I would like to ask the people of Cathinfo my question in the subject title.
Should we be rude to hostile atheists?
For whatever strange reason, this
topic has gotten me banned from a Traditional Catholic forum. I can't imagine why exploring this question is such a hot topic, since we are supposed to be evangelizing people in the first place. But I never really reached a conclusion. I still desire to know how we should approach hostile atheists in the online social spaces. I know a lot of thin-skinned Trads fear talking about this and want to shut out the conversation if possible, but I am confident that people here will be able to openly consider, ponder, and address my queries on this matter.
Now, for the topic at hand. Admittedly, I have become more aware and robust in situations when I find myself in an atheist's midst.
When I think of different saints, I feel as though I'm in good company. Consider St. Francis of Assisi, who once boldly told the Muslims "I am sent by the Most High God,
to show you and your people the way of salvation by announcing to you the truths of the Gospel." Can you imagine saying that to a gaggle of atheists who despise you? To think that a man would have the nerve to come to an entire collection of people who believe something different, and then telling them that they are wrong in their ways an need to convert.
Or, consider St. Francis' five Franciscan Friars who went to Morocco to convert the infidels. They preached in the streets and marched right into a mosque and denounced Mohammed right then and there. When they were imprizoned and tortured, they tried converting the jailers. According to a Father Cuthbert, "[T]he five Friars knew nothing of diplomacy and had not the temper to live and let live.
Mohammed was, in their eyes, the enemy of Christ, and the souls of this people were rightful spoils for their Divine Redeemer. To go back upon their mission would be a traitorus backsliding from their fealty to their Savior."
St. Augustine of Hippo once said of the Pelagians: "There is an opinion
that calls for sharp and vehment resistence -- I mean the belief that the power of the human will can of itself, without the help of God, either achieve perfect righteousness or advance steadily towards it."
Consider when St. Cyril of Alexandria once stated: "
Truth reveals herself plain to those who love her." Do you know what that implies? It means that those who do not know the truth do not love truth, but they love deception. How passive aggressive. Such a statement's tone could be seen as very hostile to those who didn't agree with St. Cyril.
And then, check out the audacious tone of St. Thomas Aquinas: "This then is what we have written to destroy the error mentioned [Latin Averroism], using the arguments and teachings of the philosophers themselves, not the docuмents of faith. If anyone glorying in the name of false science wishes to say anything in reply to what we have written,
let him not speak in corners nor to boys who cannot judge of such arduous matters, but reply to this in writing, if he dares. He will find that not only I, who am the least of men, but many other zealous for the truth, will resist his error and correct his ignorance."
One of my favorite quotes, which happened to aid me in getting the boot from The Echo Chamber, comes from Santa Clause. When confronted by a cult of Artemis, St. Nicholas said: "
Go to Hell's fire, which has been lit for you by the Devil." Of St. Nicholas' war against that cult, the St. Nicholas Center says the following: "Legends tell of fierce warfare between Nicholas and Artemis, conflict which lasted all of the saint's life and even beyond. Nicholas attacked this great temple with tremendous might and vigor, absolutely determined to bring about its total ruin. The very foundations were uprooted from the ground, so complete was the destruction. It is said that the fleeing demons inspired the people's awe of God."
Has anyone read the account of St. Catherine of Sienna, who was quite blunt in speaking to people? Once, when addressing three Italian Cardinals who supported the anti-pope, she called them a
"stench that makes the whole world reek."
I hear that St. Jerome was quite a firebrand as well.
Heck, even Michael Voris--who certainly has mixed reviews from people here in the Traditional Catholic circles--thinks that men in the Church need to be more masculine.
Why am I bringing this up again? I suppose it stems from Vox Day's latest blog post today, titled:
Punch Harder. In his latest post, he talks about the trials and travails of dealing with online Social Justice Warriors. Vox said the following:
The thing is, if you're going to be a public figure and express your opinion on the Internet, you are going to upset a subset of the people who encounter it. A subset of that subset are going to respond by attacking you using nothing but rhetoric. I've had people calling me nearly every name in the book on the Internet since 2001. So what? It clearly hasn't harmed me in the slightest. I quite like that it also gives me complete carte blanche to call everyone else anything I please since it seems to bother most of them considerably more than it bothers me.
The first rule of dealing with SJWs is Andrew Breitbart's: always punch back twice as hard. The second rule is this: keep punching. Women are particularly susceptible to attacks on their appearance and their sɛҳuąƖ behavior, so those are the most effective subjects to target with rhetoric. Once it is clear that they're not engaging in honest dialectic or rational discourse, your best bet is to either ignore them or nuke them rhetorically.
The third rule is this: quote them and quote them ruthlessly. Patrick Nielsen Hayden is a self-admitted racist. John Scalzi is a self-admitted rapist. NK Jemisin is a self-admitted savage... and proud of it.
The SJWs have to choose. Either they can engage in rational discourse or they can accept being called sluts and savages and racists and evil, ugly feminists on a regular basis. What is not on the table is one-way communication where they attack and lecture us and we humbly accept it in dutiful silence.
Admittedly, I do like Vox Day's approach here. I feel as though Christians have been flacid and ineffective in the last century in holding their own fort and successfully combating the encroaching societal evils. We can spend all day navel gazing how we got here. But the fact is, we need field officers. We need people unafraid to do field work. And, we need people fighting in the field. We need to send our troops out there. I'm unsure hunkering down in enclaves is going to be an effective defense against Satan in the 21st Century.
With Vox's approach, we can put on our swords, keep loaded pistols in our holsters, and ride out onto the battlefield ready for action.
But, I am a little conflicted, which is why I created this thread today, and which is why I created that thread over at Suscipe Domine last year--which ultimately got me booted from the site. I hope that bringing this up will not get me ostracized in the same way, as I am only looking for an answer here. Please consider my question that I posed to Vox Day this afternoon:
Vox, about punching harder, I have this question in relation to other online opponents, the atheists.
I truly enjoy watching our side get ruthless with the other side.
I've been at it with atheists online lately. They can be pretty vile. However, as I read different apologists, they state that we are to be humble and respectful.
Here is an excerpt from Trent Horn's book, Answering Atheism: How to Make the Case for God With Logic and Charity.
"Theists do their cause a great disservice by ridiculing atheists or saying that it is obvious atheism is false. If atheism were simply irrational, then why would believers have to guard against being 'drowned' by unbelief? Likewise, atheists should know that many people have wrestled and struggled with the question of God's existence before they converted to religious faith. Both sides should accept each other's doubts and journey toward the truth together in a spirit of mutual humility."
The above passage comes from a section called "Getting Rid of Bad Attitudes."
I have not been completely kind. On occasion I return their hostility. Not in a boisterous explosive and emotional way. But sort of in a straight matter of fact way. And I feel heartened when I see people from my side pull out their stilletos and take charge against ruthless hostile ridicule.
Ought we be more pleasant and just take the hits? I'm a little divided on this one.
If it is one thing that Catholic Answers has going for it, it is that they have Trent Horn. His book Answering Atheism is a real gem of a tool in figuring out how to deal with the rise of faithlessness in our culture. I assure you all, atheism and agnosticism will be very large problems for all believing Catholics 25 years from now. If you have babies and toddlers, then by the time your children are grown adults, they could be facing the open persecution that we only read about when we read of the Vendee in France, persecuted Catholics in Vietnam, or the Christeros in FreeMasonic Mexico. Horn's book is a good beginning.
Yet, is Horn completely correct? Do we truly need to get rid of bad attitudes? Are we truly doing ourselves a disservice by ridiculing atheists? Should Horn time travel back to the outspoken saints who combatted the heresies and cults of their times? In my mind, on this point, it looks like it is the 21st Century Trent Horn vs St. Francis and his Friars, St. Augustine, St. Cyril, St. Thomas, St. Catherine, and St. Nicholas.
I would appreciate your thoughts on this matter. I have addressed this before elsewhere.
(See:
www.thehirschfiles.blogspot.com/2014/12/the-echo-chambers-fears-of-honesty-and.html)
I trust that the question will be reasonably recieved here.
UPDATE:
Here is Vox's reply to my questions:
Here is an excerpt from Trent Horn's book, Answering Atheism: How to Make the Case for God With Logic and Charity.
I don't have to read any more than that to know he's an ineffective and quite possibly a jackass to boot. Christians who talk about charity in that sense are like liberals who talk about being thoughtful.
Ought we be more pleasant and just take the hits? I'm a little divided on this one.
No. If they are taking shots like that, their issue is pride in their pseudo-reason. Break it with the real thing.
I will forward this question of mine to other Catholic forums, as I want to hear other Catholics' opinions on this matter.