Welcome to SPN

Register and Join the most happening forum of Sikh community & intellectuals from around the world.

Sign Up Now!

Atheism What Evangelicals and Atheists Have in Common

Discussion in 'Interfaith Dialogues' started by Tejwant Singh, Apr 26, 2010.

  1. Tejwant Singh

    Tejwant Singh United States
    Expand Collapse
    Mentor Writer SPNer Contributor

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2004
    Messages:
    4,560
    Likes Received:
    6,989
    What Evangelicals and Atheists Have in Common

    Skye Jethani: What Evangelicals and Atheists Have in Common
    Atheists and evangelicals often find themselves on opposite sides of the cultural battle line -- and those battles are becoming more frequent. The rise of "New Atheism" via best-selling books by Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, and the emergence of what I call "Constitutional Evangelicalism" comprised of Christians more likely to know the Second Amendment than the Second Commandment, has inflamed the tensions between the two groups.

    But the new breed of atheists and evangelicals may have more in common than they'd like to admit.

    For example, some within New Atheism are proselytizing their beliefs with the fervor, and in come cases anger, more often associated with evangelicals. From an international ad campaign on buses dismissing belief in God, to rallies at universities inviting students to exchange their Bibles for pornography, atheists are no longer content with a live-and-let-live approach to those adhering to religion. Instead, they are actively trying to convert (or is the word un-convert?) the masses.

    Last October NPR reported that Christopher Hitchens told a packed crowd at the University of Toronto, "I think religion should be treated with ridicule, hatred and contempt, and I claim that right." He told NPR, "If I said to a Protestant or Quaker or Muslim, 'Hey, at least I respect your belief,' I would be telling a lie."

    Of course not all atheists agree with Hitchen's evangelistic approach. Paul Kurtz, a more traditional atheist, worries that the rhetoric of Hitchens, Dawkins, and others will actually set the movement back:

    "I consider them atheist fundamentalists," Kurtz says. "They're anti-religious, and they're mean-spirited, unfortunately. Now, they're very good atheists and very dedicated people who do not believe in God. But you have this aggressive and militant phase of atheism, and that does more damage than good."

    I can't help but see the irony. It appears some New Atheists are incorporating the very traits they've often condemned about evangelicals -- intolerance, dogmatism, and now even the church's penchant for schism. It seems anything can be turned into a religion, even anti-religion.

    But evangelicals should take no delight in pointing out the speck in the atheists' eye while a log remains firmly lodged in our own.

    The common criticism levied on atheists by evangelicals is that they are prideful -- seeking to live "above God" with no regard for his existence or instructions. Atheists, the argument says, have given up on a theistic universe in favor of a humanist one -- a world in which purpose and truth are fluidly defined by the individual or at best one's community. As a result, some Christians view atheists as adrift, lost, and susceptible to all kinds of error and evil. The solution, say these evangelicals, is to embrace a life "under God" by submitting to his ways.

    This "over God" versus "under God" split is what has led to a great many cultural conflicts about same-sex marriage, abortion, stem cell research, public display of religious symbols, prayer in school, and even last month's decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to retain "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance despite arguments from atheists that it violates the First Amendment.

    But in their attempts to conform the United States' law and society to God's commands, these culturally crusading evangelicals have exchanged the Gospel of Jesus Christ for a Gospel of Morality. And in the process many of my evangelical sisters and brothers find themselves guilty of the very sin they peg on atheists -- seeking a position of authority above God. Let me explain with a few examples.

    Shortly after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, one evangelical leader made the following statement, for which he subsequently apologized:

    I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say, "You helped this happen."​
    Sadly, these kinds of judgments are not uncommon. Other church leaders made similar remarks after Hurricane Katrina in 2005 and following the earthquake in Haiti.

    Presumably, according to the logic within these proclamations, the way to prevent terrorist attacks and natural disasters in one's country is by earning the Almighty's affection and protection through moral behavior, adherence to prayer, traditional family values, and frequent worship.

    This "life under God" approach also applies to individuals. Countless evangelical teens have been taught that if they abstain from sexual activity before marriage God will bless their sex lives after the wedding. Evangelical parents clamor for "biblical" parenting methods guaranteed to result in moral, obedient children. And I've counseled a distraught business owner in my church who believed that if he gave generously to Christ's work, God would prosper his company.

    The problem with this "life under God" view of the world, apart from the obvious fact that it doesn't work, is that it is predicated on fear and control rather than love. What drives many who buy into such an approach is not love for one's Creator, but a desire to control God as a means of survival and advancement. Whether an ancient culture sacrificing a virgin in the volcano, or contemporary conservative evangelicalism, the "life under God" view inevitably results in human attempts to control the divine through ritual, morality, and dogmatic manipulation of others.

    The great irony is that while claiming submission to God, those advocating a life under God are actually seeking control over him through their religiosity. Pray X, sacrifice Y, avoid Z, and God's blessings are guaranteed. They have reduced God to a predictable, controllable, even contemptible formula. Some evangelicals condemn the atheists for exalting themselves over God without realizing they are guilty of the same sin by other means.

    Don't assume that I'm painting all evangelicals with this broad brush of hypocrisy. I am an evangelical, and there are many among us who recognized the danger of exchanging the message of the New Testament for a false message of national morality. But I believe both the New Atheists (advocating life over God) and the Constitutional Evangelicals (advocating life under God) are far closer in their values and worldview than either would like to acknowledge. They are two sides of the same coin. But there is a third dimension; a third way between "live over God" or "live under God." There is also "life with God" -- the Good News of Jesus Christ.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. Loading...

    Similar Threads Forum Date
    Christianity Evangelicals Interfaith Dialogues Aug 15, 2008
    Christianity Evangelicals boost green lobby (BBC News) Interfaith Dialogues Jul 8, 2005
    Christianity Evangelicals building a base among Iraqis (Boston Globe) Interfaith Dialogues Jun 26, 2005
    Why this forum thesedays is full of "saakats" (skeptics and atheists) ? Sikh Sikhi Sikhism Aug 28, 2015
    USA Atheists step in to help Ohio pastor assaulted by ‘militant atheist’ Breaking News Oct 28, 2013

  3. ArshSingh1984

    ArshSingh1984
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2010
    Messages:
    13
    Likes Received:
    3
    SSK bhaiji :) Enjoy kar



    “Atheists and evangelicals often find themselves on opposite sides of the cultural battle line -- and those battles are becoming more frequent. The rise of "New Atheism" via best-selling books by Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, and the emergence of what I call "Constitutional Evangelicalism" comprised of Christians more likely to know the Second Amendment than the Second Commandment, has inflamed the tensions between the two groups.”

    New-Atheism is not a new idea; Atheists have historically been subjugated and have only recently gained freedoms such as speech and expression to put religion in its place. When Christians wave around “God Hates Fags” signs, and think they are speaking for the almighty, someone has to point them out as inhuman jerks.

    But the new breed of atheists and evangelicals may have more in common than they'd like to admit.


    Hitchens has never hid the fact that he is an Anti-Theist. The very title of his book is “god Is NOT Great: How Religion Poisons Everything” – a great read, by the way. And again, this goes back to the right of free speech and free expression; religion is no longer held unaccountable for its actions. All this supposed “new-atheist” movement is doing is calling religion out on its errors.

    For example, some within New Atheism are proselytizing their beliefs with the fervor, and in come cases anger, more often associated with evangelicals. From an international ad campaign on buses dismissing belief in God, to rallies at universities inviting students to exchange their Bibles for pornography, atheists are no longer content with a live-and-let-live approach to those adhering to religion. Instead, they are actively trying to convert (or is the word un-convert?) the masses.


    We have had to put up with Christian billboards, and you never heard us complain. Suddenly because there are atheist signs people are outraged. Boohoo. And, the signs are not even meant to unconvert; they are signs to people who are too afraid to come right out to their religious families and say “I don’t believe in God”—the signs are meant to tell them that they are not alone. Sure, if some religious people unconvert, yay, but that is not the intent of the signs at all.

    Last October NPR reported that Christopher Hitchens told a packed crowd at the University of Toronto, "I think religion should be treated with ridicule, hatred and contempt, and I claim that right." He told NPR, "If I said to a Protestant or Quaker or Muslim, 'Hey, at least I respect your belief,' I would be telling a lie."


    He is telling it like it is. At least he isn’t lying. I thought not lying was a virtue in religious circles? Not to mention that Hitchens is not just an atheist, but a self-professed ANTI-THEIST, meaning that the very notion of God, and religion is repulsive to him. Again, he is just expressing himself.

    Of course not all atheists agree with Hitchen's evangelistic approach. Paul Kurtz, a more traditional atheist, worries that the rhetoric of Hitchens, Dawkins, and others will actually set the movement back:




    "I consider them atheist fundamentalists," Kurtz says. "They're anti-religious, and they're mean-spirited, unfortunately. Now, they're very good atheists and very dedicated people who do not believe in God. But you have this aggressive and militant phase of atheism, and that does more damage than good."


    Damage to what? Hitchens is always ready to debate any religious person; he is good friends with Dinesh D’Souza, a very evangelical Christian in his own right. All Hitchens and Dawkins are doing are promoting dialogue that would otherwise go unaddressed. They are raising legitimate issues.

    I can't help but see the irony. It appears some New Atheists are incorporating the very traits they've often condemned about evangelicals -- intolerance, dogmatism, and now even the church's penchant for schism. It seems anything can be turned into a religion, even anti-religion.


    Intolerance? Hardly. Atheists do not care if you are a member of a certain religion. All we ask is that we be treated as equals. The biggest faux-pas that Christian conservatives commit is mixing religion and politics by trying to enact laws that are religiously inspired (re: Prop 8, a.k.a. the biggest human rights violation of the last decade). Where is the dogma? All an atheist says is “I do not believe in any god”. How does dogma come out of that one statement?

    But evangelicals should take no delight in pointing out the speck in the atheists' eye while a log remains firmly lodged in our own.



    The common criticism levied on atheists by evangelicals is that they are prideful -- seeking to live "above God" with no regard for his existence or instructions. Atheists, the argument says, have given up on a theistic universe in favor of a humanist one -- a world in which purpose and truth are fluidly defined by the individual or at best one's community. As a result, some Christians view atheists as adrift, lost, and susceptible to all kinds of error and evil. The solution, say these evangelicals, is to embrace a life "under God" by submitting to his ways.


    Atheists are no more or less prideful than the average religious person. Pride is an individual trait.
    Fluid morality can evolve to ensure equality for all; rigid 2000 year old morals are outmoded and need updating. Christians are not exactly absolved of evil acts. Again, evil can be committed by anyone. The solution is not to submit to God; the solution is to come together as a society and assure that everyone is treated as an equal under the law (religious, nonreligious, gay, straight, black white, whatever).

    This "over God" versus "under God" split is what has led to a great many cultural conflicts about same-sex marriage, abortion, stem cell research, public display of religious symbols, prayer in school, and even last month's decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to retain "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance despite arguments from atheists that it violates the First Amendment.


    Which it does. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. It’s right there.

    But in their attempts to conform the United States' law and society to God's commands, these culturally crusading evangelicals have exchanged the Gospel of Jesus Christ for a Gospel of Morality. And in the process many of my evangelical sisters and brothers find themselves guilty of the very sin they peg on atheists -- seeking a position of authority above God. Let me explain with a few examples.


    …?

    Shortly after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, one evangelical leader made the following statement, for which he subsequently apologized:

    I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say, "You helped this happen."
    Sadly, these kinds of judgments are not uncommon. Other church leaders made similar remarks after Hurricane Katrina in 2005 and following the earthquake in Haiti.


    This was one of Christopher Hitchens’ main points of contention against Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. It was an offensive statement that insulted the deaths of those people, and the supposedly morally correct people laid these heinous accusations down. Does that not show that Hitchens’ shows a higher level of moral thinking than reverends of the church?

    Presumably, according to the logic within these proclamations, the way to prevent terrorist attacks and natural disasters in one's country is by earning the Almighty's affection and protection through moral behavior, adherence to prayer, traditional family values, and frequent worship.


    Presumably…

    This "life under God" approach also applies to individuals. Countless evangelical teens have been taught that if they abstain from sexual activity before marriage God will bless their sex lives after the wedding. Evangelical parents clamor for "biblical" parenting methods guaranteed to result in moral, obedient children. And I've counseled a distraught business owner in my church who believed that if he gave generously to Christ's work, God would prosper his company.


    And yet, abstinence-only education has shown a high positive correlation with teen pregnancy rates.

    The problem with this "life under God" view of the world, apart from the obvious fact that it doesn't work, is that it is predicated on fear and control rather than love. What drives many who buy into such an approach is not love for one's Creator, but a desire to control God as a means of survival and advancement. Whether an ancient culture sacrificing a virgin in the volcano, or contemporary conservative evangelicalism, the "life under God" view inevitably results in human attempts to control the divine through ritual, morality, and dogmatic manipulation of others.


    Wow, he finally makes some sense.

    The great irony is that while claiming submission to God, those advocating a life under God are actually seeking control over him through their religiosity. Pray X, sacrifice Y, avoid Z, and God's blessings are guaranteed. They have reduced God to a predictable, controllable, even contemptible formula. Some evangelicals condemn the atheists for exalting themselves over God without realizing they are guilty of the same sin by other means.


    Atheists and Christians highly differ here. Whereas Christians are raised in an environment to be afraid of the bad things for fear of hell, atheists do not have this fear and are free-thinking individuals who do not need an ancient text to be fulfilled in life.

    Don't assume that I'm painting all evangelicals with this broad brush of hypocrisy. I am an evangelical, and there are many among us who recognized the danger of exchanging the message of the New Testament for a false message of national morality. But I believe both the New Atheists (advocating life over God) and the Constitutional Evangelicals (advocating life under God) are far closer in their values and worldview than either would like to acknowledge. They are two sides of the same coin. But there is a third dimension; a third way between "live over God" or "live under God." There is also "life with God" -- the Good News of Jesus Christ.


    Yeah, no thanks.
     

Share This Page