Mark D. Linville has published a short booklet with Ravi Zacharias International Ministries (RZIM) entitled, "Is Everything Permitted? Moral Values in a World Without God?" The booklet begins with the following statement by Linville:
Few news stories have had the profound effect on me as did the shooting rampage at Columbine High School.
Can you guess where this is headed? Linville continues:
[This post was originally published on The Secular Outpost on October 31, 2011. It was republished here on November 9, 2021 with the date manually adjusted to reflect its original publication date.]
Similar to my last post where I quoted the Pope, in this post I am going to quote, without comment, what William Lane Craig has apparently written about the Internet Infidels. In response to a Christian struggling with doubt, Craig writes:
Be on guard for Satan’s deceptions. Never lose sight of the fact that you are involved in a spiritual warfare and that there is an enemy of your soul who hates you intensely, whose goal is your destruction, and who will stop at nothing to destroy you. Which leads me to ask: why are you reading those infidel websites anyway, when you know how destructive they are to your faith? These sites are literally pornographic (evil writing) and so ought in general to be shunned. Sure, somebody has to read them and refute them; but why does it have to be you? Let somebody else, who can handle it, do it. Remember: Doubt is not just a matter of academic debate or disinterested intellectual discussion; it involves a battle for your very soul, and if Satan can use doubt to immobilize you or destroy you, then he will.
I firmly believe, and I think the Bizarro-testimonies of those who have lost their faith and apostatized bears out, that moral and spiritual lapses are the principal cause for failure to persevere rather than intellectual doubts. But intellectual doubts become a convenient and self-flattering excuse for spiritual failure because we thereby portray ourselves as such intelligent persons rather than as moral and spiritual failures. I think that the key to victorious Christian living is not to have all your questions answered — which is probably impossible in a finite lifetime — but to learn to live successfully with unanswered questions. The key is to prevent unanswered questions from becoming destructive doubts. I believe that can be done by keeping in mind the proper ground of our knowledge of Christianity’s truth and by cultivating the ministry of the Holy Spirit in our lives. (emphasis mine)
(As an aside, in that same article, Craig also mentions the role that "popular" (read: non-scholarly) apologetics for the resurrection of Jesus had on his development; he specifically mentions Josh McDowell's, Evidence That Demands a Verdict.)
In another, unrelated Q&A; article regarding middle knowledge, he uses Internet Infidels in an illustration of the concept of "transworld damnation." He writes:
I’m not suggesting that those who die in infancy all suffer from transworld damnation. Under some circumstances those who died in infancy might have grown up to become wonderful Christians; under other circumstances, they might have joined the Internet Infidels. So how could God judge them for the different things they would have done under various circumstances? (emphasis mine)
[This post was originally published on The Secular Outpost on October 28, 2011. It was republished here on November 9, 2021 with the date manually adjusted to reflect its original publication date.]
Earlier this week, I posted a link to an article describing how Newt Gingrich questioned the trustworthiness of atheists in a Republican presidential debate. I just stumbled upon a post at another blog that examines the logical consequences of Gingrich's statement.
[This post was originally published on The Secular Outpost on May 1, 2006. It was republished here on November 7, 2021 with the date manually adjusted to reflect its original publication date.]
Ilya Somin is a law professor at George Mason University who recently wrote several blog entries on prejudice against atheists, especially in the law:
Somin later massaged these posts into a more formal article, "The Final Prejudice," that was published in The Legal Times, but that article is not available online.
Thanks to Eddie Tabash for making me aware of Somin's Legal Times article.
Update: I just read all of the comments on the "Still More..." link. It is amazing, if not depressing, to read such brazen anti-atheist bigotry from some of the respondents.
[This post was originally published on The Secular Outpost on April 29, 2006. It was republished here on November 7, 2021 with the date manually adjusted to reflect its original publication date.]
I recently read a web-exclusive commentary on Newsweek magazine's website by Rabbi Marc Gellman entitled, "Trying to Understand Angry Atheists." The article's sub-title asked the question, "Why do nonbelievers seem to be threatened by the idea of God?" Gellman begins his article with the following words:
I think I need to understand atheists better. I bear them no ill will. I don't think they need to be religious to be good, kind and charitable people, and I have no desire to debate or convert them.
I think these are perfectly reasonable statements and the world would almost certainly be a better place if everyone demonstrated the kind of humility shown by Gellman in his commentary's introduction. Before we go any further, then, allow me to return the favor: I need to understand theists better. I bear them no ill will. I don't think they need to be secular to be rational, intelligent, and well-informed about science. I don't desire to convert theists to atheism, but I do admit that I desire to stop prejudice against atheists.
Returning to Gellman's article, I soon found Gellman making a different type of statement about atheists. He writes:
However, there is something I am missing about atheists: what I simply do not understand is why they are often so angry.
How should atheists respond to Gellman's perplexity?
As an atheist myself, I have to confess it is tempting to get on the defensive. If I were to go down that path, I would probably focus on disproving the assumption that atheists "are often so angry" because I do not consider myself angry even though I am an atheist, and the majority of atheists I know are also not angry. Some atheists are angry, however. In response to Gellman's editorial, those atheists admit they are angry and try to justify it. (See, for example, three of the letters to Newsweek magazine posted on American Atheist's website under a special "Action Alert" about Gellman's article.)
I wonder, however, if defensive strategies are a mistake. Rabbi Gellman said earlier that he bears atheists no ill will, and I take him at his word. Again, he said that he thinks he needs to understand atheists better, so why not take that statement at face value as a genuine request for enlightenment? Moreover, as several atheists themselves have noted, Gellman is by no means the first person to express the belief that atheists are angry. In other words, there is a perception that atheists are angry, and that would still be the case even if the perception were inaccurate at best or a hurtful stereotype at worst.
While I cannot tell other atheists how they should respond to Gellman's perplexity, my own response begins with acknowledgment. Because Gellman's editorial presupposes, not argues, that atheists "are often so angry," I don't know what specific experiences or observations led to his statement. It is not difficult to believe, however, that his only or dominant experience of atheists has been exposure to angry atheists. I can think of at least three reasons why. (There are probably others.)
First, probably the most famous atheist in the United States is the late Madalyn Murray O'Hair, despite the fact that she has now been dead for ten years. O'Hair, who was often called "the most hated woman in America," was surely an angry atheist if there ever were one. Not only was she rude to theists, she was rude to agnostics and even fellow atheists as well. (In fairness to O'Hair, who can no longer defend herself, it must be acknowledged that she suffered horrible emotional injuries for her courage to stand up for what she thought was right. She was the constant recipient of death threats and other forms of harassment, and decades of exposure to such behavior surely took their toll on O'Hair. Nevertheless, she was an adult and fully responsible for her uncivil behavior.) And the failure of many atheist organizations--most notably, American Atheists--to loudly and publicly condemn her behavior has certainly not helped the public's perceptions of atheists.
Second, much of the media coverage of atheists is related to highly controversial church-state issues, issues that are often viewed as petty by non-atheists. Think about it. How often do you see the word "atheist" in a newspaper story that is not related to a church-state issue? And what about the significance of the specific issues raised in atheist-specific lawsuits? Recent atheist-driven lawsuits have focused on the presence of the word "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance and on currency. If I were a theist and did not know any atheists, I can easily imagine myself drawing the same conclusion that Gellman and many other people have drawn, namely, the idea that "nonbelievers seem to be threatened by the idea of God."
Third, I have watched several self-appointed defenders of atheism exhibit uncivil behavior in public debates on God's existence. While I believe such behavior in public debates is the exception rather than the rule, the fact that it happens at all must have a negative impact on the public's perception of atheists.
Even though I think there is evidence that many atheists are not angry (and also that some theists are angry), there is clearly evidence that some high-profile atheists are angry atheists. What to do?
Many atheists have compared the difficulty of leading atheists to the difficulty of herding cats. There is a lot of wisdom in that view. Atheism has no "pope" and I, at least, do not claim to be the leader of the atheist movement. It's not like atheism is a corporation where the bad employees can be fired. Nevertheless, I can think of at least one idea that will help with the situation: accountability. Rather than ask theists to trust us (atheists), I invite them to track us. Hold us accountable. Measure our performance. If a high-profile atheist publicly exhibits unjustified anger or lack of civility, watch and see if any major atheist organizations criticize that atheist. If they don't, then criticize not only the high-profile atheist, but all of the organizations that failed to condemn the behavior. On the flip side, however, if a high-profile atheist does not exhibit anger and does not seem "threatened by the idea of God," then give them credit.
Soon after its inception in 1995, the Internet Infidels instituted a peer review process for all papers submitted for publication in the Secular Web's Modern Library. Although the primary purpose of the peer review process was to ensure the accuracy and quality of the papers selected for publication, a secondary purpose of the peer review process was to ensure that all papers published in the Modern Library were professional. The peer review process was far from perfect and over the years several improvements have been made. Even so, the process has had some successes, including at least one that is relevant to the topic of angry atheists. A high-profile atheist had submitted a paper that definitely came across as angry. I required that it be revised before publication, which it was. Likewise, I am aware of angry atheists engaging in unacceptable behavior on the Internet Infidels Discussion Board, which resulted in their banning from the forum. This should be some consolation to those, like Rabbi Gellman, who are tempted to question why some atheists "are often so angry" or whether the angry atheists are representative of atheists in general.
[This post was originally published on The Secular Outpost on February 16, 2006. It was republished here on November 7, 2021 with the date manually adjusted to reflect its original publication date.]
Imagine a man, Tom, who likes sweets but not ice cream. He has no personal disagreements with anyone who does eat ice cream; he just chooses not to eat ice cream himself. In fact, Tom is friends with several people who will eat ice cream, but no other dessert. Suddenly, out of nowhere, comes an editorial from a prominent TV personality and ice cream lover making all sorts of accusations about people like Tom who don't eat ice cream. According to the editorial, people like Tom dislike the taste of ice cream so much that they are afraid of ice cream and generally unhappy people.
If you were Tom, how would you react? If you are anything like me, you might have mixed emotions, including confusion, sadness, and even outrage. Has this guy ever actually met someone who doesn't like ice cream? Who does this guy think he is? How dare he claim that everyone who doesn't eat ice cream is unhappy! Is society so hostile to people who don't like ice cream that these sort of bigoted remarks are tolerated by a mainstream journalist?
On the website of KOMO TV 4 in Seattle, Washington, Ken Schram posted an analogous editorial about atheists. According to Schram, claimed that atheists have the following characteristics:
As the Center for Religious Tolerance points out, however, this doesn't match the descriptions of atheism that they have witnessed:
Our Atheist staff member reports that they have never performed any of these behaviors. None of the rest of us in this office have either observed them engaging in these behaviors, nor have we seen any of our Atheist friends and acquaintances doing them. They seem to be figments of Ken Schram's imagination.
Figments of Ken Schram's imagination, indeed. But this begs the question: why would a mainstream journalist be perpetuating a stereotype against a minority, a stereotype that could be shown to be false by even minimal investigation? His comments must either be the result of ignorance or dishonesty. In either case, it is obvious that Ken Schram is bigoted against atheists.
We next turn to Schram's armchair psychoanalysis of the millions of atheists around the world. Despite the obvious fact that he doesn't have a clue about atheists, he then proceeds to inform his readers that atheists derive some sort of sadistic pleasure from making theists suffer. Schram writes:
And even though atheists are free to go about their disbelieving ways, that doesn't seem enough to make them happy.
No. What makes atheists happy is making those who believe in God cringe.
So atheists go to court a lot.
Imagine if a prominent journalist wrote, "What makes Jews happy is making non-Jews cringe." Not only would such statements be factually inaccurate, they would be held in moral contempt. Not just Jews, but all reasonable non-Jews, would find such a slur offensive. And while the fact that someone would make such a racial or religious slur would not be news, the fact that a prominent member of the media would make such a slur would be news. There would be protests and calls for the journalist's termination.
Unlike other minorities, however, atheists are probably the only remaining minority in which it is socially acceptable to openly express prejudice against. There are probably two reasons for this. First, there are undoubtedly many people like Schram who share Schram's views. That is not the entire explanation, however. Ironically, I believe that the atheistic community also shares some responsibility for this situation and that leads to my second reason. By "the atheistic community," I don't mean atheistic membership organizations or the individuals who join them. Rather, I mean the millions of atheists who are apathetic about their atheism and in the closet to their families, co-workers, and neighbors. If we as a community aren't willing to defend ourselves, how can we expect anyone else to do so?