The Science Fetishist Anti-theist

How to identify one in the wild and protect yourself from attack

What this is not: A polemic against atheism in general or a blanket analysis of all atheists.

What this is: An analysis of a particular type of atheist—an anti-theist, really—who is virulently and irrationally anti-Christian and who fetishizes science. We’ll call this person the SFA (Science Fetishist Anti-theist).

Let’s say you’re a Christian who’s interested in science and how it relates to your faith. You encounter an atheist who seems willing to discuss this with you, and you’re interested in his viewpoint. This could be taking place in person, on social media, etc. You explain your position on a particular topic, but you’re met with a series of perplexing responses and maybe even some hostility. You try to respond honestly and earnestly, but the discussion is going in confusing directions. He’s attacking your viewpoint, but not really attacking the substance of your argument. You’re being barraged with various claims that don’t seem to have much to do with your position on the topic, but you don’t know how to respond. If this has ever happened to you, it’s likely you encountered an SFA.

What follows are the characteristics useful for identifying an SFA. After that, I offer some general advice for how to deal with one.

Primary behavioral traits of the SFA

Here’s a non-comprehensive list of the primary behavioral traits of an SFA. If you can think of others, feel free to add them in the comments below.

• Almost immediately refers to the supposed conflict between science and religion in any discussion of science or religion with a Christian

  • If you beg to differ, brings up Galileo or Bruno

• Denounces faith as anti-intellectual, anti-reason, or anti-science

• Uses the word “science” as a catch-all for responses to questions

• Uses the word “science” in nonsensical and incoherent ways

• Refers to any attempt to demonstrate that the Bible is not in conflict with science as “creationism”

• Uses the word “superstition” in reference to your beliefs

• Refers to authoritative aspects of science, like credentials, peer-review, and consensus

• Despite displaying a near-reverence for science, does not actually know much about science

• Is unaware of most of the history of science

If a person displays at least five of those traits, you’ve got yourself an SFA. The fetish aspect refers to the near-reverence the SFA has for science, almost to the point of worshipfulness. The SFA is aware of the power of science and is attracted to it, but lacks the genuine interest to learn how science works. The SFA will also hold science in unrealistically high regard, causing him to not only ignore the limitations of science but to disdain all other methods of knowing.

What makes the SFA pernicious is that he is mildly adept at giving the impression he is reasonable, intellectual, and knowledgeable about science. However, it doesn’t take much to expose him for what he is. For that, all you need to do is challenge the SFA on a particular point and be persistent in asking direct questions. You will then notice his secondary traits.

Secondary behavioral traits of the SFA

Here’s a non-comprehensive list of an SFA’s secondary behavioral traits, displayed when challenged and cornered in an argument. Again, if you can think of more, mention them in the comments.

• Avoidance: he will simply refuse to answer the question

• Evasion: he will address it in an oblique way, but refuse to provide a straightforward answer

• Deflection: he will refuse to answer the question while changing the subject

• Misdirection: he will pretend to answer the question while subtly changing the subject

• Redefinition: he will redefine the meaning of something to suit his purpose

• Mischaracterization: he will twist your words and your intent to mean something else he can more easily attack

The way to combat these secondary traits is to persist in holding the SFA to things he’s already claimed and admitted, and requiring that he answer your questions directly. For instance, if you’ve employed impeccable logic to make your case, and he still refuses to acknowledge the conclusion, ask him which step in the chain of logic he objects to and make him back it up with reason and evidence. Stay focused on the question. Be relentless in pinning him down.

One key for keeping the discussion on track is to have a penalty ready if he refuses to answer your questions. On Twitter, I’ve gotten much more liberal with blocking SFAs, but on the rare occasions I tangle with one, I’ll either assign “homework” (a related task he must complete before I’ll continue the conversation) or I’ll threaten to end the conversation if he refuses to comply. If the argument is in person, I’ll refuse to continue unless the SFA answers my question directly. You can try other things. Get creative. But whatever you try, you must follow through. The penalty method tends to work, because SFAs are usually eager to keep the discussion going—up to a point.

If you’re persistent with your questions and pinning the SFA down, there are two possible outcomes.

1. The SFA will concede. This is the more desirable outcome, but it’s also the least likely. It’s possible that, through sheer force of will, you can break through the shell of delusion and help bring the SFA to greater understanding. However, the more likely outcome is that…

2. Your persistence will culminate in the Superior Posture Departure (SPD) aka the Flounce. The exasperated SFA will announce that you’re too ignorant to merit debate and will refuse to engage you any further. For the moment, anyway. SFAs can reappear from time to time to make provocative statements—often the same statements you’ve already refuted—only to disappear again when met with resistance. They may also snipe at you from a distance while continuing to insist that you’re too ignorant to debate. If I’m dealing with this option on social media, I usually just block the SFA.

The thing to keep in mind here is that most SFAs are dishonest, not only with others, but with themselves. This self-delusion is indicative of their blind faith in science. For that reason, you will likely never get an admission that you’re right, but this sort of refusal to engage you directly is at least a tacit admission of defeat. Don’t think of it as being mean, either. Anything you can do to disturb or pierce the delusion bubble these people live in is a kindness.

This is an edited re-post of an article from my old blog.