Blogger Matt Walsh's post "Christianity has done more for science than atheism ever could" is so riddled with errors that Walsh proves himself unqualified to write about either science or religion. For someone who describes himself as a "professional sayer of truths," he has a consistent disregard for facts.
Walsh calls atheism a religion and refers to a "Church of Atheism." The facts: as atheism by its very definition describes people who don't attend church, Walsh is either joking -- or honestly believes all the atheists in the world belong to a secret organization dedicated to world conquest. Does this remind anyone of the so-called 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion' hoax? Belittling minorities and ridiculing their beliefs is prejudiced, inaccurate, and certainly isn't funny.
"Atheism has to hide from so much, deny so much, and twist and manipulate so much, because its existence is always jeopardized by the scorching light of truth," Walsh writes. The facts: when Galileo proved that the Earth orbits the Sun, he did not try to hide, deny, twist or manipulate the truth. Who did? The Christian authorities of his time. Historically, Western scientists who lived in countries where Christianity was the state religion were not threatened by atheists. They were threatened by other Christians.
Walsh continues: "An atheist has to be careful about what he reads and which facts he encounters." The facts: Walsh isn't describing atheists. He's describing religious fanatics.
A religious fanatic lives in a different world from the scientist. A scientist observes the universe, forms a hypothesis of how the universe works, then tests it. If she's wrong, she admits it, and revises her hypothesis to fit the facts. If she's right, she submits her research to other scientists to see if the experts can find any flaws. If the scientist's hypothesis is disproven, she accepts the facts. If she hides or denies facts, she loses all professional credibility.
The religious fanatic, in contrast, starts with a conclusion. He then holds so steadfastly to his conclusion that he dismisses any evidence to the contrary -- even if that evidence is overwhelming. Sometimes, the fanatic will take a few facts out of a much broader context and cite those misunderstood facts as "proof" that all the other facts are wrong.
In America, everyone has a right to their religious beliefs. However, if a judge refused to consider the evidence before delivering a verdict -- and announced that their religious faith was the only factor in declaring a defendant innocent or guilty -- there would be a terrible outcry. The defendant would get a new trial, and the judge would be disgraced.
The fanatic behaves exactly like this hypothetical judge when confronting scientific fact. Say a fanatic declared that rainbows were green and had no other colors. He could point to the green band as proof of his beliefs, and stand in front of the rainbow refusing to admit that the other six colors even existed. Everyone, regardless of religious faith, would dismiss him as a lunatic. But this is exactly what happens in the public discussion of global warming. Deniers take a few facts out of context to "prove" their conclusions, and ignore all the other evidence.
"Atheism does not advance science," Walsh writes. "It doesn’t advance anything — it does only what it is designed to do: confuse and destroy."
Painting an entire minority group as destructive is prejudice. We don't have to all agree with each others' beliefs, but if you want other people to respect your beliefs you have to respect theirs. As Jesus said in Matthew 7:12, "Do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." Walsh holds atheists in such contempt that it's impossible to imagine that he would want to be treated the way he treats them.
"You can, however, remove Atheism [from schools]," Walsh continues, "and I think it’s time we do that. Such a silly superstition... human consciousness that develops accidentally out of lifeless material, order coming from chaos, rationality coming from irrationality, everything coming from nothing — has never done anyone any good, and it doesn’t belong inside a school." The facts: atheists don't believe that, and that's not how the theory of evolution works. Atheism is diametrically opposed to superstition of all sorts. Richard Dawkins -- a biologist who also happens to be an atheist -- told an interviewer:
"I would not... say that we are here today as a matter of chance, because natural selection is not a chance process. Mutation is a matter of chance, but natural selection is a non-random force, because generations of genes have been non randomly chosen for reproduction and survival. If people think that Darwin said that life was down to chance, then no wonder they object to it."
Atheists do not believe that consciousness developed accidentally, and that is not what the theory of evolution proposes. Walsh condemns an entire group of innocent people whom he's never met. He calls their beliefs nonsense -- but his condemnation is based on complete ignorance of atheism. The idea that everything came from nothing is ridiculous, and atheists don't believe that any more than Christians do. Walsh lied about atheists -- either because he deliberately wants to deceive his readers, or because he simply doesn't care enough about his fellow human beings to learn the facts about a minority before posting about them. Walsh claims that the purpose of atheism is to "confuse and destroy" when he couldn't be bothered to spend five minutes researching what atheists actually believe.
Walsh's sentence "Think of the children, for goodness sake" is telling about the values we as a society want to teach our children in public schools -- but not in the way that he means. Walsh believes that society should treat atheists as second-class citizens. Sorry, Mr. Walsh -- it's immoral to treat individuals differently than everyone else just because they're members of a minority. We tried that in Southern states, and it was terribly unjust to African-Americans.
If we're supposed to get atheism out of our schools, does that mean that only children who attend church are worthy of an education? During segregation, when African-Americans tried to register to vote, it was common practice in Southern states to throw away their paperwork without reading it. Should children who don't attend church be treated the same way? Should the teacher throw out all a child's schoolwork without ever looking at it and then flunk them, just because the child's family doesn't go to church? During segregation it was easy for the state officials in charge of voting to see which American citizens would be allowed to vote. People with light skin could vote; people with dark skin couldn't. How is a teacher supposed to tell the difference between a child whose family goes to church and one who doesn't? Why not require all those second-class citizens to wear a yellow Star of David? That would make it easy for a teacher to tell which students to pass and which students to flunk without checking the quality of their schoolwork. Everyone at the school could easily tell who the second-class citizens were. The teachers would know, the principal would know, the other students would know... and the bullies would know which of their peers they could beat up without having to worry about an adult intervening.
If the public schools teach our children that atheism is nonsense, it won't stop with atheism. If the government can declare people who attend church superior to people who do not, the government can also declare one particular church superior to other churches. If the government can declare Christians and Jews superior to atheists and agnostics, then the government can declare Christians superior to Jews, and can (for instance) declare Jehovah's Witnesses superior to all other Christians.
Walsh finishes: "...we must get atheism away from education before we all end up like the modern atheist’s greatest prophet, Nietchsze, who died insane and naked, eating his own feces in a mental institution. This is not the sort of fate we should wish upon our children."
This is why Walsh's superstitions don't belong in public schools or public discourse. Walsh implies that the compassionate and loving God proclaimed by Jesus got angry at the German philosopher Nietchsze and cursed him -- for the sin of not believing in him. Is THAT what we want to teach our children?
That's not the way God works, and it's not the way the universe works. The facts: Nietchsze died because he contracted an illness -- possibly cancer or siphilis. He didn't die naked in a mental hospital. He died at home, with his family caring for him.
By Walsh's logic, we need to get conservatism away from education before we all end up like modern conservatism's greatest hero, Ronald Reagan. The late President died of Alzheimer's disease. Though Reagan was surrounded by people who loved him, in his last days the former President could not recognize his friends or family. Walsh may believe that God got angry at Reagan over his political views and caused his illness, but no rational person would agree.
One can disagree with the German philosopher and the American President and still respect them. But Walsh does not. In his drive to demonize anyone he disagrees with, Walsh attributes Nietchsze's final illness to his religious beliefs. The facts: Nietchsze would have contracted that disease no matter what he believed, just as President Reagan would have died from Alzheimer's even had he been a liberal Democrat.
Atheists aren't to blame for the world's problems, and treating their children as second class citizens (as we would be if our teachers were required to tell children that atheism is nonsense) wouldn't solve anything.
The problem is hate. The problem is ignorance. Schools exist to banish ignorance when possible -- and though schools can do their part in banishing bigotry, the battle against hate begins at home. Jesus urged everyone to love their neighbors as themselves. We all have a duty to treat others the way we wish to be treated -- even people with different beliefs.