Caricatures make any belief look stupid

February 16, 2012

Makes sense?Christians have been taking the brunt end of atheist’s mockery for too long, thinking that long-winded thoughtful arguments in defense of Christianity will somehow win the argument in today’s soundbite culture.

People today simply do not have the patience to hear out somewhat advanced arguments in response to juvenile, immature jeers.  People would rather laugh than think.  People would rather feel a certain way about something rather than think about it.

The New Atheism does not present true arguments.  It presents irrational, toddler-like hatred for authority disguised in the wording of academia.  New atheism creates caricatures of Christianity because of how unsophisticated in thinking New Atheists are.  The big words they use obscure this fact.

Rather than respond to the irrational with the rational, rather than respond to emotions with reason, Christians ought to respond in kind–not “kindly,” which is a code word for “be nice.”  After all, why would anyone respond to a child’s temper tantrum by trying to reason with the child?


6 Responses to “Caricatures make any belief look stupid”

  1. One need not make a caricature if one wants to mock a religion.

    That is, the fundamentalist version of any religion.

  2. If one strips a religion down to its bare bones, it indeed may appear ugly. After all, we do have a certain kind of repulsion to skeletons we see as decorations around Halloween.

    It is rarely worthwhile to criticize the ugliness of a skeleton because a skeleton is not meant to be beautiful but to be a structure. Structure is quite useful, just not as aesthetically pleasing. Criticizing the structure’s beauty misses the point.

    Insofar as the structure is criticized for its functionality, one must understand the structure’s purpose and how it works. Criticizing a skeleton structure having only a crude knowledge of it is foolish.

    • “Criticizing a skeleton structure having only a crude knowledge of it is foolish.”

      Assuming someone who does not share your conclusions about a religion therefore only has a crude knowledge of it is foolish as well.

      • Notice that I specifically referenced the New Atheists in my post. I have read the New Atheists’ main proponents–Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens–and know firsthand that their knowledge of religion is so crude it can hardly pass for being elementary.

        • And yet, having read them myself, I come to the opposite conclusion. As I also have come into contact with religious people who believe the things that Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens have written about.

          They might not understand your specific brand of religion. But your brand is not the brand of everyone.

          • Their criticism rests mainly on the fact that the skeleton is ugly–this is neither here nor there, it just is what it is. This criticism is illegitimate and childish. When they speak to the actual structure of religion, they show their ignorance.

            Saying that you know religious people who hold the crude beliefs described by the New Atheists brings up a few points: First, this does not make the criticisms leveled against the crude (caricatured) beliefs legitimate. Second, this does not make the crude descriptions of religion accurate because many adherents to those beliefs share the same crude understanding of their own religion’s skeleton.

Your thoughts?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: