Sam Harris Against Nature

No sooner has Sam Harris established his reputation for intolerance and harassment of religious faith than he has now begun to lash out at those scientists who do show tolerance and respect toward religious folk. He is passionate that, as he titles it, "Scientists should unite against threat from religion." Imagine! The crime of not excluding people from scientific discourse because they are Christians, or even Muslims!

Sam won’t stand for it, and in his recent editorial to that massive organ of scientific literature Nature he blasts the scientists for — of all things — being too nice. Nature’s great sin of being "unfailingly tactful" Sam warns — saving us from almost certain peril — whitewashes religion and leaves us with nothing but "obsurantism."

The charge of dreaded "obscurantism" reminds me of some real scholarship I recently read, regarding the militant atheists of times past. I quote a bit at length:

"Interrelationship between science and religion is probably the most sensitive and most emotionally laden subject in the whole of Soviet atheism’s spoken and written output. Its aim is to prove that these are incompatible, that only science and the scientific method are true and pursue the truth, and that therefore the essential nature of religious faith is obscurantism and ignorance. . . .
Soviet literature focusing on the attempt to prove the anti-scientific and hence anti-progressive, obscurantist, intellectually reactionary character of religion, is immense in volume and, even on the ‘high-brow’ level, emotionaly [sic] highly charged." (Dimitry V. Pospielovsky, Soviet Studies on the Church and the Believer’s Response to Atheism: A History of Soviet Atheism in Theory and Practice, and the Believer, Volume 3 (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1988) 36, italics mine).

As I showed with case after case in Return of the Village Atheist, the outspoken modern atheists repeat the same charges that the earlier communist and murderous revolutionary atheists flung at Christians, only today Harris and his clan keep denying the consequences of trying to erase religion from culture. Well despite the denials, the parallels are there, and though Harris keeps sounding the keynote to disestablish all things religious, and keeps denying that atheism itself had anything to do with the Soviet atrocities, the quote above comes from the man who wrote the book (several actually) on the subject of Soviet Atheism. There is no reason why Sam’s supposed atheistic utopia could be any different than what Pospielovsky chronicles.

Such a minor digression in my topic may prompt our atheist to respond that I am playing a game of "guilt by association," where if I can pin the image of a murderous commie on Sam (not to be confused with "Uncle Sam"), then I have gotten by with a smooth but effective dishonesty. Well, personally, I believe the case is closed on the fact that atheism itself lay at the root, in the stem, and in the poisonous fruit of the violent Marxist tradition, but it would take more time to prove than I have right now. But look! It is not me but our atheist who is playing the subtle dishonesty game. To wit:

Sam Harris Against History

In order to cement his case that religion and science must never be mixed, Sam quickly slams down the Galileo card. He reminds us once again how wrong the church was, and how infallibly precious science turned out (precious if only because it was the church that turned out wrong), and all the standard anti-faith rhetoric is spouted all over again.

But, this time there’s a big problem. Sam, and I must stress, for those who have read my book, is once again so wrong about his historical facts that he should feel moved to publically recant and apologize to theists and atheists alike. He states incorrectly that in the year 1633, "Galileo was being forced, under threat of death, to recant his understanding of the Earth’s motion." Under threat of death! What?!? This claim has been known to be wrong for so long that to keep repeating it is evidence of pure ignorance, carelessness, or pure malice. Why in the world Nature published such nonsense without giving the writer a chance to edit his embarrassing error hints of some kind of agenda: either to further the slander of religion, or to allow Sam to publically discredit himself. One can only hope the latter, and hope that it succeeds, too.

Truth is, according to real historians of the matter, Galileo was never threatened with death, nor even in danger of it, especially near the latter part of his story in 1633. At that time, even though he was under house arrest, the scientist was at leisure in a sunny Italian villa unharassed. He was once — seventeen years prior, in 1615-1616 — required to witness with the "on paper" threat of torture, but the respected historian Giorgio de Santillana informs us that even this "threat" was a mere formality which would never have been carried out due, if for nothing else, to Galileo’s age. (Giorgio de Santillana, The Crime of Galileo (Alexandria, VA: Time-Life Books, 1981 [1955]) 322-3)

Well, as you can tell from just that little bit, actual facts are a bit boring; so Sam doesn’t bother with them. He apparently prefers to charge his story with emotion and fear of immediate "threat from religion" — just as Pospielovsky reminds us the Soviets did. The reason is simple: the facts don’t line up with Sam’s argument, philosophy and science neither line up with Sam’s agenda, so he has to dramatize the story, and hope that enough fear will help recruit atheists.

Let me be the first to congratulate Sam on his pure bravado: to take on a scientific journal the size of Nature is truly an exhibition of David vs. Goliath faith. But to make such blunders in the process must be a real disappointment. I suspect it doesn’t bother him; meanwhile, let us be wary of his quasi-commie threat for scientists of the world to "unite against religion."

Better, out of our hands, let the "beauty and majesty of God’s creation" continue to overwhelm our resistance (a phrase written by Christian and genetic scientist Francis Collins, and presented by Sam as a subject of ridicule). Real science is not afraid of God, His majesty, or His beauty; it’s all quite natural. But until faith, reason, and tolerance have a balanced sway, atheists like Sam will continue to oppose Nature, and, for that matter, Nature’s God, too.

On Being a "Flea"

The running joke at the atheist website RichardDawkins.net is now to call all responses to recent atheist books “fleas” as if they were nothing more than parasites on the atheists’ successes. Apparently, I am one of these fleas.

As best I can tell, it seems to have started with a biting (forgive me) reference Dawkins himself made toward the highly accomplished Oxford scholar Alister McGrath. After McGrath published two books refuting Dawkins’ publications, Dawkins ignorantly accused him of “building a career riding upon my back.” Despite the fact that McGrath’s career was long since established before Dawkins’s own current job at Oxford was bought and funded for him by zillionaire Charles Simonyi, the atheist just can’t talk eye-to-eye with an intellectual peer who happens to be both a scientist and – gasp! – a theologian. So, Dawkins insulted his fellow Oxford professor with a quote from the poet W. B. Yeats, “Was there ever a dog who praised his fleas?"

Well, since Dawkins’s followers are capable of doing little except blindly following their leader, the “flea” label has been flung at all of us apologists, myself included.

The latest effort, collecting all of us “fleas” together is here.

So, what can I say to being called a parasite?

Well, I am a big believer in the old adage “Sticks and stones . . . but words will never hurt me,” so I will be happy to exchange rhetorical barks all night, all in good humor. Maybe that’s their way of avoiding the real issues. But at some point the name-callers must realize the implications of such metaphor-mongering. If I’m a flea, then what does that make my host?

I am reminded at this point of one of the great exchanges in the movie Rob Roy (paraphrasing somewhat):

Duke of Argyle: I hear that you’re putting my name about Court as a Jacobite . . .

Marquis of Montrose: Great men such as yourself draw rumors as shite draws flies.

Duke of Argyle: You are the shite, Montrose! And the flies upon it! For all the flowers in your great gardens, I know you in my nose. Keep your stink off my name, for by God, I will clip you as close as one of your gelded trees . . .

Now, I would like to thank the litter at the RichardDawkins.net kennel for publicizing my book. It’s hard to see us fleas with the naked eye – we are very small, indeed. So thanks to Dawkins for holding up the magnifying glass.

And, of course, anyone who cares to actually look through will see us all cozy and smiling. We sit comfortable and confident beneath the fur of atheistdom, and gladly feel the breeze when Dawkins’ whiffing hind-leg scratches-strains-scratches, but just can’t quite reach the itch.

And boy, do they strain often. Reading the several comments made by Dawkins’s underdogs on these posts makes me laugh and cry. Coming from a group that constantly boasts “open-mindedness,” “reason,” “tolerance,” “critical thinking,” and the like, the total bullheaded ignorance often displayed as confidence is a tragedy.

For example, the very first comment, coming from a user under the name of “heathen2,” exhibits their open-mindedness, use of evidence, and razor-sharp reasoning skills thusly: I will not buy a single flea book. Maybe peruse them if available at the library, but that's all. The same old worthless counter arguments are just boring and I don't have that kind of time to waste anymore.”

Excuse me? Don’t buy my book if you like, fine. Don’t read it either, OK. But then to pretend you already know what’s in it, and that it must be the “same old worthless” refuted arguments is to prove nothing but your own dogmatism. Please don’t pretend to be on the side of reason when you talk like that.

Besides, I have shown – in my long article “Darwin’s Bulldog and Russell’s Terriers” – just who exactly are the ones using the old, worn-out arguments. Some of these atheists rehash old stuff to the point of plagiarism – a practice that recalls the “dog returning to its vomit” (Prov. 26:11).

Examples like these from the modern atheist world are abundant. One of my favorites comes from my book’s listing on amazon.com . One reviewer posted a favorable review, and then another – naming himself “secularman” – criticized his review with another display of “new atheist” influence:

You claim this book bebunks the atheist viewpoint, and yet that is immposible if using facts, logic and reason. [. . .] There is no doubt that every argument in this book has already been shown to be a fallacy or a lie. [. . .] Anybody who believes in supernatural myths is insane and unable to compete against the infallable logic of atheists. Period.”

Aside from the atrocious spelling, secularman confirms for us what we apologists have been saying all along – today’s militant atheists are as dogmatic and close-minded a lot as any Holiness Pentecostal or Fundy Baptist ever thought about being. We are told that to refute atheism is “impossible,” and that the logic of atheists is “infallible,” and anyone who dissents is “insane.”

Scratch-scratch-scratch-scratch . . . Woof-woof . . . Hoowwwuuu!!!

BTW - What kind of world is it where people spend their time commenting on other people’s comments on other people’s books about other people’s books, within the small-folds of the publishing world?)

Enough.

So, perhaps, these days, Dawkins’s pack would love to find a flea-collar, but that would make them look too much like Anglican priests – so that’s out of the picture. But there remains one permanent solution for the atheists’ flea problem: get a dip. That is, get baptized, and end the froth-mouthed pit-fight for good.

Until then, Dawkins and company will continue their dogged attacks. There is hope, but as along as the leader of the pack is spreading the mange of atheism, fleas of all sorts will continue to spring up as well. It’s their choice.

D. James Kennedy, R.I.P.

Another giant Christian leader has passed on. D. James Kennedy, founder and life-long pastor of the 10,000 member Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church, founder of Knox Seminary, author of countless books and materials including the popular Evangelism Explosion, educator, scholar, patriot, you name it . . . died today at age 76.

Read an obituary written by Gary North here.

North notes well that despite all the wealth, responsibility and fame, "There was never a hint of scandal regarding his ministry."

In a time when liberals and atheists constantly throw the Ted Haggard's and others in believers' faces, continually reminding the world of Christian leaders' failings, the examples of men like Kennedy are good to remember. Among his many other accomplishments, his integrity is a model for future Christian leaders.

His leadership and erudition will be missed.