Saturday, December 6, 2008

Dinesh D'souza- Salvo Mag

What do you think has caused atheists to move from a desire to be tolerated to a desire to make religion—especially Christianity—disappear?

For a number of decades, the atheists had embraced what might be called "the secularization thesis," which maintains that the world is automatically becoming more secular. In other words, they believed that as society becomes more modern, educated, technological, and scientific, it will naturally become less religious. The atheist expectation was that religion is a product of the ignorance of the childhood of man.

Interestingly, the world has not met this expectation. As the last century ended, the atheists looked around the world and said, "Wait a minute. The world isn't becoming more secular; it's becoming even more religious." After all, there are revivals occurring in a number of religions, including Hinduism and Islam. And many people don't realize this, but Christianity is actually the fastest growing religion in the world.

full interview here

I've been reading Dinesh D'souza for at least 8 years now; it's interesting to note his work was originally more political and social than theological.

After seeing his debate with Peter Singer at Princeton on Wednesday I have come to the conclusion that atheism can reasonably try to prove that morality is a vestige of evolution or rather a evolutionary strategy. What I haven't been shown is that, given that, what's the incentive to be good offered by Dawkins, Hitchens, and the rest of the bunch?

Having said that, if atheism ever succeeded in completely eliminating religion from society, what will be the next step? Will we be a civilization of bright, clean, scientific citizens? If there are no consequences to any of our actions in the eternal, then anything that can be justified as a means to an end will be justified. How many millions of dead in the atheistic communist regimes have given us a glimpse of that?

-Steve K.

4 comments:

Jason Kora said...

A lot of the "Evangelical" Atheists nowadays argue more philosophically than scientifically. They try to provide philosophical arguments like "If God is good, why is there evil in the world?" etc. I have no idea what the "biological" basis for morality could be. How did mankind "evolve" morals? How would morals fit into Darwinian theory? Natural selection proclaims loudly that only the "fittest survive." That being the case, any instinct that isn't in the interest of self-preservation/replication would be eliminated from the gene pool. Selflessness and sacrificial love would seem to be traits that evolution frowns upon. The way I see it, the atheists need to either come up with an alternate explanation for morality, or denounce natural selection altogether.

street theologian said...

Well as D'souza says later in that same interview, these new atheists are all highly educated in things that have nothing to do with morality, public policy, and other things they pontificate on

Joe V. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Joe V. said...

We should be careful as many self-described atheists really are not confrontational or aggressive ... in my opinion, its very similar to the terrorists really shining a negative light on all who believe in Islam.

Personally, I find when those rare moments occur and a meaningful discussion can take place, most atheists actually admit they are agnostic which is a small step forward.