What does atheism offer the world?

[liamconnor]

Would the world be "better" if it were uniformly atheistic? Or even agnostic?
Here are several quotes on the effect of Christianity upon the world; I apologize for the length:

This from Jurgen Habermas, an atheist

“For the normative self-understanding of modernity, Christianity has functioned as more than just a precursor or catalyst. Universalistic egalitarianism, from which sprang the ideals of freedom and a collective life in solidarity, the autonomous conduct of life and emancipation, the individual morality of conscience, human rights and democracy, is the direct legacy of the Judaic ethic of justice and the Christian ethic of love. This legacy, substantially unchanged, has been the object of a continual critical reappropriation and reinterpretation. Up to this very day there is no alternative to it. And in light of the current challenges of a post-national constellation, we must draw sustenance now, as in the past, from this substance. Everything else is idle postmodern talk.�

This from atheist Jacques Derrida

“Today the cornerstone of international law is the sacred, what is sacred in humanity. You should not kill. You should be responsible for a crime against the sacredness of man as your neighbor…. Made by God or God made man,…in that sense, the concept of crime against humanity is a Christian concept and I think there would be no such thing in the law today without the Christian heritage, the Abrahamic heritage, the biblical heritage.�

Again, David Aikman (Time magazine) relays a quote from one Chinese Scholar, a representative of the esteemed Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, given in lecture.

“One of the things we were asked to look into was what accounted for the success, in fact, the pre-eminence of the West all over the world,� he said. “We studied everything we could from the historical, political, economic, and cultural perspective. At first, we thought it was because you had more powerful guns than we had. Then we thought it was because you had the best political system. Next, we focused on your economic system. But in the past twenty years, we have realized that the heart of your culture is your religion: Christianity. That is why the West has been so powerful. The Christian moral foundation of social and cultural life was what made possible the emergence of capitalism and then the successful transition to democratic politics. We don’t have any doubt about this.�


Niall Ferguson, another atheist, has marked on the strong connection between Protestantism and a strong work ethic which propelled the West forward as a civilazation; he has noted that the decline of religion in Europe has led to Europeans becoming "idlers of the world". LIkewise China's increasing work ethic has been shaped by Protestantism in the West (Civilization: the West and the Rest).

Agnostic Political Philosopher Guenter Lewy acknowledges how Christians, by their Philosophy, are more ready to identify with the less fortunate:

"Adherents of a secularist ethic are not likely to produce a Dorothy Day or a Mother Teresa. May of these people love humanity but not individual human beings with all their failings and short-comings. They will be found participating in demonstrations for causes such as nuclear disarmament but not sitting at the bedside of a dying person. An ethic of moral autonomy and individual rights, so important to secular liberals, is incapable of sustaining and nourishing values such as altruism and self-sacrifice."

Robert Woodberry's study on the effects of Protestant missionaries throughout the demonstrates that wherever Protestant missionaries have established themselves, there you will find more printed books and more schools per capita. And you will discover that in AFrica, the Middle East, and parts of Asia, "most of the early nationalists who led their countries to independence graduated from Protestant missionary schools."

And finally (though there are at least two more quotes that come to mind) a lengthier quote from the former agnostic, Brian Stewart, a journalist who spent much of his career abroad:

"I’ve found there is NO movement, or force, closer to the raw truth of war, famines, crises,and the vast human predicament, than organized Christianity in Action. And there is no alliance more determined and dogged in action than church workers, ordained and lay members, when mobilized for a common good. It is these Christians who are right "On the Front Lines" of committed humanity today and when I want to find that Front, I follow their trail. It is a vast Front stretching from the most impoverished reaches of the Developing world to the
hectic struggle to preserve caring values in our own towns and cities. I have never been able to reach these Front lines without finding Christian volunteers already in the thick of it, mobilizing
congregations that care, and being a faithful witness to truth, the primary light in the darkness and so often, the only light. .
Now this is something the media and government officials rarely acknowledge, for religion confuses many, and anyway, we all like to blow our own horns. So Front Line efforts of Christianity do not usually produce headlines, and unfortunately this feeds the myth that the Church just follows along, to do its modest bit. Let me repeat, I've never reached a war zone, or famine group or crisis anywhere where some Church organization was not there long before me...sturdy, remarkable souls usually too kind to ask "what took you so long"?

I don't slight any of the hard work done by other religions or those wonderful secular NGO's I've dealt with so much over the years. They work closely with church efforts, they are noble allies. But no, so often in desperate areas it is Christian groups there first, that labor heroically during the crisis and continue on long after all the media, and the visiting celebrities have left. Now I came to this admiring view slowly and reluctantly. At the start of my career I'd largely abandoned religion for I too regarded the church as a rather tiresome irrelevance. What ultimately persuaded me otherwise, and I took a lot of persuading, was the reality of Christianity's mission,
physically and in spirit, before my very eyes. It wasn't the attraction of great moments of grandeur, although I admit covering this Pope on six of his early trips abroad, including his first one to Mexico and then epic returns to Poland, certainly shook any assumptions I had of Christianity as a fading force. No the millions upon millions gathered was impressive, but I was more moved by quiet individual moments of character, and courage that seems to anchored to some deep core within Christianity."

From a personal note, I grew up in a church which annually sent groups to the Dominican Republic, Hatti, and Mexico, to build homes or work with local schools.

Again, how is atheism, as a collective force, making the world better in tangible ways? If you are an atheist, do you belong to an organization actively involved in altruistic projects: feeding the hungry, clothing the poor, sheltering the homeless?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Would the world be "better" if it were uniformly atheistic? Or even agnostic?
Here are several quotes on the effect of Christianity upon the world; I apologize for the length:

This from Jurgen Habermas, an atheist

“For the normative self-understanding of modernity, Christianity has functioned as more than just a precursor or catalyst. Universalistic egalitarianism, from which sprang the ideals of freedom and a collective life in solidarity, the autonomous conduct of life and emancipation, the individual morality of conscience, human rights and democracy, is the direct legacy of the Judaic ethic of justice and the Christian ethic of love. This legacy, substantially unchanged, has been the object of a continual critical reappropriation and reinterpretation. Up to this very day there is no alternative to it. And in light of the current challenges of a post-national constellation, we must draw sustenance now, as in the past, from this substance. Everything else is idle postmodern talk.�

This from atheist Jacques Derrida

“Today the cornerstone of international law is the sacred, what is sacred in humanity. You should not kill. You should be responsible for a crime against the sacredness of man as your neighbor…. Made by God or God made man,…in that sense, the concept of crime against humanity is a Christian concept and I think there would be no such thing in the law today without the Christian heritage, the Abrahamic heritage, the biblical heritage.�

Again, David Aikman (Time magazine) relays a quote from one Chinese Scholar, a representative of the esteemed Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, given in lecture.

“One of the things we were asked to look into was what accounted for the success, in fact, the pre-eminence of the West all over the world,� he said. “We studied everything we could from the historical, political, economic, and cultural perspective. At first, we thought it was because you had more powerful guns than we had. Then we thought it was because you had the best political system. Next, we focused on your economic system. But in the past twenty years, we have realized that the heart of your culture is your religion: Christianity. That is why the West has been so powerful. The Christian moral foundation of social and cultural life was what made possible the emergence of capitalism and then the successful transition to democratic politics. We don’t have any doubt about this.�


Niall Ferguson, another atheist, has marked on the strong connection between Protestantism and a strong work ethic which propelled the West forward as a civilazation; he has noted that the decline of religion in Europe has led to Europeans becoming "idlers of the world". LIkewise China's increasing work ethic has been shaped by Protestantism in the West (Civilization: the West and the Rest).

Agnostic Political Philosopher Guenter Lewy acknowledges how Christians, by their Philosophy, are more ready to identify with the less fortunate:

"Adherents of a secularist ethic are not likely to produce a Dorothy Day or a Mother Teresa. May of these people love humanity but not individual human beings with all their failings and short-comings. They will be found participating in demonstrations for causes such as nuclear disarmament but not sitting at the bedside of a dying person. An ethic of moral autonomy and individual rights, so important to secular liberals, is incapable of sustaining and nourishing values such as altruism and self-sacrifice."

Robert Woodberry's study on the effects of Protestant missionaries throughout the demonstrates that wherever Protestant missionaries have established themselves, there you will find more printed books and more schools per capita. And you will discover that in AFrica, the Middle East, and parts of Asia, "most of the early nationalists who led their countries to independence graduated from Protestant missionary schools."

And finally (though there are at least two more quotes that come to mind) a lengthier quote from the former agnostic, Brian Stewart, a journalist who spent much of his career abroad:

"I’ve found there is NO movement, or force, closer to the raw truth of war, famines, crises,and the vast human predicament, than organized Christianity in Action. And there is no alliance more determined and dogged in action than church workers, ordained and lay members, when mobilized for a common good. It is these Christians who are right "On the Front Lines" of committed humanity today and when I want to find that Front, I follow their trail. It is a vast Front stretching from the most impoverished reaches of the Developing world to the
hectic struggle to preserve caring values in our own towns and cities. I have never been able to reach these Front lines without finding Christian volunteers already in the thick of it, mobilizing
congregations that care, and being a faithful witness to truth, the primary light in the darkness and so often, the only light. .
Now this is something the media and government officials rarely acknowledge, for religion confuses many, and anyway, we all like to blow our own horns. So Front Line efforts of Christianity do not usually produce headlines, and unfortunately this feeds the myth that the Church just follows along, to do its modest bit. Let me repeat, I've never reached a war zone, or famine group or crisis anywhere where some Church organization was not there long before me...sturdy, remarkable souls usually too kind to ask "what took you so long"?

I don't slight any of the hard work done by other religions or those wonderful secular NGO's I've dealt with so much over the years. They work closely with church efforts, they are noble allies. But no, so often in desperate areas it is Christian groups there first, that labor heroically during the crisis and continue on long after all the media, and the visiting celebrities have left. Now I came to this admiring view slowly and reluctantly. At the start of my career I'd largely abandoned religion for I too regarded the church as a rather tiresome irrelevance. What ultimately persuaded me otherwise, and I took a lot of persuading, was the reality of Christianity's mission,
physically and in spirit, before my very eyes. It wasn't the attraction of great moments of grandeur, although I admit covering this Pope on six of his early trips abroad, including his first one to Mexico and then epic returns to Poland, certainly shook any assumptions I had of Christianity as a fading force. No the millions upon millions gathered was impressive, but I was more moved by quiet individual moments of character, and courage that seems to anchored to some deep core within Christianity."

From a personal note, I grew up in a church which annually sent groups to the Dominican Republic, Hatti, and Mexico, to build homes or work with local schools.

Again, how is atheism, as a collective force, making the world better in tangible ways? If you are an atheist, do you belong to an organization actively involved in altruistic projects: feeding the hungry, clothing the poor, sheltering the homeless?

Atheism offers nothing but the potential truth. Whether that appeals to everyone or not
is up to them.

[Justin108]

[Replying to post 1 by liamconnor]
Why does atheism have to offer anything? I was under the impression that the question of God is a question about truth, not some kind of election where both parties need to outbid the other with bribes and charities. "Atheism is true because atheists offer more to charity than theists" is not something an atheist would say.

Again, how is atheism, as a collective force, making the world better in tangible ways? If you are an atheist, do you belong to an organization actively involved in altruistic projects: feeding the hungry, clothing the poor, sheltering the homeless?

Atheism is not a collective force. Being an atheist does not make you a good person, it does not make you a bad person, it is not a club. It is a shared (lack of) belief. While I'm sure there are probably some atheist clubs out there, atheism itself is not a club. We are not a church. Any altruistic projects I take part in has absolutely nothing to do with my disbelief in God. If I help out a homeless person, I do so because I care for the homeless person. My being an atheist doesn't even factor. At all.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 1 by liamconnor]

human rights and democracy, is the direct legacy of the Judaic ethic of justice and the Christian ethic of love.

...democracy comes from Judaism and/or Christianity?
Last I checked, that was the Greek's baby. Shall I remind the class what political structures were prevalent in Judaism and Christianity, what they aspire to? We have kings from Judaism, and priests, and judges, who might as well themselves have been kings for all the power they had.
Also, what is Jesus claimed to be? Does the phrase, Lord of Lords, King of Kings, not come to mind? From what I see, Christianity envisions an autocratic theocracyw. It does not respect the will of the demos.

Would the world be "better" if it were uniformly atheistic? Or even agnostic?

Not automatically no.

in that sense, the concept of crime against humanity is a Christian concept and I think there would be no such thing in the law today without the Christian heritage, the Abrahamic heritage, the biblical heritage.�

It's very easy to say something like this, since this is indeed the world we live in, where the West was so heavily dominated and influenced by Christianity.
How does Derrida (and you by extension liam) actually know for a fact that sans a Christian heritage, we wouldn't have the concept of crimes against humanity?

The Christian moral foundation of social and cultural life was what made possible the emergence of capitalism and then the successful transition to democratic politics. We don’t have any doubt about this.�

Which then ends up committing suicide, once the social democracy does things like mandate a separation between church and state, of not imposing a religion upon the demos, of allowing the people to think and act as they see fit.
Don't agree with me? I'm just following the scholar's logic to its conclusion.

Niall Ferguson, another atheist, has marked on the strong connection between Protestantism and a strong work ethic which propelled the West forward as a civilazation; he has noted that the decline of religion in Europe has led to Europeans becoming "idlers of the world". LIkewise China's increasing work ethic has been shaped by Protestantism in the West (Civilization: the West and the Rest).

You didn't even quote this guy. Just gave what is in your mind an accurate summary.
How does this Protestantism = work ethic handle the existence of the Catholic Church, or as you point out the Chinese domination of manufacturing in the world today (what, do you mean the Chinese are closet Protestants or something?)

"Adherents of a secularist ethic are not likely to produce a Dorothy Day or a Mother Teresa. May of these people love humanity but not individual human beings with all their failings and short-comings.

I blinked at this. It is so absurd that I actually have to question what you think it means. I am an 'adherent of a secularist ethic' and I love individual human beings. I don't love ALL individual human beings, indeed that would be a contradiction of the statement. My loving of certain individuals means that there are individuals that I do not love.
Moreover, I can think of certain Christians on this site (not going to name names) who display a more or less complete lack of empathy for their fellow humans. One in particular who comes to mind has expressed a certain...shall we say, smugness at his/her place in heaven being guaranteed and expresses no concern whatsoever at those humans who, according to their belief structure, will go to hell merely for being non-believers.

They will be found participating in demonstrations for causes such as nuclear disarmament but not sitting at the bedside of a dying person.

Says who?

An ethic of moral autonomy and individual rights, so important to secular liberals, is incapable of sustaining and nourishing values such as altruism and self-sacrifice."

Is such a person incapable of self-sacrifice? Nope. They can still choose to do so. They are not compelled by some higher being commanding them to do so.

"I’ve found there is NO movement, or force, closer to the raw truth of war, famines, crises,and the vast human predicament, than organized Christianity in Action.

This doesn't mean though that (for lack of a better term) charity of this scale quite simply cannot happen without Christianity.

If you are an atheist, do you belong to an organization actively involved in altruistic projects: feeding the hungry, clothing the poor, sheltering the homeless?

Nope. And I'm okay with that. Unlike yourself I'd imagine liam, who if you weren't a member of a charity group, would be in conflict with your holy scriptures.

[OnceConvinced]

It's not meant to offer anything. It's simply a position of ones disbelief in gods. What makes you think it needs to offer anything at all Liam?

Being an atheist does not dictate what I do as a person to make this world a better place.

I could ask this question: What does not believing in all the other thousands of gods, that you don't believe in, offer the world?

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 4 by rikuoamero]

Last I checked, that was the Greek's baby.

Have you read Aristotle's democracy? Or Plato's? Aristotle thought some men fit only for slavery, "animated tools" he called them. Plato believed the Philosopher king should lie to the people, arrange marriages between the most fit under the veneer of a "lottery".

That modern democracy comes from the Greeks is a myth, not supported by scholarship.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 1 by liamconnor]

To everyone, I don't recall saying that atheism "had to offer" anything. I merely asked whether it promoted any of the modern ideals of democracy and charity.

As no one has attempted to refute the above quotes, it seems all here agree that atheism is at least not likely to promote such virtues, while Christianity is; indeed, it actually does.

If atheism is true, then the true doctrine is not likely to make the world a better place to live in, while a falsehood (Christianity) actually does. This begs the question why an atheist would want to spread atheism. Intellectual integrity? But of what value is this when there is no higher power to judge in intellectual integrity?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 4 by rikuoamero]

Last I checked, that was the Greek's baby.

Have you read Aristotle's democracy? Or Plato's? Aristotle thought some men fit only for slavery, "animated tools" he called them. Plato believed the Philosopher king should lie to the people, arrange marriages between the most fit under the veneer of a "lottery".

That modern democracy comes from the Greeks is a myth, not supported by scholarship.

That modern democracy comes from the Greeks is a myth, not supported by scholarship.

Did I say modern democracy? Nope. I just said democracy. I am fully aware of the difference of ancient Greco-Roman democracy compared to modern democracy. I was questioning the claim that democracy came from Judaism/Christianity.
Did Judaism/Christianity (in terms of the religion itself, and not the secular governments) have any concept of a parliament? Of elected officials selected by the people?

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 4 by rikuoamero]

It's very easy to say something like this, since this is indeed the world we live in, where the West was so heavily dominated and influenced by Christianity.
How does Derrida (and you by extension liam) actually know for a fact that sans a Christian heritage, we wouldn't have the concept of crimes against humanity?

IF the world, or even the West, had always been uniformly Christian, this would be a fair challenge. As it has not, it is simply a matter of comparison. This was made fairly clear in the above quotes. The ideals of democracy and equal rights and altruism simply do not flourish in non-Christian zones.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 3 by Justin108]

Atheism is not a collective force. Being an atheist does not make you a good person, it does not make you a bad person, it is not a club. It is a shared (lack of) belief. While I'm sure there are probably some atheist clubs out there, atheism itself is not a club. We are not a church. Any altruistic projects I take part in has absolutely nothing to do with my disbelief in God. If I help out a homeless person, I do so because I care for the homeless person. My being an atheist doesn't even factor. At all.

Are you in the habit of helping out the homeless?

I think it naive to suppose one's Philosophy has no impact on one's behavior. As the above studies show, it is not only naive but untrue. Atheism does not promote altruism. Does that make atheism wrong? Of course not. But it does make an atheist dishonest not to acknowledge the facts: Christians, not atheists, are out there spreading democracy, healing the sick, sheltering the homeless.