Time Immortal

The talented author reminds us once again that the arguments of the New Atheists (Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, and Sam Harris, to name but four) are nothing new. The only two good arguments for atheism were done away with by St. Thomas Aquinas some 900 years ago…and all the New Atheists have to offer is rehashings of old, already useless arguments.

Seventy-thousand eyewitnesses (including atheists and skeptics) to the Miracle of the Sun at Fatima are told by the stay-at-home dogmatist that it was spontaneous mass hallucination unprecedented in history.

People who have experienced scientifically documented and inexplicable healings at Lourdes are commanded by New Atheists to believe they are victims or perpetrators of some sort of unnamed “excess.”

A Host begins bleeding human blood at a Mass in Betania, Venezuela, and the whole thing is caught on video by an ordinary tourist? Conspiracy and trick photography, despite the fact that the Host (still preserved in a monstrance after being subjected rigorous tests) continues to bleed now and then to this day.

And when the resolve to Just Not Look begins to crumble under the suspicion there might be something to the supernatural after all, the solution is “Pop in a DVD of the Amazing Randi or Penn and Teller debunking something and repeat to yourself ‘Some claims of the supernatural are bunk, therefore all are.’”

Atheists might have had a chance at convincing me that my faith was just superstitious bunk back in my early teens, when I was having the obligatory adolescent crisis of doubt. Fortunately, someone hooked me up with a copy of the Summa Theologica, and there was never again any risk that I’d fall in to such lunacy.

I’ve always been fascinated by atheism, or rather by secularism in general. Not in a “sign me up” sense of the word, but in the sense of regarding them as a curiousity of sorts. I can understand that person could believe that there is no God, no spiritual dimension to our existence, but what I cannot understand — what fascinates me — is the smug self-assurance, the 100% conviction of empirical correctness, the arrogant dismissal of those who do believe in something supernatural as under-educated and ignorant, or delusional, or in need of an emotional crutch. I’m not saying that believers aren’t 100% convinced of the correctness of their position — many are. But I am saying that what fascinates me about atheism as a belief system is that it arrogantly dismisses every other belief system as a child’s fairy tale, a coping mechanism, at the same time refusing to acknowledge its own nature.

Because what is atheism, and indeed what is secularism, if not a belief system unto itself, one that worships as deity such things as the individual person, or government, or science?

I was visiting Meta Religion, another of those websites devoted to promoting understanding between all the varied and often eclectic faith systems of the world. Unlike Religious Tolerance.org, however, I found that some of the articles on Meta Religion were somewhat meaningful. In particular, I was impressed by their inclusion of articles by Ian Barbour, one of the leading proponents of dialogue between faith and science today.

However, Meta Religion showed many of the same biases that Religious Tolerance.org shares with the modern atheist/secularist. If you bother to browse all the non-Christian faith descriptions on the website, you’ll find links to transcriptions of their holy texts, analysis of their beliefs, and a generally open-minded view of even the more bizarre belief systems in the world. But if you flip over to the Christian faith description, you’ll find something else. The analysis, the transcribed holy books, and even some lesser-known books (Gospel of Thomas, the Dead Sea Scrolls, etc.) can still be found, but also included is a section of “anti-Christian” articles.

When I saw that, I immediately clicked back to the description of Islam, and then to that of Buddhism, then of Judaism, and then randomly through other belief systems from there. In no other place, for no other religion, did I find articles of refutation and harsh criticism. In no other place did I find links to articles proclaiming that religion evolved as a comforting response to stress. In no other place did I find links to atheist literature. In no other place did I find links to the holy texts of other religions and discussions of the ‘parallels’ that exist. In no other place did I find links to lists of Biblical ‘contradictions’.

And that got me thinking.

In years of debating in web forums, in years of discussions with friends who are atheist, or at least secular humanist ‘agnostics’ (which is different from atheism…how?), it has become clear to me that the average atheist does not reject all concepts of God, despite claiming to. Instead, the rejection is almost exclusively that of the Christian God, and it seems to me that the majority of an argumentative atheist’s energies are directed into refuting Christian beliefs almost exclusively. Which I find interesting, to say the least — for a group that prides itself on its ability for logical and rational analysis, atheists seem only too willing to conflate all religions into Christianity, or a distorted perception thereof.

And at the core of it, the arguments aren’t even that well thought-out. Take my one friend’s quick criticism of the Bible: that it was written by a bunch of old men. Well, granted that most of the authors were male. Were they senior citizens at the time it was written? Some of them probably were older, but others were probably quite young. We really can’t say with any certainty — not that this minor factual error seems to be an obstacle to my friend’s hasty condemnation.

Take the other favourite condemnation of Religion, Christianity in particular: that religion is an evolved response to external emotional/psychological stress and worry, that it is a coping mechanism to deal especially with the problem of death. As an argument, this might have some merit, but there is a converse argument that has equal merit that most secularists are unwilling to discuss. Is it not possible that, as the pinnacle of evolution on Earth that humanity seems to be, we have evolved in such a way that our minds and hearts, our psycholgical and emotional selves, are ‘tuned in’ to God in a way that no other animal can enjoy? Is it not possible that God has used the process of evolution to create at last a being that He is able, in a small but powerful way, to actually communicate with? Is it not possible that an understanding of God, an ability to perceive the works of and perceive the call of purpose from God, is the ultimate outcome of neurological evolution? Perhaps the believers are not the ignoramuses after all, but the more evolved among us after all. Jesus taught that the meek shall inherit the Earth — perhaps this is the victory of the simple, the mundane, over the intellectual secular elite.

At this point, those of you of the atheist/secular persuasion are probably scoffing, and you’d be right to challenge me to produce evidence of such an evolution, or evidence of God more preferably, and of course I cannot provide either. I am, first, a man of faith, and though I believe that God is real and that He sent His only son Jesus to die for my sins, I will be the first to tell you that I cannot prove to you that any of that is true. I have personally experienced the touch of God, and in my own life my faith has made many positive changes and differences, and helped me to hold on to things long after anyone else would have been inclined to let go. But this is anecdotal, and nothing you would, or should, believe as empirical evidence.

But if, o reader, you think that my lack of evidence for God is proof that there is no God, think again. The scientific method dictates differently. A lack of evidence does not correspond to a disproof. It only means you haven’t yet found the evidence — you haven’t looked under the right rock. If you want to prove there is no God, you cannot point to a lack of proof on my part, but must instead produce proof of your own (cognizant, I would hope, of the fact that it is harder to prove a negation) to show that there is no God. Otherwise, any atheist/secularist statement you make falls on my ears as a statement not of fact, but as a statement of faith.

Atheists/secularists will tell you that they do not believe in God, but that in and of itself is not an atheistic statement. A Wiccan might easily make the same claim, but nobody would accuse a Wiccan of not believing in something supernatural. Likewise, a Hindu might make the claim, for Hindu is not a monotheistic religion…but nobody would accuse a Hindu of not believing in other gods.

No, an atheist instead believes there is no God. And it is a belief, because like me they can present no empirical evidence to support their claim. In many respects, it is more than just a belief or a faith — it is a religion. Ever visit an atheist website, or tripped over a militant atheist in a web-forum? There is not just a belief there — there is a vested interest in proselytization there. And a strong anti-Christian focus. If you asked me if I’d ever met an atheist who was openly critical of Allah, I would have to answer you “no”.

I realize that throughout its history, the Church has caused a number of problems, and been involved in some despicable practices. But if you think about it, that’s all in the Bible. We as humans are not perfect — we screw up from time to time. That’s what sin is. Usually it’s greed, or lust, or a desire for power and control, that has led Church officials and members into scandal and worse. Where I think many people make a great logical error is equating that with an evil underpinning of the religion itself. But ultimately, that’s not what it’s about. Yes, religious people make mistakes and commit sins. That means that (surprise!) religions are composed of people with the same human flaws and weaknesses that afflict the non-religious! It categorically does not mean that the religion itself is flawed, or evil, or sinful.

So if you’re an atheist, be consistent — denounce all religions with equal fervor. Or denounce none — just do as you ask Christians to do and keep your beliefs to yourself.

And to Meta Religions, I would just like to express my disappointment. Again, be consistent — if you’re going to publish denunciations of religion alongside the links to pro-Christian articles and transcriptions of our holy texts, please also publish those denunciations alongside the analysis of other religions. Or better still, put them in an Atheism section of the site.