This post is part of a series.
All of us civilized peoples can agree that Islamic terrorism is bad – really bad. But we can react in many ways, some of which are more damaging than helpful. These include rejection of all revealed faiths, rejection of all fundamentalist faiths, rejection of all Muslims, rejection of Islam, and rejection of individual doctrines, and believe it or not, indifference.
This is the typical response of fundamentalist secularists and atheists. The argument goes that all ‘revealed’ faiths (as opposed to empirical approaches to spirituality such as some forms of Buddhism) are equally unverifiable by science, and therefore, are not to be trusted. In fact they are actually considered harmful to mankind.
Anti-religionists often point to religious wars as evidences of the problem of religion, of course, curiously ignoring the overwhelming amount of good done by people of faith, esp. the Christian faith. They counter that you can be a good person without faith as evidence that religion is not necessary for acts of kindness, but of course, this does not invalidate the good done by those of faith, which, I would argue, far outweighs the amount of good done by the non-religious, perhaps by a factor of 10 or more.
Some, like atheist evangelist Sam Harris, argue that most of the good done by the religious is done out of compulsion and fear, doing good to please an angry God. However true this may be of false religions, however, this is not true of Christianity, which teaches that good works are to be motivated by faith, not fear, by love, not compulsion.
1 Corinthians 13:1-3
If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing.
The Dangers of This Perspective
First, it’s claim that religion is false or unreliable because it is unverifiable is really a classic logical fallacy, an appeal to ignorance. Just because you can not disprove something does not mean it is not so. Of course, enter the Flying Spaghetti Monster argument, which EO and others have taken to task as an atheist canard.
Second, this is a classic case of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Having found one or many types of religious faith wanting, they discard all of them. The problem with this is that history and science show that faith is an integral part of the modern human psyche, and to propose that mankind should live without faith is not only not workable, it may be entirely incorrect. This is one of the reasons that Communism fell, and why its suppression of religion did not work at all.
Which leads to the real danger of this approach – deeming religion as unequivocally bad leads to one place – oppression of religion. I have argued elsewhere why this is the heritage and future of atheism when it gets into power. It is not only out of line with the objective reality of God (provable or not), it inexorably leads to persecution because of the fallen nature of man and his propensity for corruption when given power.
Atheism isn’t just about becoming reasonable, it’s about relying ONLY
on reason, and ridiculing those who rely on any other epistemological
method. And when those who ridicule come into power, ridicule turns to
control, and eventually, to oppression.The outright antagonism to faith and belief that religious faith is
unhealthy, not to mention dislike for the agnostic and secularist
“compromisers” who give space for religion, as demonstrated by the New Atheists”
like Harris, Dennet, Dawkins, and Sagan, would obviously and easily
morph into oppression, esp. when such empowered atheists are motivated
by a “positive” goal of ridding humanity of superstition.Oppressing religion is a hallmark of totalitarian governments, but
I’m sure that, in a simple “frog in the kettle” fashion, atheists would
use their enlightened reason to reduce religious freedoms to nil – to
state controlled and sanctioned churches (as in China and Russia), to
disallowing non-sanctioned churches, disallowing dissent against the
master architects of a superior society – it’s happened so many times
in recent history, it seems a foregone conclusion to me.Now, atheists would not want that to happen any more than the
Germans would want to follow a eugenicist. But you’d be surprised what
moral compromises people are willing to make in the service of a
motivating vision, esp. when such changes are gradual.I have no assurance or evidence that atheism does NOT produce
oppression, and the haughty anti-religious illogic that evangelical
atheists (I like saying that, it’s almost as much fun as “secular fundamentalist”) makes me think that the transformation from liberal
atheist to Marxist is merely a matter of giving them social power.
Really. I have a lot of faith in the corrupting nature of power, esp.
when starting with subjective morals.
Lastly, and most importantly, this approach makes all religions “equal” in the final analysis, which not only discourages intelligent discernment between ideologies, it promotes good and ‘harmless’ religions to the same status as violent ones, while making the truly inhuman faiths like militant Islam less objectionable, and “not really different from other religions.”
As I have contended, not all religions are the same, nor are they
equal. But again, you are demonstrating the atheistic/secularist
unwillingness to intellectually discriminate between faiths, because
they denigrate them all. It is lazy and unintellectual, and
self-serving.
Part II – Rejection of all fundamentalist faiths
Someone's been smoking the wacky tobacky again.
…the good done by those of faith, which, I would argue, far outweighs the amount of good done by the non-religious, perhaps by a factor of 10 or more.
Argue it then. You pulled this figure out of your butt!
Atheism isn’t just about becoming reasonable, it’s about relying ONLY on reason.
Huh? I don’t rely ONLY on reason. No, atheist does. Love is not reasonable yet we DO love. What? You think atheists are Vulcan’s? Where do you get this stuff?
Reading your post is just more of the same Seeker rhetoric repeated ad nauseam. You even link to your repetition. Here is some new material for you. Andrew Sullivan has responded to Sam Harris and I think he communicates many of your sentiments in a much more effective way…
Argue it then. You pulled this figure out of your butt!
Yes I did, but I am not interested in writing a term paper on the history of charity. However, the idea of "Christian Charity" has transformed culture since the inception of Christianity, and stands in stark contrast to the pagan (secular) ideas of Charity in the Greek and Roman empires.
Also, Christianity has been instrumental, if not solely reponsibile for most of the charitable ideas and organizations we take for granted today, including abolition, women's suffrage (which started as part of a Christian "Woman's Crusade" which grew into the Christian Women's Temperance Union which also championed suffrage), the origination and spread of hospitals (most hospitals were religious in nature, but Christianity spread the notion of the modern hospital starting with the decree of the first Nicaean council), and many many more.
No thoughts on Sullivan's response? Alright.
However, the idea of "Christian Charity" has transformed culture since the inception of Christianity, and stands in stark contrast to the pagan (secular) ideas of Charity in the Greek and Roman empires.
"Pagan (secular)" Again, pulling stuff out of your butt. Show that the religiously polytheistic Romans were secular.
1. abolition – Louis is right, you must be high. For 1860 years Christianity and slavery were ideologically compatible. Why don't you be honest and admit that it was a shift in the moral zeitgeist, from various sources, that precipitated abolition?
2. Women's suffrage – there can be no doubt that Christian women played a role. There can be no doubt that atheist/secular women like Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton played a bigger role. I just thought of this but the irony is monumental, it says "In God We Trust" on the Susan B. Anthony Dollar coin! ROFLMAO!
3. The origination and spread of hospitals – Hospitals have been around much longer than Christianity. Was the father of modern medicine Hippocrates, a Christian? Heck, just look at the Wiki entry for "hospital" and you can see that institution has a very diverse history around the world. Seeker you're such a goofball.
…good done by those of faith, which, I would argue, far outweighs the amount of good done by the non-religious
Do you like light? A non-Christian invented the light bulb.
It's late, and I don't have time to answer in full, but:
1. Despite Christianity's relative apathy towards slavery, Christianity was the primary driving force behind abolition and the civil rights movement.
2. Yes, women's suffrage was a mixed bag.
3. If you read the wikipedia entry on hospitals, you will see that (a) most were affiliated with religions in general, and (b) the spread of the modern hospital was pretty much a Christian thing. You can find more at the online Catholic Encyclopedia under the The History of Church Charity
4. You are right, perhaps the Romans weren't secular, yet secularists love to claim that our modern state was the result of the great thinking of the Romans and Greeks, whose view of charity was truly inferior. If you research the idea of "Christian charity" you will see how this idea revolutionized the idea and practice of charity from Roman times forward.
I say all these things, again, to counter the ridiculous claim of those militant atheists who claim that religion is bad for humanity, when in fact, despite the abuses of madmen, corrupt religionists, and false and demonic religions, faith, and esp. Christian faith, has contributed immensely to the good of mankind, and continues to do so.
The rejection of revealed religion is one of the illogical and inept responses to Islamic violence, but it is not the only one, just one of the dumbest.
I think it's true that organized religion has contributed to the good of mankind and the world at large. However, considering its claims, it is shocking that it has contributed so much that is evil as well. And this isn't just the actions of a few bad people either: it is inherent in the structure of belief in "revealed religion." Organized religion is most certainly NOT immune to evil, as history can attest, and as its various holy books advise. Most of the progress since the end of the medieval period and, especially, the beginning of the Enlightenment, has been because of secular and scientific efforts and not religious endeavor. Religion has been dragged against its will into a modern era where Enlightenment values have banished much of the superstitious and oppressive nonsense once promulgated in the name of said religions. We no longer burn "witches" at the stake, for instance, nor do we automatically condemn homosexuals to imprisonment, torture, and execution (well, not in the more secular regions, at least), as religion decreed for centuries. And we can thank secular and scientific forces for these advancements.
As to whether mankind would be better off without religion – I can't really say because there are too many variables involved. It would depend on the religion and the culture, I suppose. What I do know is that organized religion makes so many high falutin' claims to goodness and truth and beauty that it is unbelievable that it has been the cause of so much evil and suffering. It seems to me that the principal purpose of organized religion is to alleviate evil and suffering and not cause it. And Christianity is one of the main villains here, no matter what other good it may have done (taming feral males, for instance, but taming them for what atrocities in the name of Christ?). All in all, I intend to stay away from the monotheistic religiosities as their ongoing record of opposing what is good for mankind (as opposed to what is good for their own power) is terrible.
Most of the progress since the end of the medieval period and, especially, the beginning of the Enlightenment, has been because of secular and scientific efforts and not religious endeavor.
Untrue. As I have mentioned many times, Robert Stark's books show how Christianity was essential and foundational to the creation of modern science. I do think that the Protestant reformation's return to more biblical Christianity is part of what released Christianity and humanity from the shackles of 'organized religion', esp. the abuses of corrupt Catholicism, and I think that the tension and honesty brought by the secular thinkers also helped.
But secular philosophies have not really presented the ideas that have liberated mankind. Rather, I think their contribution was to keep crazy religionists from going off half cocked. And maybe that's a big enough contribution.
But the idea that Christian faith inhibits science or progress is really the exact opposite of what happened.
What I do know is that organized religion makes so many high falutin' claims to goodness and truth and beauty that it is unbelievable that it has been the cause of so much evil and suffering.
There is a vast difference between the human power structures of "organized religion" and the vital belief systems created by Jesus. All human power systems are prone to the abuse that humans tend towards. However, those who have stuck closely to the teachings of Jesus have not been the cause of much evil and suffering, but in general, the cause of much liberation, love, and sacrifice for others.
Sure, and war is peace, freedom is slavery, & and arbeit macht frei.
Arguing with a dedicated religionist is like playing a violin for a water buffalo. Pointless.
Hey!