Why is militant atheism so arrogant?

Well, judging by P. Z. Myer's response, we're not going to get anywhere by asking militant atheists to be kind. Apparently "[i]t's silly to demand that we respectfully engage the clownish buffoons of religion", because "the goofiness of religion is a wonderful target for humor". After all, "their bliss-ninny belief system is an unsalvageable stew of raw sewage spiced with smug ignorance."

Why the invective? It's because "[w]e know that millions of good people cherish their delusions. We don't care; that a lie makes people feel good doesn't make it a truth."

There it is in black & white. They don't care!

I just don't get it. How can these militant atheists insist that they are morally superior, and behave in such an obviously relationship-denying, trust-destroying, character-damaging manner?

To have a harmonious community - be it a family, a local suburb, a city, nation, or world - we need people who behave in a way that builds personal trust and relationships. That is, we need people who genuinely care about each other. These militant atheists don't care. Correction: the only thing they seem to care about is rudely and violently imposing their beliefs on anyone who remotely disagrees with them. So I don't trust them to have healthy relationships or build healthy communities.

This concern of mine is not, I submit, a purely Christian one. I think it can be shared by anyone who's not as bombastic as the new atheists - including non-bombastic, open-minded atheists. The media response to the Global Atheists Convention is a case in point.

Thoughts, anyone?

Comments

Roger Gallagher said…

Hi Kamal,

I think two factors are at work in the militant atheist's comments:
1) One of the notable features of their comments was their belief that atheists are inherently intellectually superior to those who believe in God.
2) Last night on the ABC radio programme Sunday Nights, one of the panellists made the comment that religious organisations can start believing that they're in the business of doing good, so all they do must be good, and how dare you suggest otherwise! It appears that the militant atheists have fallen into the same mental trap. Religion is inherently evil, and those who follow it are obviously morons, so it doesn't matter how we treat them, because we're the good guys.

22 March 2010 at 23:28

The different distractions of secularity and spirituality

There has been a lot of discussion about the recent 'vibe shift' away from radical atheism back towards an openness to the supernatural. I don't think this new spirituality is necessarily an openness to the unique claims of Christ. It will more probably replace one set of commonly-accepted misunderstandings about Jesus with another. Under radical atheism, people dismissed the Biblical claims about Jesus' resurrection because they 'knew' that it was impossible. Jesus hadn't really died. He just passed out (after being beaten and whipped and crucified) and then woke up in the tomb (and rolled away the stone himself and overcame several guards). Or the disciples hallucinated that they saw him (even though Jewish beliefs of the time didn't expect one person to rise possessing eternal life himself; they expected a general resurrection at the end of time - see John 11:24 ). Or something else. The so-called 'explanations' of Jesus' non-resurrectio...

A better understanding of nonbelief

The Nones Project is an ongoing study into the belief systems of people who call themselves non-religious. A few weeks ago one of the project leaders, Ryan Burge of Washington University, posted some really interesting preliminary results on his Substack. 1. We've probably heard of people who are spiritual but not religious (SBNRs). SBNRs were "the largest group of nones" in the sample. They believe in the supernatural realm but not necessarily in "a God." They are "deeply skeptical of religion but highly interested in spirituality," therefore individualistic and anti-institutional. 2. But this study differentiated SBNRs from people they called Nones In Name Only, NiNos. They different to SBNRs by being religious about their spiritual. They believe not just in the supernatural but in "God." And they tend to engage in traditional communal religious practices while SBNRs practice individualised eclectic bespoke spiritual practices. The s...

Wax and Wright on the definition of "mission"

Trevin Wax has written a clear, simple, and charitable introduction to a debate about the nature and boundaries of the kinds of Christian activities that validly should be called "mission." In brief: Should we use a broad definition, where "mission" encompasses all the various purposes which God calls Christians and the church in general to perform, e.g. being ethical at work; general acts of care and charity; standing against systematic oppression and working towards justice instead? If so, "evangelism" is only one part of the church's mission - a central, necessary, and irreplaceable part, but only one part nonetheless. The latter kinds of activities don't save anyone for eternity, but they do genuine good in this world which please God. And that kind of good makes a real difference in many parts of the world which have not benefited from the kind of Christian moral transformation which the West benefited from - the kind of moral transformation...

Multicultural Ministry Matters

Search This Blog