It's not that unusual to find religious theists accusing atheists of being at the root of everything bad in the world. Randolph Boyer fits in quite well with this phenomenon. A theist who describes himself as "obsessed with messianic prophecy," he's convinced that atheists are causing the downfall of all society. He also thinks knowledge is at the root of all evil. Maybe we should be flattered by the association?
Randolph Boyer: It is atheism that is destroying both History, Religion, moral values, and the hearts and minds of those spiritual.
Randolph Boyer: Atheism is just trying to destroy History as much as religion, yet not believing comes with consequences.
Randolph Boyer: the absence of god will destroy society, morals will be lost, everyone's faith will be crumbled
Naturally Randolph Boyer doesn't bother to cite a single example of any atheists destroying any moral values or any society. Facts and evidence are completely absence from all his invective. No surprise there - using them would require knowledge, wouldn't it?
Just because it's unsurprising though doesn't make it right or justified. People have made very similar accusations about other minorities in the past -- Jews, for example. Stop to think about what has happened to them when the hate and demonization really takes hold.
Language like what Boyer using isn't mere criticism or disagreement, it's hate mongering -- he's encouraging people to hate atheists on the basis of absolutely nothing whatsoever. When there is violence against atheists, it's people like Boyer who are partially responsible because they are deliberately creating an environment where violence is more likely.
Randolph Boyer: the reason I hate atheists the most is because they blame those that are deemed unintelligent all because of ones faith really.
So let me get this straight: it's acceptable and reasonable to "hate" atheists because they regard theists as "unintelligent," but at the same time it's also acceptable and reasonable to accuse atheists of destroying society, destroying history, and destroying morals. Does anyone else perceive a bit of imbalance there?
Randolph Boyer: the science books have been changed more than the scriptures, and the scriptures have stayed the same.
I cringe every time I read this complaint, which is basically a complaint that science attempts to conform to reality. Science changes more than religious scriptures because science is evidence-based and scriptures are not. This means that as new evidence comes in, the scientific conclusions shift. Sometimes conclusions must change radically.
This is not a downside or negative aspect of science. It's not praiseworthy that religious scriptures are static regardless of what evidence we have and how society changes. Only an extremely warped and twisted view of the world could possibly result in believing that it's wrong to adjust your conclusions in the light of new evidence and you should instead stubbornly stick to the opinions of bronze-age priests no matter what.
Imagine what courtrooms would be like if they all operated this way. Do you think Boyer would feel comfortable being tried in a court where the conclusions remain fixed rather than one where the conclusions are adjusted to fit new evidence that comes in?
In fact, I'd say that you would have to hate knowledge itself in order to believe that it's wrong to adjust your conclusions to fit new evidence. Perhaps it's no coincidence that Randolph Boyer doesn't seem to like knowledge very much:
Randolph Boyer: My belief why evil is created is because of knowledge. Knowledge is what created weapons of mass destruction.
Randolph Boyer: I think evil is knowledge, but as we grow wiser with time. Religion falls and rises over time as well.
Randolph Boyer: Knowledge is what creates murder, lies, and most important jealousy.
If "evil is knowledge," then "knowledge is evil." If you hate knowledge, then of course you'll object when new evidence is collected, new facts are established, and better, more reliable conclusions are reached. If you think knowledge is evil, then of course you'll look back fondly on bronze-age priests who, relatively speaking, didn't have a whole lot of accurate, reliable knowledge about the natural world.
Randolph Boyer: guided by truth, love, and charity. Is the trinity of of humanity, yet this is the trinity that is the very human soul. Now humans use it...
Truth, love, and charity? Well, I don't know about charity but I really don't think that you can be "guided by" truth when you think knowledge is evil. Just the opposite, in fact -- if you reject knowledge, then you necessarily also reject truth.
And I don't think there can be a whole lot of love, either, in the absence of knowledge. Randolph Boyer definitely doesn't have any love for or charity towards atheists. You don't love people you accuse of destroying society. You aren't being charitable towards people you accuse of destroying moral values.
That's just pure, unadulterated hatred. The only thing Randolph Boyer seems to hate more than atheists is knowledge. Hmmmm... I wonder if there's a connection? Might his hatred of atheists stem from the fear that they are spreading too much knowledge?
No comments:
Post a Comment