> http://www.townhall.com/columnists/column.aspx?UrlTitle=letter_to_a_s...
>
> Letter to a Stupid Atheist
>
> By Mary Grabar
>
> Sunday, February 18, 2007
>
> Mary Grabar graduated from the University of Georgia with a Ph.D. in
> English and currently teaches at a university in Atlanta.
>
> Dear Sam Harris:
>
> I hope you don't mind that I've adapted the title of your bestselling
> pamphlet bound between two hard covers and foisted on to an ignorant
> public as a book. Of course, I am referring to your pretentious Letter
> to a Christian Nation.
>
> In this little polemic you take the liberty of directly addressing
> those like me who believe in the divinity of Christ and in the truth
> of Bible. Your primary charge against me is holding thoughts and
> beliefs that do not square with yours. You do show some mercy and
> leniency toward those you deem moderate and liberal-those vaguely
> Unitarian, who believe Christ was a cool dude, with some nice ideas,
> who would have gone to peace marches--but not much more. I take your
> upbraiding personally, as I think you intend.
>
> My letter is addressed also to those who fall into the category you
> do. I have seen them-biologists with visibly rising blood pressure at
> college debates, writers of angry rhetoric in "humanist" magazines,
> bitter middle-aged men still chasing skirts, and one college sophomore
> who stands out in my memory among the hundreds of students I have
> taught over the years.
>
> I can't remember the young man's name, but I'll call him Sammy. Since
> the class was a survey class on early British literature we couldn't
> avoid reading distinctly Christian literature, like religious poetry
> and mystery plays.
>
> Sammy sat towards the back of the class. He was bright and articulate
> and I believe he earned at least a B. Away from parents who apparently
> sent him to church most Sundays, Sammy was feeling his oats amidst
> 30,000-plus students, and the professors from whom he took up the
> challenge to think "outside the box." He prided himself on his
> independence of thought, and like you, revisited the Bible. He found
> it did not square with what he was learning in Biology 101.
>
> Like many liberals he assumed the mantle of bravery by speaking out in
> class. He 'spoke to power'-the ultimate power you might say. (But we
> know who else did that; he figures prominently in a poem by John
> Milton.) So whenever we came to a passage that alluded to religious
> faith Sammy would add to class discussion by declaring it "poppycock."
> He boldly used the same word on papers.
>
> I tried to be charitable. I asked Sammy to address the concerns in
> more scholarly language. I marked his papers for diction. ("Poppycock"
> is too colloquial, I wrote.) I asked him to reconsider his assessment
> of all Christians as stupid and bad.
>
> I thus avoided getting into a heated debate on religion in that public
> university, a place where the only debates on religion allowed in the
> classroom are about the various degrees to which Christians are wrong,
> stupid, and bad.
>
> This young man, like you, Sam Harris, put his faith in science. I
> believe that he, like you, equated goodness with the absence of
> suffering. Although he carried a pinched, sour expression, he did not
> strike me as anyone who would deliberately harm another. He probably
> was a vegetarian.
>
> Mr. Harris, you charge us Christians with holding back scientific
> research on stem cells that you insist could alleviate suffering. You
> charge us with crimes against humanity by our concern over
> "blastocysts," clumps of cells, unable to feel pain, much less
> consciousness--according to science. Indeed, you present all the
> progress of science up to this point in the twenty-first century as
> the model that should replace religion, which you call superstition,
> as the basis for ethics. Use science to help humanity is your cry.
>
> But this was a motto used throughout the twentieth century by other
> "bold" thinkers who thought for themselves; there were many around in
> the 1930s. I don't want to charge you with plagiarism, but I have not
> found one statement in your little tract that differs in any way from
> their points of argument.
>
> You seem to put an incredible amount of faith in science, Mr. Harris.
> But many before you did too. Were you aware that at one time a group
> of scientists fancied themselves on the cutting edge for their belief
> in the science of phrenology, or the assessment of character by skull
> size, shape, and topology? These men presented scientific papers on
> their clinical work, which involved fondling and measuring skulls. I
> am quite surprised, Mr. Harris, that you would put so much faith in an
> endeavor whose base of knowledge changes on a daily basis. Think back
> to all the scientific theories of even a decade ago that have been
> surpassed. Think about how we scoff at the foolish scientific ideas of
> our father's and grandfather's times.
>
> You have a degree in philosophy, I see, but were you aware that
> science as a mode of thought came about through monotheism? You see,
> the idea of a single creator made it possible for human beings to view
> creation as separate from spirit. And thus humanity advanced from one
> that believed that spirits lived in trees and rocks to one that
> believed that one Creator created this intricately marvelous world we
> live in. The scientific endeavor then became one where individuals
> observed and studied various aspects of this creation. That is called
> science.
>
> That is what was presented to my son's Cub Scout troop by a chemistry
> professor and a Christian (and not of the moderate or liberal
> persuasion of your approved list). After amazing the boys and
> fulfilling their natural little-boy pyromania proclivities with shows
> of bubbles, bangs, and mini-explosions over Bunsen burners, the
> professor presented them this carry-away thought: though they might be
> impressed by the magic that he performed they should remember the
> greater magic that made all that possible to begin with.
>
> I thought you might enjoy that little story, Mr. Harris.
>
> And since science changes, or as you like to think, progresses, I
> wonder what you would say if science, forty years from now, when you
> are nearing 80, would find some use in the cells or organs of 80-year-
> old men for the benefit of those much younger and of more use to
> society?
>
> You feel that an ethical system can be based on the feelings of
> empathy that have evolved in us. You share your colleague Peter
> Singer's view. Singer, Ira DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton
> University, gushes with sympathy for little piglets-to the point where
> he thinks the healthy ones should be allowed to live, while the
> handicapped month-old baby should be put out of its misery. He begins
> his argument, as he necessarily must, by doing away with Biblical
> principles and law: the idea that we are formed in God's image, and
> therefore are above animals. He, like you, thinks that Christian
> proscriptions-like those against killing babies or having sex with
> animals--are just so much "poppycock."
>
> You answer your critics about the atheism of twentieth-century
> dictators: "Christians like yourself," you write, "invariably declare
> that monsters like Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot,
> and Kim Il Sung spring from the womb of atheism. While it is true that
> such men are sometimes enemies of organized religion, they are never
> especially rational."
>
> But would you hold up Professor Singer as an example of a rational
> person? How about the other respected professionals-the doctors and
> professors--who wrote academic and policy papers on their new-found
> procedures of gassing "idiots" and "imbeciles" in Germany? The method
> went through its testing phase in teaching hospitals on subjects who
> were too young or too retarded to be deemed rational enough to "live a
> life worth living." Hitler then grasped onto this idea of "scientific
> advancement" and applied the procedure on a massive scale to other
> groups, as we know. While you deem Hitler "delusional," what about the
> doctors who gassed three-year-olds? What about Professor Singer, who
> feels that euthanasia is appropriate for infants-if their parents make
> that "choice"?
>
> What words of comfort would you give to the father of the three-year-
> old child dying from leukemia (as some, in spite of the advances of
> science, still do). Would you advise him to euthanize the child to
> prevent suffering (being as tender-hearted as you are)? Would you
> explain that this is natural selection?
>
> You pride yourself on your belief in equality, in democracy, and point
> to the "barbarism" of the Old Testament in its treatment of women and
> slaves (though you didn't bother to research the translation of the
> term "slave" from a more general one meaning "servant" and the
> Biblical reference to slavery as an historical fact that Christians
> had to deal with, and not something they promoted). But did you know
> that historically Christianity was the first real democracy? Yes, even
> secularists and "progressives" admit that. It is a widely accepted
> historical fact.
>
> But I notice that your little book, displayed prominently in the
> bookstore chains, even among the suggested "holiday" reading of the
> last Christmas season, has been flying off the tables. It entered the
> New York Times bestseller list almost immediately and remains at #3 on
> Publishers Weekly Religion Bestsellers.
>
> I have seen the customers who fondled your book and read the jacket
> with self-satisfied expressions. These were the ones you blessed as
> "progressive" in your pages. Your condemnatory letter was not
> addressed to them. Your little tome at $16.95 graces their bookshelves
> along with those by Bill Moyers and the atheist authors you recommend.
> These progressives proudly display their reading material as they
> serve canapés and cocktails to similarly correct-minded, nipped and
> Botox-ed activists, who only really just want what is good for us.
> Your slim, easy-to-read pamphlet is just right for trips to the salon,
> masseuse, and transcendental ...
>
> read more »