Back in the seventies and eighties I read quite a few of the articles that appeared in The New Republic. Although always left of center, the magazine at that time had little use for liberal pieties and published fairly iconoclastic articles shattering many idols of the left. Alas those days are long ago, and The New Republic has fallen into the lock step ideological conformity that makes the portside of our politics such a gray place. However, apparently, not always. John Gray has a piece on Richard Dawkins, that must not be missed. How good it is may be gauged by the anguished bleats of the faithless in the comments section. I especially enjoyed this portion of Mr. Gray’s article:
Exactly how Dawkins became the anti-religious missionary with whom we are familiar will probably never be known. From what he writes here, I doubt he knows himself. Still, there are a few clues. He began his pilgrimage to unbelief at the age of nine, when he learned from his mother “that Christianity was one of many religions and they contradicted each other. They couldn’t all be right, so why believe the one in which, by sheer accident of birth, I happened to be brought up?” But he was not yet ready to embrace atheism, and curiously his teenage passion for Elvis Presley reinforced his vestigial Christianity. Listening to Elvis sing “I Believe,” Dawkins was amazed to discover that the rock star was religious. “I worshipped Elvis,” he recalls, “and I was a strong believer in a non-denominational creator god.” Dawkins confesses to being puzzled as to why he should have been so surprised that Elvis was religious: “He came from an uneducated working-class family in the American South. How could he not have been religious?” By the time he was sixteen, Dawkins had “shed my last vestige of theistic credulity.” As one might expect, the catalyst for his final conversion from theism was Darwinism. “I became increasingly aware that Darwinian evolution was a powerfully available alternative to my creator god as an explanation of the beauty and apparent design of life. … It wasn’t long then before I became strongly and militantly atheistic.”
What is striking is the commonplace quality of Dawkins’s rebellion against religion. In turning away from the milk-and-water Anglicanism in which he had been reared—after his conversion from theism, he “refused to kneel in chapel,” he writes proudly—he was doing what tens of thousands of Britain’s young people did at the time. Compulsory religious instruction of the kind that exists in British schools, it has often been observed, creates a fertile environment for atheism. Dawkins’s career illustrates the soundness of this truism. If there is anything remarkable in his adolescent rebellion, it is that he has remained stuck in it. At no point has Dawkins thrown off his Christian inheritance. Instead, emptying the faith he was taught of its transcendental content, he became a neo-Christian evangelist. A more inquiring mind would have noticed at some point that religion comes in a great many varieties, with belief in a creator god figuring in only a few of the world’s faiths and most having no interest in proselytizing. It is only against the background of a certain kind of monotheism that Dawkins’s evangelical atheism makes any sense.
Even more remarkable is Dawkins’s inveterate literal-mindedness. He tells us that “the Pauline belief that everybody is born in sin, inherited from Adam (whose embarrassing non-existence was unknown to St. Paul), is one of the very nastiest aspects of Christianity.” It is true that the idea of original sin has become one with a morbid preoccupation with sexuality, which has been part of Christianity throughout much of its history. Even so, it is an idea that contains a vital truth: evil is not error, a mistake of the mind, a failure of understanding that can be corrected by smarter thinking. It is something deeper and more constitutive of human life itself. The capacity and propensity for destruction goes with being human. One does not have to be religious to acknowledge this dark fact. With his myth or metaphor of the death instinct thanatos, Freud—a lifelong atheist—recognized that impulses of hatred and cruelty are integral to the human psyche. As an atheist myself, it is a view I find no difficulty in sharing.
Quite apart from the substance of the idea, there is no reason to suppose that the Genesis myth to which Dawkins refers was meant literally. Coarse and tendentious atheists of the Dawkins variety prefer to overlook the vast traditions of figurative and allegorical interpretations with which believers have read Scripture. Both Augustine and before him the Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria explicitly cautioned against literalism in interpreting the biblical creation story. Later, in the twelfth century, Maimonides took a similar view. It was only around the time of the Reformation that the idea that the story was a factual account of events became widely held. When he maintains that Darwin’s account of evolution displaced the biblical story, Dawkins is assuming that both are explanatory theories—one primitive and erroneous, the other more advanced and literally true. In treating religion as a set of factual propositions, Dawkins is mimicking Christianity at its most fundamentalist.
About your precious, special atheistic jerks: How can they be perpetually so outraged about someone the they KNOW does not exists?
Wow! 2011. The UCONN women’s B-Ball team lost to Miss State last night.
‘MMMMM’ bacon!
Well said, Donald. Let’s just get to the heart of the issue. The Law of Conservation of Matter, to which atheists give credence, states that matter is neither created nor destroyed, it is merely converted. So, to quote Ted Knight’s character from CaddyShack: “Well, we’re waiting.” Crickets. They have no answer. They do have evasion as your post makes clear.
Frankly, I don’t believe in atheists…..
Internet atheists should be locked up in a Steel Cage Texas Death Match with Internet fundamentalist anti-Catholics. There are no groups of people more obnoxious on the Internet than these two casts of characters.
“The Law of Conservation of Matter, to which atheists give credence, states that matter is neither created nor destroyed, it is merely converted. So, to quote Ted Knight’s character from CaddyShack: “Well, we’re waiting.” Crickets. They have no answer. They do have evasion as your post makes clear.”
Our scientists have decided that matter is indeed created & destroyed during the slotting of an atom. The parts of a split atom has less mass than an atom before it is split. At least that is the last I knew of the matter.
PS. I was always taught it was called the “Law of Conservation of Mass & Energy.”
“Our scientists have decided that matter is indeed created & destroyed during the slotting of an atom. The parts of a split atom has less mass than an atom before it is split. At least that is the last I knew of the matter.”
Forgive my spelling error, please. That should have been “splitting” of an atom.
Christian Teacher, you are correct that it is the Law of Conservation of Mass. That said, in a closed system, the mass before and after is the same. In other words, a “split atom” may have less mass than before, but the total mass still exists within the closed system. Moreover, no scientist has created something out of nothing, ie: “created mass.”
Christian Teacher, you are correct. It is the Law of Conservation of Mass. However, in a closed system, the total mass is the same before and after, even when discussing the splitting of atoms. Mass is not created as no scientist has ever created something out of nothing.
“Internet atheists should be locked up in a Steel Cage Texas Death Match with Internet fundamentalist anti-Catholics. There are no groups of people more obnoxious on the Internet than these two casts of characters.”
PF, is that why we have a problem with Mark Shea? “He’s an SOB, but he’s our SOB” who belongs with these other clowns?
“However, in a closed system, the total mass is the same before and after, even when discussing the splitting of atoms”. I’m sorry, but this is not correct. Christian Teacher gave the correct formulation.
–
“Mass is not created as no scientist has ever created something out of nothing.” Yes, this is correct, and it is correct because energy is not nothing, it has mass equivalence.
“WE, THE PEOPLE” HAVE A CIVIL RIGHT TO OUR INNATE HUMAN RIGHTS
“We, the people” have a civil right to our innate human rights defined in THE UNANIMOUS DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE ratified by every state and redefined away as non-existent by Supreme Court.
“We, the people” have a civil right to our Ninth Amendment: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” The Ninth Amendment of our Constitution.
“We, the people” have a civil right to THE UNANIMOUS DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE with its reliance on the support of divine Providence.
“We, the people” have a civil right to THE PREAMBLE to THE CONSTITUTION FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA with THE PREAMBLE’S purpose of “securing the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our (Constitutional) Posterity; all future generations.
“We, the people” have a civil right to each and every public place bought and paid for by our tax money for every peaceable assembly.
“We, the people” have a civil right to all free lands and waterways in America taken from us by Executive Orders.
“We, the people” have a civil right to all public domain, as “We, the people”, have a civil right to be “the public”.
“We, the people” have a civil right to acknowledge our “Creator” in the privacy of our innermost being as sovereign persons in the public square.
“We, the people” have a civil right to be secure in our personal privacy against assault and invasion and violation.
“We, the people” have a civil right to “the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God”
“We, the people” have a civil right to our Ninth Amendment: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”