Ben Shaprio reviews Ann Coulter’s recent book Godless by saying, in part:
It’s not that the atheism of the secular left makes Coulter unhappy. It’s that they lie about their religion. Jews don’t pretend that Judaism is a scientific theory; Christians don’t pretend that Christianity is provable in a laboratory. Liberals, however, pretend that their religion is provable and intellectually superior, while at the same time labeling the traditionally religious backwards buffoons.
“I don’t particularly care if liberals believe in God,” she writes. “In fact, I would be crestfallen to discover any liberals in heaven. So fine, rage against God, but how about being honest about it?”
How many misrepresentations can someone fit into a single paragraph? I’m not sure, but I think that Ben Shapiro is working on trying to set a record. First he repeats Coulter’s lie that “the left” is godless and all are atheists. The fact that most liberals are Christian is undeniable as a matter of fact; people like Coulter and Shapiro deny it as a function of an ideology which seeks to deny legitimacy to all those who disagree with them. It’s a sign that one doesn’t care about reality, only about power.
Second is the obvious fact that atheism isn’t a religion — and neither is secularism, for that matter. It seems like far-right pundits like Ben Shaprio and Ann Coulter need to misrepresent atheism because if they were to address it as it really is, they might actually have to do some serious thinking about the challenges which atheists make to religious believers. It’s far easier to attack a straw man of their own creation.
Moving along, is it true that Christians don’t pretend that Christianity is “provable and intellectually superior”? Of course not. The entire “Creation Science” and “Intelligent Design” movement is based upon a desire to prove the truth of many basic Christian doctrines on the basis of evidence from nature. Natural theology is label for all attempts to prove the truth of theology on the basis of natural evidence. Theologians like William Lane Craig do nothing but try to prove the truth of basic Christian doctrines, or at least prove that they are the most rationally defensible options available.
Theologians like Craig are also heavily involved with trying to prove that Christianity is intellectually superior — for example, that only religions like Christianity can provide a sound basis for morality. The Christian Right consistently argues that their version of Christianity is necessary for public ethics, democracy, and so forth. They also argue that their religious ethics are necessary as a proper grounding for scientific research.
It’s inconceivable that Ben Shapiro is unaware of any of this; in that case, though, he’s lying. I haven’t read Godless, but if Ann Coulter makes this claim then the same is true of her as well: she must know it’s false, but if she knows it’s false then it’s inescapable that she’s lying. What can we conclude about people who deliberately lie in order to portray those who disagree with them as liars? Such people shouldn’t be labeled “backwards buffoons,” for such a label is far too weak for the egregious immorality they are promoting.
I have to wonder why Ben Shapiro and Ann Coulter think that describing liberalism, atheism, or secularism as “religions” is much of a criticism. It’s untrue, but so what? Even if it were true, how would that constitute a criticism of the ideas, questions, and beliefs of atheists, secularists, or liberals? It can’t be that being a religion is necessarily bad in their minds, because Ben Shapiro and Ann Coulter spend a lot of time promoting their own religion. It can’t be that they think this would allow the state to treat atheism, secularism, or liberalism as unequal.
Thus we find that their petty insults and attacks not only are false, but even if they weren't false they wouldn't actually constitute serious rebuttals to anything their targets have to offer. No matter which way these people turn, they are failures.
Understanding Atheism & Atheists: