At first blush, they couldn’t seem more
different. Atheism denies the existence of any supernatural deity, whereas
Islam (whose name means ‘submission’) is monotheistic in nature and asserts a
supreme supernatural god named Allah. Atheism denies any life beyond this
world, while Islam teaches that those Muslims whose good works exceed their bad
will spend eternity with Allah after life on earth, with both Muslims who lack
works and non-Muslims being punished after death. And on it goes.
However, there is one thing that both the
faith of atheism (yes, atheism is indeed a faith-based system) and Islam have
in common: they aggressively do
everything in their power to silence any voice that dares to challenge their
ideology.
Now, to be fair, I must add a qualifier to
both atheism and Islam in this regard. I have had dialogs with both atheists
and Muslims who were very respectful, truly considered my arguments for
Christianity, certainly respected my intelligence, and defended my right to
voice an opinion that was contrary to their own. I have benefited greatly in
discussions with such people, and appreciate their correcting me on inadequate
arguments that I asked them to consider.
By contrast, it is militant Islam and atheism (which I call hatetheism) that seeks to stifle any person that calls into
question the validity of their worldview.
The fact that militant Islam practices
such a thing is no news to anyone remotely educated on that movement. One needs
to look no further than the high-profile imprisonment of Youcef
Nadarkhani who was arrested in 2009 for being a Christian and preaching Christianity
in Iran. The formal charge labeled against pastor Youcef is blasphemy against
Islam.
While militant Islam’s persecution against
non-Muslims is widely acknowledged, what isn’t so well known is that hatetheism
operates in the exact same way as militant Islam.
Hatetheism both insults and tries to
humiliate anyone who professes faith in God, and does everything it can to
silence those it considers its enemies. For example, comedian Bill Maher has
openly stated that the opinions of religious people should not be respected,
and has gone on to say: "We are a nation that is unenlightened because of
religion. I do believe that. I think that religion stops people from thinking.
. . . I think religion is a neurological disorder. . . . I am just embarrassed
that it has been taken over by people like evangelicals, by people who do not
believe in science and rationality.”[1]
Sporting such a spirit, it is not
surprising that hatetheism has no desire for any dialog with others who do not share
its position. A case in point is the first “Reason
Rally”, which is being held in Washington D.C. on March 24, 2012, with headliners
like Richard Dawkins and other similar famous atheists being present.
When Tom Gilson, editor of the book True
Reason, contacted David Silverman of American Atheists to inform them that
Christians would be present at the Reason Rally, and were interested in having
a respectful dialog with the atheist group with a formal debate between Dawkins
and Christian apologist William Lane Craig also being proposed, he was told the
following:
Make no mistake – you are not welcomed guests at the rally. We are not
going to DC for ‘dialogue’ with people who believe ridiculous things – we are
going to have fun with other like-minded people. Those who proselytize or
interfere with our legal and well-deserved enjoyment will be escorted to the
1st Amendment pen by security, which will be plentiful, where you can stand
with the Westborough [sic] Baptists and shout yourselves hoarse.
Spreading out among the crowd is not a substitute for a permit. Indeed,
I will be meeting with the Parks Commission on Thursday to discuss how to
handle your infiltrative permitless counter-protest.[2]
While Silverman and his group have no
problem erecting billboards during times such as Christmas and Easter that mock
Christianity and thus insert themselves into Christians’ holidays, it appears
they have no desire to have Christians ‘intrude’ into their events.
So much for being ‘free thinkers’.
One last illustration of hatetheism doing
its best to silence its opponents is when supposed ‘neutral’ scientists, who
are really devotees to philosophical naturalism, shut down any peer that dares
to challenge certain teachings of evolution. A good example of this is the
current legal case of David Coppedge vs. his former employer, NASA, who first
demoted and then fired Coppedge after he shared DVD’s of intelligent design
with some of his co-workers.
Commenting on how aggressive the adherents
to naturalism can be, paleontologist Jun-Yuan Chen has stated, “In China we can
criticize Darwin, but not the government; in America you can criticize the
government, but not Darwin.”[3]
Those knowing the history of this battle in academia will remember that
Darwinian advocates only asked that their view be taught alongside intelligent
design in the early 1900’s, but now they do everything in their power to shut
the door in ID’s face. Noting the double standard in situations like this, Ravi
Zacharias has said: “Is it not odd that whenever it has power, liberalism is
anything but liberal, both in the area of religion and politics?" We can
also add science to that list.
Christopher Hitchens once wrote that "All religions take care to silence or execute those who question them."[4] I wonder if he would classify Darwinism as a religion then?
Christopher Hitchens once wrote that "All religions take care to silence or execute those who question them."[4] I wonder if he would classify Darwinism as a religion then?
I think most everyone would agree with the
argument that the only reason a person should believe anything is because that
particular ‘thing’ is true. If Islam is true, we should all be Muslims; if
atheism is true, then we should all be atheists; and if Christianity is true,
we should all be Christ followers.
But the fact is, sometimes people who say
they are truth seekers aren’t interested in hearing the truth. There are other
factors at work other than a commitment to what’s really true, and these
influences can often bring together those who are otherwise enemies of each
other.
Without a doubt, militant Islam and
hatetheism seem to have absolutely nothing in common. But when it comes to
shutting down anyone who dares to oppose them, they couldn’t be more alike, and
indeed make comfortable bedfellows.
Update (4/11/12): Another great example of philosophical naturalists trying to silence debate over evolution can be found here.
Update (4/11/12): Another great example of philosophical naturalists trying to silence debate over evolution can be found here.
[1] This last comment is especially absurd as the number of
believing scientists, philosophers, historians, and other thinkers are legion.
2 comments:
Well stated! I'll have to remember to reapply the term "hatetheism" which is very appropriately descriptive.
Fortunately I hear, the Reason Rally was a bust due to the rain. The Atheists were all melting! :)
Nathan - thanks for writing. If you haven't read it yet, check out my entry on what constitutes a 'hatetheist' vs. an atheist. The latter are typically embarrassed by the antics of the former.
http://calebspath.blogspot.com/2011/11/profile-of-hatetheist.html
Post a Comment