Atheist spat
The New Atheists vs their bedfellows in the NCSE/BCSE
by David Anderson
Published: 24 May 2011(GMT+10)
iStockphoto
Recently, a public dispute broke out between two different ‘camps’ of atheists on
the Internet. It was not very edifying, but it was illuminating. It illustrated
some of the ‘fault-lines’ that run through today’s atheist movements. We need to
know our enemy, and can often learn from them.
On one side were the so-called ‘New Atheists’ whose most public face is Richard
Dawkins. The argument itself flared up on the websites of ‘New Atheists’ Jerry Coyne
and P Z Myers,1 biology
professors in the US. Their overall position is simple. They believe that science
proves atheism, and that all religious or supernatural beliefs are anti-scientific.
More than that, they believe that religion is positively evil and dangerous, and
that the future progress of humanity requires a serious effort to eradicate religion.
The ‘New Atheists’ are crusaders and our children are fair game. They believe that
Christian doctrines are potentially more damaging than sexual abuse.
As Westerners, they concentrate the bulk of their fire against Christianity, and
especially evangelicalism. If you visit Dawkins’ website, you will find typical
quotes showing Dawkins’ view of God, such as these: “The hypothesis of God offers
no worthwhile explanation for anything” and “Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps
because of, the lack of evidence” and “Who will say with confidence that sexual
abuse is more permanently damaging to children than threatening them with the eternal
and unquenchable fires of hell?”2
The last quote illustrates the insidious nature of their campaigning agenda. The
‘New Atheists’ are crusaders and our children are fair game. They believe that Christian
doctrines are potentially more damaging than sexual abuse. The implications of that
belief are frightening; we are all aware of the stigma and the force of the law
deserved by and brought down upon crimes of paedophilia. The ‘New Atheists’ think
that it’s reasonable to suggest that orthodox, biblical teaching and paedophilia
should be treated the same way. This quote is not isolated or taken out of context;
we can readily find articles in which ‘New Atheists’, including Dawkins, try to
justify this position.3
The disagreement
On the other side of the ‘disagreement’ were two organisations, one in the US and
the other in the UK. What they have in common is that both are campaigning groups.
Their aim is to prevent any form of questioning of Darwinism in state schools. Their
desire is that evolution should be presented to all children as incontestable and
proven scientific fact. They not only oppose the discussion of creationism, but
also of intelligent design (ID) and even the discussion of weaknesses or flaws in
evolutionary theory (falsely claiming that ID is really creationism in disguise,
and that no real flaws exist). The US body is the well-known ‘National Center for
Science Education’ (NCSE). The NCSE is led by Eugenie Scott, a campaigning atheist
who is also a committee member of the ‘CSI’ skeptic group, and a signatory of the
third humanist manifesto.4
This manifesto is a straightforward statement of practical atheism. It claims that
all matters of knowledge, ethics, human fulfilment and the like are to be found
and measured exclusively in man (not God).5
The NCSE has been successful in being taken seriously by state and federal governments,
and was a key part of the
‘Dover Trial’ in which a US judge ruled that ID theory was inherently religious.
The ‘British Centre for Science Education’ (BCSE) is an outfit that is much more
difficult to take seriously. It was founded and is operated by Roger Stanyard, a
satellite consultant with no detectable experience in the fields of either science
or education. See box for some background to its credibility,
agenda, and attempt to hide the latter.
The meat of the argument
The argument itself was about how the NCSE and BCSE deal with religion. According
to the ‘New Atheists’, religion is evil, and should never be promoted or condoned
in any way. Their openly-declared aim is the removal of religion from society. Instead,
the NCSE/BCSE take what is called an ‘accommodationist’ approach. Although (as the
box details) the NCSE/BCSE’s leaders ultimately share this aim,
they see it as bad strategy. Their particular campaigning aim is limited—they want
to make sure that Darwinism is not questioned within science education. If they
‘de-cloaked’ and showed their full agenda, then their limited aim might be jeopardised.
Or put more simply, they would not get taken seriously by the government and others
they are aiming at. If people knew what the NCSE/BCSE really wanted, long-term,
these groups would be side-lined. Most people consider that Dawkins’ agenda is extreme
and undesirable; only a small proportion of people in society are avowed atheists,
much less militant fundamentalist ones.
The irritant for the ‘New Atheists’ is that the NCSE/BCSE do not leave religion
out of their work. Instead, they positively look to recruit religious figures [who]
will help to persuade onlookers that they are not really a wing of the atheist movement
… even religiously neutral.
The irritant for the ‘New Atheists’ is that the NCSE/BCSE do not leave religion
out of their work. Instead, they positively look to recruit religious figures. These
religious figures will help to persuade onlookers that they are not really a wing
of the atheist movement; that they are even religiously neutral. Not being seen
as religiously neutral would be a particular problem for the NCSE, whose campaigns
are built on the premise that any questioning of Darwinism is motivated by religion,
and that religion is effectively banned from US public schools by common interpretations
of the US Constitution. The aim is to try to show that people of all religions and
none are united around Darwinism; it is not a ‘party position’.
To this end, religious figures are welcome to appear on NCSE/BCSE platforms and
explain why Darwinism is not essentially atheism. For this purpose, the NCSE hired
Peter Hess as a ‘Faith Project Director’, whose work is ‘Religious Community Outreach’.11 The BCSE website includes
an article by Hess. This and other articles contain statements like the following
(as you read them, recall the point that they fundamentally contradict the anti-religion
platform of Dawkins et al.): “science and religion need not contradict
one another”, “Properly understood, there is no conflict between religion and science”,
“religion ministers to the need for normative guidance” and “The question of whether
or not God exists lies beyond the realm of empirical science, and properly belongs
to religion and philosophy”.
Jerry Coyne has a big problem with this kind of thing. Coyne was provoked when Roger
Stanyard turned up on his blog, requesting that Coyne hold back on his attacks on
religion. (Remember that if too many people associate Darwinism with atheism, then
the BCSE’s cover could be blown). This led Coyne to write an open letter to both
the BCSE and NCSE. He attacked them for their policies of cosying up to religious
believers, and trying to persuade them that their aims were friendly. Coyne, followed
by others, urged them to stop it, to not contradict ‘New Atheists’, and/or to drop
all their pro-religious output.12
Coyne also slammed both the BCSE and NCSE for their “ham-handed communications”.
For these atheist groups—both those who openly acknowledge it, and those who play
it down—evolution and atheism are all part of the same cause. Some of them feel
free to say so openly; others take part in a tacit subterfuge, hiring (and borrowing
from) non-atheists to help their cause, while themselves not believing a word of
what such helpers say.
Chaos descends
There then followed an extended fight, on Coyne’s blog, Dawkins’ website and the
BCSE’s forums.13 As Christians,
it is biblical to pray that God will bring our enemies into confusion, and God answers
such prayers. During the ensuing melee, Stanyard declared Dawkins to be a “life-long
enemy”,14 and Dawkins
called Stanyard a liar, a “self-promoting fool” and a “buffoon”, handing the latter
two insults also to Nick Matzke, formerly an NCSE public representative.
Generally, trawling through this mess would be unhelpful. Better to spend our time
positively promoting the biblical position, and preaching divine creation, judgment
and salvation to lost people. But there is a lesson that stands out for creationists.
For these atheist groups—both those who openly acknowledge it, and those who play
it down—evolution and atheism are all part of the same cause. Some of them feel
free to say so openly; others take part in a tacit subterfuge, hiring (and borrowing
from) non-atheists to help their cause, while themselves not believing a word of
what such helpers say.
Serious Christians need to wise up and stop being taken for a ride. Often attributed
to Communist leader Lenin (but according to some sources, without any proof15), the phrase ‘useful idiot’
refers to the person who unwittingly advances a cause whose real aim is to fatally
undermine their own cause. Christians who support groups similar to the NCSE and
BCSE fit this description.
Darwinism is atheism
Though they may love Jesus sincerely, when [Christians] promote Darwinism, they
promote an idea whose end effect when believed consistently is to undermine all
biblical truth.
In the 19th century, leading Princeton theologian Charles Hodge authored
a book entitled “What is Darwinism?”16
His conclusion was that “Darwinism is atheism”. He came to this conclusion because
Darwinism does not simply give a theory about how processes working within creation
(potentially under God’s control) could give rise to the present world. Rather,
Darwinism is a systematic explanation of how the natural world could develop, without
any overall intention and without any design—i.e. without any mind (let alone a
divine mind) controlling or overseeing the purpose. Darwinism explains how law and
chance can combine, without any supernatural supervision, to bring about the biological
world as we know it.
Ultimately, all Christians who promote Darwin’s theories have been and are, no matter
how sincere and nice they are, co-opted as ‘useful idiots’ in the atheist cause.
Though they may love Jesus sincerely, when they promote Darwinism, they promote
an idea whose end effect when believed consistently is to undermine all
biblical truth. It may be a ‘secondary issue’ in terms of salvation, but in terms
of having a coherent witness in the world, Darwinism is very definitely primary,
and needs addressing in the church. We give thanks that these mistaken brothers
and sisters are generally quite inconsistent in their beliefs. But reading about
the in-house squabbles of campaigning atheists ought to call us to pay attention.
It does not matter that you did not intend the termites you encouraged
into your basement to bring the whole house down. The fact is that, sooner or later,
if not eradicated, they will.
The so-called ‘British Centre for Science Education’
Atheist front pretending to be ‘neutral’ on religion
I began covering this group and their activities when they launched in late 2006
after they persuaded a few gullible MPs to back a motion on their behalf in the
House of Commons. I published the completed fruits of my research on a website when
I finished a year later.6
The ‘BCSE’ seems to have chosen its name and website address to resonate with supporters
of, and presumably to gain some credibility from, the NCSE, though there is no official
connection.7
On various websites located during this research, Stanyard and other founding members
of the BCSE explained their aims in founding the BCSE. They included such objectives
as to oppose religion in general, to prevent a radical religious theocracy rising
in the UK (!), and to clamp down on the freedoms of Christians to share their beliefs
with others, including their own children.8
When these discussions, and the general lack of qualifications of its leadership
to represent themselves as leaders in science education were embarrassingly exposed
by this research, the BCSE then deleted a number of sections of its website. Instead,
it began to present itself as religiously neutral.
In the years since it has also recruited some committee members with actual qualifications
in biological science. However, a quick look around the BCSE website shows that
these appear to be figureheads only, with the heavy lifting still basically done
by the same two non-credible figures (Stanyard and Mr. Mark Edon9). When my research concluded in 2008, the 11 past
and present members of the BCSE committee were all, with only a single exception,
atheists (compare this with a figure of around 15% in society at large who self-identify
in this way10). Nevertheless,
in our PR-orientated and Darwin-and atheism-friendly society, the BCSE has more
than once managed to persuade figures in parliament or the mainstream press to promote
its output.
[Editor’s update: The BCSE recently stirred up UK MPs again, being
at the forefront of the CrISIS movement. see Secular Humanists seek to ban origins debate in the UK education
system.]
|
Readers’ comments:
Dawnelle T., Canada, 24 May 2011
“Who will say with confidence that sexual abuse is more permanently damaging to
children than threatening them with the eternal and unquenchable fires of hell?”
I can’t help but notice the contradiction that such a prominent scientist continually
reverts to such belief statements and scare tactics which are unsupported by science.
A true scientist might conduct a study with control groups comparing the two states
(child abuse/Christianity) rather than spouting unsubstantiated opinion.
I guess it just shows how fear of the Lord is the beginning of all knowledge.
A S., Egypt, 24 May 2011
I am a believer in GOD , i hate atheism as a very dark side of human arrogance ,
i am convinced that they-atheists-attack your side because of what your side say
; unless you omit all human inventions concerning the nature of god ( 325 and beyond)
, and unless all types of mythical thinking is avoided , and unless you as a group
return to the clear , pure , great , exalted concept of GOD , no atheist will pay
attention to you……no reasonable , rational mind can believe in a god who is painted
as an old man extending his finger to a man to give him life ( note that adam is
already alife ), no respectful mind would accept THAT kind of a god , your concept
of god is what r. dawkins attacked in his ( god delusion ) but this is not GOD ,
this is a very distorted mythical bad concept of paganism.
So if you want any success start cleaning the very bad image you give them of a
weak , insulted , helpless , limited , mortal kind of human-god.
This is a sincere advice from the heart.
So it was written , so it must be done.
Philip Bell responds:
It is good that your feedback is sincere and from the heart–my response (below)
is given with the same attitude.
Those atheists who attack and criticise the organisation of Creation Ministries
International do so chiefly because they are opposed to the Biblical Christian
worldview. The reason for this is that they know it teaches accountability to the
Creator. Furthermore, in many of our articles, we point out how God was incarnate
in the person of Jesus; that he was not merely a good man or a prophet but God’s
supreme Gift to this world of sinful human beings (people alienated from a Holy
God). We believe, as the Bible clearly teaches, that Jesus is the only Saviour of
men and women, that all who genuinely turn to God, putting faith in Jesus’ sacrifice
for sin, experience what the Bible calls the ‘new birth’, are forgiven and accepted
by God–they gain eternal life. Of course, many people are offended by this
message (whether atheistic, agnostic or religious–as you yourself are). In spite
of this salvation through Jesus being Good News, it offends our feelings of self-righteousness,
of seeking to justify ourselves rather than humbly accepting God’s gracious provision
of His own Beloved Son on our behalf.
Richard Dawkins states in his The God Delusion book that he is critical
of all religions but you are correct that he focuses his attention particularly
on Christianity–he says that this is because it is the religion with which he is
most familiar. In a TV series on Channel 4, Dawkins also spent time criticising
Judaism and Islam (screened in Great Britain in 2008 and titled The Genius of Charles
Darwin). Any religious belief that contradicts Darwinian evolution is targeted
by Dawkins and other ‘new atheists’ as this Creation magazine editorial shows: The vital mission for atheists:
discrediting the supernatural. I put it to you that the real reason that
Dawkins and others are bent on attacking the person and God revealed in the Bible
(Old and New Testaments) is that they are working hard to convince themselves of
their atheism! As I wrote in my review of The God Delusion (Atheist
with a Mission), he seems to be "a man driven by an unholy zeal to
depose the God he claims to disbelieve in but transparently hates"–in other
words, a misotheist rather than a true atheist. Nobody feels hatred for imaginary
entities and I put it to you that this God of the Bible is despised by
many precisely because He is so real (including in the person of His Son, Jesus
the Prophet, Great High Priest, King and Messiah) and hard to ignore.
Mike W., United Kingdom, 25 May 2011
Atheist “spat”
If atheists can’t produce a consistent strategy and approach to religion then
how are they supposed to produce a standard morality to replace the ten commandments?
It’s tempting to claim a creation victory here, however this sort of thing,
sad to say, happens between and within Christian communities. It only goes to show
that humans in general are flawed creations and that the doctrine of humanism, the
idea that humans are intrinsically “good” is false. Things can only
get worse for the BCSE, cut adrift from it’s atheist roots and increasingly
reliant on compromising clerics. The latter are the ones that seem most shocked
at the attacks from militant atheists and feel that the “battle” might
be lost to creationism.
Will B., United States, 26 May 2011
Friends, please, let us not forget that atheists are human beings. Love your neighbors
as yourselves. To discriminate against any group for their lack of religion is just
as bad as to discriminate against someone because of their radical religion. I believe
that, if this site or any of the comments on it are to be taken seriously by anyone
with a high level of authority, the content of this site and its comments should
remain impartial and objective. From what I have already read, it looks fairly slanderous,
and hate speech is not highly respected.
I write not to criticize anyone’s religion or lack thereof, but only to remind
everyone that tolerance matters. Those that are the most tolerant are the most respected.
Philip Bell responds:
We wholeheartedly agree with your first two sentences. In fact, you may be interested
to know that a number of my colleagues were once atheists themselves.
You wrote, however, “the content of this site and its comments should remain
impartial and objective. From what I have already read, it looks fairly slanderous,
and hate speech is not highly respected.”
I would be grateful if you could point out specific instances that you “have
already read” where we have used “partial”, “slanderous”
or “hate” speech as this is certainly something we are keen to avoid.
In the article in question, the author did refer to ‘useful idiots’,
an idiom that means, as he clearly stated, “the phrase ‘useful idiot’
refers to the person who unwittingly advances a cause whose real aim is to fatally
undermine their own cause”. Used carefully, in context (as here), this was
not an ad hominem—and note that the whole point is that the person
is “unwittingly” sawing of the branch on which they are sitting.
Regarding your words about “tolerance”, I’m afraid that this often
means tolerance of all views, including flagrant sinful and anti-Christian behaviour,
but gross intolerance of the teachings of Christ and the Bible generally.
I would encourage you to read
The tyranny of tolerance and
this example of intolerance of a schoolgirl’s Christian views.
|
Related articles
Further reading
References
- scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/04/the_bcse_blows_up.php.
Return to text.
- richarddawkins.net/quotes. Return to text.
- e.g. richarddawkins.net/articles/118. Return
to text.
- en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenie_Scott. Return
to text.
- en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanist_manifesto#Humanist_Manifesto_III.
Return to text.
- www.bcse-revealed.info. Return to text.
- www.bcseweb.org.uk, www.ncseweb.org. The NCSE have since obtained
and begun using ncse.com. Return to text.
- Documented at www.bcse-revealed.info/bcse/bcse.rev/Main/ReligiousNeutrality.html.
Return to text.
- www.bcse-revealed.info/bcse/bcse.rev/Main/MarkEdon.html. Return to text.
- In the 2001 UK census, 14.6% of people ticked the box for
“No Religion”. Return to text.
- ncse.com/about/staff. Return to text.
- whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/04/23/a-bright-spot-at-the-chronicle-and-an-open-letter.
It is interesting to note that Coyne believed that the BCSE is “new”, not being
aware of its 5-year history, implicitly supporting the verdict I have given on the
BCSE as a non-credible organisation. Return to text.
- e.g. forums.bcseweb.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=2629.
Return to text.
- forums.bcseweb.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=2629#p26542.
Return to text.
- E.g. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot.
Return to text.
- www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/19192. Return
to text.
| You are probably accessing this site because you had questions—just like everyone else. That’s why CMI exists. You can keep the free answers on this site coming.  | | |
|
