Just in time for Christmas, an "historical Jesus" article as fresh as Albert Schweitzer's dirty socks

You knew the liberal media would not be able to resist poking a finger in the eye of the Christian community just prior to the celebration of the birth of Christ. However, if this Washington Post article by some character named Raphael Lataster is the best they can do this year, it's a pretty good indication that these Christ hating reprobates are running out of steam . . . and rapidly!

Did a man called Jesus of Nazareth walk the earth? Discussions over whether the figure known as the “Historical Jesus” actually existed primarily reflect disagreements among atheists. Believers, who uphold the implausible and more easily-dismissed “Christ of Faith” (the divine Jesus who walked on water), ought not to get involved.

Numerous secular scholars have presented their own versions of the so-called “Historical Jesus” – and most of them are, as biblical scholar J.D. Crossan puts it, “an academic embarrassment.” From Crossan’s view of Jesus as the wise sage, to Robert Eisenman’s Jesus the revolutionary, and Bart Ehrman’s apocalyptic prophet, about the only thing New Testament scholars seem to agree on is Jesus’ historical existence. But can even that be questioned?

The first problem we encounter when trying to discover more about the Historical Jesus is the lack of early sources. The earliest sources only reference the clearly fictional Christ of Faith. These early sources, compiled decades after the alleged events, all stem from Christian authors eager to promote Christianity – which gives us reason to question them. The authors of the Gospels fail to name themselves, describe their qualifications, or show any criticism with their foundational sources – which they also fail to identify. Filled with mythical and non-historical information, and heavily edited over time, the Gospels certainly should not convince critics to trust even the more mundane claims made therein.

Okay. You get the drift. That phony "Jesus of history/Christ of faith" dichotomy predates Albert Schweitzer, and that's going back a long way. Lataster is eager to knock down such low hanging fruit as Crossan, Eisenman, and Ehrman (somewhere John Shelby Spong is quietly lamenting not making the list), but seems blissfully unaware of the voluminous works of N.T. Wright, Ben Witherington, John Meier, and numerous other contemporary "New Testament scholars" who could easily swat away his skepticism and recommend a few competent counselors to help him deal with his obvious anger issues.

This pathetic essay, apparently an excerpt from a larger (and doubtless even more laughable) work, is useful only in that it illustrates the depths of depravity to which a Christ-denying malcontent can sink.

Kathryn Jean Lopez on what's at stake in the battle for religious liberty

My column today at Examiner.com focuses on the plight of Father Brian Jordan and the dangerous absurdity that is atheism. It would be easy to dismiss the incessant rants of angry atheists for the frivolous complaints they are if it were not for the fact that the current occupant of the White House and his acolytes in the Department of Health and Human Services are every bit as hostile toward public expressions of religion. National Review columnist Kathryn Jean Lopez, who also has an excellent religion blog, reminds us of what is at stake in a battle we can ill afford to lose.

Confronted with a “train wreck,” the new archbishop of Baltimore implores us to “pray diligently as communities, as families, and as individuals.”

Coming from clergy, this wouldn’t necessarily be breaking news, except the train hurtling toward us is driven by the current president of the United States and his secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius. Under Obamacare, the secretary has unprecedented power to make health-care decisions affecting every American. The recent HHS mandate — requiring all employers, regardless of moral objections, to offer health-care coverage that includes contraception, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs — is the poisonous fruit of that power.

And so Archbishop William Lori’s prayer is for religious liberty.

It’s an ecumenical prayer that requires ecumenical labor. This talk of religious liberty “is not about the Catholic Church wanting to force anybody to do anything,” Archbishop Lori emphasized during a speech at the Ethics and Public Policy Center’s conference on religious freedom. “It is instead about the federal government forcing the Church — consisting of its faithful and all but a few of its institutions — to act against Church teachings.”

We are confronted today with a question of integrity, and it’s not only Catholics who are asking it, or who have a stake in the answer. The right to liberty is at the core of our national identity, and every freedom-loving American should ask: Do we value liberty as much as we say we do? People thirsting for freedom the world over have long seen America as a beacon. Are we the shining light they think we are?

It is only through complete inattention to this question of integrity that Georgetown University could have invited Secretary Sibelius to speak at a campus commencement ceremony. For this dereliction of moral duty, Georgetown surely wins this year’s audacity-at-commencement competition. At a moment that should be a radicalizing milestone for any American who values freedom, Georgetown chose to send a message of complacency. We have long been the place where people come to flee tyranny. But are we now comfortable with tyranny at home? This fight over the HHS mandate is much more than another Left–Right debate. It strikes at the core of who we are as Americans.

Read the whole column here.

Phelps Family Chapel invited to "Reason Rally"

From the Evangel blog at First Things comes this curious tidbit from Tom Gilson:

The organizers of the upcoming secularist Reason Rally have placed themselves in a pickle. It will be interesting to see how this plays out for these who portray themselves as the defenders of reason and science.

Every scientist knows it’s unprofessional to draw conclusions from a non-representative sample, and that it will lead to false results every time. In a word, it is both unscientific and unreasonable.

Now we have news that a vice-president of the National Atheist Party has invited the inflammatory fringe “church,” Westboro Baptist, to the rally. Notably no such invitation has been sent to the True Reason group that’s planning to bring a non-disruptive, reasoning Christian presence there. (Full disclosure: I’m involved in leadership of that initiative.)

So what will the Reason Rally representatives do with the Westboro Church’s shouts, picket signs, and expressions of hatred? The scientifically responsible, reasoning thing for them to do would be to say, “Okay, folks, draw no conclusions about Christianity or religion from this group! They are a non-representative sample! There’s no reason for us to think Christianity is at all like that!”

I’m sure that’s why they invited them there–so they could do exactly that. Right?

It doesn't take a genius to understand what is going on here. An enterprising idiot from the "National Atheist Party" has invited Fred and his cadre of sign-carriers to the "Reason Rally" for the purpose of exhibiting them as somehow illustrative of the ignorance and bigotry of the whole Christian enterprise. As any "reasonable" person knows, however, there is nothing remotely "Christian" about the Phelps Family Chapel. In a strange and bizarre way, its members fit in perfectly with the "Reason" crowd. After all, the "God" they worship and for whom they claim to speak doesn't really exist, either.

Atheistic (or is it agnostic?) angst meets Anglican fudge

In a much publicized debate at Oxford University, Richard Dawkins admitted to the Archbishop of Canterbury that he could not be sure God does not exist. I don't think the outspoken atheist (who, in the course of the discussion, said he preferred to be called an agnostic) was persuaded by the eloquent arguments of the Most Reverend and Right Honourable Dr Rowan Williams. It is more likely that Dawkins was contaminated by exposure to Anglican fudge. Here's a video of the debate from the Archbishop's website.

Of Dawkins, it can only be said that when it comes to a belief as pivotal as the existence of God, the slightest degree of doubt can be perilous. If you cannot be absolutely certain God does not exist, you are best advised to err on the side of caution. It should be noted that uncertainty on the part of Dawkins is nothing new. His infamous bus campaign a few years ago didn't exactly inspire people to embrace unbelief with gusto. Beneath the surface, the good professor is far more angst-ridden than he will ever let on.

Now, as far as ++Rowan is concerned, much of what he said was, predictably, incoherent and irrelevant. You cannot say, on the one hand, that human beings evolved from non-human ancestors but, on the other hand, are still "in the image of God." That is directly counter to the creation narrative, however "literally" one takes it (more about that shortly). The basic doctrine that human beings fell because of sin from a state of perfection to a state of corruption simply cannot be reconciled with the idea that human beings evolved from a lower form of life.

It must also be noted, sadly, that ++Rowan is not a particularly able defender of biblical authority. He said the Genesis account of creation was not to be taken literally. How many times do we have to go down this road? Let's go over the basics one more time.

The Bible is a (divinely inspired) work of literature. Even ++Rowan accepts the divine inspiration part. How else is a work of literature to be "taken" (that is, "read") if not "literally," that is, as a work of literature?

To say that one does not "take the Bible literally" is to say that one does not "take" the Bible as literature. If the Bible is not "taken" as literature, how is it to be "taken" at all? How seriously can a work of literature be "taken" if it is not "taken" as a work of literature?

So, when discussing the Genesis account of creation, it is utterly foolish to say, "This should not be taken literally." Yes, there is a deeper truth being conveyed through this divinely inspired literary work which may require an interpretive method that goes beyond wooden literalism, but to appreciate that truth, one must first appreciate the Genesis account precisely as a divinely inspired literary work. In other words, we must first "take" that account "literally."

The Friday Funnies: Dr. Terry Tommyrot destroys the "Dawkins Delusion"

"Does Richard Dawkins exist? Many people would say yes. Terry Tommyrot thinks otherwise. In a revealing interview on "The Big Questions", Dr. Tommyrot explains how belief in Richard Dawkins is, in fact, a harmful delusion, and how it can be explained scientifically."

The Friday Funnies: Atheists don't have no songs

H/T to Scot McKnight.

You can't make this stuff up: Dawkins sues disciple

Mark Hemingway (I'm giving him and his wife way too much airtime lately) calls our attention to this wonderfully amusing nugget about our favorite atheist.

Josh Timonen was one of a small coterie of young protégés around Richard Dawkins, sharing his boss's zealous atheism. But now he and the evolutionary theorist have fallen out spectacularly. Professor Dawkins's charity has accused Mr Timonen of embezzling hundreds of thousands of pounds.

The two atheists had become close in recent years, with Dawkins, the best-selling author and Emeritus Professor of Biology at Oxford University, even dedicating his latest book, The Greatest Show on Earth, to him. But Mr Timonen and the Dawkins foundation are now preparing for a legal wrangle.

The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science, has filed four lawsuits in a Californian court alleging that Mr Timonen, who ran its online operation in America, stole $375,000 (£239,000) over three years. It is claiming $950,000 in damages, while Mr Dawkins is suing him for $14,000 owed to him personally. Mr Timonen strongly denies the allegations.

In the 18-page complaint filed in a Los Angeles court, the foundation claims that Mr Timonen said the website he was running was just "squeaking by," making only $30,000 in three years, when in fact it was grossing 10 times that sum. The charity alleges that Mr Timonen pocketed 92 per cent of the money generated by the store, with his girlfriend spending $100,000 of the charity's money on upgrading her home before putting it on the market.

The funds apparently came on top of Mr Timomen's pay – of $278,750 over three-and-a-half years (£50,000 a year) – which legal documents filed by the foundation describe as "exceedingly generous and well above-market for someone of Timomen's age and experience, particularly for someone providing the bulk of his efforts to a charitable organisation".

Blaine Greenberg, the foundation's attorney, told The Independent: "It's not a happy thing for Professor Dawkins, because as many people know he's had a lot of respect and affection for Josh Timonen in the past and is very disappointed that it has come to a point where their relationship has severed on this basis." He added the foundation was "heartbroken" and had a "fiduciary obligation" to recover the money.

Mr Timonen has hit back, calling the action "the ultimate betrayal," adding: "This lawsuit is a joke, and completely ridiculous. The accusations are baseless and unfounded."

Mr Timonen wrote in an email last night: "I know Richard very well, and it's hard for me to wrap my head around the fact that he could have signed off on this bizarre lawsuit filled with fabrications and lies." He said he would soon release a fuller statement through his lawyers.

The foundation hired Mr Timonen in 2006 to produce videos and run the website for the charity, which describes itself as "a clear-thinking oasis" and aims to support "critical thinking" to overcome "religious fundamentalism, superstition, intolerance and human suffering".

Mr Timonen was tasked with running the US division of Professor Dawkins's online store, selling educational DVDs, T-shirts, hats and mugs to benefit the foundation.

The pair became friends, with professor Dawkins writing in the preface to The Greatest Show on Earth: "This book is dedicated to Josh Timonen, with thanks to him and to the small and dedicated band who originally worked with him to set up RichardDawkins.net. The web knows Josh as an inspired site designer, but that is just the tip of an amazing iceberg. Josh's creative talent runs deep, but the image of the iceberg captures neither the versatile breadth of his contributions to our joint endeavour, nor the warm good humour with which he makes them."

In documents filed at the court, the foundation says it spotted the alleged embezzlement this year when books were found detailing $500 meals, trips to Malibu Beach Inn and $314,000 in salaries paid to Mr Timonen and his girlfriend.

Beside his work for Professor Dawkins, Mr Timonen has been employed by fellow atheist Christopher Hitchens and the British Humanist Foundation, according to his website.

Jesus, of course, taught his disciples to love their enemies. Dawkins, it would appear, has trouble getting along with his friends.

Alliance Defense Fund offers guidance to South Carolina counties threatened by atheist group

Having had the privilege, on several occasions, of offering the opening prayer at our local county council meetings, I am pleased to see that local governments in South Carolina are not going to allow anti-religious groups to bully or intimidate them with threats of legal action if they don't stop (gasp!) praying before their meetings.

WOODRUFF, S.C. — The city of Woodruff adopted an invocations policy Tuesday recommended by Alliance Defense Fund attorneys, which ensures local officials can continue their constitutionally protected practice of prayer before public meetings despite recent threats from the Freedom From Religion Foundation. Last month, ADF, in cooperation with area lawyers who are part of the nearly 1,800 attorneys in the ADF alliance, sent letters to three local governments in South Carolina, including Woodruff, offering to legally defend them for free if they are attacked in court over valid invocations policies.

Allied attorneys Jay Thompson of Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP; Matthew Gerrald of Barnes, Alford, Stork & Johnson, LLP; and Timothy Savidge of the Bufkin Law Firm, LLC, all of Columbia, S.C., sent the three letters last month to South Carolina officials on behalf of ADF.

“America’s founders opened public meetings with prayer, and public officials today should be able to do the same,” said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Brett Harvey. “We were happy to assist the city of Woodruff with a prayer policy that can be followed with confidence. We will defend it in court if necessary because the First Amendment protects public officials who choose to invoke divine guidance and blessings upon their work in the constitutionally sound manner described by this policy.”

The Freedom From Religion Foundation sent letters to the cities of Woodruff and Aiken, as well as Spartanburg County in South Carolina, demanding that they discontinue public prayers before meetings, which they falsely claim are unconstitutional. The activist group alleges that the prayers violate the rights of non-religious attendees and others who might feel offended or excluded by such invocations.

“Feeling offended does not mean the Constitution has been violated,” Harvey explained. “Through their campaign of fear, intimidation, and disinformation, these groups continue their threats against hometown governments that they consider to be easy prey. Public officials throughout our country need to be encouraged and reminded that they can and should resist the increasingly forceful demands of radical secularist groups.”

“We hope other local governments around the country will follow the lead of the city of Woodruff and take a stand against groups that seek to hide our religious heritage,” added Oran Smith, president of the Palmetto Family Council, who was instrumental in assisting the city together with ADF and its allied attorneys.

Thursday, a federal court issued a strong opinion upholding a New York town’s prayer policy that was defended by ADF after the town had been sued by Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

England may be "enemy territory" for Benedict

Recall, a few months back, the infantile publicity stunt by atheists, calling for the arrest of Pope Benedict upon his arrival in England.

The campaign, led by atheists Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins, claims the Pope has committed crimes against humanity. UK human rights lawyers are preparing a brief against Benedict, claiming he has covered up sex abuse in the Catholic Church, ANSA reports.

Atheist polemicist Christopher Hitchens has argued that the Vatican is not a legal state and Pope Benedict cannot claim diplomatic immunity.

For his part, Dawkins, an evolutionary biologist and leading atheist, said he hoped to raise public consciousness “to the point where the British government will find it very awkward indeed to go ahead with the Pope's visit.”

Well, not to be outdone, leaders of the British chapter of the "Religion of Peace" are urging their followers to stir up trouble for the Pontiff when he leads an open air mass in Birmingham. Matthew Archbold reports:

I’ve been saying recently that Pope Benedict XVI is heading into enemy territory in “Post-Christian” England. Sadly, I may be more right than I imagined.

A member of British Parliament says he fears violence at an open air mass with Pope Benedict XVI after an Islamic publication called Muslims to attend the Mass to convert Catholics and “tell the Pope in no uncertain terms what Muslims think of his evil slanders against the last Prophet of God and his message.”

I think it’s the “in no uncertain terms” that’s making some a little nervous. Oh, the same publication also called the Pope “evil.”

The Islamic Standard writes:

“A change of venue gives Birmingham Muslims a chance to tell the Pope just what they think of him after his insults against the Prophet Muhammad… As well as this chance to challenge these evil words of this evil Pope, over 80,000 Catholics from all over the UK are also expected to attend the open air ceremony….We hope Muslims can be there to meet him as well and to also call people away from the shirk of worshipping the dead like the Catholics do, calling out to them for help and intercession…The Birmingham event however brings the pope and who worship him into direct contact with the the large Muslim population of Birmingham and offers them the perfect chance to learn about Islam and for the Muslims to forbid the Munkar of worshipping dead men and following the dictates of the sodomite child molesting Church of Rome…

We at the Islamic Standard hope the Muslims of Birmingham take this duel [sic] opportunity to give Da’wah to these 80,000 travelling disbelievers, whilst at the same time telling the Pope in no uncertain terms what Muslims think of his evil slanders against the last Prophet of God and his message.

MP Khalid Mahmood fears that this call may be an incitement to violence. He‘s quoted in British newspapers saying: “These supposed Muslims are doing all they can to incite violence. Sadly, if Muslims do turn up and preach at Catholics it could easily turn to violence…The police should look at the comments on this site because they can only serve to increase tensions and perhaps even cause riots on the day.”

This news is especially worrisome in that, according to YNET news,: eight residents of the northern city of Nazareth were arrested on weapons charges and discussing murdering Jews, soldiers, and the Pope.

Let’s hope and pray that all turns out well for Pope Benedict XVI in England.

Anyone else starting to think that “Post-Christian Europe” might actually mean “Anti-Christan Europe?”

I can think of no more appropriate statement than that made thousands of years ago by a true prophet, Isaiah: "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!" (Isaiah 5.20).

The Sunday Comics: It's not as if we didn't already know atheists were full of hot air . . .

The following is offered without comment, aside from the headline.

American atheists lined up to be "de-baptized" in a ritual using a hair dryer, according to a report Friday on U.S. late-night news program "Nightline."

Leading atheist Edwin Kagin blasted his fellow non-believers with the hair dryer to symbolically dry up the holy water sprinkled on their heads in days past. The styling tool was emblazoned with a label reading "Reason and Truth."

Kagin believes parents are wrong to baptize their children before they are able to make their own choices, even slamming some religious education as "child abuse." He said the blast of hot air was a way for adults to undo what their parents had done.

"I was baptized Catholic. I don't remember any of it at all," said 24-year-old Cambridge Boxterman. "According to my mother, I screamed like a banshee ... so you can see that even as a young child I didn't want to be baptized. It's not fair. I was born atheist, and they were forcing me to become Catholic."

Kagin doned a monk's robe and said a few mock-Latin phrases before inviting those wishing to be de-baptized to "come forward now and receive the spirit of hot air that taketh away the stigma and taketh away the remnants of the stain of baptismal water."

Ironically, Kagin's own son became a fundamentalist Christian minister after having "a personal revelation in Jesus Christ."

"One wonders where they went wrong," he chuckled to the TV show.

Even the atheists are starting to doubt Dawkins

The first rule in attempting to mainstream a theory or opinion which has been heretofore considered marginal is, or at least ought to be, that the chief spokesperson for the theory or opinion in question be himself within the mainstream of his peculiar school of thought. It will do no good to put forward an extremist to speak on behalf of that which is already viewed as extreme. Hence, the rise and fall of atheist Richard Dawkins is, in the end, a case study in how not to make unbelief culturally acceptable. Dawkins' latest tirade, chronicled by British blogger Andrew Brown, is illustrative of the reason the very non-believers for whom he claims to speak are beginning to become his strongest critics.

Richard Dawkins on Mumsnet came up with a remark to silence all his critics: "What have you read of mine that makes you think I have a skewed agenda?" It certainly left me opening and shutting my mouth like a breathless goldfish. Actually the whole thread is worth reading: it is from here that the story has come forth that he wants to start an atheist school. Whether that will actually happen is another thing. But it is in any case revealing of his reasoning. (There doesn't seem to be a way to link to individual comments on Mumsnet, but all these quotes are cut and pasted from the thread.)

He was asked by one commenter:

"What would you say to parents of children who attend quite orthodox state-funded schools who are very anxious that their child be educated within that context? I am thinking specifically of the ortho-Jewish schools around my way (north London). I know for a fact a lot of these parents cannot countenance the idea of their child being educated within a non-Jewish school. What do you think they should do?"

His response was:

"That's a good point. I believe this is putting parental rights above children's rights."

It is impossible to read this as meaning anything but that children have a right to be educated as Richard Dawkins thinks fit, but not as their parents do. He alluded several times in the threat to the sufferings of atheist parents forced to send their children to faith schools:

"Is it better to stand by one's principles or be hypocritical in order to provide the best option? What a horrible dilemma to be forced into."

But apparently this doesn't apply if your principles are religious ones, because then your children have a right to be educated as atheists.

Of course, the Dawkins position here is purely a matter of assertion. It's impossible to imagine anything that might qualify as evidence for the view that it is okay for atheists to discriminate against parents who have particular religious beliefs, while it is very wrong for believers to do so.

But "evidence", tends to be defined backwards in these polemics – in other words, he starts from the axiom that there is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of God, (implied here in his remark that "Every atheist I know would change their mind in a heartbeat if any evidence appeared in favour of religious belief") and then find meanings for the term that fit this use. This is of course the same trick as defining faith as belief without evidence and then using this definition as proof that faith is irrational.

If that sounds unfair, consider the uses of "evidence" in his discussion of education here:

"Children should be taught to ask for evidence, to be sceptical, critical, open-minded. If children understand that beliefs should be substantiated with evidence, as opposed to tradition, authority, revelation or faith, they will automatically work out for themselves that they are atheists."

It's clear here that Dawkins is starting from the definition that "evidence" is what can't justify a belief in God, whereas "tradition, authority, revelation, and faith" have all been used to justify religious belief, so they must be bad.

But the idea that you can separate a respect for evidence from a respect for tradition and authority doesn't survive a moment's reflection on the ways that children actually learn. That's true whether or not God exists.

To be sceptical, critical, and open-minded are all mental, and even moral disciplines. Obviously, all education in any schools, should try to produce such children. But these skills don't come naturally. Indeed, Dawkins, in other moods, will emphasise the utter lack of these skills in small children. So how are they learned? If you want to teach children to be sceptical, critical, and open-minded, you have to start from authority and induct them into a tradition where these things are valued.

The construction of reasoned arguments is a skill that many people never master at all. If they ever do, it is on the basis of social and moral skills, involving self-discipline and a respect for others, which can only be taught with authority. When you are bringing up children "Because I say so" precedes every other sort of "because", and it must. We learn to yield to the authority of reason by our experience of earlier yielding to other sorts of authority.

Obviously, not any tradition, nor any old authority will do for this purpose. Most cultures, for most of history, have put very little value on originality and non-conformity. Teenagers, above all, are hideously concerned about whether they fit in and it takes skilled and strong-minded teachers to relieve even some of this anxiety. But they can't do it without the support of an authoritative tradition that values non-conformity.

The backward logic employed by Dawkins, defining terms so as to make them fit his argument, is an example of what Timothy Keller, in his book The Reason for God, refers to as "strong rationalism," a criterion which requires a proposition to "be proved rationally by logic or empirically by sense experience" before it can be accepted as credible. But "proof," under this criterion, is defined as "an argument so strong that no person whose logical faculties are operating properly would have any reason for disbelieving it." Most philosophers, including the atheist Thomas Nagel (who admits he has "fear of religion"), believe "strong rationalism" is impossible to defend. To be fair, many Christian apologists use this philosophical trick with impunity, but Dawkins' slavish dependence upon such a dubious criterion places him on the margins even within his own atheistic camp. One of the most devastating critiques of his book, The God Delusion, came from Terry Eagleton, a Marxist, writing for London Review of Books. Keller quotes this choice excerpt:

Dawkins considers that all faith is blind faith, and that Christian and Muslim children are brought up to believe unquestioningly. Not even the dim-witted clerics who knocked me about at grammar school thought that. For mainstream Christianity, reason, argument and honest doubt have always played an integral role in belief. . . . Reason, to be sure, doesn't go all the way down for believers, but it doesn't for most sensitive, civilized non-religious types either. Even Richard Dawkins lives more by faith than by reason. We hold many beliefs that have no unimpeachably rational justification, but are nonetheless reasonable to entertain. . . .

Skeptics and non-believers like Eagleton and Nagel have a level of understanding about faith which is lacking in Dawkins. They can be conversant with people of faith in a way Dawkins cannot. Yet, it is Dawkins who has anointed himself as the spokesperson for the "new atheists." Perhaps his fellow non-believers should move for a vote of no confidence.

Saturday Morning Cartoons: Schism in the church of Dawkins

A schism in the atheist community was all but inevitable. But did anyone think it would be over something like this?

Richard Dawkins is accustomed to provoking the wrath of religious communities, but now a schism seems to have opened up within the atheist community who make up his fan-base.

The split occurred after he announced that a discussion section on his website, considered one of the busiest online atheist forums, would in future be tightly moderated and “irrelevant postings and frivolous gossip” would no longer be allowed.

The change was scheduled for next month but such was the torrent of abuse after the announcement that the forum had to be locked down, deepening the rift between Professor Dawkins and his 85,000 online fans.

Writing on RichardDawkins.net yesterday, in a posting entitled “Outrage”, he said that there was “something rotten” in internet culture and pledged to rid his website of its abusive element.

“Imagine seeing your face described by an anonymous poster, as ‘a slack-jawed turd-in-the-mouth mug’,” he wrote. “Surely there has to be something wrong with people who can resort to such over-the-top language, overreacting so spectacularly to something so trivial.

“Even some of those with more temperate language are responding to the proposed changes in a way that is little short of hysterical.”

The cloak of anonymity under which many people contributed to discussions had led to a culture of extreme language that would not be possible if people wrote under their name.

Unwilling to be silenced, however, the members of the website and the 15 moderators, some of whom worked unpaid, vented their own outrage elsewhere.

“A lot of people have lost respect for Dawkins after this, although I do still support the work that he does,” said Peter Harrison, a former moderator.

“Thousands of loyal, intelligent, rational forum members have been misrepresented as a bunch of foul-mouthed, vitriolic thugs by the man who so inspired them.”

Another former fan said: “It may sound ridiculous to those not involved with online communities, but I feel hurt and displaced. It was like coming home to find the locks have been changed. My respect for Richard’s work is still intact but my respect for him as a person is in tatters.”

The forum typically attracted 3,000 postings per day, on subjects ranging from science to religion and ethics.

Professor Dawkins now faces a confrontation with his adversaries at the Global Atheist Convention in Melbourne in two weeks.

He denied that the forum was closing but said that it was being improved. “The forum is going to be more tightly controlled and will be under more central control. So it won’t be available for anyone who wants to sound off freely,” he said.

He conceded that there was a good case for anonymity for some contributors and such contributions would still be allowed.

“I can see why people in America who lost their faith and do not want their families to know, or perhaps people of an Islamic background who have lost their faith or become Christian, have every reason to be anonymous,” he said.

The forum’s implosion has been jumped on by Christian groups as a sign that the Dawkins community is not as free-thinking as it is claimed.

'Tis the season for desperate atheists

I have long contended that "intellectual atheism" is an oxymoron. Atheism, as should be obvious, is not intellectual at all. While there is a disproportionate number of atheists in the field of academia, when the average person thinks of atheism, the more likely image is that of the in-your-face activists who dot the landscape, always looking for a reason to be offended by any mention of God in their immediate proximity. The vapidity of their cause is never more obvious than this time of year when they froth at the mouth over the prospect of such intolerable horrors as Christmas carols being performed in a public school or being wished a "Merry Christmas" by an unsuspecting shopper.

This year, an atheist group calling itself the American Humanist Association is rolling out an aggressive nationwide "Godless Holiday" campaign which is laughable on its face.

The ads read: “No God -- no problem! Be good for goodness’ sake. Humanism is the idea that you can be good without a belief in God” and feature several people in red and white Santa hats. The new ads come on the heels of an AHA campaign last year which asked “Why believe in a God?” and featured ads on public transit in Washington, D.C.

Previously, the atheist campaign had been confined to the Washington, D.C., area, with signs and advertisements featured prominently on the city’s Metro subway trains and buses.

The expansion to four new cities – New York, Los Angeles, Chicago and San Francisco – marks the first-ever national atheist advertising campaign and the first time the Humanist group has taken its anti-religious holiday message outside of the nation’s capitol.

However, the atheist group claims its campaign is designed to reach out to fellow atheists on what is normally a religious holiday.

“Our campaign's purpose is to speak out to like-minded individuals -- people who don't believe in God -- and let them know they're not alone, that there's a community out there for them,” AHA spokesman Karen Frantz told CNSNews.com.

So, what is their point, exactly (laying aside, for the moment, the utter foolishness of the premise "that you can be good without belief in God")? For all their objections to the songs, symbols, and salutations, atheists still cling to the idea that something ought to be celebrated on or about December 25 of every year. Some of their suggested alternative names for the season, such as "Festival of Lights" and "Winter Solstice," are quite revealing of the kind of empty universe in which they seek to live. Who would desire light more desperately than one who lives in darkness? Who would celebrate the shortest day of the year other than one who is in utter denial of the brevity and insignificance of life in this present world? Perhaps most importantly, however, who would insist on eliminating the reason for a holiday while keeping the holiday on the calendar other than one who is just desperate for a few days off from work?

Camp Dawkins: Atheism's Slide Toward (Further) Irrelevance

Atheism is an exercise in self-loathing ignorance masquerading as intellectual sophistication. At least, that's what leading atheist "intellectual" Richard Dawkins would want you to think. But, as his more recent projects seem to indicate, the mask of faux intellectualism seems to have been peeled off. Hilariously enough, this supposed intellectual giant seems blissfully unaware of just how irrelevant he is becoming. Al Mohler is quite amused.

The organizers of the camp are doing everything possible to emulate more traditional summer camps, generally organized by Christian groups or venerable organizations such as the Boy Scouts. Campers are to learn about evolution even as they go canoeing and swimming. Like their counterparts at Christian camps, these campers will sing songs around the campfire. As might be expected, the songs will be quite different. "Instead of singing Kumbiya and other campfire favourites, they will sit around the embers belting out 'Imagine there’s no heaven . . . and no religion too.'"

Camp Quest, established in the United States in 1996, has now expanded to six locations. While its numbers are small in terms of attendance, especially as compared to more traditional camps, the camps for atheists received a good deal of media attention.

In this light, it appears that this announcement hardly adds to the reputation of Richard Dawkins. In the parlance of American popular culture, he appears to have "jumped the shark." As this phrase indicates, some figures in the public eye become something like parodies of themselves. In this case, the recently retired Oxford University professor has thrown his public reputation behind an effort that appears to be profoundly unserious when it comes to reaching the masses. If Richard Dawkins is really so concerned to support atheism, it hardly seems that a summer camp limited to 24 children and teenagers represents a bold advance for his cause.

In recent months, Dawkins has spent his personal credibility on a project to put atheistic messages on London buses and, now, on this very small experiment in a secularist camp for children. The bus advertisement campaign became something of a joke, with the signs declaring only the claimed probability that there is no God. Londoners seemed more bemused than persuaded. Now, Professor Dawkins lends both his name and his financial support to an atheistic summer camp that will teach evolution to children by day and teach them to sing the songs of John Lennon by night. The Boy Scouts should not fear the competition.

Charlotte Allen: Atheists are Boring, Angry People

Atheists are boring. You need a little belief in God to add excitement to your life. Charlotte Allen observes:

The problem with atheists -- and what makes them such excruciating snoozes -- is that few of them are interested in making serious metaphysical or epistemological arguments against God's existence, or in taking on the serious arguments that theologians have made attempting to reconcile, say, God's omniscience with free will or God's goodness with human suffering. Atheists seem to assume that the whole idea of God is a ridiculous absurdity, the "flying spaghetti monster" of atheists' typically lame jokes. They think that lobbing a few Gaza-style rockets accusing God of failing to create a world more to their liking ("If there's a God, why aren't I rich?" "If there's a God, why didn't he give me two heads so I could sleep with one head while I get some work done with the other?") will suffice to knock down the entire edifice of belief.

What primarily seems to motivate atheists isn't rationalism but anger -- anger that the world isn't perfect, that someone forced them to go to church as children, that the Bible contains apparent contradictions, that human beings can be hypocrites and commit crimes in the name of faith. The vitriol is extraordinary. Hitchens thinks that "religion spoils everything." Dawkins contends that raising one's offspring in one's religion constitutes child abuse. Harris argues that it "may be ethical to kill people" on the basis of their beliefs. The perennial atheist litigant Michael Newdow sued (unsuccessfully) to bar President Obama from uttering the words "so help me God" when he took his oath of office.

What atheists don't seem to realize is that even for believers, faith is never easy in this world of injustice, pain and delusion. Even for believers, God exists just beyond the scrim of the senses. So, atheists, how about losing the tired sarcasm and boring self-pity and engaging believers seriously?

The Tyranny of the Godless

From National Catholic Register:

There aren’t very many atheists in America, but they want to rule our roads.

A case now before the Tenth Circuit federal appeals court in Denver filed by the group American Atheists seeks to have roadside crosses, erected in Utah to memorialize state troopers who have died, declared illegal.

Arguments in the case were heard yesterday by the court. The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty filed an amicus brief in support of the states of Colorado, New Mexico, Kansas and Oklahoma, which could be directly affected by the court decision along with Utah.

Go here to read a news release by the Becket Fund about the case, along with links to documents containing a more detailed explanation of the case and the Becket Fund’s arguments in defense of the crosses.

Suffice it to say that the case is yet another example of atheist intolerance of the desires of those with religious faith to manifest that faith, in a benign way that shouldn’t offend any sane person. The case also demonstrates how casually atheists will try to trample on the rights of free expression of those who don’t agree with the atheist credo, that faith can only be seen and heard in private.

Luke Goodrich, the lawyer who presented the Becket Fund’s arguments at yesterday’s court hearing, said in the Becket Fund news release that the crosses are private speech and the American Atheists are attempting to use government power to silence the grieving families of the troopers who had died.

Said Goodrich, “This case is not about religion; it is about expression.”

God is Probably Not Offended, So Go Ahead and Have a Good Laugh at the Expense of These Pitiable Atheists

Atheism, as a phenomenon of the post-Enlightenment West, is moral cowardice masquerading as intellectual sophistication. The absurdity of the atheistic worldview is currently on display throughout the English-speaking world via a much publicized ad campaign involving signs placed on the sides of buses and other public transportation vehicles. In England, the signs read, "There is probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."

Religious folk tend to enjoy life more and worry less than do non-religious folk, according to most surveys. The atheist bus campaign is further proof of this fact. Atheist guru Richard Dawkins gleefully expected believers to respond with anger toward the signs on the British buses. But such was not the case, and it is easy to understand why. Persons secure in their faith will not be offended by such a display of atheistic absurdity. More likely, they will be amused, if not a little charitably concerned. The very statement, "There is probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life," is laughable on its face. You might even venture to say that God himself is not offended by such tripe. Certainly, unbelief is offensive to him. But even he probably enjoys a good laugh when he sees the ways such unbelief is being expressed these days.

No one spends more time worrying about God than the one who wants desperately to believe he is, as Richard Dawkins claims, nothing but a delusion. But the worried atheist is a most absurd paradox. If there is no God, there is nothing about which he need worry. Yet, he worries about that which he believes, or at least wants to believe, does not exist. Indeed, if "there is probably no God," why doesn't the atheist simply "stop worrying and enjoy life?"

For believers, God is the Author of life and the Fountain of true joy. For atheists, God is the object of their scorn and the target of their rage. But for believers and atheists alike, life without God is utterly meaningless.

God and Christoper Hitchens

Peter Berkowitz finds a fair amount of amusement in the articulations of Christopher Hitchens and other heralds of the "new new atheism," but ultimately finds their simplistic rejection of piety unhealthy for the current politcally polarized climate.

In making his case that reason must regard faith as an enemy to be wiped out, Mr. Hitchens declares Socrates's teaching that knowledge consists in knowing one's ignorance to be "the definition of an educated person." And yet Mr. Hitchens shows no awareness that his atheism, far from resulting from skeptical inquiry, is the rigidly dogmatic premise from which his inquiries proceed, and that it colors all his observations and determines his conclusions.

Mr. Hitchens is by far the most erudite and entertaining of the new new atheists. But his errors and his excesses are shared by the whole lot. And these errors and excesses have pernicious political consequences, amplifying invidious distinctions among fellow citizens and obscuring crucial differences among believers world wide.

Playing into the anger and enmities that debase our politics today, the new new atheism blurs the deep commitment to the freedom and equality of individuals that binds atheists and believers in America. At the same time, by treating all religion as one great evil pathology, today's bestselling atheists suppress crucial distinctions between the forms of faith embraced by the vast majority of American citizens and the militant Islam that at this very moment is pledged to America's destruction.

Like philosophy, religion, rightly understood, has a beginning in wonder. The most wonderful of creatures are human beings themselves. Of all the Bible's sublime and sustaining teachings, none is more so than the teaching that explains that humanity is set apart because all human beings--woman as well as man the Bible emphasizes--are created in the image of God (Genesis 1:27).

That a teaching is sublime and sustaining does not make it true. But that, along with its service in laying the moral foundations in the Western world for the belief in the dignity of all men and women--a belief that our new new atheists take for granted and for which they provide no compelling alternative foundation--is reason enough to give the variety of religions a fair hearing. And it is reason enough to respect believers as decent human beings struggling to make sense of a mysterious world.