I have blogged before on the PostModern (PoMo) distinctives of this 21st century, but superficially, it would seem that 20th century Modernism is ascendant. That is, the atheism that spread with scientism and progressivism seems to be doing quite well in a recent spate of "angry atheist" books by Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris, even the Darwin-celebration books all seem to point to a general flowering of 20th century atheism. How does this fit with the triumph of 21st century PoMo philosophy?

By changing the definitions.

Sometimes you can't trust labels, and nowadays atheism isn't what it used to be. And frankly, that's a good thing, because atheism has always been the last refuge of thieves, murderers, adulterers, and scoundrels. That's why it has been the most despised religion of the past 5 millennia by every culture that has a written history: Chinese, Mayan, Sumerian, Babylonian, Egyptian, Greek and Roman. If we could read the Indus River script, or the Mycenean Linear B I'm sure they would agree. There has never been any redeeming value in atheism.

Why? All the historical testimonies are in agreement: because it ruins morals.

So are all religions merely the codification of moral codes? To a large extant, it is a good thing or you and I wouldn't be here to talk about it.

But if all religions are man-made, then they are manifestly false, and atheism is the only rational alternative!

Well, I didn't say all. And even if they are man-made, that doesn't mean there isn't a moral order to the universe that all man-made religions are recognizing. That is to say, atheism makes the further claim that not only are all religions man-made, but the universe does not have a maker, or even a vague purpose to its existence.

But if it doesn't have a purpose, then nothing that happens can be considered "bad", as if it violated some basic law of the universe. If it happens, it happens. Period.

Now in the 20th century, all the brave atheists were willing to face this meaninglessness of atheism. In fact, they were proud of their unflinching gaze into the black hole of chaos. Jacques Monod, for example, concluded his 1970 book "Chance and Necessity" with these words:

...man at last knows that he is alone in the unfeeling immensity of the universe, out of which he emerged only by chance. Neither his destiny nor his duty have been written down. The kingdom above or the darkness below: it is for him to choose.

But the one thing Monod and his friends could not face, the one thing they flinched at, was the fellow traveller who chose the darkness below:  Hitler, Goebbels, Stalin, and Pol Pot. It is one thing to be brave for oneself, but to be responsible for another was a burden intolerable.

We are back to the reason why atheism has a derisory 5000-year track record--it is completely and utterly devoid of responsibility, which suits its complete and total selfishness, and which is why it is the refuge of scoundrels.

So what is a respectable atheist to do? How does one take the scientism and skepticism of the 20th century which rejects the concept of a higher order, and inject it with some civic-minded respectability?

By the creation of the Atheist God, or what I like to call, the Ungod.

Yes, I know it sounds like an oxymoron, but with a bit of retraining, you too can understand perfectly the new meaning of the words. By "atheist", the 21st century does not mean what Monod and the 20th century modernists meant when they made rationalism their god, for rationalism opened its arms to all the worst that Stalin and Hitler could bring. Rather, PoMo "atheism" means ABC, "anything but christian".

Thus my colleague described his brother as a self-declared "atheist Buddhist". Wiccans advertise themselves as atheists. There's "environmental atheist" and "feminist atheist" web sites, as well as "hindu atheist", you can Google just about any combination. Just for fun, you can peruse "christian atheist" web sites too, and see which parts of Christianity have been jettisoned to attach the label "atheist". In all these cases, the moral order of the universe has been kept, while the various specifics of miracles, divine beings, and/or divine revelation have been tossed. Morals without a moral-giver. Who then instructs on right and wrong? Us.

With a bit of spade work, you will recognize the 21st century atheists as being the heirs to the man-made religions of 5 centuries of literary spirituality. One chooses, as Monod says so clearly, the heavens, or more precisely, what populates the heavens above. After constructing a pantheon, one bows down to it, and more importantly, demands that others bow down to it as well.

Make no mistake, despite being a product of our own making, the Ungod has demands. In fact, these demands grow rather than diminish with time. Part of the reason for such elaborate rituals in paganism, is that they serve as limitations on the demands of the state religion. Suppose, for example, that the Ungod wants another wife (say, of the same sex), or another tax (say, on your illegal crop), why there will be noise and confusion and demands for rights and equality and all that, and in the end, there will be a longer list of things the Ungod needs. Since no man can limit the rapacious appetite of the Ungod, the next best thing is to slow it down. So one makes the expansion of demands require signatures, and votes, and TV panels, and pollsters. A veritable Broadway show of pomp and rituals. And perhaps, just perhaps if it is tedious enough, this will staunch the bleeding of the people.

So the Aztecs thought when they constructed their stepped pyramids to the Blue Hummingbird and their twice daily sacrifices. Yet year after year the demand for beating hearts continued, requiring slaves and unnecessary wars, rebellions and depopulated countrysides, until groaning under the intolerable burden, they embraced the swords of the liberating ghosts, the pale faces peering out of the steel helmets of the Spanish.

Like atheism, man-made religion has a voracious appetite.

Jonah Goldberg tries to understand the explanation for Eric Holder's decision to move the military trial of 9/11 mastermind KSM to a civilian court in New York. 

They want to claim that this is a fair trial but also an act of vengeance. The terrorists will be treated as if they might be innocent — key to a fair trial — but at the end of the day they'll get their comeuppance. If KSM & Co. get off on a technicality, don't worry, they'll still be locked up, but when they're convicted the White House will claim it was always a fair process. They'll get a fair trial from an impartial jury in New York, but it's "fitting" and "poetic justice" that the jury will be drawn from the community that was viciously attacked on 9/11. Fair but vengeful, honest but foreordained, instructive to the world but really just about the law.

So why do I have this vision of Eric Holder proudly holding up a beating heart in his hand? And why does it fill me with dread?