"The Vincible Ignorance of Atheism"

by leavingwt 30 Replies latest jw friends

  • leavingwt
    leavingwt

    One Evangelical's perspective on atheism, and 'red meat' for all. . .

    The Vincible Ignorance of Atheism

    David Hart’s recent essay on the New Atheists has been receiving a great deal of attention—and criticism. At the risk of piling on, I have to add a complaint of my own. There is one part of his essay where he stretches a congenial concession into a dangerously misleading claim:

    Skepticism and atheism are, at least in their highest manifestations, noble, precious, and even necessary traditions, and even the most fervent of believers should acknowledge that both are often inspired by a profound moral alarm at evil and suffering, at the corruption of religious institutions, at psychological terrorism, at injustices either prompted or abetted by religious doctrines, at arid dogmatisms and inane fideisms, and at worldly power wielded in the name of otherworldly goods. In the best kinds of unbelief, there is something of the moral grandeur of the prophets—a deep and admirable abhorrence of those vicious idolatries that enslave minds and justify our worst cruelties.

    Even as a fervent believer I can acknowledge that skepticism and atheism can be inspired by the reasons Hart lists. But I fail to understand how that makes them noble, precious, or necessary traditions. Indeed, I wish Christians would recognize just the opposite: We have to abandon the politically correct notion that atheism is intellectually respectable.

    Historically speaking, this concession to the greatest lie in the universe is a rather recent development. While there have always been people who deny the existence of a deity, it has not been a prominent view among intellectuals, much less a serious alternative to Christian theism. What previous cultures instinctively understood, and that we in turn have forgotten, is that atheism is a form of (self-imposed) intellectual dysfunction, a lack of epistemic virtue, or—to borrow a term from my Catholic friends—a case of vincible ignorance.

    Vincible ignorance is lacking knowledge that is within the individual’s control and for which he is responsible before God. In Romans, St. Paul is clear that atheism is a case of vincible ignorance: “For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.” Acknowledging the existence of God is just the beginning—we must also recognize several of his divine attributes. Atheists that deny this reality are, as St. Paul said, without excuse. They are vincibly ignorant.

    Some people—even some believers—will be scandalized by this claim. Such is the state of our culture that even Christians are offended by the truths expressed in Scripture. We have so thoroughly bought into the notion that atheism is an intellectually respectable position that when we point out the truth (that atheism is a form of intellectual handicap) we are viewed as intolerant. But we Christians do atheists no favor by treating them as if they were simply “differently abled.” By ignoring their epistemic and metaphysical brokenness, we are shirking our Christian duty to truly show love for our neighbor.

    Equally shameful is that we share a fair amount of the blame for creating the stumbling block of “new atheism.” We have no qualms about pointing out moral and political failings. Yet when it comes to matters of epistemic and metaphysical truth, we refuse to take a firm, Biblically justified stance. Why is that? Why do we feel we must treat atheism as if it were any more respectable than, say, a belief in the healing power of crystals? Have we completely abandoned the concept of intellectual virtue?

    Claiming that everyone is without excuse for refusing to acknowledge the existence of a God isn’t intolerant or an attempt to impose our beliefs on others; it’s a simple statement of fact—and one that we should have the courage to express freely.

    (Note: Just so there is not confusion, being vincibly ignorant about God does not mean that atheists are less intelligent—or, for that matter, less moral—than theists. Everyone exhibits vincible ignorance about something. Atheists just do it about the most important things.)

    http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2010/05/13/the-vincible-ignorance-of-atheism/

    ---------

    First Things is published by The Institute on Religion and Public Life, an interreligious, nonpartisan research and education institute whose purpose is to advance a religiously informed public philosophy for the ordering of society.

  • leavingwt
    leavingwt

    Here is one atheist's response. . .

    Let me do a substitution on the part I have emphasized: While there have always been people who deny the existence of Allah, it has not been a prominent view among intellectuals, much less a serious alternative to Muslim theism. For much of the history of the West there were strong social sanctions against public expressions of atheism. And quite often the sanctions were not simply matters of ostracism, they were of capital consequence. The last person executed in the British Isles for atheism suffered such a punishment around ~1700 (see How the Scots Invented the Modern World). There were almost certainly many atheists at the commanding heights of intellect in the pre-modern era in the West, but they would certainly not be open about their views lest they suffer extreme punishment. Additionally, in an era where written works were copied in religious institutions the likelihood of atheistic arguments being transcribed seem rather low (there were already pre-Christian works, such as those of Lucretius, which were useful as examples to refute). A window into the atheists at the heights of intellect who we know nothing of may be someone such as Étienne Charles de Loménie de Brienne , who flourished in a time of transition between the old and new regime in regards to freedom of conscience. He was a bishop of the Roman Catholic Church, but his clerical career was a matter of self-interest, not genuine belief. His materialism and atheism was so well known that the king of France vetoed his advancement within the Church because he believed that de Brienne’s lack of belief in Christianity rendered his aspirations to becoming a prince of the Church unseemly.

    But we don’t have just the West as an example. In both India and China many intellectuals have long been skeptical of theism. Granted, this does not mean that the majority of intellectuals were atheists, but the atheist position has not been without defenders. The Confucian sage Xun Zi was arguably a materialist, whose defense of the propriety of religious ritual was purely instrumental. Even those Chinese scholars who were more open to supernaturalism than Xun Zi often found Christian theism to be beneath their consideration, reflecting a more primitive mindset.

    http://secularright.org/wordpress/?p=4124

  • bohm
    bohm

    meh. the nutjob in question is an atheist to thousands of Gods and deities. How come that is not dishonest?

  • Terry
    Terry

    That article is Payback for these books which have been selling quite impressive quantities.

    1. Sam Harris: The End of Faith. (Religion, Terror and the Future of Reason.)

    2. Richard Dawkins: The God Delusion

    3. Christopher Hitchens: God is not Great (The Case Against Religion)

    4. Michel Onfray: Atheist Manifesto (The case against Christianity, Judaism and Islam)

    5. Pascal Boyer: Religion Explained (The Human Instinct that Fashion Gods, Spirits and Ancestors)

    6. Daniel C. Dennett: Breaking the Spell (Religion as a Natural Phenomenon)

    7. Nicholas Humphrey: The Mind Made Flesh (Frontiers of Psychology and Evolution)

    8. Scott Atran: In Gods We Trust (The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion)

    9. Victor J. Stenger: God – The Failed Hypothesis (How Science Shows That God Does not Exist)

    10. Sam Harris: Letter to a Christian Nation

  • cyberjesus
    cyberjesus

    damn i like that picture

  • BurnTheShips
    BurnTheShips

    We have to abandon the politically correct notion that atheism is intellectually respectable.

    This isn't necessarily true, it seems to me.

    or—to borrow a term from my Catholic friends—a case of vincible ignorance.

    He seems to ignore the Catholic term known as: "invincible ignorance."

    BTS

  • Elsewhere
    Elsewhere

    >We have to abandon the politically correct notion that atheism is intellectually respectable.

    I don't know where the author of that got that idea from, but Atheists are the last group, after homosexuals, with whom it is still ok openly and actively discriminate against.

    In fact, until the supreme court stepped in, it was illegal for an atheist to hold any public office in Texas. (It is in the Texas Constitution)

  • VoidEater
    VoidEater

    We have to abandon the politically correct notion that atheism is intellectually respectable.

    ...and grant that belief in any god or gods or fairies or pink unicorns is "intellectually respectable?"

    Sorry, that's a pretty biased statement and requires a whole constellation of presumed context to not be laughable.

    Without being brain-washed taught a particular religion, all religion is equally mythical. But once hooked - well, suddenly everyone else is crazy.

  • ziddina
    ziddina

    Let me see if I've got this straight...

    David Hart is an "Evangelical"... "One Evangelical's perspective on atheism..."

    He believes in the 'god' [actually, 'gods'... "EL", "YHWH", and the Trinity-gods of the New Testament...] of one of the most recent religions to come into existence...

    There are so MANY religions that are far, far OLDER than the Middle-Eastern trilogy; Judaism, Christianity, and Islam...

    Goddess worship is AT LEAST 35,000 years old, and with the discovery and confirmation of the man-[woman?]made "Acheulean Goddess" that is AT LEAST 230,000 years old and may be as old as 800,000 years ...That pushes the worship of that particular deity back, quite possibly to being over 100 times as old as the bible!!

    I've said it before; I'll say it again until I'm BLUE IN THE FACE...

    The TRUE DEITY [if there is one...] of this planet WON'T BE FOUND IN THE YOUNGEST RELIGIONS!!! It will be found in the OLDEST religion!!!!

    Which shoots ALL of these "Johnny-come-lately" contenders out of the water... and basically negates most of David Hart's blather, like:

    "Historically speaking, this concession to the greatest lie in the universe is a rather recent development..."

    HIGHLY ironic, considering that HE's worshipping a " lie" that is a "rather recent development..."

    I wish, wish, WISH that people would realize the true significance of the basic fact that that which came first, IS OLDEST, and is THE ORIGINAL... All others are FOLLOWERS, and are derivative...

    Basic principle illustrated by geology... The earliest rocks on the face of the planet which cooled out of the earth's molten surface were re-integrated into subsequent rocks [except for a few primal deposits, which give geologists a glimpse into the earth's early crust...], which were eroded down, or subducted into oceanic trenches, and subsequently erupted into fresh volcanic deposits, and so on...

    The oldest PRECEEDED the youngest, and takes PRECEDENCE over the youngest...

    It's the same story with sedimentation - sedimentary rocks. The bottom rocks [unless the strata has been flipped by other geologic processes] are the OLDEST, and take precedence over the youngest...

    Unfortunately, religious people are HIGHLY RESISTANT to LOGIC!!!!

    Zid

  • myelaine
    myelaine

    certainly, all rumors are based on an original word from someone...luke 4:18-21

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNf-P_5u_Hw

    stirring the pot!

    love michelle

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit