Roger Hutchinson's last article (May/June 1999) was one sorry affair. I promptly lost what little respect I had for him as a seeker of truth. No cheap shot was too low for Roger. No Sir! How shamelessly he flung those tired, old canards at us! At the very outset, we skeptics were portrayed as duped pawns of Farrell Till.
I could not believe my eyes when he dredged up that old, sophomoric banality about atheist killers of the 20th century! Perhaps a quotation from his article is in order "When we look at the 20th century, we find that it is the skeptics who have rightfully earned a reputation for gross atrocities against mankind. As examples, we can readily cite the handiwork of Stalin in Russia, the communists in China, and the killing fields of Cambodia. Collectively, those involved in just these three examples rejected the Bible and what it teaches and accounted for the deaths of some 50 million innocent people" (May/June, p. 8).
When we look at the 20th century, we find that it is the anti-Islamics who have rightfully earned a reputation for gross atrocities against mankind. We may readily cite the bloody handiwork of Stalin in Russia, the communists in China, and those fanatical Khmer Rouge. Collectively, they accounted for the deaths of some 50 million people--and the killers were all anti-Islamic. Indeed, Hitler, himself, was anti-Islamic! But, more anti-Islamic than all of these is Christianity, the leader of the pack, which has fought the Muslims for centuries. Therefore, Christian philosophy is behind every major massacre of this century! Let Hutchinson, by his own logic, acknowledge the moral bankruptcy of his religion.
Well, that's a horse of a different color! I guess it never occurred to Hutchinson that each of his three groups held a number of beliefs, most of them having nothing to do with the killing of innocents. That Roger so easily singles out skepticism as the culprit tells us more about his prejudices than anything else.
Just possibly, those Khmer Rouge fanatics might have been pursuing their fantasy of "purifying" the populace to fit their ideal of an agricultural-peasant society. They were killing anyone with a hint of education. Skeptics, because of their ability for independent thought, would have been prime targets! Don't blame these murders on skepticism.
Just possibly, those communist Chinese might have been committed to ridding their country of capitalist influences. Maybe they just got tired of the ritual of seeing dead people collected off the streets in the large cities every morning. Possibly, they got tired of seeing foreigners control China's ports for their own benefit while supplying dope to the people. Quite possibly, they got tired of the endless corruption and brutal repression of the poor. When the cork finally blew, there was plenty of fizz behind it--and it had very little to do with biblical skepticism.
As for the Soviet Union, I've heard it said that some of Joe Stalin's friends were actually Christians! Had Christianity worked to his favor, Stalin would have supported it even though he, himself, was skeptical. However, Christianity was too closely tied to the czars, whom communism had just overthrown. Hence, atheism became the official view of the Soviet Union. Stalin was not about to compete with the church. The failure of early attempts at collective farming led to millions of deaths by starvation. Don't blame those deaths on skepticism. Stalin's endless purges and maneuvering accounted for still more deaths. Put those deaths down to personal ambition and fear, not to skepticism. For all its drawbacks, Soviet communism was probably an improvement on the serfdom of Christian, czarist Russia.
All in all, skepticism (atheism) had nothing to do with the above massacres. It was ^never^ a case of skeptics murdering people just because they were religious.
Indeed, I cannot think of any historical incident of significance where people were killed for not being good atheists! On the other hand, I cannot even begin to count those cases where people have been murdered because they didn't accept some religious viewpoint. Religious fanaticism, national fervor, personal ambition, greed, misplaced idealism and, the need for scapegoats are reasons why people are massacred.
In his thrash and trash mode, Hutchinson couldn't resist a passing poke at evolution "Perhaps the teaching of evolution in the schools with its mantra, Survival of the Fittest, accounts for the Paul Hills of the world." To this, I can only say, "Get an education!" Anyone who bothers to look at the past issues of Science or Nature, two of the world's leading scientific journals, will quickly find that there is no scientific controversy over the fact of evolution. Scientific opinion differs on how evolution proceeded, on the specific role of natural selection, or as to whether evolution proceeds smoothly on the whole or in accelerated bursts or jumps. There is no scientific disagreement over the fact that life has descended with modifications. I, for one, am delighted that despite the meddling of people who share Roger's views, many of our schools still teach real science in their science classrooms.
I'll leave it to someone else to supply some of the facts concerning the long, dismal history of Christianity. It was not by accident that when Christianity was at its height, the period was known as the dark ages.
(Dave Matson, editor, The Oak Hill Free Press, P.O. Box
61274, Pasadena, CA 91116; e-mail,
103514.3640@compuserve.com)
