Most of the culture war fights we see in modern society pit Christian Theism against Naturalism. This is where such topics as abortion, homosexual marriage, transgenderism, critical race theory, and sexual immorality are prominent in the news.
But a new fight has broken out that is pitting different denominations of Naturalism against each other, and some of it is not very pretty. One place we see it is where some on the left fight for women’s rights vs. others who fight for transgenders to be allowed to participate in women’s sports.
A new one has raised its head recently – this one between Naturalists who believe only in promoting what can be demonstrated by science, and those who believe in putting relativistic morality above everything.
Perhaps you are familiar with the Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF). According to their website: “The Freedom From Religion Foundation is an American nonprofit organization that advocates for atheists, agnostics, and nontheists.” They are very active in the public square, often taking various government entities and schools to court to force them to disavow any connection to what they consider “religion” (usually Christianity). They sue for such things as having the 10 Commandments taken off of courthouse walls, keeping local governments from placing Nativity scenes on public property, forcing schools to keep students from praying, and the like.
Maybe you are also familiar with Richard Dawkins. He is a British evolutionary biologist who became famous for advocating for naturalistic evolution, and against belief in God. He is very much an Atheist.
Thus, it is not surprising at all that he was on the board of FFRF for around 15 years. That, however, recently came to an end when he abruptly resigned. You can read the story at (https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/dawkins-transgender-gender/2025/01/02/id/1193688).
It seems that American Atheist Jerry Coyne wrote an article that was published on the FFRF website entitled Biology Is Not Bigotry. It was a rebuttal to another article previously published there by Kat Grant entitled, What is a Woman? That article asserted that “any attempt to define womanhood purely in biological terms is inadequate.” Grant took the position that “a woman is whoever she says she is.” Coyne, being himself an evolutionary scientist, took the position that science requires that biology define womanhood.
Well, the people at FFRF didn’t like that and took down Coyne’s article. This ticked off the scientists who then accused FFRF of “imposing an ideology with the dogma, blasphemy, and heretics of a religion.” And the truth is, they were right. FFRF was not acting as protectors of Atheism, but as guardians of a non-theistic religion.
FFRF has taken the side of those in society who focus on social justice. They are all in on the gay and transgender movement, and believe that people should be able not only to define sexual morality in general based on their personal preference, but also that even biology is subject to the relativistic beliefs of the political left.
The atheistic scientists, on the other hand, are focused on what science can demonstrate. They firmly believe that there is an objectively real distinction between people who have xx and xy chromosomes. Dawkins described Grant’s article as “silly and unscientific.”
So even though both sides are Atheists, they disagree to the point that they don’t believe they are able to even associate with each other any longer. Dawkins said in an e-mail to The Telegraph, “I was simply promoting a biological rather than a psychological definition of sex.” He called FFRF’s point of view an “apostasy, and a tendency to ignore science when it contradicts a preferred ideology.” FFRF for their part said, “We do not feel that support for LGBTQ rights against the religious backlash in the United States is mission creep. This growing difference of opinion probably made such a parting inevitable.”
The truth is, both versions of Atheism are religious points of view. The reason there is conflict between them is that the moral foundation of atheistic Naturalism is relativistic. When it comes to moral beliefs, there is no such thing as an objective moral foundation, so they have to make up their moral beliefs. Everyone is right in their own eyes, and anyone who disagrees with them at any point is wrong.
The scientists do have in their favor the understanding that there is such a thing as reality, and that the physical makeup of human beings is a part of objective reality. That is something they actually have in common with Christian Theism. Where they part company with Christians is that they believe the natural universe, operating by natural laws, is all that exists.
Their disagreement with FFRF is at the point of where to draw the line regarding what is moral and immoral. Both sides are moral relativists, so they both still have to make up their own moral beliefs. The conflict exists because one side is not willing to violate biological reality while the other is. Either way, they have no way of demonstrating their moral beliefs to be true. Atheism, of any variety, simply doesn’t have a leg to stand on.