Major Stephen Poxon shared recently in his Comment section of the
Salvationist, ”I think of a cartoon in my office, showing a man in a hospital
bed whose wife is explaining to the chaplain: ‘I’m sorry, Minister. He’s
changed his mind and he’s asking for Richard Dawkins.’
Jokes tend to work best when they contain at least a grain of truth.
This cartoon is no exception – it’s the easiest thing in the world for an
intellectual fad to challenge faith.”
On which side of the debate does the patient, if still kicking, stand
today on hearing that Professor Richard Dawkins, described as the world’s most notorious
atheist, on Feb 28, 2012, dismissed his hard-earned reputation as a militant
atheist - admitting that he is actually agnostic as he can't prove God doesn't
exist. “The country's foremost
champion of the Darwinist evolution, who wrote The God Delusion, stunned
audience members when he made the confession during a lively debate on the
origins of the universe with the Archbishop of Canterbury.” The Daily Mail
Just how far has this fad taken a naïve, apathetic, faith-challenged
society?
A 12 week module was recently
introduced in Leeds offering students a course on how to lose faith in religion
while learning to believe in a new atheism and humanism. Similar courses are
popping up on college curriculum offerings from Oxford, to San Diego. “…both (new) atheism and non-religion are
significant (and increasing) aspects of global socio-religious culture. For
example, one recent, conservative estimate suggests that there are between 500
and 750 million 'atheists, agnostics, and non-believers in God' worldwide.” Centre for
(Philosophical and Religious Studies - Department of Theology and
Religious Studies - University of Leeds)*
If these statistics are true one can then deduce
that there are:
· Fifty eight times as many atheists as there
are Mormons
· Forty one times as many atheists as there are
Sikhs
· Two times as many atheists as there are
Buddhists.
· Seven hundred times as many atheist as
Salvationists
Nonbelievers in
God as a group come in fourth place after Christianity (2 billion), Islam (1.2
billion), and Hinduism (900 million) in terms of global ranking of commonly
held belief systems. (Zuckerman 2007: 55)
Closer to home, the 2008 British Social Attitudes Survey reported that
fully 43% of the population consider themselves as belonging to 'no religion'
(a figure only 7% less than all the Christian categories combined). When asked
if they believe in God, 18% replied that they did not, with a further 19%
answering that they did not know if there was a God or not, and know no way of
finding out. That so many people do not believe in God, and do not consider
themselves to be religious, should surely be of interest to students of
religion(s)—as too, therefore, should their reasons, motivations, other belief
and attitudes, and demographic characteristics. (In precisely the same way,
political scientists take a great deal of interest in those who have no
interest in politics, and/or who do not participate in elections.) Related to
this, is the fact that popular and media discourse surrounding atheism and
unbelief tends to be overly simplistic and unhelpful, often focusing on the
perceived 'arrogance' or 'aggressiveness' of unbelievers (depicted as a
homogeneous group).
Recent research from the United States, moreover, suggests that atheists
are the country's least trusted social grouping, and are subject to various
forms of discrimination (Edgell et al. 2006; Cragun, forthcoming).
Mats Selander, a teacher at the CredoAcademy, an apologetic study center in Stockholm,
Sweden, and renowned expert on the New Atheist movement, wrote
in Swedish newspaper Svenska Dagbladet - "The outspoken men like Richard
Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, and in our country Christer Sturmark
have for a decade been a powerful voice in the public debate about faith and
religion; powerful, but also surprisingly aggressive. A study of these central
spokesmen clearly shows that the modern atheists’ foremost representatives had
adopted an astoundingly intolerant, sometimes it's (even a) more totalitarian
approach.
Lt. Peter Baronowsky, SA Regional Commander,
Latvia, shared in his widely read blog today that; “Earlier this week I was in
Stockholm’s Clapham Institute attending the combined Board and Annual meeting.
Claphaminstitutet is an institute for Christian advocacy… We are a think tank
and research institute that researches, writes, and publishes materials in the
form of reports, articles and books…
The Clapham Institutes’ annual meeting was honored
by the visit of Lars Adaktusson, and his subject was "Christian
advocacy". In the presentation he pointed out that advocacy takes time.
There is a lengthy process of creating public opinion. Who the message’s
exponent is factors greatly into how the message is received. A prerequisite in
being successful opinion leaders is to have a message that you believe worthy
of arguing and even fighting for.”
One of the
core New Atheist assertions, endlessly and uncritically repeated on New Atheist
websites, is Richard Dawkins's dogmatic statement that faith is "blind
trust, in the absence of evidence, even in the teeth of evidence."
Blind faith is generally defined as: belief without true understanding,
perception, or discrimination. For Dawkins, this means that faith counts as a "form of mental
illness." This nasty intellectual perversion is limited to religious
people. "Faith, being belief that isn't based on evidence, is the
principal vice of any religion."
At least four fundamentally important viewpoints
can be gleaned from the above:
· The new
atheists’ message is found appealing to a large and growing percentage of the
population crossing cultural and societal lines
· Many Christian
and non-believers waver because their belief lacks true understanding,
perception, or discrimination and they are susceptible to ‘new’, dogmatic and
critical outcries.
· The new
atheist and humanist representatives employ an astoundingly intolerant, (even
a) totalitarian effective approach.
· This fad has moved
society into a gray area of non-belief where mass indifference rules; a type
of "societal
collapse", and with it, the disappearance of the cohesiveness a theist
society and culture
represent as a civil institution.
Are people moving away from the church because of the convincing
arguments based on scientific insights? Are the loud voices of humanists and
atheists drawing followers from those rejecting weak Christianity?
We are at
the stage where history more than ever is divided between two great religious
communities; the City of God and the city of man. The latter relish in a
cyclical pattern of growth while the City of God prays for a cyclical revival.
What's our next step?
Dr. Sven Ljungholm
Birkenhead Corps
UK