Skye Jethani on Twitter: www.twitter.com/skye_jethani
Absolutely nothing at all.
(The dawn of religion)
There is another more basic connection between Evangelicals and Atheists. Atheists are heretics of Evangelical Protestantism. In other Christian traditions such as the Anglican, Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Coptic etc the priest has been seen as a mediator between God and the people. It was the rejection of that role, and the loss of a community based church proscribed by parishes, dioseses etc in favor of a personal face to face with God that gave one the choice by act of will to deny God and become an atheist. It is much harder to deny a community of believers who form your social universe. Ultimately this is what will diminsh Evengelicalism, as "No Man Is An Island" even in his relationship to God, and the concept of man outside of his relationship to others is a illusion, we are all dependent on others from day we are born.
You wrote: "Atheists are heretics of Evangelical Protestantism".
Not necessarily. You have heretics in other religions.
I'm not saying Evangelicals ar the cause of all Heretics, but Evangelic Christianity is regarded as a catalyst for Atheism.One example In the 19th century, Evangelical Christians tried to find a scientific basis for the Bible, the most famous was William Paley and his book "Natural Theology". he posited a theory of the "Watchmaker", as to how the world was built in 6 days. When Darwin realased The Origin of Species, many moral, well intentioned Evangelical Christians became Atheists as it disproved the "Watchmaker" idea.
We just think they are naive.
"The theological definition of evil is (By Augustine 400AD) "turning away from the love of God" NO this is not a definition and this is not augustine's account of god, only one of its explanations. Augustine's main account of evil is that is simply a movement away from being born in error. Go read Free Choice of the Will or the Soliloquies or On The Trinity or The Enchiridion.
This is the thing that I fin remarkable about you theists, you dont know squat about theology. You regurgitates lines of Augustine that are parasitary on main theses, see no need to show that there is a difference between Augustinian accounts and say--lutheran or calvinist ones--and then in spite of your shortcoming and lack of aptitude in theological matters you preach and feel entitled to tell us about what science is as well.
Why don't you spare us the theological ineptitude so at least we can dislike theology in its highest forms and not attack the anemic type that you spew. Honestly, I think your invisible friends and his friends are formidable, but your megachurch theology is just quaint and completely divorced from the serious stuff.
Radical: from latin radix, root.
Secularist: from saecularis, of the age of the time. By extension taken to be of the present time, of the world as it is, of material actuality (since the 13th century) and not belonging to the order of the divine. Secularism is a simple affirmation of the matters of this world without an allusion or reliance on matters otherwordly. We solidly stand on this side of the ontological divide.
Full post at TheRadicalSecularist.com
Dear Martin Gak
I agree that there are more efficient ways to describe my own convictions.
I never say: “I am an atheist”.
The term “atheist” can be counter productive. For many Full-of-Faith people it seems like atheists are worse than pedophile priests.
I do not think it is essential nor useful to use this term to describe my own world view. This has always been a principle of mine. I learned that to be effective it is better for me to use the term "deeply religious nonbeliever", like Einstein did.
Hitchens and fellow high profile contemporary atheists Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett have often been referred to as "The Four Horsemen".
Christopher Hitchens
Hitchens, for example, describes himself as a secular humanist and “anti-theist”.
Interestingly, this term "anti theist" seems to be confusing to the brainwashed, the indoctrinated, and making it more palatable to them than "atheist".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Hitchens
Sam Harris:
While an atheist by definition, Harris asserts that the term is not necessary. His position is that "atheism" is not a worldview or a philosophy, but the "destruction of bad ideas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Harris_(author)
Dawkins is an atheist, secular humanist, sceptic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins
Dennett is a noted atheist and secularist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Dennett
My issue is simply this:
On political grounds I will continue using the word atheist because it gets my antireligious position across. And I consider myself to be increasingly antireligious. My issue with religion is not--first and foremost--scientific. To me, antiscientific claims among religious communities are more or less irrelevant on their own merits.
The bigger problem with religion is moral, the produce norms and demand actions. IN this regard I consider myself deeply antireligious and fundamentally opposed to demands without justifications.
However, a more nuanced account of the position is secularist in that I don't have a relation of opposition to any god anymore than I am against hobbits or hobgoblins. I am not more an atheist than a ahobgoblinist.
Thank you so much for your comment and for writing: "I believe that if atheists are fair game for evangelical ridicule then they should expect ridicule in return".
Our great founding fathers not only rejected an establishment of a state religion - they also discouraged the promotion of the sulfurous stew of sacred superstitions and arrogance.
DIVINE JUDGMENT AND THE EFFICACY OF PRAYER IS COMPLETELY IMPLAUSIBLE IN LIGHT OF THE CONSISTENCY OF SCIENCE
Myth-Busting, From Galileo To Heisenberg
Matthew Stanley of New York University examines Albert Einstein's declarations about the divine and concludes that he did not believe in a personal God. "To Einstein," Stanley writes, "divine judgment and the efficacy of prayer seemed completely implausible in light of the consistency of science."
And Daniel Patrick Thurs, the author of Science Talk: Changing Notions of Science in American Popular Culture, shows why various 20th-century mystics are mistaken in trying to find "room for spirituality" in the "jostling and overlapping possibilities" of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
http://www.templeton.org/templeton_report/20090528/
-
http://holyheretics.blogspot.com/
Thanks for your response to my post even though I don't fully agree with everything you posted. I realized they are not all your words, but I'm assuming (I know it's dangerous) that since you posted them you at least mostly agree with them.
I'm a recovering evangelical so that's my perspective. So first of all, one of the things I find fascinating is that during my formative years and right up until the time I consciously and intentionally began my leftward migration, Separation of Church and State was a conservative religious belief. Then lo and behold when I arrived at my current placement on the socio-political progressive side of the spectrum, that concept and belief had migrated right along with me. Even if it hadn't, I would have secreted it away from my fellow progressives.
Having said all that, I agree that god is not a personal god. But I also believe that there is a spiritual domain within the Universe. I also believe that under certain circumstances that prayer can have efficacy if presented in the requisite manner. This in being borne out by the emerging discipline called Noetic Science.
The problem that most of us who cop to being spiritual but not religious is that we have no language. Religion has a well-establish language and patois. So discussing what I believe is virtually impossible within those constraints. But I'll keep trying.
As John Adams would have muttered, facts are stubborn things.
Religion cannot give evidence for its core claims, therefore they need proselytes. They attack atheism--secularism is my preferred word--on the grounds that the claims of science and materialism compete with the claims of religion. Religion is now trying to join much of the main claims of atheism--see for instnance the newly found liking of vatican for evolution--simply because when you cannot beat them you may as well join them.
I do not mind being mocked by evangelicals or theists, but in the end the joke is on them, even if by and large the riff raff is not yet ready to recognize what is the force of the better argument.
The issue is indeed quite simple, we have evidence for some of our hypotheses, they have no evidence for their certainties. They also like killing each other, we have a better record because we are used to seeing that we could be wrong, indeed, our very life consist in assessing the correctness of our claims.
Thanks so much for "You cannot pray your way to a noble prize".
That was brilliant!
I always thoroughly enjoy reading what you write. Please keep sharing your wisdom with us.
Perhaps atheism/secularism et al doesn't need proselytizing, but that hasn't stopped some of its adherents for doing so. I have noticed however that Dawkins has dialed back his rhetoric lately. I do submit to you however, that from both my study and experience I have come to believe that there is actually no such thing as objective verification. There's a reason that the word paradigm was coined to discuss science. Any human interpretation of anything is by definition subjective, including this one. I will acknowledge that there are some posit(ions) that are more objective than others however. Even meta-mathematician Kurt Goedel admonished that "Truth is stronger than proof."
Perhaps my strongest opposition to science is that it tends to discount and dismiss experiential data. Sensory input is important as to our understanding of the world as remote observation, and by that I don't mean understanding the bio-medical nature of those experiences. .
As a person who believes in physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual reality I have trouble taking anyone seriously who subscribes to only one, whether it be a religious zealot or a scientific zealot. Both cheat us out of the totality of the human experience.
If everyone talked about beliefs as just that rather than calling their beliefs facts I would be a lot more comfortable with most public discourse.
Attila Honey
What a delight to read your comment. You wrote: “What a waste of space discoursing on Atheists and Evangelicals”.
Many Americans are so gratified that our heroic POST-CHRISTIAN FOUNDING FATHERS did not consider it “a waste of time” to preoccupy themselves with religion. We are thrilled they “hanged around” the religious issue and that Thomas Jefferson concluded that most of the Christian Bible is a stinking “dunghill”.
That is why Thomas Jefferson rejected the divinity of Jesus and produced his own Bible from which he removed all the sacred superstitions. That is why our great Founding Fathers gifted all of us with a GODLESS CONSTITUTION.
We are blessed with a multitude of sects, cults and superstitions. But we are also blessed with Freedom from established superstitions.
Even in the most reactionary religious regions in this country, in the heart of the Bible-belt, in the strongholds of “full of faith” politicians such as Sarah Palin and born-again Bush, you can’t teach Creationism in science classes anymore.
The fact is you know absolutely nothing more about the pie-in-the-sky than our great Founding Fathers or Einstein could grasp. But you have the freedom to practice Christian voodoo or any other voodoo you like. You can worship idols too.
When you wrote: “Your blog is insulting to anyone who has one iota of love in their heart for God.”
The blog is “insulting” perhaps to God addicts. But facts have value too, not just delusions. The medicine can be beneficial even when it is bitter.
For those of us who polish Thomas Jefferson “diamond”, the Golden Rule, who care about people more than about pies-in-the-sky there is more virtue in progress that in the pretence that voodoo is a good thing to inculcate in our children.
CHANTING HAITIAN VOODOO CELEBRANTS HONOR QUAKE DEAD
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100328/wl_nm/us_quake_haiti_voodoo
All religions are in fact voodoo - something without basis: a belief, theory, or method that lacks sufficient evidence or proof. But we must value facts too.
We must preserve our cherished freedom for all superstitions and never establish an official one.”
Richard Dawkins said he is glad Pat Condell is on "our" side.
I HIGHLY RECOMMEND WATCHING HIS VIDEOS.
Did you watch this excellent video?
PAT CONDELL - THE ARROGANCE OF CLERGY
http://www.mefeedia.com/watch/24078685
http://godlesscomedy.blip.tv
Pat Condell
The Powerful Prince of Godless Comedy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Condell
PAT CONDELL - GODLESS COMEDY
http://godlesscomedy.blip.tv/
http://www.patcondell.net/
http://www.youtube.com/user/patcondell
TO A PHILOSOPHIC EYE, THE VICES OF THE CLERGY ARE FAR LESS DANGEROUS THAN THEIR VIRTUES.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=safari&tbo=p&rls=en&tbs=bks%3A1&q=the+vices+of+the+clergy+are+far+less+dangerous+than+their+virtues.&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=
(John XXIII, 1414) The most serious charges were suppressed ; the Vicar of Christ (Pope John XXIII, 1414) was accused only of piracy, murder, rape, sodomy, and incest.)
Edward Gibbon 1737-1794
Edward Gibbon (April 27, 1737[notes 1] – January 16, 1794) was an English historian and Member of Parliament. His most important work, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, was published in six volumes between 1776 and 1788.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=safari&tbo=p&rls=en&tbs=bks%3A1&q=the+vices+of+the+clergy+are+far+less+dangerous+than+their+virtues.&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=
I missed you.
MEN WILL NEVER BE FREE UNTIL THE LAST KING IS STRANGLED WITH THE ENTRAILS OF THE LAST PRIEST”
Denis Diderot. French man of letters and philosopher, 1713-1784
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denis_Diderot
http://books.google.com/books?id=kUTMrfPznpYC&pg=PA2&dq=MEN+WILL+NEVER+BE+FREE+UNTIL+THE+LAST+KING+IS+STRANGLED+WITH+THE+ENTRAILS+OF+THE+LAST+PRIEST%E2%80%9D&hl=en&ei=eui8S8mCCYvctgPNrtyIBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CD0Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false