Are we in a war?

Posted on by

Barry Arrington, owner of the pro-ID blog, Uncommon Descent is alleged to have written the following in an email to a contributor:

We are in a war. That is not a metaphor. We are fighting a war for the soul of Western Civilization, and we are losing, badly. In the summer of 2015 we find ourselves in a positon very similar to Great Britain’s position 75 years ago in the summer of 1940 – alone, demoralized, and besieged on all sides by a great darkness that constitutes an existential threat to freedom, justice and even rationality itself.

 

In this thread I don’t want to discuss the rights and wrongs of the email itself, nor of whether or not TSZ constitutes a “great darkness”.  Barry is entitled to decide who posts at UD and who does not; it’s his blog.

What interests me is the perception itself, which I suspect is quite widely shared.

Indeed it’s my perception that a lot of people are truly frightened by much that the modern world seems to represent – evolutionary biology, social and economic liberalism, atheism, the decline of religious observance, multi-culturalism, abortion, LGBT issues, the welfare state – and feel that they are somehow part of a coordinated, or at least related attack on values held very dear.  Indeed, that was made explicit in the Wedge Strategy document:

The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built. Its influence can be detected in most, if not all, of the West’s greatest achievements, including representative democracy, human rights, free enterprise, and progress in the arts and sciences.

Yet a little over a century ago, this cardinal idea came under wholesale attack by intellectuals drawing on the discoveries of modern science. Debunking the traditional conceptions of both God and man, thinkers such as Charles Darwin, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud portrayed humans not as moral and spiritual beings, but as animals or machines who inhabited a universe ruled by purely impersonal forces and whose behavior and very thoughts were dictated by the unbending forces of biology, chemistry, and environment. This materialistic conception of reality eventually infected virtually every area of our culture, from politics and economics to literature and art

The cultural consequences of this triumph of materialism were devastating. Materialists denied the existence of objective moral standards, claiming that environment dictates our behavior and beliefs. Such moral relativism was uncritically adopted by much of the social sciences, and it still undergirds much of modern economics, political science, psychology and sociology.

Materialists also undermined personal responsibility by asserting that human thoughts and behaviors are dictated by our biology and environment. The results can be seen in modern approaches to criminal justice, product liability, and welfare. In the materialist scheme of things, everyone is a victim and no one can be held accountable for his or her actions.

Finally, materialism spawned a virulent strain of utopianism. Thinking they could engineer the perfect society through the application of scientific knowledge, materialist reformers advocated coercive government programs that falsely promised to create heaven on earth.

Discovery Institute’s Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies.

Barry clearly believes (or did back in the summer) that the War is being lost (“and lost badly”).  Here are the reasons why I think he should Stop Worrying And Learn To Love The Bomb Materialists.

  • We are no threat to freedom.  Those of us who call ourselves “atheists” for the most part do not hold the belief that there is no God (or gods), we simply do not hold the belief that there is.  We have no problem if you do.  Indeed, many of us are glad that there are people who find themselves inspired by their beliefs to do much good in the world.  Most of us believe that a pluralistic multicultural society is something to be proud of, and those cultures include yours.
  • We are no threat to justice. Even the most ardent materialist utilitarian is unlikely to have any problem with the idea that people must be held accountable for their actions, and that the role of social and legal justice systems is to ensure that people treat each other fairly.  The fact that some of us do not think that wrongdoers will be punished in the next life does not prevent us from thinking that it is a very good idea to provide major disincentives in this.
  • We are no threat to rationality.  I think this fear arises from the sense that scientists frequently demonstrate that what seems obvious (aka “self-evident”) ain’t necessarily so.  Turns out the earth isn’t flat.  Turns out that “down” points in all kinds of different directions depending on where you are standing.  Turns out there is a speed limit for information.  Turns out that time is relative.  Turns out that reality at quantum level is simply weird. All this, in the past, theists have taken in their stride, albeit with a bit of a lurch.  What I suspect the real threat is that science – neuroscience! – is, in places, appears to be claiming that our powerful sense that in each of us there is a soul-y thing, a homunculus, who is the “I behind the eyes” – isn’t what we think it is.  That some of us are, in effect, denying that we – I – exist, except as “a bag of chemicals”.  That A is not-A.  That I is not-I. My response is that this fear too, is unfounded.  Even if some of us think that there is no immortal (or otherwise) homunculus in the brain directing operations, but rather that the brain is an organ of the body consisting of a vastly complex distributed decision-making system that acts recursively thus generating as a property of the decider the capacity recognise herself as an intentional agent, by analogy to the other similar intentional agents she observse and interacts with, that does not amount to a denial that “I am”.  It is merely an attempt to account for why there should be an I that can say “I am”.

So sleep easy, Barry!  We are not Nazi Germany, nor yet a Great Darkness.  Our ideas are not billowing blackly from Mount Doom.  They are transparent, humane, pluralistic, and provisional.  There is nothing to fear but fear itself.

 

243 thoughts on “Are we in a war?”

  1. phoodoo,

    Apparently a lot of atheists here and elsewhere do think there is a war of ideas

    Not the impression I’m getting from atheist commentary here.

  2. “And here you yourself voice exactly the misperception that is fueling views like Barry’s. Not believing in a god or gods is NOT the same as being “morally unanchored”. That is actually my point.” – Lizzie

    I’m not a fan of Barry’s at all and disagree strongly with his site ownership/moderating methods. This, however, does not impact in *ANY* way the sociological observation I have just made above of this blog, Lizzie, your blog. It sounds as if you disallow such sociological observation of this blog. (Don’t worry, Lizzie, they closed the sociological faculties in the USSR for almost 70 years, so there is a precedent.)

    Let me ask you a question. By your guess, what is the participant breakdown here at TSZ in terms of theists, agnostics and atheists? Just a rough guess is enough. My sociological observation, which is based on interacting with people on this blog and reading what they wrote, might not actually be as ‘wrong’ as you seem to suggest.

    If you say ‘it doesn’t matter’ and offer no guess that exactly proves the point for asking it.

    As for ‘morally unanchored,’ well, Lizzie, you can make things up as you go now that you’ve left the Catholic church. But there is no coherent moral basis other than mere ‘subjectivity’ and whim, rubbed in with the sugar of ‘everyone’s a social theorist’, that can provide a basis for atheist morality. The Humanist Manifestos might be the best on offer, and they’re a far cry from being an ‘anchor.’ The teachings and traditions of Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, Islam and Baha’i, otoh, have an obvious moral anchor.

    The statistics, Lizzie, the best evidence available, what you and others here have been calling for, is rather clear. http://www.pewforum.org/2014/07/16/how-americans-feel-about-religious-groups/

    The most striking statistic in the findings to me is that Jews rate their fellow Jews (89%) and atheists rate their fellow atheists (82%) higher (more ‘warmly’) than any other group rates themselves. (Thus you might be able to imagine how highly KN rates himself! 😉 ) Oh, yes, white evangelical Christians tie with atheists (82%) about how they rate themselves, no kidding! 😉 And at the bottom across the board for ‘coldness’ are, guess who: atheists.

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/more-mortal/201510/five-reasons-people-dont-atheists (of course, the psychologist doesn’t expose his own worldview in his article, sounds like an atheist, which ends up the article with sugar to help the medicine go down)

    Other studies show that even atheists trust religious people more than fellow atheists! People don’t trust atheists because of their ‘moral un-anchoredness’ and lack of faith. These are called SOCIAL FACTS, Lizzie, and it is the currency we trade in when conducting and interpreting social scientific research. (I.e. it’s not ‘personal’ like a psychoanalysis would be.)

    And since you’re ‘across the pond’ in the UK (or perhaps better to say Barry & UD is ‘across the pond’ from you!), I’d suggest you might not have such a close sense of the ‘culture war’ in the USA. Canadians are thankfully not as ‘war-like’ people as the USAmericans either. On sites such as this, it may be safely thought a sport or hobby, but in the trenches of university campuses and journal review boards, there’s significant tension (which YECists, new atheists & IDists exemplify quite readily) and jobs on the line.

    It’s not just YECists & IDists, of course, like as you saw immediately with Sal in this thread; to him ‘we’ means right-wing conservative (i.e. Republican). That’s just not the same dynamic in the UK, nor is the religious history with an established Church of England headed by the Monarch.

    Similarly, you ask for evidence, but don’t study the evidence and literature like I do, Lizzie. You’re in cogsci (formerly music and architecture), while this is a sociological topic, which is where I work. Perhaps you might afford the courtesy that I know something about this beyond a ‘psychological’ approach?

    One of the main concepts involved is ‘secularisation’ and the so-called ‘secularisation thesis.’ There’s a lot of literature available on this. Some people on this site are diehard secularisation thesis proponents (just like some are diehard ‘warfare’ thesis proponents when it comes to ‘science and religion’ discourse). hotshoe most recently demonstrated it (“we’ll see nations which have essentially zero religiosity”), but it has been repeated here many times.

    Once one reads Charles Taylor, David Martin, Robert Bellah and Jose Casanova’s work, among many others, the conversation is much more nuanced and complicated than how it is presented here or at UD. Weber’s portending of ‘the disenchantment of the world’ via ‘rationalisation’ is now an outdated perspective; it just doesn’t hold true. And while one person may claim ‘secularisation’ is inevitably anti-religious (as most atheists tout as the only possible ‘reasonable’ position), as Rodney Stark and Reginald Bibby (http://news.nationalpost.com/holy-post/reginald-bibby-study-that-predicts-religions-demise-misses-most-important-point) have shown, that conclusion is considered nonsense by others. Secularisation Thesis R.I.P.?

    Yes, you should own up to the SOCIAL FACT that you’ve got anti-theistic culture war mongerers here, Lizzie. They are called ‘militant atheists’ (as the new John just called himself) and they are indeed a dangerous blight on humankind. Of course you’ve got others here, who are not anti-theists, but rather agnostics or uncommitted, who just ‘aren’t religious,’ i.e. they are now called ‘nones’. And though they can be, and often are, decent people, nevertheless, their shallowness, flatness, superficiality and lack of wisdom when it comes to religion indeed reflexively mars their contribution to the conversation.

    “I don’t wish to see an end to religion. I think the world would do perfectly well without it” – Allan Miller

    Religion is a ‘cultural universal.’ You might as well say you don’t wish to see an end to love! We cannot “do well without it” and humanity has not have lived without it one way or another. I suspect that Allan Miller has chosen ‘other gods’ to idolise in his worldview. And when it comes to worldview, even Allan Miller has one, no matter how blandly irreligious it may seem.

    If you want an educated discussion on this, and not Barry’s gutter understanding, try here: http://blogs.ssrc.org/tif/

  3. Who would you trust your son with on an extended camping trip, a biology teacher, or a Catholic Priest?

    Support your answer with statistics.

  4. Gregory,

    As for ‘morally unanchored,’ well, Lizzie, you can make things up as you go now that you’ve left the Catholic church. But there is no coherent moral basis other than mere ‘subjectivity’ and whim, rubbed in with the sugar of ‘everyone’s a social theorist’, that can provide a basis for atheist morality.

    Anybody, subjectivist or otherwise, ever taken a moral position on a ‘whim’? This sociologist appears to have no idea of the influence of culture on adopted norms.

  6. Allan Miller: Anybody, subjectivist or otherwise, ever taken a moral position on a ‘whim’? This sociologist appears to have no idea of the influence of culture on adopted norms.

    Apparently Gregory’s norms are firmly rooted in poll results.

  8. I doubt I’ll be responding for the rest of the week. Though KN & Lizzie might see a more ‘academic’ style in the 2 posts above, which they’ve requested, what comes from others here is accusation and ridiculous imputation. Ah yes, that ‘ad populum’ sociologist who knows nothing of culture or social norms! ROTFLMAO!! Thanks for the humour at this ‘war/contest/opposition’ site! 🙂 😉 😛

  9. You’ve tried to advance an argument for “moral anchoring” on “popular opinion” Gregory. Well done!

  10. Gregory: Yes, you should own up to the SOCIAL FACT that you’ve got anti-theistic culture war mongerers here, Lizzie. They are called ‘militant atheists’ (as the new John just called himself) and they are indeed a dangerous blight on humankind.

    Why am I a dangerous blight on humankind? I don’t recall doing anything dangerous or blighty.

  11. “I don’t recall doing anything dangerous or blighty.”

    “As a strident, militant anti-theist atheist I have to complain.” – John Harshman

    Why don’t you tell why you identify as a “militant anti-theist atheist” and what you have done because of that identity?

  12. In his UD comment, William asked for corrections to his memes.I offer mine below:

    ATHEISM is the belief Some cosmologists believe that the finely-tuned fundamental properties of the universe that allow intelligent life to exist is nothing more than coincidence present a challenging question that has not yet been answered.

    ATHEISM is the belief Evolutionary biologists believe that advanced, highly complex, precision nanotechnology can be created by the magic of chance emerge from an iterative process of optimisation, known as Descent with Modification and Natural Selection..

    ATHEISM is does not entail the belief that logic is subjective.

    ATHEISM Scientists is the belief believe that truth is subjective can be approached incrementally and provisionally by testing models empirically against data.

    ATHEISM is the belief that we do not have free will have evolved the freedom to take moral responsibility for our actions, and that it was not implanted in us by a creator god

    ATHEISM Secularists is the belief believe that“good”is relative what promotes fairness and harmony

    ATHEISM is the belief no act is intrinsically wrong or evil – not even torture.

    DARWINISM is the belief that RAPE is simply another naturally-selected means of genetic distribution is the theory that heritable variance in reproductive success leads to adaptive evolution of populations to their environment over time.

    DARWINISM is the belief that PEDOPHILIA is just another naturally-occurring attraction.

    DARWINISM holds that Hitler and Mother Teresa were moral equals has nothing to say about morality except insofar as it helps us to understand what causes suffering.

    ATHEISM is the belief Some atheists believe that if you can get away with it, there is no the downside to harming others for personal gain it that you are liable to end up in jail or socially ostracised.

    ATHEISM is consistent with the belief that humans are not endowed with unalienable rights.

    ATHEISM is the belief that murdering and cannibalizing a human is not intrinsically any different from killing and eating a cow.

    People killed by ATHEISTIC totalitarian regimes in the last century: 153 million. People killed by THEISTIC totalitarian regimes in 20 previous centuries: 5-10 million. When other forms of killing are added, this amounts to a striking per capita reduction in homicide as a cause of death.

    Religious THEISTS have been unscientifically shown claimed to live longer, happier, healthier lives than ATHEISTS.

    THEISTS Scientists invented all currently employed scientific principles and methodology.

    THEISTS Scientists made and catalogued virtually all major scientific discoveries.

    THEISTS People founded virtually all currrent hospital and university systems.

    RELIGION People provided the funding, training and infrastructure for virtually all early scientific progress.

    There are thousands of RELIGIOUS charities. There are only a handful of ATHEISTIC also a large number of very large secular charities.

    The notion that MATERIALISM, the broader philosophy of ATHEISM, was disproven decades ago by easily reproduced quantum physics experiments is bullshit based on a misunderstanding of what any so-called “materialist” actually thinks.

    Several NOBEL PRIZE-WINNING scientists have asserted that life after death has been scientifically proven are remarkably ignorant outside their field.

    DARWINISM is often ignorantly portrayed as a victorian-age, anti-theistic fable that if you put random errors in the blueprint code for arms long enough, you’ll get fully functioning wings and an entire body redesigned to sustain flight.This represents either a regrettable lack of understanding of what Darwin actually proposed, or a deliberate misrepresentation by people who are worried that Darwin’s theory somehow threatens the idea of God.It doesn’t.

    You’re welcome.

  14. As far as I know John Harshman is the only person yet on this site to self-identify as a “militant anti-theist atheist”. There are other pompous, aggressive anti-theists. But none yet has called themselves ‘militant’ about it. It would surely help Lizzie and others here to know what John Harshman means by it. Why is he ‘militant’ in his anti-theist atheism and how does that ‘militancy’ play out in practise?

  15. Gregory: Why don’t you tell why you identify as a “militant anti-theist atheist” and what you have done because of that identity?

    Hey, no fair. You have already called me a dangerous blight on humankind without knowing anything more about me. I’m just asking why. Is that so difficult?

    But I’ll answer. I’m a militant anti-theist atheist because I am fairly certain there is no god, and I think religion has been, on balance, a bad influence on the world and it would be a better world if religions went away. And because I’m willing to say so in public. Saying so in public is about as much as I’ve done.

    Now your turn.

  16. Gregory: Why is he ‘militant’ in his anti-theist atheism

    Remind me never to use irony in the future when you may be reading.

  20. Gregory:
    As far as I know John Harshman is the only person yet on this site to self-identify as a “militant anti-theist atheist”. There are other pompous, aggressive anti-theists. But none yet has called themselves ‘militant’ about it. It would surely help Lizzie and others here to know what John Harshman means by it. Why is he ‘militant’ in his anti-theist atheism and how does that ‘militancy’ play out in practise?

    Would “militant anti-atheist” be a fair description of you, Gregory?

  24. What’s ‘ironic’ about your choice of terms?

    Please understand that I lived and worked in Russia, where the term воинствующий атеизм (militant atheism) was used with a clear and specific purpose: to ‘cleanse’ religion from society and the nation-state (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Militant_Atheists). Still not talking about militant atheism as a “dangerous blight on humankind’? I’ve seen its results with my own eyes and it sure isn’t pretty.

    Are the new ‘militant atheists’ that different in their aims?
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2609924/This-new-breed-militant-atheists-intolerant-religious-fundamentalists.html

    Simply “willing to say so in public” is not what “militant atheism” has meant nor what it means for most people today. It implies intolerance, bigotry, irrationality, zealotry, accusation, arrogance, condescension, anger, fury and even hatred of religion (and of theology) and yes, even aggressive wrath-based behaviour towards theists of many stripes (they usually leave Buddhists alone).

    Are you sure you want to associate ‘militancy’ with your anti-theism, John? It suggests the ‘war’ attitude that Lizzie among others here say they reject.

  25. Gregory: Please understand that I lived and worked in Russia, where the term воинствующий атеизм (militant atheism) was used with a clear and specific purpose: to ‘cleanse’ religion from society and the nation-state (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Militant_Atheists). Still not talking about militant atheism as a “dangerous blight on humankind’? I’ve seen its results with my own eyes and it sure isn’t pretty.

    This is a fine example of the fallacy of equivocation, Gregory.

  27. In modern-day American mass media, the term “militant” is applied differently depending on who or what it is being applied to. When a religious believer (Xtian, Muslim, etc) is granted the label “militant”, it’s generally because they’ve committed one or more acts of extreme violence; they’ve firebombed an abortion clinic, or detonated a C4-laden vest in a market square, or some such. But when an atheist is granted the label “militant”, it’s generally because they’ve committed one or more acts of speech—they’ve given a lecture which publicly advocates for atheism, or written a book which criticizes some aspect(s) of religion, or some such.

    It will be interesting to see if any of the resident atheist-bashers hereabouts respond to this comment. It will be more interesting if they manage to take note of my use of the word “generally”, rather than, say, pointing out individual instances of believers/atheists who do not fit the general profiles I mentioned above, and pretending that those individual instances are necessarily representative of their entire populations.

  28. Elizabeth,

    No, I’m not a ‘militant’. Perhaps you need to read some Martin Luther King, Jr.; check out the way he uses ‘extremist’ in Letter from Birmingham Jail, Lizzie.

    Oh please, another non-philosopher dripping her finger-pointing ‘you committed a fallacy’ triteness, Lizzie, while the whole ARGUMENT passes them by. Do you really lack empathy for the millions of people killed by militant atheists around the world, even if you want to only attribute it to their politics (authoritarian or totalitarian), as if their worldview should be left out of it entirely? Are you really that uncompassionate, Lizzie?

    The joke among atheists of avoiding the evils caused by other atheists, in the name of whichever political, economic or social ideology, is indeed laughable. Seemingly anything to avoid the ultimate emptiness of their worldview (which is why most people find them cold and likely immoral) and the baselessness of their claims upon VERTICAL (meaning spiritual) morality. (Jump in KN, do your horizontal socialist, secular-humanist best; I’m gone for the rest of the week.) This site is a vortex of denial, duplicity & depravity. 🙁 It is sad that so little hope and humility is displayed here. 🙁 🙁

    Would have at least thought that DailyMail article worth your attention, Lizzie, given that it shows ‘militant atheists’ in UK, not just in USA. But hey, it might be uncomfortable to admit that the life of the atheist isn’t as “rosy cheeks and fairly pretty” as the façade that comes out of anti-theists on atheist-oriented sites like this one.

  29. Is it your view, Gregory, that because some atheists do bad things, all atheists must?

    If so, would you agree that because some theists to bad things, all theists must?

  30. Please tell us, Gregory, at what point does one become a philosopher and how does that validate your viewpoint?

  33. “Is it your view, Gregory, that because some atheists do bad things, all atheists must?”

    No. Surely you know that does not excuse turning one’s back on God by someone.

    Nor does it excuse those who committed crimes IN THE NAME OF MILITANT ATHEISM:

    “The League of Militant Atheists aided the Soviet government in killing clergy and committed believers. The League also made it a priority to remove religious icons from the homes of believers. Under the slogan, “the Storming of Heaven,” the League of Militant Atheists pressed for “resolute action against religious peasants” leading to the mass arrest and exile of many believers, especially village priests. By 1940, “over 100 bishops, tens of thousands of Orthodox clergy, and thousands of monks and lay believers had been killed or had died in Soviet prisons and the Gulag”.”

    Is that excused, Lizzie?

    “What do you think of the Salvation Army, Gregory?”

    I think you’re carrying some serious baggage, Lizzie.

  34. We are in a war. That is not a metaphor. We are fighting a war for the soul of Western Civilization, and we are losing, badly. In the summer of 2015 we find ourselves in a positon very similar to Great Britain’s position 75 years ago in the summer of 1940 – alone, demoralized, and besieged on all sides by a great darkness that constitutes an existential threat to freedom, justice and even rationality itself.

    As I said, this e-mail is getting a little more discussion than it deserves, but to the point of “losing badly”.

    If that means less Christians than in previous generations, then yes, the number of Christians in Western Civilization is going down. But what are the reasons? War on Christianity seems not an accurate description.

    The air we breathe seems real to 100% of the people, but to many people, the Christian God does not seem as real as the air they breathe. It follows people are not naturally inclined to believe the Christian God exists.

    Much of the profession of faith in Christianity in the last century appears driven by a cultural imperative much like Islam.

    An interesting sociological poll might be asking of believers, “Why do you believe?” or “What are the reasons you find Christianity believable, check all that apply”?

    1. I believe I witnessed a miracle
    2. The Historical Testimony
    3. Archeological Evidence
    4. A feeling that it is true
    5. I had a vision
    6. I saw an angel
    7. I saw a demon
    8. I needed a place to turn that’s not provided elsewhere
    9. I want to believe so I believe
    10. Life looks miraculously designed
    11. The world looks intelligently designed
    12. The faith of someone you knew
    13. Traditions
    14. You don’t like atheism
    15. My parents taught me to believe
    16. Spiritual experiences
    17. It is a beautiful
    ….

    My answers:

    YES:
    1,2,3,4,5,8,10,11,12,16, 17
    Maybe:
    6,7,9,14,15
    NO:
    13

    It may be very very challenging to come up with descriptive and accurate set of multiple choice questions. I just sort of gave what I think a list should look like.
    This would be a good polling project.

    If someone doesn’t have anything on that checklist, then to what extent is the lack of items on that checklist due to a “war on Christianity” or due to an institutionalized resistance to questioning OOL and Evolutionary theory? Or just how they think things naturally play out or their own personal observations? Or to liberal academia opposing Christian values? etc.

    My guess is that much of the Christianity disappearing in the present day is that Christianity was sustained on shaky foundations. The foundations were cultural traditions.

    The result of shaky foundations is you get guys like ex-pastor Bruce Gerencser who now says he hates Jesus:

    Pastor Hates Jesus after Reading Coyne’s Book

    Is there much any one can do to remedy this? Well, if God provides more answers to prayer, that can change things. Or if people at least believe God provide answers to prayer.

    One thing Barry alluded to was the fall of France May-June 1940 and the prelude to the Battle of Brittan. Churchill said:

    Upon this battle depends the survival of Christian civilization. upon it depends our own British life and the long continuity of our institutions and our Empire.

    and then this account:

    John Willans

    This extraordinary photograph provides comforting reassurance that even in the most frightening of times there is always hope and help available, provided of course, it is sought for in the right place and in the right spirit.

    When Britain was close to defeat during the 2nd World War, and the entire British Army was trapped at Dunkirk, in desperation George 6th called for a National Day of Prayer to be held on 26th May 1940. In a national broadcast he instructed the people of the UK to turn back to God in a spirit of repentance and plead for Divine help. Millions of people across the British Isles flocked into churches praying for deliverance and this photograph shows the extraordinary scene outside Westminster Abbey as people queued for prayer. Two events immediately followed. Firstly, a violent storm arose over the Dunkirk region grounding the Luftwaffe which had been killing thousands on the beaches. And then secondly, a great calm descended on the Channel, the like of which hadn’t been seen for a generation, which allowed hundreds of tiny boats to sail across and rescue 335,000 soldiers, rather than the estimated 20-30,000. From then on people referred to what happened as “the miracle of Dunkirk”. Sunday June 9th was officially appointed as a Day of National Thanksgiving.

    http://www.anglican.ink/article/national-day-prayer-time-dunkirk-1940

    There has been a curious scrubbing of the historical accounts and the phrase “Evacuation of Dunkirk” dominates google hits rather than “Miracle at Dunkirk”.

    Was this a real miracle or not? Well I guess for the believers it is, and any way that is beside the point. The item on the above check list for miracles seems missing on most people’s lists these days. That’s not because of some war on Christianity, is it?

    One might reasonably argue atheism is highly correlated with prosperity and religious belief is correlated with destitution and despair, not because atheism creates prosperity, but in a prosperous environment people feel little need for God in their lives.

    As I pointed out here at TSZ, an atheist evolutionist zoologist became a creationist after his son was demon possessed. That conversion to Christianity had very little to do with the culture Jihad Barry seems eager to fight:

    Evolutionist Zoologist Turned Creationist After Child Was Demon Oppressed

    Atheism might not thrive as well in an environment where people really feel the need for God’s assistance — namely extreme duress. Look at the conditions where there were great religious revivals in the USA and I think there is a correlation that can be seen associated with economic conditions.

    The warfare description serves culture warriors, but it’s a little shaky in its accuracy of how things really are.

  35. Gregory: No. Surely you know that does not excuse turning one’s back on God by someone.

    Nor does it excuse those who committed crimes IN THE NAME OF MILITANT ATHEISM:

    I think you’re carrying some serious baggage, Lizzie.

    Well, tbh I think the same about you, Gregory, so let’s call it quits and have merry Christmas!

  36. Gregory:

    Would have at least thought that DailyMail article worth your attention, Lizzie, given that it shows ‘militant atheists’ in UK, not just in USA.

    And what did those “militant” atheists do?

    They wrote a letter.

    What is this world coming to? God help us.

  38. stcordova: There has been a curious scrubbing of the historical accounts and the phrase “Evacuation of Dunkirk” dominates google hits rather than “Miracle at Dunkirk”.

    Was this a real miracle or not? Well I guess for the believers it is, and any way that is beside the point. The item on the above check list for miracles seems missing on most people’s lists these days. That’s not because of some war on Christianity, is it?

    No, it wasn’t a real miracle. Do you actually think it was? It was a great act of national solidarity as everyone with a seaworthy boat set out to pick up a soldier or three. Prayer contributed nothing other than a possible increment of morale, as far as I can tell. As for the word “miracle”, the Nazis had their own, which you can find by searching Wikipedia for “miracle in the West”. Was that a miracle too? After all, “Gott mit uns”. My criteria for miracles may be a bit more demanding than yours.

  39. Do you actually think it was?

    Wouldn’t be enough to persuade me it was a miracle personally.

    So I wouldn’t classify it as a miracle, but I sure would thank God it happened and I would think it is an answer to prayer (meaning God put it on people’s hearts to ask for God’s provision and God used natural means to deliver).

    God uses gravity to put the moon in the skies which keeps us alive. That isn’t miraculous in the ordinary sense of the word. Life arising from non-life on a lifeless Earth, in my book its a statistical miracle indistinguishable from a divine miracle. That doesn’t work for most people here, but it does for me.

  40. WJM,

    I know you don’t identify as a Christian as far as I know, but I’d be curious (in friendly way) why you believe God that is similar to the God I believe in. Feel free to add additional items.

    Sal

  41. Gregory:
    What’s ‘ironic’ about your choice of terms?

    The irony is in the use of the term, which has (of late, at least) been used almost entirely by opponents to refer to “New Atheists”, never by the atheists themselves. Your attachment to some unrelated entities in the Soviet Union is your problem, not anyone else’s.

    Are the new ‘militant atheists’ that different in their aims?

    If the aim was that religion lose its grip on people’s minds, then no. The means, however, are quite different.

    Simply “willing to say so in public” is not what “militant atheism” has meant nor what it means for most people today. It implies intolerance, bigotry, irrationality, zealotry, accusation, arrogance, condescension, anger, fury and even hatred of religion (and of theology) and yes, even aggressive wrath-based behaviour towards theists of many stripes (they usually leave Buddhists alone).

    I submit that “most people today” are ignorant of what actual atheists to whom they want to attach the term think, say, or do. If that’s what the term means, then I’m not a militant atheist, but neither is anyone I know of. It’s an odd dangerous blight that has no living representatives.

  42. stcordova:
    So I wouldn’t classify it as a miracle, but I sure would thank God it happened and I would think it is an answer to prayer (meaning God put it on people’s hearts to ask for God’s provision and God used natural means to deliver).

    God uses gravity to put the moon in the skies which keeps us alive.That isn’t miraculous in the ordinary sense of the word.Life arising from non-life on a lifeless Earth, in my book its a statistical miracle indistinguishable from a divine miracle.That doesn’t work for most people here, but it does for me.

    These miracles seem highly selective. When the odd things that happen are good for good people, you thank god for them. When they’re good for bad people (e.g., that “Miracle of the West” I mentioned), or bad for good people (keeping with the WWII theme, e.g. the “Great Storm” of mid-June ,1944), you ignore them.

    How would god using natural processes differ detectably from natural processes just happening without god?

  43. Gregory: By 1940, “over 100 bishops, tens of thousands of Orthodox clergy, and thousands of monks and lay believers had been killed …

    Thank the big gods for big favors.

    As no one ever said, exactly: “Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.”

    Not that I advise strangling – or any murder – really.

    But there is no question that the church as an institution and the individual clerics were agents of darkness, a blight upon Russia from which the nation still has not escaped generations later. Russia becomes worse and worse in modern times the further it descends back into its incestuous union of orthodox religion and politics.

    Given how many humans they had killed in their backwards religion, I won’t cry for any of them being executed or starving to death in a gulag, not even if one or two dozen of them happened to be actual innocents.

    I owe them nothing except the most basic human compassion for their lives – and whatever amount that is, it’s cancelled by the evil those churchmen did, and would cheerfully have done to me if I had been in their hands. I owe them nothing.

    I owe my life to Vasily Zaytsev. Not some corrupt law-breaking bishop.

  45. How would god using natural processes differ detectably from natural processes just happening without god?

    Very good question. That is the subject of ID which oddly I feel is not argued well (especially at UD) and which TSZ has done an excellent and exceptionally good job criticizing. Hence I got sent to Arrington’s dog house for praising TSZ for their criticisms.

    I can only answer what works for me and not necessarily anyone else. In the natural sciences, we have the notion of expected results (usually a key point in the structure of lab student lab reports). Example: we do not expect a domino to be in the middle of a table standing on edge without some directing influence.

    Even more so we do not expect several such dominos in a cascade. There is a natural expectation of how undirected forces (perhaps a more formal phrase could be “causes which maximize uncertainty of configuration”) will structure matter.

    We expect non-life to remain non-life or at least remain in a state that is not as specified and complex as life. Specified refers to the narrowness and precision of conditions for a configuration — example: a domino on standing on edge is in a highly specified state. Complex refers to the large number of interacting parts. A Rube Goldberg machine is an illustration of what I consider specified and complex.
    This is not Dembski definition, it’s my informal qualitative definition that is in the spirit of Orgel and Davies.

    Dawkins himself said it was hard to be an atheist prior to Darwin because of the appearance of design in nature. I used to accept evolution (was taught it in High School) but I no longer believe it, and even if I believed in universal common ancestry, evolutionary theory doesn’t explain the miraculously looking structure of even a primitive cell. Hence the design argument is a big reason I’m not an atheist.

    Someone else may have a criteria for what they deem miraculous. The problem, as Dawkins points out, is that if he saw a miracle, he’d think he was hallucinating! So even if Dawkins saw a real miracle, he wouldn’t recognize it as such because he’s decided ahead of time it would be hallucination. This is a slight change in what he used to say. See:

    Dawkins Finally Admits He is Closed-Minded About the Existence of God

    So the OOL issue is probably the most important item on my personal check list. Some of the other stuff, if I did not believe life were a miracle, would likely put me in the agnostic camp.

    Everyone has their reasons for believing or not believing. I’ve tried to summarize my reasons.

    Thank you for reading and responding.

  46. Alan Fox: From whom? And by “Great Britain” do you mean the people of Great Britain? Is this a recent phenomenon? Why have I not heard about it from family and friends who still live there? How did you get to this conclusion, Robert? Are you confusing oppression with depression? I have heard there has been severe flooding from depression Desmond recently.

    Britain was the original defender of mans rights from oppression of power or other men without public consent.
    Its not the decisions made but how made. Many social conclusions and, indeed, creationist ones and religious ones prove its no longer a free people.
    Any power or opinion that stops or opposes other opinions equals tyranny
    Britiain is back to before the glorious revolution and maybe back to the middle ages.
    .

  48. phoodoo:
    Come on Sal! My fallacy bingo card just needs 3 more

    Which fallacies has Sal employed thus far? be specific, link to a description.

    Editz for spellz

Leave a Reply