Its not a secret that the group of intellectuals who refer to themselves as “The New Atheists” have made it a mission to promote a conversational intolerance of any religion. Their belief, and I want to emphasis the word “belief”, is that the societal removal of religion from human practice and thought would somehow be a “victory” for human kind, ending the supposed and implied oppression, intolerance, and irrationality that they believe is a natural bi-product of faith.
I’ve posted in the past numerous logical fallacies, errors, and just flat out falsehoods perpetuated by these clowns, but this one is especially telling. Neil Degrasse Tyson, one of the most well respected scientists in the world, is a virtual superstar. He made science “cool”, he’s a hero to young aspiring science enthusiasts from virtually all ages and all walks of life. More importantly, he’s honest. Claiming to be basically agnostic, though tolerant and even almost indifferent to faith or religion, he asked a very crucial question of Sam Harris here in the above video years ago in an open forum. Sam Harris is basically the young rockstar of the New Atheists, though he’s found no new ways of regurgitating the same misinformation that Dawkins, Hitches, or Krauss have been preaching for years.
Tyson wants to know, that if religious people are otherwise not effecting other people with their beliefs, why is it so important to remove it from humanity? I ask the same question, and I’ll use myself as an example. I believe the Bible cover to cover. Jesus is my Lord and Savior, I believe I’m a sinner in need of salvation and because of Him, I have it. I also have no problems learning, and in fact enjoy learning, much of what mainstream science has to offer. I teach my kids the same science, evolution, cosmology, physics, etc, that mainstream science wants me to. I oppress no one, I violate no one’s civil or human rights. Why then, is it important I shed these “bonds” I’m supposedly bound in? How am I negatively effecting my fellow man? How am I holding humanity back? Sam Harris’ answer to Tyson was very telling. You’ll notice he immediately passes over the main point of Tyson’s question, that being that people are not harming others, and goes to the most extreme examples he can think of. But the fact remains, say in the U.S. for example, most claim to believe in God. They read their Bibles, they go to church. They also have their kids in the same schools, learning real science, and go about their daily lives effecting no one.
The burden of proof here is on atheists like Sam Harris to DEMONSTRATE how the general concept of faith and putting it into practice is bad for mankind. See, the name of the game gets exposed when asked questions like this, because their accusation all along is that all religion, all faith, is EQUALLY dangerous and EQUALLY immoral and EQUALLY irrational. If that’s the case, why when confronted with the fact that most people of faith are not only not harming mankind, but are in fact productive within it, are they forced immediately to jump to the most extreme examples, such as Islamic fascism? Its time the New Atheists, instead of attacking the position of faith, to start defending the weaknesses and flaws in their own position. Because its a matter of verifiable fact, as history proves, that man can believe in God, serve Christ, and not only not “oppress” his fellow man but he can also work to set him free. More to come on that later.