The Strangely Simple World of Internet Atheism

Worldview and You

on-computerI got an e-mail some time ago from a reader who wrote:
I’ve really changed and been challenged by what I’ve read on the internet. I’ve . . . really had my faith rattled by some of the science articles . . . and the associated comments. It seemed that most thought Christians (or anyone who believed in God) was a fool. I remember one comment to the effect that ‘one day all our religions will look as stupid as believing in Zeus or Thor does to us today.’ . . . Being a life long believer . . . I started to question . . . was pretty miserable for a while. You could say I lost my faith.
The world of Internet Atheism can have that effect on people. By “Internet Atheism,” I do not mean every instance of atheism on the Web, but rather a new social and religious phenomenon that arose with the Internet and could not thrive without it. It is a world that points insistently at its own bright intelligence, and by doing so it undermines the faith of many. Yet it is strangely simple, perhaps even simple-minded.

Black-and-White Simplicity

I do not say that lightly. Consider, for example, the black-and-white simplicity of one Internet Atheist’s chart of “50 Years of Progress In Science and Religion.” The “science” side of the chart lists advances in medicine, space travel, communications, astronomy, computing, and other marvels of modernity. The “religion” side includes only one unequivocally positive event, which was all the way back in 1963. Apparently religion has seen no progress of any kind since then.

There’s nothing said about religion’s work in advancing prison reform, feeding the hungry, taking the lead against human trafficking, or making advances in philosophy, history, archaeology, and other disciplines. The chart lists nothing but negatives: the Roman Catholic abuse scandal, Islamist violence, evangelicals’ supposed opposition to science, embarrassing end-of-the-world predictions, and a brief history of Christians’ opposition to homosexual rights.

It’s an astonishingly simple picture of reality. Science is good, religion is bad—and that’s just the way it is.

In fact it’s even simpler than that, for in this fine specimen of Internet Atheism, all of religion is depicted as one unified thing. The chart lumps Islam, Judaism, Catholicism, evangelicalism, Pentecostalism, and Buddhism all together in one undifferentiated lot. Never mind that classical Buddhism is atheistic, and the other religions mentioned have vastly different beliefs and social structures. Religion is religion is religion, seems to be the message, and why make it any more complicated than that?

The rest of the message is that science is smart, progress-oriented, and generally good for the world, whereas religion is reactionary, opposed to the progress of knowledge and ethics, and really quite monolithically stupid. It’s all so black-and-white. It’s all so simple.

‘Internet Atheism’

It’s far too simple to be real. But this is the strangely simple world of Internet Atheism.

Of course this is just one graphic on one website, which raises the question, how representative is it? Plenty, in my experience: I’ve seen the same kind of thing repeatedly. More telling than my opinion, though, is that Jerry Coyne, biology professor and atheist activist at the University of Chicago, strongly endorses it, describing it as a “lovely graphic.”

Coyne is hardly uneducated or unintelligent, yet here and in many other posts on his Why Evolution Is True blog, he has adopted and endorsed the same unrealistically simple picture of reality. Commenters on his blog cheer him on. If there is dissent, it disappears: It has happened to me and many others.

Social theorists know that the collective intelligence of a group is often lower than that of any of its members. Groupthink is a familiar manifestation of that effect. Less well-known is the polarization effect, in which social pressure, selective presentation of information, and seeing others as outsiders can lead a group to adopt extreme positions that no one person would take up on his or her own.

It seems to me that it’s this kind of group effect, operating through blogs and social networks, that makes Internet Atheism different from other forms of disbelief. It’s what makes it a uniquely Internet-based phenomenon, and justifies giving it the name “Internet Atheism.”

It’s an image that will look familiar to anyone who has spent any time on Dr. Coyne’s site, the Pharyngula blog of P. Z. Myers, Reddit’s atheism pages, or any number of other atheist sites. They convey a common message; they live in one world. In that world, atheists can think. Christians cannot. Atheists build their knowledge upon science. Religious people build their beliefs on blind faith. Time and again, atheists on the Internet have said of my Thinking Christian blog, “Thinking Christian? What a joke! There’s no such thing! If he were thinking, he’d be an atheist.”

Uninformed . . .

There’s a lot that could be said about this. I could mention committed Christians like Wernher von Braun and Francis Collins, scientists who led the way in rocketry and genomics. I could point to the lively and deep academic debates going on between real thinking Christians and real thinking atheists. I could go back to the foundations of science, and show how deeply science has depended on a Christian way of viewing reality.

I could point at library after library of works from great Christian thinkers: Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Edwards, Galileo, Kepler, Brahe, Faraday, Maxwell, and many, many more, in philosophy and the sciences. I could tune our ears to the music of Bach and Handel.

And then I could ask, if atheists are supposed to be those who base their beliefs on evidence, what do they do with all that?

. . . and Absurd

But Internet Atheism has even more obvious problems: problems any intellectually aware person could see, without needing to know any of Christianity’s intellectual heritage. (And there are many who know nothing of that history.) Think about it: How likely is it that the world is so simply divided? How likely is it that no Christian in the past fifty years has noticed how lost he is in religion’s vast ethical intellectual emptiness? How likely is it that Christianity is only bad, whereas science is only good, and yet real people persist in following Jesus Christ?

Of course Christians arrive at different answers than atheists—but could that be simply because none of us has ever been concerned about the deep questions? Obviously not! To think that it could be that way is to stereotype all Christians as irrational, unthinking, uncaring, something rather less than human. And yet that’s the message of much Internet Atheism.

Still they continue with their “certainties built on unquestioned absurdities,” to quote a line from Brian Bell’s poem “Religious Conviction.” That poem begins,

The comfort of conviction,
Is the simplicity of ignorance . . .

There is indeed comfort in seeing the world as a simple place, regardless of what’s real. The irony could hardly be more striking.

Responding to Internet Atheism

It could hardly be more troubling, either. Internet Atheism is a frontal attack on Christianity, operating on many levels. Recently Jerry Coyne mounted a blog-based campaign to have a Ball State University astronomy professor barred from teaching a course on the "borders of science," because it has implications that could support Intelligent Design theory. The university has undertaken an “investigation,” the results of which remain to be seen.

More often, though, the attack takes the form of blogs and social networks representing atheism as intelligent and all religion as dimwitted. Our best defense is careful study, clear thinking, a presence of our own on the Internet, and quality teaching in our churches. Internet Atheism is too simple to succeed in the long run—provided that we do our part to show it for what it really is.

Image courtesy of More than WE Know.

Tom Gilson is the incoming National Field Director for Ratio Christi, the chief editor of “True Reason: Christian Responses to the Challenge of Atheism,” and the author/host of the Thinking Christian blog.

Articles on the BreakPoint website are the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the opinions of BreakPoint. Outside links are for informational purposes and do not necessarily imply endorsement of their content.


In any case belief or unbelief in Zeus or Thor is not the same as belief in God. There might hypothetically be a kingly spirit that holds court at Mt Olympus with 11 chief family members, who has a rather odd propensity for womanizing among humans and a daughter that enjoys philosophy, weaving and statecraft. But he would not be God. All the portraits of Zeus we have been given put him INSIDE the universe. Should we discover his existence we will have discovered nothing as that still does not explain the universe, but only adds one more being to a universe full of beings.
Actually that has not been my experience of internet atheism. A number are quite intelligent and humane in the circles I traverse.

I suspect you mean the ones that chime in on the comments sections of articles. The ones in discussion groups are often worthy opponents.
Your article hit the nail on the head.

Go to the Reasonable Faith Facebook page and witness all the armchair atheists that make the ludicrous claims that they have the answer to Dr. Craig's arguments.

Funny, those he debated did not and yet, these rank and file, Monday morning armchair atheists have the better responses.

It is the usual "prove it with empirical evidence" that follows are some illogical claim. I doubt if they actually know what empirical means. They also seem to think they are exempt from any real argumentation rules. It is common practice for these rank and file atheists, that when questioned, they avoid responding and try and shift the burden with a rather, if I may say, stupid question like "Well, who created God," or the dumbest question of all time, "Well prove Jesus really existed."

They claim that Christians "copy and paste" tired arguments then turn around and post some lame claim from Lawrence Krauss like how "something can come from nothing."

As I read they comments and questions by these armchair atheists, I have to wonder if they ever took a critical thinking class or are they just suckered by folks like Dawkins, Krauss, Harris, Coyne, Hawking, etc. Now, this is not to say these armchair atheists are not intelligent, it is just when they try and argue against Theistic claims and arguments, logic and reason say "buh bye" once they make the attempt.

As for Jerry Coyne, yes I agree that he is intelligent, but he wrote an article for the USA Today back on Jan 1, 20112 about why we do not have free will. Anyone with half a brain would have to wonder why someone would write such a self-defeating article and believe the nonsense as being truth. It was not.

Again, your article hit the nail on the head. By the way, in case you are unaware, the common name for these armchair atheists is "Troll." And based upon their inability to reason and exercise logic, it is a nickname that fits.
Technically it is a pretty safe bet that Homer believed in Zeus and Snorri at least knew someone who believed in Thor. And pretty obviously neither were stupid. The idea of me personally worshiping either seems rather funny but that is different. Belief in both logically incompatible with Christianity not to mention forbidden but that is different. Science certainly has not disproved Zeus or Thor let alone any more sophisticated religion. Though I suppose the fact that Minerva has not to my knowledge turned anyone into a spider for claiming to know more about science then she might be evidence for her nonexistence.
Your article is so true! the good news is that the truth is out there. Jesus said you will know the truth and the truth will set you free.the truth of the matter is science and the Bible are intertwined in an incredible way science backs up the Bible. So we have the truth on our side God has given us the truth. For anyone seeking the truth I would recommend Dr. Ross at. reasons to believe .org the work he has done and his book more than a theory are absolutely I opening. It is time for all of us Christians to get behind the truth and teach it to our children so that they may not be swayed.
Hi, Befuddled2 -- thanks for commenting. We'd prefer it if you'd post a link with an excerpt or a quote, not the whole thing. I appreciate your checking with us first, and am very glad you liked the column!
First off, I wish to thank you for posting a very well written and thoughtful blog about internet atheism. One that, even though I am an atheist, I largely agree with.

I often argue for a more nuanced view of religion on different atheist forums and largely recieve negative feedback on it; sometimes to the point of being called a secret theist. On the plus side, there are atheists who either totally agree with me on this or at least partially.

Next, I would like your permission to post it on my Bad Atheist blog. http://badatheist.wordpress.com/

Next, in the I would point out that this internet effect seems to apply to all viewpoints whether political or religious. I have noticed the same thing happening on many Christian forums when discussing atheism. The atheists provide some grist for the Christians to use and then the atheists take this as vindication of their views which the Christians then..... and it goes on and on and on.

Finally, I wonder if some of this tendency for atheism to treat religion too simplistically is the result of history and social standing. Atheism has always been a minority position and often has been persecuted by the larger Christian majority. Even today, atheists are not well thought of by general society.

I can't help but feel that this also has some role in too often simplistic view of atheists about religion. If so, then it would also apply to other religoius minorities in cultures that persecute and discriminate against them such as the early Christain church during the Roman Empire.

Oh, if I get your permission to post your blog on mine, any other comments I would make are already mentioned in this overly long comment. Except possible a mention that I do not consider Intelligent Design science, but have not real knowledge of the specifcs of the conflict mentioned.

Again though, good blog.
I'm not familiar with this Dr. Coyne or his site, but I have seen and experienced this sort of thing endlessly on YouTube, the comment section of blogs, etc.

It doesn't matter what facts you give. It doesn't matter how much you reason with them. It doesn't matter that their claims are outright refuted. Nothing matters to them except their childish, simplistic, often utterly irrational claims.

That's what happens when you've got an entire culture brainwashed by the, "This is TRUE for me!" and "But I FEEL it!" routine.


On the flip side, a big part of the problem is that so many Christians have fuzzy ideas about what they believe, they are woefully ignorant about what the Bible actually teaches, and they have no clear understanding of why they believe what they say they believe in the first place.

BreakPoint Columns