In a recent article posted by Hemant Mehta, author of the Friendly Atheist Blog, an issue of questionable discrimination was addressed. One of his readers, Chris, posed this question to him, “Atheists like to say: You should respect the person, but you don’t have to respect their beliefs. Is this any different from Christians saying, ‘Love the sinner but hate the sin’?”
Mehta’s response was as follows, “There is one major difference. At *no* point are atheists trying to enact laws that would forbid religious people from believing in a god or attending church. We want to persuade them they’re wrong. Some atheists call them names, some write books, some blog, some are involved in local groups, some don’t do anything… but, in general, we would oppose forcing anyone to share our beliefs.
Meanwhile, Christians who ‘love gays but hate gayness’ constantly vote against gay marriage, fight against hate crime legislation, pass laws against gay adoption, and spread lies about homosexuality (“They choose to be gay!”)… They’re not content with just sharing their misguided opinions on homosexuality. They want to see to it that gay people are treated unequally in our society. Atheists don’t need to resort to laws or lies. The truth is on our side. We’re just out there trying to spread it.”
Let’s look at this one piece at a time, shall we? First, in taking a look at Chris’s question. He asked Mehta if what Mehta is preaching any different from what Christians are saying. Mehta does not directly answer this question. Rather, he pulls out the Red Herring fallacy, and one might argue that in the same breath he is committing the fallacy of Ad Populum as well. To be clear in what I am saying, let me define these two popular fallacious argument styles. First, Copi and Cohen define a red herring as “a fallacious argument whose effectiveness lies in distraction. Attention is deflected; readers or listeners are drawn to some aspect of the topic under discussion by which they are led away from the issue that had been the focus of the discussion. They are urged to attend to some observation or some claim that may be associated with the topic, but that is not relevant to the truth of what had originally been in dispute.” Mehta clearly does this as he quickly shifts the issue from a question of one’s motivation to a hot-button issue in order to distract the questioner, Chris. Second, the fallacy of ad populum is defined as, “an appeal to the emotions of the audience. It is a fallacy because, instead of evidence and rational argument, the speaker (or writer) relies on expressive language and other devises calculated to excite enthusiasm for or against some cause.” Mehta uses this devise freely throughout his response by way of an exclamation point in his assumed Christian response to homosexuality, language such as “spreading lies,” etc.
Now, my assumption here is that Mehta wants to retain his title as the “Friendly Atheist,” but he is anything but. He consistently attacks and ridicules Christianity (belief) as well as the Christian (the person) throughout his blog. If one were to take his particular position and generalize it to the whole of atheists around the globe, which would be a fallacy in its own right, it could be concluded that an atheist does not respect the person and not the person’s beliefs. But in his particular case, if he does not respect the person’s belief then he does not respect the person as demonstrated by his posts.
The fallacies that he commits are ones of relevance, and his appeal to the issue of homosexuality is irrelevant as an argument for this case. Now, if he would like to argue his point and use his current argument as an example, then maybe he could be taken seriously, but that is certainly not the case here. I would urge him to thoughtfully reconsider his response. If he wishes to “persuade” theists to believe in atheism, he is going about it the wrong way. He looks more like a man who is arrogantly beating the atheistic war drum and proclaiming that anyone who does not hold his particular worldview is ignorant.
Finally, he ends with this phrase, “The truth is on our side. We’re just out there trying to spread it.” My question is, what truth does he speak of? In digging through his blog posts, he seems as though he may be an evidentialist, and if you would like to see a response to that, please take a look at this post. But in claiming that their is an absolute truth and by appealing to right and wrong, a moral law, that entail a moral law giver. If something is wrong or evil, that means that their is something that is right or good. If there is a moral law in that sense, there is a moral law giver that is transcendent over this law and gives it out. C. S. Lewis, in his famous book, Mere Christianity (view it in MP3 format here), discusses how if there is no moral law giver (God), then there is no moral law. Can an atheist function within a system of moral law? Theoretically yes, but practically he cannot. In a world where there is no moral law giver, there can be no morality to speak of. In that kind of relativistic world might makes right, and the man with the bigger weapon wins, and he then makes the laws as he goes along. In that world, all sense of right and wrong, good and evil is lost. So, in Mehta’s appeal to right and wrong, he indirectly refers to a moral law giver (God).
In closing, I’d like to respond to Chris. He did ask a legitimate question, and he deserves a legitimate answer. The answer to your question, if your are reading, Chris, is no. There is no difference between those two statements. But, I would urge to to consider 1 John 4: 7-11, “Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Soninto the world that we might live through him. This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another.” If you desire to truly love someone and respect them while disagreeing with his or her sin, then enter in to a relationship with Jesus Christ, who is the author of love, forgiveness and restoration. He will enable you to love that person while still hating the sin that sadly entangles him or her.
We are all called, as children of God, to love all people regardless of their background or sin struggles. We are all called to be those who proclaim the good news of the love of Christ to all people. We are not called to be the judge of anyone. We are called to love because Christ loved us, and we are all called to pray for an fight for all of our brothers and sisters that we all may be sanctified by the power of the Holy Spirit who works in us for our good and who transforms our hearts and minds that we may be brought back in line with the way God designed us before the fall.
May we be those people. May we seek God to transform us and those around us, and may He receive all of the glory for it.
One last thing I would submit to you is this: please pray for Hemant Mehta. Pray that God would heal his wounds, however deep they may be, and that he would see God for who He is – the only one who can forgive and restore him.