Christianity and Liberalism was originally published in 1922, in response to the growing theological liberalism of the early 1900’s. Not only is this book well written, it’s interesting to see the criticisms of liberalism which still hold true, as well as those that seem a bit dated or alarmist, like the attacks on "experiential psychology" in the schools (then again, maybe that’s still accurate ;). What is also interesting is how the conservatism of the past has become the liberalism of today, and vice versa – like the author’s attack on laws that demand teaching in English only.
I intend to comment on this entire book as I read it, since the content seems worthy to me. The entire text is available online, for those who want to read ahead, or check on my selection of isolated quotes ;). And here’s my first wonderful quote, from the introduction, dedicated to all those who think that logical argumentation on important subjects is somehow not spiritual:
Presenting an issue sharply is indeed by no means a popular business at the present time; there are many who prefer to fight their intellectual battles in what Dr. Francis L. Patton has aptly called a "condition of low visibility." Clear-cut definition of terms in religious matters, bold facing of the logical implications of religious views, is by many persons regarded as an impious proceeding. May it not discourage contribution to mission boards? May it not hinder the progress of consolidation, and produce a poor showing in columns of Church statistics? But with such persons we cannot possibly bring ourselves to agree. Light may seem at times to be an impertinent intruder, but it is always beneficial in the end. The type of religion which rejoices in the pious sound of traditional phrases, regardless of their meanings, or shrinks from "controversial" matters, will never stand amid the shocks of life. In the sphere of religion, as in other spheres, the things about which men are agreed are apt to be the things that are least worth holding; the really important things are the things about which men will fight.
Man, my other post on liberalism is stealing the focus from this one. I guess I'll have to comment myself :)
I really like this line:
The type of religion which rejoices in the pious sound of traditional phrases, regardless of their meanings, or shrinks from "controversial" matters, will never stand amid the shocks of life.
Translation – real men argue theology ;)
I like this quote…
"Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." – Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Peter Carr, Aug. 10, 1787
Hi Seeker, can we debate a little about theology? I found a nice article by Sam Harris who wrote “The End of Faith” that addresses some of the “comments” he has gotten from Christians. Can you please let me know what you think?
Reply to a Christian
Sam Harris
Since the publication of my first book, The End of Faith, I have received thousands of letters and e-mails from religious believers insisting that I am wrong not to believe in God. Invariably, the most unpleasant of these communications have come from Christians. This is ironic, as Christians generally believe that no faith imparts the virtues of love and forgiveness more effectively than their own. Please accept this for what it is: the testimony of a man who is in a position to observe how people behave when their faith is challenged. Many who claim to have been transformed by Christ’s love are deeply, even murderously, intolerant of criticism. While you may ascribe this to human nature, it is clear that the hatred these people feel comes directly from the Bible. How do I know this? Because the most deranged of my correspondents always cite chapter and verse.
Before I present some of my reasons for rejecting your faith-which are also my reasons for believing that you, too, should reject it-I want to acknowledge that there are a few things that you and I agree about. We agree that, if one of us is right, then the other is wrong. The Bible either is the word of God, or it isn’t. Either Jesus offers humanity the one, true path to salvation (John 14:6), or he does not. We agree that to be a real Christian is to believe that all other faiths are in error and profoundly so. If Christianity is correct, and I persist in my unbelief, I should expect to suffer the torments of hell. Worse still, I have persuaded others, many close to me, to persist in a state of unbelief. They, too, will languish in “everlasting fire” (Matthew 25:41). If the claims of Christianity are true, I will have realized the worst possible outcome of a human life. The fact that my continuous and public rejection of Christianity does not worry me should suggest to you just how unsatisfactory I think your reasons for being a Christian are.
You believe that the Bible is the literal (or inspired) word of God and that Jesus is the Son of God-and you believe these propositions because you think they are true, not merely because they make you feel good. You may wonder how it is possible for a person like myself to find these sorts of assertions ridiculous. While it is famously difficult for atheists and believers to communicate about these matters, I am confident that I can give you a very clear sense of what it feels like to be an atheist.Consider: every devout Muslim has the same reasons for being a Muslim that you now have for being a Christian. And yet, you know exactly what it is like not to find these reasons compelling. On virtually every page, the Qur’an declares that it is the perfect word of the Creator of the universe. Muslims believe this as fully as you believe the Bible’s account of itself. There is a vast literature describing the life of Muhammad that, from the Muslim point of view, proves his unique status as the Prophet of God. While Muhammad did not claim to be divine, he claimed to offer the most perfect revelation of God’s will. He also assured his followers that Jesus was not divine (Qur’an 5:71-75; 19:30-38) and that anyone who believed otherwise would spend eternity in hell. Muslims are convinced that Muhammad’s pronouncements on these subjects, as on all others, are infallible.
Why don’t you find these claims convincing? Why don’t you lose any sleep over whether or not you should convert to Islam? Please take a moment to reflect on this. You know exactly what it is like to be an atheist with respect to Islam. Isn’t it obvious that Muslims are not being honest in their evaluation of the evidence? Isn’t it obvious that anyone who thinks that the Qur’an is the perfect word of the Creator of the universe has not read the book very critically? Isn’t it obvious that Muslims have developed a mode of discourse that seeks to preserve dogma, generation after generation, rather than question it? Yes, these things are obvious. Understand that the way you view Islam is precisely the way every Muslim views Christianity. And it is the way I view all religions.
Christians regularly assert that the Bible predicts future historical events. For instance, Deuteronomy 28:64 says, “The Lord will scatter you among the nations from one end of the earth to the other.” Jesus says, in Luke 19:43-44, “The days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment against you and encircle you in on every side. They will dash you to the ground, you and the children within your walls. They will not leave one stone on another, because you did not recognize the time of God’s coming to you.” We are meant to believe that these utterances predict the subsequent history of the Jews with such uncanny specificity so as to admit of only a supernatural explanation. It is on the basis of such reasoning that 44 percent of the American population now believes that Jesus will return to earth to judge the living and the dead sometime in the next fifty years.
But just imagine how breathtakingly specific a work of prophecy could be if it were actually the product of omniscience. If the Bible were such a book, it would make specific, falsifiable predictions about human events. You would expect it to contain a passage like, “In the latter half of the twentieth century, humankind will develop a globally linked system of computers-the principles of which I set forth in Leviticus-and this system shall be called the Internet.” The Bible contains nothing remotely like this. In fact, it does not contain a single sentence that could not have been written by a man or woman living in the first century.
Take a moment to imagine how good a book could be if it were written by the Creator of the universe. Such a book could contain a chapter on mathematics that, after two thousand years of continuous use, would still be the richest source of mathematical insight the earth has ever seen. Instead, the Bible contains some very obvious mathematical errors. In two places, for instance, the Good Book gives the ratio of a circumference of a circle to its diameter as simply 3 (1 Kings 7: 23-26 and 2 Chronicles 4: 2-5). We now refer to this constant relation with the Greek letter p. While the decimal expansion of p runs to infinity-3.1415926535 . . .-we can calculate it to any degree of accuracy we like. Centuries before the oldest books of the Bible were written, both the Egyptians and Babylonians approximated p to a few decimal places. And yet the Bible-whether inerrant or divinely inspired-offers us an approximation that is terrible even by the standards of the ancient world. Needless to say, many religious people have found ingenious ways of rationalizing this. And yet, these rationalizations cannot conceal the obvious deficiency of the Bible as a source of mathematical insight. It is absolutely true to say that, if Archimedes had written a chapter of the Bible, the text would bear much greater evidence of the author’s “omniscience.”
Why doesn’t the Bible say anything about electricity, about DNA, or about the actual age and size of the universe? What about a cure for cancer? Millions of people are dying horribly from cancer at this very moment, many of them children. When we fully understand the biology of cancer, this understanding will surely be reducible to a few pages of text. Why aren’t these pages, or anything remotely like them, found in the Bible? The Bible is a very big book. There was room for God to instruct us on how to keep slaves and sacrifice a wide variety of animals. Please appreciate how this looks to one who stands outside the Christian faith. It is genuinely amazing how ordinary a book can be and still be thought the product of omniscience.
Of course, your reasons for believing in God may be more personal than those I have discussed above. I have no doubt that your acceptance of Christ coincided with some very positive changes in your life. Perhaps you regularly feel rapture or bliss while in prayer. I do not wish to denigrate any of these experiences. I would point out, however, that billions of other human beings, in every time and place, have had similar experiences-but they had them while thinking about Krishna, or Allah, or the Buddha, while making art or music, or while contemplating the sheer beauty of nature. There is no question that it is possible for us to have profoundly transformative experiences. And there is no question that it is possible for us to misinterpret these experiences and to further delude ourselves about the nature of the universe.
If you have read my letter this far, one of two things has happened. Either you have perceived some error that is genuinely fatal to my argument, or you have ceased to be a Christian. Please don’t hesitate to contact me with any errors you may have found. You could yet save me the torments of hell.
Sam Harris is the author of The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason. His next book, Letter to a Christian Nation, will be published this fall by Knopf.
Article from Council for Secular Humanism
Here is another good article which I agree with. It addresses the morality of atheism. Please don’t dismiss this as worthless so easily. I think this is a pro-aethiest article, not anti-christian. I hope we can have a productive conversation about Christians recognizing good morality in the godless.
Defenders of the Faith
By SLAVOJ ZIZEK
FOR centuries, we have been told that without religion we are no more than egotistic animals fighting for our share, our only morality that of a pack of wolves; only religion, it is said, can elevate us to a higher spiritual level. Today, when religion is emerging as the wellspring of murderous violence around the world, assurances that Christian or Muslim or Hindu fundamentalists are only abusing and perverting the noble spiritual messages of their creeds ring increasingly hollow. What about restoring the dignity of atheism, one of Europe’s greatest legacies and perhaps our only chance for peace?
More than a century ago, in “The Brothers Karamazov” and other works, Dostoyevsky warned against the dangers of godless moral nihilism, arguing in essence that if God doesn’t exist, then everything is permitted. The French philosopher André Glucksmann even applied Dostoyevsky’s critique of godless nihilism to 9/11, as the title of his book, “Dostoyevsky in Manhattan,” suggests.
This argument couldn’t have been more wrong: the lesson of today’s terrorism is that if God exists, then everything, including blowing up thousands of innocent bystanders, is permitted — at least to those who claim to act directly on behalf of God, since, clearly, a direct link to God justifies the violation of any merely human constraints and considerations. In short, fundamentalists have become no different than the “godless” Stalinist Communists, to whom everything was permitted since they perceived themselves as direct instruments of their divinity, the Historical Necessity of Progress Toward Communism.
During the Seventh Crusade, led by St. Louis, Yves le Breton reported how he once encountered an old woman who wandered down the street with a dish full of fire in her right hand and a bowl full of water in her left hand. Asked why she carried the two bowls, she answered that with the fire she would burn up Paradise until nothing remained of it, and with the water she would put out the fires of Hell until nothing remained of them: “Because I want no one to do good in order to receive the reward of Paradise, or from fear of Hell; but solely out of love for God.” Today, this properly Christian ethical stance survives mostly in atheism.
Fundamentalists do what they perceive as good deeds in order to fulfill God’s will and to earn salvation; atheists do them simply because it is the right thing to do. Is this also not our most elementary experience of morality? When I do a good deed, I do so not with an eye toward gaining God’s favor; I do it because if I did not, I could not look at myself in the mirror. A moral deed is by definition its own reward. David Hume, a believer, made this point in a very poignant way, when he wrote that the only way to show true respect for God is to act morally while ignoring God’s existence.
Two years ago, Europeans were debating whether the preamble of the European Constitution should mention Christianity as a key component of the European legacy. As usual, a compromise was worked out, a reference in general terms to the “religious inheritance” of Europe. But where was modern Europe’s most precious legacy, that of atheism? What makes modern Europe unique is that it is the first and only civilization in which atheism is a fully legitimate option, not an obstacle to any public post.
Atheism is a European legacy worth fighting for, not least because it creates a safe public space for believers. Consider the debate that raged in Ljubljana, the capital of Slovenia, my home country, as the constitutional controversy simmered: should Muslims (mostly immigrant workers from the old Yugoslav republics) be allowed to build a mosque? While conservatives opposed the mosque for cultural, political and even architectural reasons, the liberal weekly journal Mladina was consistently outspoken in its support for the mosque, in keeping with its concern for the rights of those from other former Yugoslav republics.
Not surprisingly, given its liberal attitudes, Mladina was also one of the few Slovenian publications to reprint the infamous caricatures of Muhammad. And, conversely, those who displayed the greatest “understanding” for the violent Muslim protests those cartoons caused were also the ones who regularly expressed their concern for the fate of Christianity in Europe.
These weird alliances confront Europe’s Muslims with a difficult choice: the only political force that does not reduce them to second-class citizens and allows them the space to express their religious identity are the “godless” atheist liberals, while those closest to their religious social practice, their Christian mirror-image, are their greatest political enemies. The paradox is that Muslims’ only real allies are not those who first published the caricatures for shock value, but those who, in support of the ideal of freedom of expression, reprinted them.
While a true atheist has no need to boost his own stance by provoking believers with blasphemy, he also refuses to reduce the problem of the Muhammad caricatures to one of respect for other’s beliefs. Respect for other’s beliefs as the highest value can mean only one of two things: either we treat the other in a patronizing way and avoid hurting him in order not to ruin his illusions, or we adopt the relativist stance of multiple “regimes of truth,” disqualifying as violent imposition any clear insistence on truth.
What, however, about submitting Islam — together with all other religions — to a respectful, but for that reason no less ruthless, critical analysis? This, and only this, is the way to show a true respect for Muslims: to treat them as serious adults responsible for their beliefs.
Slavoj Zizek, the international director of the Birkbeck Institute for the Humanities, is the author, most recently, of “The Parallax View.”
Article from The New York Times
Here’s my response to The End of Faith excerpt.
1. Many who claim to have been transformed by Christ’s love are deeply, even murderously, intolerant of criticism. While you may ascribe this to human nature, it is clear that the hatred these people feel comes directly from the Bible. How do I know this? Because the most deranged of my correspondents always cite chapter and verse.
While he does not want to ascribe this to human nature, I do, but not in the simple manner he probably is thinking of. At any given time, a significant proportion of xians are spiritually immature – either because they are new, or because they live in one of the many blighted churches that perpetuate spiritual immaturity (see Why Most Churches Suck).
New converts to any new ideology need structure and don’t like challenges to their faith. I’d say that much of the “murderous” criticism he recieves is probably in large part due to immaturity. However, he also says that he thinks it comes from the bible, not just immature people. However, he ought to read the bible to determine that, rather than depend on the people he is offending. And usually, the mature people don’t oft respond – as the bible says, wisdom lies quietly in the heart of the wise.
2. We agree that, if one of us is right, then the other is wrong. >
What follows is his list of bifurcated issues which I find to be mistaken – I mean, by his logic, if he proves ONE thing wrong with my view or right with his, then I must agree with him. That’s a bad trick of logic, whether he knows it or not. I’ll give you some examples, below.
a. The Bible either is the word of God, or it isn’t.
Well, it depends entirely on what you mean by “the word of God.” If you define it too narrowly, it will be easy to disprove. For example, let’s say I believe that the 1611 King James version of the bible is word-for-word the “word of God.” Well, if that is my definition, it will be easy to disprove. The question would then be, does that invalidate all other translations? Probably. Then what about new manusripts that prove that parts of the KJV were not translated correctly? Damn! The Bible is no longer the word of God! So right off, I’m not buying into his obvious trap.
b. Either Jesus offers humanity the one, true path to salvation (John 14:6), or he does not. We agree that to be a real Christian is to believe that all other faiths are in error and profoundly so.
First, we must agree on what the word “salvation” means – scripture talks about salvation of the soul, of the spirit, and the destruction of the body. So while we may find healing and relief for our souls in the truths of psychology or self-realization via Buddhism, this is perhaps not the type of salvation we would be talking about when talking about Jesus being the only way.
Secondly, as I have mentioned occaisionally (but I should write a whole article on this), there are two types of truth, empirical and revealed. Empirical truths, like the truth of sowing and reaping (a.k.a. karma), are shared by all enduring systems of faith. Anyone can divine these spiritual principles from observation and experimentation. However, revealed truths, like what happens after we die, can only be taken on faith – so you have to choose whom you believe, if anyone.
So you can believe the revealed truths of xianity without assigning all other faith systems to the scrapyard – in fact, since Buddhism focuses much more on observation, they actually have as much or more empirical truth to share than xianity. So I can choose to believe xianity’s revealed truths, while garnering empirical truths from it and other faiths. So I don’t buy into his strict either/or equation – again, it’s a cheap trap. Unfortunately, most xians do not make this distinction between types of truth, and are therefore forced logically to say that all other faiths are made up of lies, or at best, are lies clothed in truth to fool people (as it is written, the Devil clothes himself as an angel of light).
c. If Christianity is correct, and I persist in my unbelief, I should expect to suffer the torments of hell. Worse still, I have persuaded others, many close to me, to persist in a state of unbelief. They, too, will languish in “everlasting fire” (Matthew 25:41). If the claims of Christianity are true, I will have realized the worst possible outcome of a human life.
Well, no argument there.
3. every devout Muslim has the same reasons for being a Muslim that you now have for being a Christian.
This is not a bad objection, that most groups who trust in their scriptures treat them as the “word of god.” However, I believe xianity not merely because of this, but for other reasons, including:
a. it’s soteriology – that is, it’s emphasis on salvation as a gift, not by works. No other system of faith, not judaism (arguably), buddhism, or islam works this way (pun intended). None other is so freeing and truly shows both the kindness and justice of the divine, not discarding either.
b. it deals well with real world issues like guilt, forgiveness, restitution, justice, relationships, you name it.
c. it translates well into civil government (see Cultural Mandate at wikipedia)
d. it is well validated historically
e. while it does have some supernatural stuff in it, it doesn’t involve worship of elephants or people with 6 arms or a man who went on jihads. Now, you might have some objections to the xian supernatural stuff, but that’s just my perspective on this one.
For the record, there are different types of “biblical literalists”. I’m sure he is taking on Biblicists primarily, and not those who are less stringent like the Contextual Literalists.
4. Muslims are convinced that Muhammad’s pronouncements on these subjects, as on all others, are infallible.
One of the unique features of xianity is that Jesus claimed to be even more than Muhammad, and lived an amazing life AND rose from the dead to prove his point. Muhammad lived a life of treachery and sexual perversion, and is now dead.
I’ve never heard a Muslim sing “Mohammed set me free”, mostly because Islam is a religion of bondage to the law. But you can find millions who will tell you that Jesus set them free – just because Joe Murderer tells you that his way is the only way doesn’t invalidate anyone else’s similar claim. Each should be looked at for it’s value proposition – that’s what reason is for, and why reason should be used not only to invalidate sources of faith, but to validate. Perhaps the author should read my essay Dangers is the Search for Truth – sounds like he has gone afoul of at least one principle.
I understand the author’s problem with everyone claiming that their way is the only way, but that does not mean they are all wrong – some claims are more credible than others, and logically, ONE or NONE could be right. And Jesus backed up his claims.
So when the author asks “Why don’t you find these claims convincing? Why don’t you lose any sleep over whether or not you should convert to Islam?” – there’s your answer. And that’s a simple answer. The author should go read some of Lee Strobel’s books if he can’t tell the difference between these claims. But maybe he’s just playing Devil’s advocate.
5. Understand that the way you view Islam is precisely the way every Muslim views Christianity. And it is the way I view all religions.
That is a valid objection, and a good perspective to consider. I have and will continue to consider the infallibility claims of the scriptures, and they are not without their difficulties. That does not invalidate the xian message, but it does make you consider how you approach the scriptures. However, you don’t have to go to the extreme liberal side, where you choose what you do and do not like. You can still use logic and reason to determine how to interpret and apply scripture.
6. But just imagine how breathtakingly specific a work of prophecy could be if it were actually the product of omniscience.
Well, now he goes on a long tirade about how HE would do prophecy if he were God. I understand his argument – that the vague nature of biblical prophecy can be done without any special knowledge, so what makes people think it is so exact and convincing? Well, I’m sure it is not as exact as he would like it, but that doesn’t mean that it is all inexact – some of it is pretty specific. Part of the lack of exactness of it may have to do with the possibility that while certain events are set in time, others are not and depend on human agency. You might want to check out What Does God Know and When Does He Know It? The Current Controversy over Divine Foreknowledge. God’s omniscience doesn’t mean that he knows what you are going to do next…or does he? :)
His following littany of “why doesn’t God tell us how to cure suffering like cancer if he is kind and omniscient” is understandable – it is the age old, and probably most serious challenge to faith – the problem of evil. Where did it come from, why did God allow it, why doesn’t he DO something? There are answers to such questions, none of them totally satisfactor in my opinion. However, my approach is thus – there are some questions that I *have* answered for myself, and these keep me in faith – just because I can’t understand some things doesn’t mean that the answers I do have are invalid. There are a lot of reasons to believe, even if all questions aren’t answered.
7. I would point out, however, that billions of other human beings, in every time and place, have had similar experiences-but they had them while thinking about Krishna, or Allah, or the Buddha, while making art or music, or while contemplating the sheer beauty of nature. There is no question that it is possible for us to have profoundly transformative experiences. And there is no question that it is possible for us to misinterpret these experiences and to further delude ourselves about the nature of the universe.
Valid point. That doesn’t invalidate anyone’s experiences, and neither does it invalidate xianity. And many have converted between these systems, so perhaps they found something wanting in their older system of belief, and maybe some experiences are more profound than others. Why else would they convert?
Plenty of people have left these systems for the relief of xianity. One of my favorite conversions is that described by M. Scott Peck in Further Along the Road Less Traveled, where he documents his conversion from Zen to Xianity.
8. If you have read my letter this far, one of two things has happened. Either you have perceived some error that is genuinely fatal to my argument, or you have ceased to be a Christian. Please don’t hesitate to contact me with any errors you may have found. You could yet save me the torments of hell.
Do I need to send him a letter?
So, empirically it is an either or question and trap or not, I agree Harris' statement…
Well, I think his premise that if I am a christian, I must logically categorize all other religions as entirely false is a false premise. They MUST only be false in the areas where they overtly disagree, which is mainly in the revealed truths (reincarnation or day of judgement?), not in empirical truths.
And as I've said before, "blind faith" isn't real faith, it's the straw man presented by critics of faith.
This is interesting because if you grew up in Iran, you would most likely be a Muslim.
I don't know. I was raised a secularist scientists with a disdain for religion (except for my stint in CCD from ages 10-12). I converted to xianity at age 20, then left it at age 30, then returned to it around age 38. So, while many people are merely members of a faith by cultural exposure, I am one by informed choice. If I was raised in Iran or Egypt, I may have started out Muslim, but like many who get to see the comparison between Jesus and Mohammed (see the excellent book by Mark Gabriel, Jesus and Mohammed, who converted to xianity after being an Imam and PhD in Islamic History), I most likely would have become a Christian.
The one point that you make a mistake on is Islam's soteriology – they don't offer salvation by grace, but by keeping the law. Xianity shines next to this system.
Well, from a secularist point of view, Christianity is no more "infallible" than Islam is. Neither religion is more credible than the other.
This is probably because you have not actually done a comparison of the claims of the faith next to history, not to mention next to empirical truths. You can't base your whole doubting Thomas routine on objection to miracles. What about the other claims? What about the principles espoused?
I seriously think you need to pick up Gabriel's Jesus and Mohammed – it will be a real eye opener to you – all religions are not the same, nor equally credible or incredible. This is just a copout tactic by people who want to find fault rather than truth.
More later, my wife is calling for help w/ the kids.
I most likely would have become a Christian. -Seeker
Seeker, if you grew up in Iran, you would most likely be a Muslim. Period. You would very likely be singing Allah's praises, not Jesus'.
Country – Iran Population – 66,622,704 Percentage of Muslims – 99.0% Muslim Population – 65,956,477
Stats from CIA World Factbook http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/inde…
Here's my response to Defenders of the Faith excerpt.
Xians are saved by grace alone, NOT by their works.
Seriously, what makes that which you call "True Christianity" any different than other religions? So what if you acknowledge Jesus as a savior? You believe you will go to Heaven, Nirvana, Olympus, Elysium, Valhalla, Utopia, or the Happy Hunting Grounds. So? All religions sell the promise paradise.
What about the principles espoused?
Yes, I do agree with many of the principles espoused by Christianity like, love thy neighbor and turn the other cheek. I also agree with many of the principles in the Koran, in Buddhism, etc.
But he can't be righteous before God because he thinks his good deeds somehow are good enough.
Nonsense. Why the heck would an Atheist be concerned with this at all? I certainly don't care because…
Atheists do them (moral deeds) simply because it is the right thing to do. Is this also not our most elementary experience of morality? When I do a good deed, I do so not with an eye toward gaining God's favor; I do it because if I did not, I could not look at myself in the mirror. A moral deed is by definition its own reward. David Hume, a believer, made this point in a very poignant way, when he wrote that the only way to show true respect for God is to act morally while ignoring God's existence.
Amen to that.