Clarion Project: Why do you think liberals in America have had such difficulty supporting atheists in Muslim majority societies, despite the obvious persecution they face?
Aki Muthali: Liberals in America have difficulty supporting atheists in Muslim-majority societies because they not only have a lower expectation of how Muslims can behave as rational people, but they also erroneously conflate the anti-Muslim bigotry faced by Muslim minorities in the West to how Muslims abuse atheists and non-Muslims in the East.
Their narrative has been, for a long time, that Muslims are always the victims regardless of where they reside. They justify this dishonest narrative with everything from the Christian conquest of Spain in 1492, to the birth of Israel in 1948, to white guilt and Western imperialism. There’s no limit to how far a Western liberal will betray actual liberal values to make up for the guilt they erroneously feel towards their own country.
Their priority is consoling their indignation (regardless of how misplaced it is) — not human rights.
Ed: Mmmm, not sure how she grounds “human rights” within an atheistic framework, given that atheism provides no foundation for objective morality. If objective morality is not exist in real reality, then morality has to be subjective, in which case why is she criticizing Muslims for practicing subjective morality?
The recent spate of books, lectures and debates by atheists are awakening the sleeping giant of the church, said Lee Strobel, one of America’s most popular Christian apologists.
“The new atheists have kicked the church in the ribs, and she’s waking up,” said Strobel, who will speak next weekend in Tulsa.
“I’m seeing it all over the country,” he said of huge apologetics conferences, new scholarship in the academic world and more formal debates.
Strobel said the average person in the pew is not reading the late Christopher Hitchens and other popular atheist authors, but neighbors and co-workers are.
“They’re getting questions they can’t answer,” he said.
Average Christians are ill-equipped to answer those questions, and they are asking their pastors for training in apologetics, the study of the rational defense of the faith, he said.
“I think we’re entering a golden era for apologetics,” he said.
Strobel, a former atheist and Chicago Tribune journalist, said he doubts that surveys showing a rise in atheism accurately reflect a trend in U.S. society.
More people identify as secular because it has become socially acceptable to do so, he said. In fact, politicians in some parts of the country who used to emphasize their Christian heritage now do the opposite.
Strobel said that as he travels and speaks, by far the No. 1 question people raise is how can a loving God allow pain and suffering?
Christianity has an answer to that question, but people who are suffering do not want “five intellectual steps to understanding,” he said, they are looking for a personal answer…
I like (and respect — yes seriously) honest atheists.
From Princeton University:
Here. Alvin Plantinga reviews atheist Thomas Nagel’s Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False
Against the Claims of Atheism:
In our age, as in every other age, there are those who deny the existence of God. Recent years have witnessed the rise of a particularly militant form of atheism, represented in the writings of authors such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and Daniel Dennett. Although the “new atheism” is not all that different from the old atheism, Christians today must stand firm against the challenge of atheism.
In Britain’s New Statesman, Steven Poole laments the glut of what he calls “neurotrash” — the attempt to explain every human thought and action in terms of neuroscience and cognitive psychology:
An intellectual pestilence is upon us. Shop shelves groan with books purporting to explain, through snazzy brain-imaging studies, not only how thoughts and emotions function, but how politics and religion work, and what the correct answers are to age-old philosophical controversies. The dazzling real achievements of brain research are routinely pressed into service for questions they were never designed to answer. This is the plague of neuroscientism — aka neurobabble, neurobollocks, or neurotrash — and it’s everywhere.
Free Will, by Sam Harris, must now take its place in this plague of panegyrics to the pre-frontal cortex.
The first thing we must get clear about the book is something that Harris himself, given his thesis, must certainly agree with: he had no choice in writing it. But that has little to do with the neurological state of his brain. He operates under a necessity only a little less deterministic: the necessity that follows on the nature of his dogma.
As an atheist and a materialist, Harris really has no choice but to champion the idea that free will is a delusion. The materialist, said Chesterton, “is not allowed to admit into his spotless machine the slightest speck of spiritualism or miracle.” Materialists like Harris keep asking why we make the decisions we do, and what explanation there could be other than the physiological. The answer, of course, is the psychological, the philosophical, the whimsical, and about a thousand others.
🙂 The rest is here.
Professor Richard Dawkins has been called the world’s most notorious atheist. Indeed, his atheism is so militant that he is widely regarded as the poster-child for the modern so-called “new Atheist” movement.
His wildly popular books, The God Delusion, The Selfish Gene, The Blind Watchmaker, among others, are regularly cited in atheist articles, books and blogs. Dawkins’ book, The God Delusion has sold more than 2 million copies and is now in 31 languages. Dawkins has called all forms of religious belief, “a fixed false belief.” Dawkins once declared that “we are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.” He was once asked about the contribution of seminaries and divinity schools to the world to which Dawkins replied, “What has theology ever said that is of the smallest use to anybody?”
The Maverick Rabbi here.
Dr. Stuart Kauffman, distinguished Origin of Life researcher, in a critique of the popular “RNA World” hypothesis for a naturalistic origin of life writes that, “the [problem] I find most insurmountable is the one most rarely talked about: all living things seem to have a minimal complexity below which it is impossible to go…Your curiosity should be aroused…all free-living cells have at least the minimum molecular diversity of pleuromona. Your antenna should quiver a bit here. Why is there this minimal complexity? Why can’t a system simpler than a pleuromona be alive?”
- Nonsense of a High Order: The Confused and Illusory World of the Atheist (Amazon)
- Rabbi Moshe Averick’s website
Gunning for God: Why the New Atheists are Missing the Target
Here on Amazon (and Kindle).
God’s Undertaker: Has Science Buried God?
Here on Amazon (and Kindle).