The View From 1776

A Christmas Message From Pat Buchanan

Some of the most outrageous attacks leveled at Christianity are by those whose religion of materialistic secularity rests upon the unprovable doctrine of Darwinian evolution.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 12/25 at 11:01 PM
  1. Thomas,

    I am struggling to find the link between Pat Buchanan's piece about his fear that atheism may be overtaking Christianity and your tirade about evolution. I do not find any mention of evolution or Darwin in Pat's piece.

    PS

    I hope you had a good Christmas!
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  12/26  at  11:36 AM
  2. Thanks for your Christmas wish. I hope that you had a joyous Christmas and that the new year will be a rewarding one for you.

    The reference to evolution is in the following quote from Mr. Buchanan's article, though the word evolution is not used. Richard Dawkins, of course, is probably the best known advocate of Darwinian evolution. I would say, by the way, that his utterances might more properly labeled tirades than what I write.

    Quote:

    In a recent issue of New Oxford Review, Andrew Seddon ("The New Atheism: All the Rage") describes a "Reason Rally" in Washington, D.C., a "coming out" event sponsored by atheist groups. Among the speakers was Oxford biologist Richard Dawkins, author of "The God Delusion," who claims that "faith is an evil precisely because it requires no justification and brooks no argument."

    Christians have been infected by a "God virus," says Dawkins. They are no longer rational beings. Atheists should treat them with derisory contempt. "Mock Them!" Dawkins shouted. "Ridicule them! In public!"

    In "The End of Faith," atheist Sam Harris wrote that "some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people."

    "Since the New Atheists believe that religion is evil," notes Seddon, "that it 'poisons everything,' in (Christopher) Hitchens' words -- it doesn't take much effort to see that Harris is referring to religions and the people who follow them."

    Now since atheists are still badly outnumbered in America and less well-armed than the God-and-Country boys, and atheists believe this is the only life they have, atheist suggestions to "kill people" of Christian belief is probably a threat Christians need not take too seriously.

    With reference to Dawkins' view that the Christian faith "requires no justification and brooks no argument," Seddon makes a salient point.

    While undeniable that Christianity entails a belief in the supernatural, the miraculous -- God became man that first Christmas, Christ raised people from the dead, rose himself on the first Easter Sunday and ascended into heaven 40 days later -- consider what atheists believe.

    They believe that something came out of nothing, that reason came from irrationality, that a complex universe and natural order came out of randomness and chaos, that consciousness came from non-consciousness and that life emerged from non-life.

    This is a bridge too far for the Christian for whom faith and reason tell him that for all of this to have been created from nothing is absurd; it presupposes a Creator.

    Atheists believe, Seddon writes, that "a multiverse (for which there is no experimental or observational evidence) containing an inconceivably large number of universes spontaneously created itself."

    Yet, Hitchens insists, "our belief is not a belief."

    Nonsense. Atheism requires a belief in the unbelievable.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  12/26  at  04:17 PM
  3. Thanks for info
    Posted by help me write my thesis  on  12/27  at  09:07 AM
  4. I would like to thank you for the efforts you have made in writing this article. I am hoping the same best work from you in the future as well. )))))))))))))))))))
    Posted by essay writing  on  01/02  at  01:49 PM
  5. J. Jay,

    I had no difficulty finding links between Buchanan’s article, evolution and Thomas’ so-called ‘tirade’ against the latter. Both Dawkins and Hitchens (deceased) are notorious for their atheism, defenses of evolution, and crusades against religion. I suspect you had no difficulty seeing the connection either, but also saw an opportunity to ridicule on the flimsiest of excuses. Thomas’, likely, assumed his audience sufficiently informed on this topic (especially any who have followed his articles more than a few months) or are capable of quickly filling in minor missing information on their own, and should not have to spell out every connection for us (or you). Moreover, the link was implied as being broadly recognizable from context. You can always find holes like that to exploit and insult, if that is all you care about. However, that does nothing to move the debate forward. It only provokes, distracts and confuses casual readers; which is all you really intended.

    I respected Hitchens for his (later) moderation, consistency, willingness to debate honestly, openly and rationally, and his independence of thought (he did not go along with the Left on every issue – the way you and most socialists do – and never pretended to be anything other than a socialist and atheist). For example, he refused to go along with global-warming and similar sky-is-falling swindles; and he supported the War on Terror where socialists (almost universally) opposed it (but only until some Democrat took charge). For all his intelligence and wit, however, Hitchens could be surprisingly misinformed, obtuse or even a bit irrational under pressure (as when he debated his brother regarding the positive influences of religion on society). I cannot say the same of Dawkins, whose tolerance appears limited to those who share his apparent (despite soft-spoken) anti-religious bigotry.

    I disagree with Buchanan where he wrote: “Now since atheists are still badly outnumbered in America and less well-armed than the God-and-Country boys, and atheists believe this is the only life they have, atheist suggestions to "kill people" of Christian belief is probably a threat Christians need not take too seriously.

    The history of the world is replete with examples of small yet energetically hostile tribes overwhelming far larger settled populations (Alexander, Vikings, [8th – 12th century] Muslims, Japanese conquest of China, Khmer Rouge, Pre-Columbian Aztecs, Mongol Hordes, &c). Politically, too, this happens as when tantrum-throwing radicals succeed in cowing confrontation-averse, law abiding citizens, most of whom are ‘apolitical’. Urban secularists and agnostics are already indifferent to the brow-beating of the ‘strongly-religious’ by some who are openly and maliciously hostile toward them, and have stood silently while religious-minorities are systematically targeted, ‘picked off’, abused and silenced. Of late, we have also witnessed flash mobs attack, brutalize and even kill with impunity; with no one willing to oppose those either through a vigorous police response (aka, mob control) or armed neighborhood resistance (aka, watches plus vigilantism). In a several cases, clearly religious and racial motivations were in play. Is it really much of a stretch, then, to suppose atheists (the cruder, brutish sort), frustrated by lavish benefits that fail to materialize and then spoon-fed scapegoats by demagogues-in-power with which to deflect criticism, will soon be assaulting those they’ve been schooled to regard a ‘religious menace’ (right along with those they already regard a ‘capitalist-’ or ‘racial-’ menace), and who regard all these as sources of their frustration. Such bigotry can easily be blended with other motivations, such that it would be difficult singling out those guilty of purely anti-religious assaults from those guilty of racial, ethnic, political, entitlement, environmental, ‘choice’, and/or Occupy Wall-Street inspired assaults. Once the cities are purged of religion, the countryside cannot long escape the wrath of a demagogue-whipped (e.g., Dawkins), anti-religious jihad. Few thought it would come to that in 1933 Germany either, yet that is what happened and will happen again. History repeats.


    Links:
    http://www.philosophy-religion.org/world/jud_contents.htm
    http://www.pewforum.org/Belief-in-God/Can-Civilization-Survive-Without-God-.aspx

    http://thebroadside.freedomblogging.com/2011/12/19/richard-dawkins-foundation-bastion-of-religious-intolerance-and-bigotry/ – an atheist outs the high-priest of Atheism, Dawkins

    http://goldenbridgeinmate39.wordpress.com/2012/11/24/12245/ – as does this one
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  01/05  at  03:25 PM
  6. Thomas,

    Where Seddon wrote: “This is a bridge too far for the Christian for whom faith and reason tell him that for all of this to have been created from nothing is absurd; it presupposes a Creator”, I disagree.

    While it may be true of simple believers, it is hardly true of theologians and those inclined to study nature with an open, even, religion-friendly eye. The theologian and theist grasp all of the anti-theist’s argument; and still reject it as hopelessly incomplete and muddled. A few scientists, those whose minds were not early poisoned against religion (a real problem in most universities were we learn our craft), have concluded there is more evidence of a creator than evidence against the proposition. Faith is not a fixed attribute in us; nor is it some easy cop out, as Dawkins argues. Rather it is a life-long quest for truth which the honest will admit we’ve barely started. Science has made clear our universe is ‘designed’ to support life. Less well known or understood is that it is not especially favorable toward ‘spontaneous’ life-force generation; greatly frustrating every scientific attempt at creating life from dead matter; even when precisely tailored and conditioned to that purpose. 60 years ago, most scientists fervently believed the universe had always existed. This was a belief handed down by philosophers 2000 years dead in contradiction to Genesis (Old Testament) which taught the universe was created, and had beginning and end points. In 1959, astrophysicists, reacting to new knowledge of the universe and of its workings formulated the now famous ‘Big Bang’ theory which reaffirmed this core scriptural tenet. Atheists have, of course, portrayed Big-Bang as a stake through the heart of religion; when, in fact, it took us closer toward validating scripture than spiking it. Since then, evidence and reformulation of theories have tended to bear out rather than refute biblical descriptions of creation. Even the now popular ‘multi-universe’ theory supports our universe is finite, and is no more than a refinement of Big Bang. Exploration of biology and particle physics, and feeble attempts at replicating nature have only tended to demonstrate how dependent we are on our creator in everything; and that creation, rather than a one-time event, is an ongoing process. This is farther than even Steven Hawkins is willing to venture in convincing himself and others of a creator-less universe. Which then, theist or atheist, is the one ‘bridge too far’ limited?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRxEeHFHc-Y – Dr. Gerald Schroeder explains physical evidence of a creator
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LzetqYev_AI – simple scientific proof
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  01/05  at  04:44 PM
  7. Bob, I certainly don't disagree with you. I'm a firm believer that an incomparably great force, whom we call God, existing out of time, before the universe, from Whom all essences and accidental qualities of everything in the universe came, is the Creator of all we know or intuit.

    In the words of Genesis:

    1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. (Genesis 1:1)
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  01/05  at  05:22 PM
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.

Next entry: Economic Ignorance

Previous entry: Republican Party History