Yesterday I had a meeting at a local Starbucks. After we got our coffee and sat down I noticed an older man across from me reading a book entitled “A Manual for Creating Atheists” written by a professor at Oregon States named Peter Boghossian.
He would stop occasionally and look around the room. He would leer unpleasantly, seeming to dare anyone who disagreed to debate, presumably to practice the tactics Mr. Boghossian preaches; Socratic discourse and friendly persuasion. Following on the heels of Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, Mr. Boghossian is simply one more in a herd of new atheists who have substituted their own dogma for faith. At least Hitch respected people of faith.
In the UK and in this country, Boghossian has been adopted as the new apostle of an aggressive atheism that seeks to suppress faith one believer at a time. Others have worked through the court system as we have seen a campaign against the 10 Commandments in courthouses and public places.
In San Diego County, the ACLU and a group called the Jewish War Veterans finally found a judge who gave them what they wanted; the removal of a cross on Mt. Soledad erected as part of a war memorial in 1954. There was no request for inclusiveness, simply for the removal of a symbol of faith.
Bill Maher, who in Playboy Magazine years ago noted that he masturbates before every performance wishes for us to believe he is a rationalist even as he degrades those who disagree with his politics and stance on faith in the most belittling and childish terms. There is a phrase for men who masturbate excessively which I will not use but applies to Mr. Maher most aptly.
Even Christmas, a specifically Christian holiday, is under assault by way of bans on religious music, connotations, and celebration in public. Holiday creches, signs of faith and public gatherings are being neutered and bastardized. You can celebrate and consume to your heart’s content, but just don’t mention the reason for the season.
Much of this suppression is being done in the name of civil rights. Freedom from religion has subordinated freedom of religion.
As Dawkins and other atheist fundamentalists argue a purely Darwinian theory of evolution and that genetics supercedes all else, Boghosian uses Derridan deconstructionism and Gramscian historicism to negate 3,500 years of logic, metaphysics, ontology, and apologetics. They discard Socrates, Aristotle, Marcus Aurelius, the Stoics, St. Augustine in favor of the Sophists and a nihilistic worldview.
Kierkegaard argued in Either/Or that the well lived life of purpose and faith is superior to the hedonistic life. And what do we face so much in today’s society? How do we balance purpose and duty with our sense of the aesthetic? Today the battle is between hedonism and faith not only in the conventional sense but in the matter of our very concepts of who we are. It is an existential conflict.
Somehow, the militant atheist seems to believe shit just happened. I would have to ask then which belief system is more absurd? Which withstands intellectual rigor more successfully?
As man advances knowledge we must also advance our relationship with the universe. Every organism and physical substance in our universe is constructed of matter that reflects a complexity far beyond a simple theory. A million monkeys typing on a million typewriters for a million years will still not create Romeo & Juliet or even Animal House.
As we are faced with a universe expanding at an incredible pace from a central point which we may never know and as we attempt to unlock the secrets of the Higgs Boson we are still faced with the fact that we don’t know what we don’t know.
As we find out how lonely our universe is and realize our limitations in space as organic life forms, a very small planet in a very large universe seems to have somehow been singled out for something so wondrous and complex that it is indescribable. Somehow, “primitives” 3,000+ years ago created an ethical and religious system that hangs together far better than the alternative on offer by the atheists.
The sciencists would have us believe that they have the ultimate Truth and yet we can know the fatal flaw in their argument based upon a rational and empirical examination of the facts. When someone asks me to erase 2,500 years of written knowledge that has been examined by the finest minds in history and believe an utterly simplistic theory I must wonder what they are selling.
When sin has been so clearly defined going back to the mists of history and yet rings so true thousands of years later, how can one not believe it to be true? Occam’s Razor.
The battle between evil and good has been at the heart of the great religions from their outset. Sciencism and fundamentalist atheism have no rational structure to support these concepts. If faith is just an illusion, then our legal and ethical structure is simply a house of cards. We cannot evolve our way into an ethical system. Even Voltaire, one of history’s great skeptics, posited the existence of a Supreme Deity through reason.
The new Atheism is more of a childish rebellion against reason and logic than an ethical or philosophical movement. A similar rebellion is referenced in the first sentences of Genesis, the most ancient of Hebrew texts when Satan urged Adam and Eve to rebel against God’s admonition to refrain from eating the fruit. Any parent can relate, I think.
Atheism as an ethical alternative in the modern world simply does not have the logical horsepower of faith. To paraphrase, send better philosophers.