Atheism and stupidity

Two recent articles in the Washington Post point to the intellectual weakness of the growing atheist movement in the United States and in England. To any truly philosophic mind atheism is not an option, ruled out by all reason and evidence. With reason and evidence set aside, a person must draw his arguments from badly construed logic based on a false premise. This is why I have never met an argument for atheism that I could treat with any respect, and I have met the best of them.

The logical weaknesses mentioned in these two articles are glaring and obvious. The first article by Mary Jordan contains one of the best examples of feeble mindedness to date, namely the inability to make clear distinctions of fact. Take this paragraph as an example, since most of the article (which drags on to be needlessly long, and cries out for better editing) revolves around it.

"Many analysts trace the rise of what some are calling the 'nonreligious movement' to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The sight of religious fanatics killing 3,000 people caused many to begin questioning -- and rejecting -- all religion."

In other words, because Muslims are actually carrying on with the same violence we see in the historical Mohammed himself, a man who rejected both Judaism and Christianity, today's atheist uses the terrorism of Islam as an excuse to reject the same religions Mohammed persecuted. An inability to make the distinction between Christianity and the Wahabi sect of Islam indicates an intellectual handicap. Excuse making is a form of intellectual laziness, and anyone who fails to see the logical fallacy of such an argument demonstrates nothing more than either one of two faults: Either such a person is genuinely stupid, or he simply confuses his tastes with evidence. Because he does not like something he concludes that he can ignore it into a state of non-existence (and the fallen nature of man really does not like God, even when it is aware of needing him) .

Another problem is that of intellectual dishonesty. In the second article by Jacqueline L. Salmon, we are reminded of the fact that Christopher Hitchens distorted the writings of Mother Teresa (either intentionally, or because he had no understanding of what he was trying to read), and came to an embarrassingly foolish conclusion:

"Focusing fresh attention on atheism in the United States was the publication last week of a book about Mother Teresa that lays out her secret struggle with her doubts about God. 'Mother Teresa: Come Be My Light' has led some high-profile atheists to say that her spiritual wavering was actually atheism.

" 'She couldn't bring herself to believe in God, but she wished she could,' said Christopher Hitchens, a Washington-based columnist and author of 'God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything,' the latest atheist bestseller."

About this I have already written on this blog, along with a link to a better review than Hitchens was capable of producing. How can a man with an atheist agenda understand the darker side of hagiography? It is like a man born blind trying to understand distinctions in color.

The article itself engages in intellectual dishonesty by a false comparison:

"In the past two years, five books touting atheism have hit the bestseller lists, outselling such religious tomes as Pope Benedict XVI's book on Jesus, and popular Christian novelist Tim LaHaye's latest book, 'Kingdom Come,' according to Nielsen BookScan."

Considering the small amounts of affirmative reading available to atheists, it is very easy to pick any specific Christian author and compare the sales of those books to the relatively narrow selection of anti-religious offerings, and boast about the results. It is a form of misinformation. I wonder how these atheist books compare with the world's constant best seller, The Bible.

Intellectual dishonesty is found at its sharpest in this second article by this little bit:

"Javier Sanchez-Yoza, 21, a biology major at George Mason University, is a former born-again Christian who gave up his belief in God two years ago and is starting an atheist club at school. He turned atheist after growing skeptical of Christian friends' arguments for creationism.

" 'If they can be wrong about creationism, what else can they be wrong about?' Sanchez-Yoza said."

So, because this man cannot believe in a literal six twenty-four hour days of creation, and in Adam and Eve as history, he has decided that there is no God. I suppose that this man can share the blame with Fundamentalists who cannot make the necessary distinctions either; but the Fundamentalists are seen as stupid, while this man, who makes the same error in logic, considers himself to be among, as they call themselves, "the brights."

Let's face it: Atheists are really boring, especially when they attempt to sound clever.