
Observations and inanities by a second-shift assistant supervisor in the Puppy-Grinding division of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy® (our motto: "Sure it's cruel, but think of the jobs!"), your host, Brent Rasmussen.
Footprints On The Beach
Beliefnet columnist Rob Dreher is of the "what's the big deal?" and shrug your shoulders-variety of Christian conservative who believes that all of us folks that are concerned with the separation of church and state, and the civil rights inherent in the first amendment, should quit getting our panties in a wad.
[Rob Dreher] You might be able to say that the goal of secularism is to separate Christianity, particularly fundamentalist Christianity, from governance--but you'd have to prove, first, that fundamentalist Christianity is unduly entangled with governance. Aside from the matter of a few attempts to get either Intelligent Design or Creationism into government schools, though, or at least to remind students that the theory of evolution does not in any way prove the non-existence of God no matter how many times, or in how many ways, this is claimed, it's hard to see just where the excessive entanglement between Christianity and government might lie.
Putting aside the absolutely loopy insinuation that "secularists" make the claim that evolution somehow "proves the non-existence of God" (it doesn't - evolution says exactly ZERO about the Christian God), I would like to address Rob's paragraph here:
There is no logical secular reason to oppose the death penalty, for one example, after all; a true secularist could just as easily see such an act as a necessary operation to remove an unsatisfactory and destructive collection of self-aware human tissue from the body politic before the cancer of his lethiferous actions spreads to other self-aware tissue collections. But the new secular morality is taking some of its shape from the old Christian one, while rejecting other aspects of it--which means that it is not Christian morality in toto being rejected, just those elements of it which interfere with the secular vision.
There is no such animal as a "true secularist". Any more than there is a "True Christian(tm)". I call strawman.
And also, a "self-aware tissue collection"? Seriously? Does Dreher *truly* believe that these mythical "True Secularists(tm)" think of their fellow human beings in this way?
Now he's just being silly.
Because the right thing, in the new secular morality, will always be that thing which elevates the atomized individual and his choices in the sexual, biologically-manipulable, life and death arenas over any other thing. The manifesto was written, and it reads: "At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life." (Planned Parenthood vs. Casey).
That is the foundational truth upon which the new secular morality upon which the laws of our new national reality, devoid of "religion," will be based. And the reason the old Christian morality has to go is that it has rejected that insanely relativistic notion and the path to the nihilistic darkness to which it leads.
Gosh, it sure is fun to make up a parody of an entire group of people, then attribute wild and crazy motivations to them, thus making it easier to paint them as soulless freaks who are trying demoniacally to lead America down the "path to nihilistic darkness".
I mean, it's ever so much more interesting than, say, the truth. It certainly makes for a more interesting Beliefnet column - that is, if you can swallow the premise of a ravaging sub-human horde of baby-eating atheist liberals bent of the destruction of America.
So, what is the truth? The truth is that most folks are good people. They love their families and their friends. They celebrate Christmas. They give to charity. They consume, and in doing so, keep our capitalist economy chugging along. They vote for the guy they think will do the best job. They babysit their neighbor's kids, and carpool to work. They are concerned about the environment, but love their big V-8s and their ATVs. They hunt. They fish. They go to work, and bring home a paycheck for the family.
People are people. There are extremes, of course, but the vast middle-ground is filled with basically decent, friendly, good people. They are made up of all colors, and all political parties.
There is no sinister secular plot to supplant the "traditional Christian morality". Christian morality isn't "dissolving". That's just hogwash. Our HUMAN morality has developed and changed and - yes - evolved, throughout the history of our species. It will continue to evolve to meet the unique and changing conditions and needs of our societies. One does not "supplant" the other. "Morality" is all one big, homogeneous, changing, fluid set of guidelines that - through trial and error over hundreds of thousands of years, us humans have agreed-upon in order to make our societies work better.
Some "moral" things are almost always there; Don't murder. Don't rape. Protect women and children, etc. Other things come and go as needed by the species to better survive; Take more than one wife. Cannibalism is OK. Incest is OK if there aren't any other people around. Human sacrifice pleases the gods. Etc. All of these "sometimes" things have been "moral" at some point in our history. That fact that we generally don't consider them to be "moral" actually supports the idea that morality evolves and changes over time, according to it's "environment" (human society).
Please note that trying to stop this change, this evolution of morality, is akin to trying to stop the waves from washing away your footprints on the beach. Futile and childish.
Morality is an expression of our species-level human survival. It is not about a god, gods, God, godlet, goddess, or no-god.
So, Rob Dreher, great column and all - it was fun to read, and to pick apart. But ultimately it's nothing more than sound and fury, signifying nothing more that your own petulant denial of the nature of reality.



















Evolution vs. Christianity
Brent and Nemo:
With all due respect, I think you have a bit missed the point about the damage the theory of evolution does to Christianity.
What you are saying is true, with respect to God, but remember that xtians claim much more than that God exists. It's not just the Creation myth that is debunked by evolution. Surely you've noticed that the other Abrahamic monotheisms don't have much to say about evolution, though Islamic rejection of evolution appears to be on the rise. (Presumably because atheists claim evolution as grounds for their case)
Consider; without Adam, Eve, the snake, and the apple, the whole rest of the story doesn't hang together, and indeed, the grounds for all the horrible bigotry espoused by the Wholly Babble completely disappears.
Without the apple, we'd still be the perfect creatures we once were, made in god's image. Hard to develop a good story from that point, I think you'd agree?
Without the snake, God would have had no excuse to forgive us for eating the apple. The deal was that eating the apple meant death by close of business, right? But, actually killing us would also have cut the story short.
If it hadn't been Eve who succumbed to the snake, how could the Babble's misogyny be justified? It was her fault we fell from grace, right?
But Adam bit the apple too, and so we are all born into his sin, for which only the torture and death of Jeebus some 4000 years later suffices to redeem us.
So if evolution is true (which of course, it is):
We are all born as perfect as we're likely ever to be, with no reason to be grateful to Jeebus.
The dominance of women by men espoused by the Babble is without any ground but brute strength, and is merely barbarism.
Homosexuality may have some survival benefit to the species, and be encoded by our genes, which would mean the homophobia throughout the Babble is just more codified bronze age barbarism.
So, while evolution does not disprove god, it certainly makes a christian look like a knuckle-dragging chump for buying into the idea that a supernatural being could father a human child for the purpose of torturing him to death to pay for a sin that was never even commited!
Ironic, isn't it, that only the stupidest of christians (creationists) seem to have figured this out?
religion and morality
What Dreher refuses to recognize, of course, is that human morality existed long before the first formalized religions made it possible for the Shamans to live off the sweat of other men's brows. Humans evolved as social animals living in small groups in which the individual members depended on each other for survival. It would have been hard to do that if, without a god, each person just wanted to rape or kill every other person, like a stereotypical atheist from a Jack Chick tract. However, no christian can stray far from Jack Chick, because if we can be moral without God, what do we need him for?
God-Things
Ok. Evolution is a fact, and a theory.
The fact of evolution can be stated like this: Alleles change in frequency from one generation to the next.
This says nothing about the Christian God. Or any god.
The theory of evolution attempts to explain the physical mechanisms by which the fact of evolution occurs. Exactly how alleles change in frequency from one generation to the next, in other words.
Again - this has ZERO to say about the Christian God, or any god.
So, while I agree that evolution - both the fact and the theory - can be used to support the statement "a god probably does not exist" - evolution itself says NOTHING about god-things, Christian or otherwise.
Evolution vs. God
While I agree that evolution per se doesn't "prove the non-existence of God", I can't agree with your reply that "evolution says exactly ZERO about the Christian God". Evolution is certainly incompatible with a literal reading of Genesis. Not everyone's idea of the christian god is dependent on that, but it's a key belief for millions, and they tend to be among the most fervent of christians.
More fundamentally, the concept of evolution makes it easier to dispense with "god" altogether, because it provides an alternative explanation to the argument from design. So even non-literalist belief is threatened by it.