Atheists are Cowards!

I really believe this statement. Please allow me to elaborate by defining my terms. An Atheist is, generally, someone who rejects Theism (or at least one of its forms) or denies that any deities exist. I am, specifically, discussing the anti-supernatural materialists that are typified by Richard Dawkins and his ilk.

By use of the term Coward, I mean to indicates someone who "shows disgraceful fear or timidity". More specifically, they display this intellectual cowardice by refusing to utilize their God-given (or natural, if you prefer) intellectual capabilities to reason to atheism's logical conclusion; that is, fear, hopelessness, selfishness, and nihilism. I prefer to see it as the Willy Wonka does and say that "You should never doubt what no one is sure about".

The belief in deities is as old a mankind and shows no signs of abating. I am suggesting, as opposed to what the Daniel Dennett's of the world would say, that theism, in one form or another, is wired into our very being. It is as organic as the hair that grows in men's ears. If one person can be more intelligent than another, surely, it is likely that there be an ultimate higher being.

The type of Atheist that I am discussing here is the ones who proudly accept the label of "New Atheist". I am unsure how convinced people are of this novelty. The "New Atheists" are, largely, saying nothing more that the hardcore Atheists of the past. In fact, they are saying much less. Albert Camus and Jean-Paul Satre at least had the courage to reason our their atheism to its logical end. This end, by the way, is not happy. Unsurprisingly, it lacks Hope (as well as Faith and Charity). Satre basically came to the conclusion that all man could do is bravely shake an angry fist in the face of man's cruel, short, and (ultimately) purposeless life.

The modern Atheist, like Mr. Dawkins, fancies that he and his comrades have stumbled upon ideas that have never been espoused before. They apparently have never read L'Etranger by Camus, or studied much world history. They clearly are not versed in what the real result of card carrying atheism has historically been, for the individual, as well as society. There is a direct correlation between the beliefs and actions of the most notorious mass murderers (like Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot) and atheism. Incidentally, one of the most bizarre views that have is that atheism was not responsible for Stalin's action, for example. As G.K. Chesterton said, "Once abolish the God, and the government becomes the God".

As a side note I will acknowledge that faithful Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. have done horrific things. However, one simple glance at the numbers of persons killed due to atheistic ideologies and regimes should relieve one of the modern misunderstanding that religion causes all of the world problems. There is, also, the point that religions have a self-correcting collective moral conscience. Atheism, when it fully embraces relativistic morals, can permit no such conscience. For example, a hardcore Atheist can rightfully feel Pol Pot to have been an extremely efficient leader. This is rarely the case though, as Natural Law naturally manifests itself in the Atheist's conscience (despite his ignorance).

I am not, here, espousing one faith tradition or another. The Flying Spaghetti Monster may be offended at such audacity. My statement is intended to express that I wish people like Dawkins (who appears to be a gifted scientist) would not stop as studying merely mechanism and continue to ask questions about why. Metaphysics is alive and well for intelligent and reasonable people. As scientists study the "how" of the natural world, they need to be brave enough engage the cooresponding "why" questions. After all, It may turn out that atheism is a Darwinian misfire.


P.S. - I found another interesting perspective (and probably more interesting than mine) at this blog.