On the Freedom of People to Disagree With the Truth

Originally tendered as a reply to this post.

The relativistic all-viewpoints-are-good attitude of the age is a factor only insofar as it raises questions we should be able to answer (like Colm’s); we’re under no obligation to hold to it otherwise, as pretty much nobody else does. A genuine relativist would probably find issue with, say, imposing laws on anarchists, and certainly find issues with forcing libertarians to pay taxes towards a welfare state, or forcing Christians to pay taxes towards a health system that provides abortions.

To my mind, the important issues are as follows:

Firstly, should there really be any tactical aspect to deciding how much freedom of expression people have? If it’s a factor that people might be exposed to arguments that are wrong and harmful (on any level), that’s (a) a logical route to ever-decreasing freedom of expression, and (b) effectively an admission we’d be in favour of far more freedom of expression if it was only the Christians (or, at any rate, the monotheists) who were in a position to express ourselves. I dislike the idea of the latter, as it means our ideals relating to freedom (or, better, our concept of the glory and dignity of the human being, and hence his liberty - indeed, duty - to speak truth as he sees it) are something of a luxury, to be abandoned whenever some human being, not utterly devoid of glory and dignity, stands forth to honestly proclaim something flat-out wrong. Nothing wrong with revamping your ideals when they lead to bad results (ideals should be open to correction), but it could also be parsed as a lack of intellectual integrity.

Secondly, truth should not fear error. Back in the day, Edmund Campion’s challenge to the English Protestant establishment, to give him a forum to debate their theology in (rather than just trying to have him arrested and horribly executed), was sneered at as “Campion’s Brag” by his enemies; a sneer which does not reflect well on them, now. Atheists cannot make any such brag these days, as Hitchens has expressed a kind of grudging low-grade admiration for the willingness of Christians to debate him when he was on promotional tour for God Is Not Great; and Dawkins’ God Delusion presents numerous anecdotes of witty atheist ripostes to theist foolishness in debate - a backhanded admission that Dawkins, also, never found the slightest problem getting his opponents to step into the ring. (I remember one atheist internet site whose FAQ explicitly addressed the issue of Christians coming along and asking for personal debating partners.) This, I think, is to the credit of the Church, and hence to the glory of God.

(In a similar vein, Porphyry’s 15-volume assault on Christian doctrine was dealt with creditably by those Christians who sought to provide rebuttals. It’s lost now, along with all the rebuttals; I think the Church should have preserved them, as a resource for later controversy.) [EDIT: As far as I've been able to find out, Porphyry's work was actually burnt at the order of the Emperor Justinian, which is even worse.]

Thirdly, your problem, as posited, assumes that atheists spreading error is a bad thing as it draws people away from God. To support this, there is the scripture that says, It is inevitable that stumbling blocks come, but woe to him through whom they come! It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea, than that he would cause one of these little ones to stumble, and you can argue that one should not give atheists the opportunity to draw down such woe upon them; and also that, in aiding and abetting atheist freedom of expression, one assists in setting up stumbling blocks, and is thus also inviting woe. This is a very serious objection, to which I answer: firstly, doing anything to suppress atheist freedom of speech is handing them ammo on a plate and bolstering their impression of being persecuted; a lack of fear towards atheism is a good testimony, whereas fearing the effectiveness of their slogans is a bad testimony. It sets up a stumbling block to allow atheists their platform; it also strengthens the stumbling block to deny them their platform.

Secondly, I recall to your memory the Chesterton book The Ball and the Cross, wherein an atheist and a Christian are persecuted because they both regard the issue of the existence of God to be very serious, indeed, worth fighting about, whereas society in general just doesn’t care that much. I think a similar state of affairs exists today - a relativist approach to truth, a belief it doesn’t really matter as long as you’re sincere, a desire not to rock the boat (remember the judge in tB&tC saying religion should be a private affair?) - but Dawkins, Hitchens et al. provide perverse testimony that it does matter. In many ways the atheists are in the pay of the Zeitgeist (their general morality is that of modern secular liberals, and the general morality of atheists in 50 years time will doubtless be unrecognisable), but they’re not post-modern, and they’re dead-set against the lie that the objective truth of supernatural claims is less important than whatever works for you, the Imperial Autonomous Self (as one Mr. Shea puts it), which I think genuinely does separate people from God, and works towards the ruin of souls. Their loud ranting forces people to awaken and think a bit. I wouldn’t go so far as to describe atheists as allies of a sort, but there is a silver lining there. (On a genuinely real cloud, to be sure.)

A fourth point is that Satan gets his time to rant and accuse in the courts of Heaven, that God allows truth to be put on trial. This isn’t terribly pleasant for the Jobs of the world, but God in his wisdom allows it. Admittedly, that God does something is not licence for us to do the same, however - “stumbling blocks must come”, &c.

Fifthly, all kinds of virtue should be able to find their place in the house of God, typically-atheist virtues included. Voltaire’s willingness to fight to the death to defend people’s rights to flat-out disagree with him is, arguably, a virtue. What place should this find in the Church?

Sixthly, platforms, liberties, &c are the issues and weapons of the world, not of God. As Brian points out, Divine powerlessness is better than human power. Not that things of this world aren’t worth giving thought to, but the folly of God is better than the wisdom of the World.