The so-called New Atheists* vilify all forms of theism, insisting that, while liberal theists might not be as overtly dangerous as other
theists, they support them by virtue of their belief that something called divine
revelation is superior
to reason and evidence. I don’t know what’s new about this as I’ve been
hearing it for the entire forty years that I’ve been a card-carrying atheist.
I even agree with it, although I consider it better to err
on the side of moderation in expressing ones beliefs due to the fact that
hardliners alienate everyone but other hardliners. Then again…
Madalyn Murry O’Hair was much more abrasive than
the New Atheists, and I used to wonder if, given that atheism got even less notice
back then than it does today, the negative attention she brought to it might not
have been preferable to silence. If so, the same is probably true of the
New Atheists. Moderates don’t make the news, and if you are to succeed in your fight
against something as rich and powerful as religion, you have to make the news.
One of my readers suggested that the New Atheists
want to see religion outlawed. While I don’t follow their latest pronouncements,
I at least scan every book on atheism that comes through the
library, and I haven’t run into such a proposal. I wrote to a friend who stays more attune to such things than I, and asked if he knew anything about it.
He responded:
“…I’ve never heard anyone honestly suggest that
religion should be banned. Hitchens was one of the most strident and he
often described religion as evil and poisonous, but I don’t believe he
advocated for a ban. Today, P.Z. Myers is one of the most ardent
anti-religious voices and he certainly doesn’t suggest banning religion…When a
Christian leaps to claiming that atheists would ban religion, they are usually
attempting to derail a conversation which has become uncomfortable for them in
some way. I believe it’s a form of the ‘Going Nuclear’ strategy when you
are losing an argument. One person points out how the Catholic Church
systematically raped children and hid the crimes and the other responds with
‘You atheists want to herd us all into rail cars like the Nazis.’ I’ve
seen one of your commenters do this on several occasions.”
All this got me to thinking about my own feelings
in regard to outlawing religion. I didn’t have to think long because I consider
the following self-evident:
1) Religious teachings that inflict emotional harm
upon children constitute child abuse;
2) Such teachings should be illegal in the presence of children.
2) Such teachings should be illegal in the presence of children.
You can beat a kid
with a stick, or you can beat him with the fear of God (“The fear of the Lord
is the beginning of wisdom.”—Proverbs 9:10), and when you have a kid hiding
under the bed as I did because he’s afraid of God, you’ve beaten him pretty badly. While the New
Atheists might not openly support a legal ban on the ability of religion to emotionally
brutalize children, I would, if only such a thing were possible. Unfortunately,
the only way to bring it about would be to take children from the homes of those
millions of parents who are so benighted as to imagine that they are saving
their children from hell after death by making their lives a hell on earth. In the words of Jonathan Edwards, who long ago wrote a sermon that’s still found in college-level literature books:
“The God that holds you over the pit of hell, much
as one holds a spider, or some loathsome insect over the fire, abhors you...he looks upon
you as worthy of nothing else but to be cast into the fire...you are ten thousand times more
abominable in his eyes than the most hateful venomous serpent is in ours.”
If you imagine that this kind of villainous talk was long ago abandoned by the church, I would point out that I grew up with it (though not always in such flowery language), and that it characterizes the teachings of Catholic, evangelical, and fundamentalist churches to this day. Churches like my childhood church might put more emphasis on their belief that only the blood of God the Son protects us from the “righteous wrath” of God the Father, but it remains church doctrine in nearly all of the churches I’ve studied, and I’ve studied the basic beliefs of dozens.
*The best known being Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and Christopher Hitchens.
If you imagine that this kind of villainous talk was long ago abandoned by the church, I would point out that I grew up with it (though not always in such flowery language), and that it characterizes the teachings of Catholic, evangelical, and fundamentalist churches to this day. Churches like my childhood church might put more emphasis on their belief that only the blood of God the Son protects us from the “righteous wrath” of God the Father, but it remains church doctrine in nearly all of the churches I’ve studied, and I’ve studied the basic beliefs of dozens.