Does Bright Make Right?

"Oh, the Protestants hate the Catholics, and the Catholics hate the Protestants, and the Hindus hate the Muslims, and everybody hates the Jews!" - Tom Lehrer, National Brotherhood Week

"Oh, the atheists hate the Christians, and the atheists hate the dolphins, and the atheists hate logic, and most of all they hate God. Isn't that odd? How do you hate what doesn't exist?" - Famous Hat, Does Bright Make Right?

Years ago I happened to pick up a copy of Wired magazine and turned to an article by Richard Dawkins about how "atheists" should call themselves "Brights." "I'm a Bright," he wrote. "If you're reading this, chances are you are too." Nice try, Dick. The implication that if you aren't an atheist, you therefore are not... bright is odd in light of the fact that Atheist Logic as set forth by Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens is an oxymoron. (Should that be "Oxybright"?) Allow me to give you several examples:

"Atheists are less violent than Christians." I have heard this argument put forth by both Dawkins and Hitchens. They argue that Christianity - and indeed, all organized religions - are responsible for the bulk of death and mayhem in the world. Interestingly, if you point out to them that the deadliest regimes of the 20th century were atheist, they say that this has nothing to do with atheism. In logic this is a fallacy called "special pleading," that your argument does not apply to you. Look, either governments are horrible to people independent of belief systems or because of them. If they argue that these governments didn't kill people BECAUSE of belief systems, I reply that many Christians (Buddhists, Muslims, etc.) were executed PRECISELY because of their beliefs, and not just in the obvious places like China and Russia but even in Spain and Mexico when Communist regimes were in power. If that's not persecution based on belief system, then what is? Or does Bright make right?

"Atheists care more about the environment." While it is true that some Evangelical Christians have an unfortunate tendency to think environmental stewartship is tatamount to devil worship, most Christians do believe that caring for God's creation is important. Are atheists more concerned about the environment? Let's look at an example: the Yangtze river dolphin was an ancient, peaceful, lovely species recently declared extinct. Was this because of pollution in the Yangtze River? (But wait, China is an atheist regime! They must care about the environment, right?) What they don't tell you is that in the mid-20th century the Chinese government made a concerted effort to wipe out the dolphins because - are you ready for this? - people living near the river worshiped them as an incarnation of a river goddess, and the government did not want people worshiping ANYTHING. If this isn't destruction of an entire species caused specifically by atheism, then I don't know what it is. Or does Bright make right? Because I can guarantee you that if Christians had purposely wiped out a species, Dawkins and Hitchens would never shut up about it.

"There is no evidence for God." Let's face it, being an atheist is as much a leap of faith as being a believer. If you were truly logical, you'd be an agnostic and just shake your head at our foolishness as if we were worshiping the Easter Bunny. I know people like this, and they don't bother me. It is the evangelical atheists, if you will, who annoy me, the ones like Dawkins and Hitchens who say children should be taken from Christian homes, where they are being brainwashed, and raised by the state. Then they can be brainwashed as atheists. But wait, that's totally different because Bright makes right!

"Believers are being controlled by their genes." This argument actually does follow logically from Dawkin's position that we are all just vehicles for DNA. However, it doesn't explain why he and Hitchens are busy writing books to persuade us fool believers to change our minds. Hello-ooo, if it's programmed into our genes, then by your own logic we can't change it! Why not just get birds to stop singing or plants to stop growing toward the sun? Speaking of genes, if we are all just vehicles for DNA, then why do atheists reproduce at lower rates than believers? Aren't they disobeying their DNA overlords? Sure, the human body has some design flaws (where's the wisdom in wisdom teeth?) but do they really think we should go extinct? Now I am no seven-day creationist (starting a war on two fronts? Didn't I learn anything from Germany?) and I certainly believe biological processes drive much of evolution, but I do not think evolving per se is our reason for existence. If I did, at least I'd be consistent and would have 28 babies with the best sperm donors money could buy.

I will leave you with yet another example of Bright Logic: When it was revealed that Mother Theresa had suffered decades of spiritual aridity, when she didn't feel the presence of God, Hitchens sneered that she was like a woman whose husband went off to buy cigarettes twenty years ago and never returned, yet she keeps waiting for him. Christopher baby, what point are you trying to make, that God does exist but He abandoned Mother Theresa, or that the metaphorical husband never actually existed either, and the woman is waiting for an imaginary man whom she fantasizes abandoned her? Because, really, that is what you are saying, unless you are comparing apples and oranges here.

There you go, folks. Bright Logic in action. Remember, when you have no sensible arguments for your positions, just remind us believers that Bright makes right.

Famous Hat