This
rather long article from
guardian.co.uk, is a fair editorial piece that explains how the New Atheists use similar "evangelistic" tactics that they condemn in Christianity. Furthermore, it reveals some of the holes in their simplistic arguments - which is helpful for understanding the problems with this movement. Below are a few penetrating quotes:
"Just as much as these religions, it is a project of universal conversion. Evangelical atheists never doubt that human life can be transformed if everyone accepts their view of things, and they are certain that one way of living - their own, suitably embellished - is right for everybody. To be sure, atheism need not be a missionary creed of this kind. It is entirely reasonable to have no religious beliefs, and yet be friendly to religion. It is a funny sort of humanism that condemns an impulse that is peculiarly human. Yet that is what evangelical atheists do when they demonise religion."
"Dawkins's "memetic theory of religion" is a classic example of the nonsense that is spawned when Darwinian thinking is applied outside its proper sphere."
"Dawkins makes much of the oppression perpetrated by religion, which is real enough. He gives less attention to the fact that some of the worst atrocities of modern times were committed by regimes that claimed scientific sanction for their crimes. Nazi "scientific racism" and Soviet "dialectical materialism" reduced the unfathomable complexity of human lives to the deadly simplicity of a scientific formula. In each case, the science was bogus, but it was accepted as genuine at the time, and not only in the regimes in question. Science is as liable to be used for inhumane purposes as any other human institution. Indeed, given the enormous authority science enjoys, the risk of it being used in this way is greater."
"The problem with the secular narrative is not that it assumes progress is inevitable (in many versions, it does not). It is the belief that the sort of advance that has been achieved in science can be reproduced in ethics and politics. In fact, while scientific knowledge increases cumulatively, nothing of the kind happens in society. Slavery was abolished in much of the world during the 19th century, but it returned on a vast scale in nazism and communism, and still exists today. Torture was prohibited in international conventions after the second world war, only to be adopted as an instrument of policy by the world's pre-eminent liberal regime at the beginning of the 21st century. Wealth has increased, but it has been repeatedly destroyed in wars and revolutions. People live longer and kill one another in larger numbers. Knowledge grows, but human beings remain much the same."
This article brings some interesting questions! I LOVE questions! If you've read this far, than maybe you'll be open for discussing a few ideas:
The New Atheists want a religion free nation. Would that hurt our help us? The Church in China seems to be exploding under oppression. Would that work for us?
Why are the New Atheists so convinced we bring about evil? I think it's because we've done a poor job of representing Jesus, what do you think? Why do they lump us in the category of radical Muslims?
If you read the full article, the author gives examples of how the worship of science leads to some embarrassing assumptions and mistaken conclusions. How is this affecting our culture now?
Other thoughts?
