Christopher Hitchens on Atheism and Socialism

Lincoln: "There is no place I so much desire to see is Jerusalem."

 As we commemorate the Sequicentennary of the assassination of our sixteenth President, it is worth noting what were Abraham Lincoln's last words.

 

On Good Friday of 1865 the President had taken his wife on a carriage ride and later to see the play "Our American Cousins" at Ford's Theater in Washington, DC.  The Civil War was coming to a victorious conclusion. Although Lincoln had just began his second term, he was contemplating his post presidency plans with his wife Mary Todd Lincoln.  

President Lincoln did not want to return to Springfield, Illinois after his term ended.  He longed for anonymity abroad, including visiting Jerusalem. It is said that Lincoln whispered in his wife's ear about visiting the Holy Land before John Wilkes Booth shot him. 

 It is ironic that Lincoln had been an aggrieved atheist (or perhaps a soul lashing out of anger at God) for part of his life. But the many tragedies which President Lincoln suffered as an adult along with the weight of the War Between the States was met with good Christian pastoring.  Lincoln transformed the suffering into a holy impulse. 

 Could this be just hope filled hagiography, as Mary Todd Lincoln was not exactly a stable source.  Maybe.  But it is much more believable than the LGBTQQ? community  revisionist history claiming Lincoln as a bisexual --what stuff!

Nikita Khrushchev on God

On April 12th, 1961, Cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin was the first man in outer space as his Vostok I spacecraft orbited the Earth in a 108 minute flight.  Upon his return, Soviet Premier Nitika Khrushchev mocked religion by claiming that Gagarin announced: "I went up into space and did not see God anywhere." This was triumph for Soviet atheism at the height of the Cold War.

But like many aspects of the Soviet Space program, not everything was accurate.  Despite the brash bluster of Comrad Khrushchev, Gagarin was never heard uttering that controversial quip.  In addition, Gagarin was a baptized member of the Russian Orthodox Church who was actually quite devout (but privately so as not to scandalize the Soviet state and their scientific socialism hagiography).

Woody Allen on Being Watched from Above

Karl Marx on God

Will Durant on Faith

Reflections on an Atheist's Prayer

As a person of faith, it can be frustrating to intellectually engage  with atheists as their attitude is often smarmy, zealous, intolerantly proselytizing anti-religion.   So it was a pleasure to come across a post by "The Irish Atheist", who had converted his horror of the war in Syria to compose "An Atheist's Prayer".  

In reproducing this creedal cri-de-couer, a bit of the phrasing has been modified to make it more universal-- I hope that does not cause disfellowship.

I will not advocate war, because I will not support killing others to bring peace.

I will respect the government I helped elect, even when I do not agree with their decisions. I will always remember that I speak with both my voice and my vote.

I will take the time to educate myself on what is happening in the world around me. I will remember that if I’m going to speak on a subject, it’s my duty to speak intelligently.

I will sincerely thank a veteran for his or her service.

I will do something today that makes me uncomfortable. I will light a candle in a cathedral, hold hands with a Muslim as they pray. I will step into a synagogue and listen. And I will savour the knowledge that I did so because it was my choice and my freedom to, not because it was required.

I will debate my intellectual opponents with respect, without personal attacks, because the freedom to engage in the exchange of ideas deserves the highest respect.

I will buy a book on a subject I know nothing about.

I will treat strangers with kindness. Every act of kindness will be my prayer.

I will tell someone that I love them, not just assume they know. I will tell them as soon as possible.

I will not forget a troubled region when it falls from the headlines. And if I encounter an opportunity to help someone from a war-torn nation, I will take it. 

I will continue to pray the Atheist’s Prayer, the prayer of action and deeds.

Amen.

These are admirable ambitions which reflect "the better angels" of our nature. Alas, we often fall short of our ideals.  Catholics understand "original sin" as a sin nature which tempts us to choose temporal, selfish  pursuits which fall short of the person we ought to be. 

As much as I am impressed by the Irish Atheists intentions, I suspect that the "Atheists Prayer" could lapse like most New Year's resolutions or become platitudinous prayer instead of being one of action and deeds. 

Making the world a better place also involves forgiveness.  That is not an ordinary human impulse as to err is human, to forgive is divine. And to accept efforts of redemption. This is where I fear "The Atheist Prayer" falls short.  It gives aspirational affirmative action but does not allow for inevitable imperfection. 

Praying to God can be caricatured  as sending out a supernatural wish list.  Perhaps that is how puerile prayers are perceived by non-theists.  But more mature prayer involves meditation, contemplation and a radical openness to action looking beyond oneself.  It is said that prayer does not change God, but that good prayer changes you. 

Ignatian Spirituality centers on an Examen, which is a quick prayer that includes: 

• Presence (acknowledgement of things more than oneself); 
• Gratitude for the good things each day; 
• Review of experiencing God's presence
• Sorrow where one's shortcomings are acknowledged and forgiven; and
• Grace- Discerning how you feel

Jesuits will take a 30 day silent retreat based upon this methodology so that they may embody the charism of contemplation in action. 

While I may differ with The Irish Atheist on theological and ecclestiastical issues, I appreciate his impetus as expressed in "The Atheist's Prayer" as well as his respect for others' beliefs.  The world would be a better place if more heeded the action items of his creed.  

Dwight D. Eisenhower on Atheism

Wally Butts on Atheism

Book Review: 10 Answers for Atheists by Alex McFarland

Alex McFarland, an Evangelical Protestant professor of Christian Apologetics at North Greenville University (South Carolina), has authored 10 Answers for Atheists (Regal, 2012) as an outreach tool to spread the Good News to atheists and agnostics. McFarland is said to have pioneered apologetic conference formats for Christians to defend their faith.  McFarland seems to draw upon this experience in composing a book on apologetics that is easy to read and draws upon contemporary influences to reach an unbelieving audience.

Alex McFarland

The tone of McFarland’s prose was conversational with some sprinklings of erudition which reflects the author’s academic auspices.  For example, when McFarland described the scientific atheist, he alluded to “directed panspermia” as an out of this world explanation of our origins.  Moreover,  Jim Morrison of The Doors was alleged to be an “Antinomian Atheist”.  

These pop references do not always work.  To illustrate a “Biblical Scholar Atheist”, McFarland posits Penn Jillette as he rejects scripture as “B.S.”.  This Bible Scholar Atheist label on Jillette seems like a bad trick for one who does not ascribe to Judeo-Christian scripture.  It would be a more apt description of   Dr. Francesca Stavrakopoulou, the Hebrew Atheist scholar host of the BBC’s Buried Bible Secrets series.  

McFarland categorized atheists into ten subgroups.  There seemed to be overlap between some of the groups, like the Angry Atheist and the Injured Atheist.  The University of Tennessee study which was Assessing Atheist Archtypes with six categories seemed more on the mark.  However, McFarland may have included other categories to finesse the apologetic approach. 

McFarland offered a clear yet concise historical survey of disbelief which provides an underlying basis for agnosticism and atheism from Antiquity and the Enlightenment to present day.  While the author acknowledged a few popular contemporary atheists, but two  page and a half refutations of Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris seemed woefully insufficient to all but those already convicted.

The author includes a chapter “Alternatives to a Biblical God” which seemingly served as a comparative theology section.  McFarland dared to take on Islam, a monotheistic faith which does not embrace the Trinity, denies the the Divinity of Jesus and rejects substitutionary atonement.   McFarland explained away Judaism as ceasing to be a sufficient theology after the earthly appearance of Jesus.  McFarland opines that a natural progression of Judaism would be Christianity instead of recognizing the Lord’s faithfulness to His chosen people. 

In the Christian realm, Unitarianism is undercut as being an incomplete creed. Jehovah’s Witnesses are chastised for rejecting the Trinity, denying the divinity of Jesus, contrary conceits of hell (annihiliationism), having no holidays and being a works based denomination. Mormonism is minimized as being “Many Gods and Me too”.  The LDS are damned with faint praise as having a surface appeal of being wholesome and displaying devout behavior but having a creed which finds the New Testament corrupt, adds to scripture and is a works based faith.

It was surprising that “Roman” Catholics and the Orthodox were not condemned along with modern Mystical spiritualism, as those original Christian creeds used their mysticism to draw closer to union with God. The crux of the Protestant Reformation was religiosity based on biblical roots (often understood as sola scriptura) as well as the primacy of a salvation by grace.  But McFarland does not divide with Catholics or Orthodox Christians on this score in the spiritual warfare against atheism. 

McFarland gets to the crux of 10 Answers for Atheists 121 pages into a book with 165 pages of text.  The recap of the ten types of atheists in five pages seemed to repeat cautions given earlier in evangelizing to them.  Answering to agnostics is done through two sample dialogues.   

McFarland poses the ten questions by atheists:
• Are faith and reason really compatable?
• Isn’t belief in God delusional?
• The dysteleological surd – If God is so good, why is there evil in the world?
• Why join a flawed faith like Christianity which has harmed the world?
• Isn’t Christianity just mythological?
• Why believe in Zombies (a messiah resurrected from the dead)?
• Can’t science explain everything?
• Why believe hypocritical Christians?
• Couldn’t Jesus just be a space alien?

His answers plant the seeds for useful apologetics as well as the thirty common objections included in the index.

As a Catholic, I am mindful that the practice of my faith differs with a more evangelical expression of faith by  bible based Protestants.  However, the 10 Answers for Atheists has some material which would provide some thoughtful responses when dialoguing with questioning agnostics and atheists.   Some of the book seemed extraneous to inter-(non) faith dialogue, such as the comparative religion section.  McFarland seemed compelled to justify bible based Christianity before delving into agnostic apologetics. 

Aside from the Angry Atheist and the Resident Contrarian Atheist, McFarland’s 10 Answers for Atheists could serve as a useful field manual for believers beginning dialogue with non-believers.  It does not seem geared at convincing atheists through a casual perusal.  The casual Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris dismissals would be insufficient for true non-believers.  Moreover, an agnostic or atheist reader would need to drudge through comparative religion and justifying bible based Christianity sections before getting to the crux of the answers for atheists.

Fulton Sheen on Atheism

Assessing Atheist Archetypes

The Guardian recently publicized a study out of the University of Tennessee which characterized six types of atheists.

Amongst the 1,153 atheists living in southeastern states, 37% of those surveyed were said to be “intellectual atheists”.  These “intellectual atheists” are characterized as well educated people who are interested in religion but who are non-believers.  

Jacques Derrida caricature

Such intellectual atheists are comfortable in secular societies which reflects Jacques Derrida’s deconstructionist conceit which rejects an exclusive hermeneutic of truth.  This is distinct from “non-theists” who live life without regard to considering transcendental truths. 


The "anti-theists" comprised 14% of the study.  These anti-theists colloquially can be characterized as the “angry, argumentative, dogmatic type”.  This group aggressively argues for their belief or non-belief system.  

Some sympathizing with secular humanism think that the 14% was too high a figure.  But as in individual who is inclined to engage in metaphysical musings with others, it seems like a low figure.  It may be that dogmatic and narcissistic anti-theists are more vocal in evangelizing their anti-theist opinions.  

Another subcategory of atheists are “ritual atheists” who may not themselves believe but believe that society can be enhanced by ritual and tradition.  These ritual non-theists  can rationalize their assent to religious rituals  for others as a means to live life and achieve happiness rather than a route to transcendental liberation.  



A similar class of atheists are “seeker agnostics” who can best be described as “spiritual but not religious”.  Theists may jibe that “seeker agnostics” are atheists who have lost their faith.  Much of American Jewry seems to align itself as ritual atheists or seeker agnostics, but it would seem more cultural affinity rather than spiritual contemplation.


A final portion of the atheist population can be labeled “activists”, as atheists who hold strong ethical and environmental opinions which activists do not perceive are not rooted in religion.  Of course, a deeper contemplation of these mainly western values begs the question from where these ethos are derived. 

These six atheistic archetypes does not include every opinion, Richard Dawkins, the author of The God Delusion (2008), argues that religious education should be a part of a literary education in state schools.  Dawkins contends that the King James Version translation of the Bible (1611) has inspired 129 biblical phrases that are instantly recognizable to any cultured English speaker. 

 But before one is lead to believe that Dawkins might be a “ritual atheist”, Dawkins  endorses the effort to put  King James Bibles in state schools to show that scripture is not a good guide to morality. 

h/t: The Guardian
         Bizarro.com

C.S. Lewis on Atheism

Contact with Scientific Certainty

Recently, I saw a snarky posting from an avowed secular humanism which mocked a Sunday School poster simplistically urging the children to turn to the Bible and listen to divine teachings. Of course such atheists are too cool for Sabbath School and condescendingly surmise that everyone should think for themselves.

 Later, I came across this idealized pedagogic dialogue showing the “subtleness” of the Socratic method in forming young skulls full of mush.

The problem with the latter exchange is that in a classroom a student rarely becomes a master without suffering a failing grade first.

 The fictitious student’s retort reminded me of a wonderful scene in the film adaptation of Carl Sagan’s novel “Contact” (1997). Dr “Ellie” Arroway (Jodie Foster) was set to intellectually eviscerate Christian Philosopher Palmer Joss (Matthew McConnoghey) for proposing that science has been incapable of delivering meaning to the world.




 But instead of Occum’s Razor carrying the day, the SETI scientist was stumped at proving her love for her father.

 Some things, including matters of consequence like love or God, can not be proven by science. Other issues, like worthy “human life”, do not have scientifically probative answers and rely upon ethics and mores.

Can You Believe This?

It gives one cause to pause on the Cartegian paradigm of cogito ergo sum.