BOYS WITHOUT SUPERVISION
A July 12, 2012 article published by Religion News Service titled, “Do Atheists Have a Sexual Harassment Problem?” shined some light into the more grungy corners of “The Amazing Weekend,” an annual gathering of “skeptics, atheists and humanists.” This year’s conference of non-believers, held in Las Vegas, was woefully short on women with only 18% of the crowd being female. This number was apparently down significantly from last year when the 40% of the attendees were women. The article details accusations that many of the male organizers and participants involved in TAM have sexually harassed and mistreated female participants. A number of female bloggers and “nontheist” activists chose to skip TAM 2012. Rebecca Watson exemplified their fear in her own blog, while recalling TAM 2011, she said that she “did not feel welcome or safe.”
My response to Rebecca and the other nontheist females is, “well, what do you expect from a bunch of guys who believe there is no God, therefore no good nor evil, therefore no accountability for bad behavior?” Duh. It’s not just women who are endangered by the undercurrent of spiritual neutrality that defines nontheism, atheism, or any other ism that jettisons God out of His universe. All mankind eventually pays a price for any ideology that makes Science and heterodoxy the supreme merchants of truth.
Skeptics can be pretty fascinating. Instead of saying “I don’t know,” to the mysterious questions that have bedeviled humans for thousands of years, like “who made the Universe?” and, “why is man different from an armadillo?” They will think of something that is even more contingent upon faith, and certainly more preposterous, than the answer a God-believer might give. For example:
Who created the earth and from whence did mankind spring?
God Believer: God created the earth, and when His creation was adequately prepared he placed Adam and Even upon it.
Nontheist: A comet from the outer reaches of the solar system passed close to the earth and chunks of the comet landed intact upon the surface of the earth. Organic compounds within the comet then evolved into Alec Baldwin.
The next question for the nontheist is: “So, where did the solar system begin, and how did the comets form, and if the Universe really started as an infinitely dense point of nothing, what made the infinitely dense point of nothing explode?”
My point is; atheists and their ilk will mock God-believing folk for actually having a consistent explanation for why “it is what it is,” while they contort their way through absurd, inconsistent, and often irrational explanations that require a much broader suspension of disbelief than is required for the Judeo-Christian creation story.
It is rational to believe in God. God is the authority that gives form and purpose to the Cosmos. All rational arguments regarding why humans should treat one another with respect must lead back to God. Existentialists or humanists may say that a system of social ethics is sufficient for men to act morally towards one another. But that is not rational according to their Darwinian notion that nature selects the strongest to dominate within its environment. After all, what are the evolutionary advantages of altruism to an organism whose primary purpose is to survive?
It is the belief in God that constrains the passions of men. Faith in the Creator encourages virtuous actions and thoughts on the part of humans in interactions which are organic to a civil society. There is a reason why Communists insinuate themselves into culture first by cutting down God a few notches, and elevating the state to the level of supreme authority and provider. The state is not a moral being, cognizant of the inner workings of the human. The state does not judge righteousness or unrighteous. It only judges compliance or non-compliance. The state does not punish sins of immorality. It punishes sins of dissent.
Man, in the absence of a moral Figurehead, finds it easier to comply with the rules of the state, which require not faith, but a suspension of individual responsibility. God requires a broken heart, a contrite spirit, and a life wherein individual responsibility is the price to be paid for salvation. The unevolved, immature, and base find it much easier to discard God and comply with the supreme state and their notions of Science than they do to bear the burdens of introspection, humility, remorse, and change.
TAM is simply a tent revival for “Science and critical thinking.” The problem is that science, unlike Nature’s God and His moral principles, is always fluctuating as new discoveries, and new methods of discovery, continuously emerge. Science is not absolute, save for those laws that have been proven with irrefutable and unchanging evidence. But the Laws of Science are far fewer than working theories. In the 1970’s, for example, scientists were certain that a new ice age was just years away. That same “scientific community” now claims that the warming of the earth spells cataclysm in the near future. The truth has not changed, nature has not changed, it is only perception and methods of gathering evidence that have changed. Science is changeable, and as the “new ice age vs. global warming” debacle has shown, it is also prone to the corruption of political agendas.
God is unchanging. His creation is what it is. And so those who have a tendency to behave badly; men given to sexual harassment for instance, seek a way to equivocate their bad behavior. Science, deftly manipulated, may explain away bad behavior as something outside of the personal control of the individual, or as having an adaptive advantage. God holds men, women, and all humans who are self aware and capable of rational thought, accountable every whit for their actions, good or evil. And so people, naughty boys in the case of TAM, would much rather ply their mischief outside of the supervision of a just God, even if they have to pretend He doesn’t exist.
By Marjorie Haun 7/15/2012