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?

[liamconnor]

Philosophers and social analysts recognize from hands on research that where Christianity settles, altruism and democratic ideals bud and bloom.

Please provide evidence that it is true that, "Philosophers and social analysts recognize" what you have claimed. Then provide evidence that they are right.

If you are demanding I have a ready consensus of every Philosopher and social analyst in all the world, my response: that is a desperate and ridiculous demand.

I have provided enough quotes to constitute a worthy challenge.

Since some of the evidence was based on eyewitness research, I obviously cannot verify the claims. However, I was careful NOT to include testimony from Christians. They were all from agnostics or atheists or people who were such at the time of the quote. I think I have been quite honest and reasonable in making my case. I'll point out that one of the quotes laid down a practical challenge: point to any place on a map where Christian missionaries have taken hold, and you will find that the principles of democracy have grown."

I should point out that if you maintain your current tactic, you will never be able to appeal to the testimony of another; including historical statements (i.e., please provide proof that Herodotus was right).

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 41 by liamconnor]

point to any place on a map where Christian missionaries have taken hold, and you will find that the principles of democracy have grown."

And I counter by pointing out that correlation does not equal causation. That Christianity has had missionaries for going on 2,000 years and that democracy is a relatively recent political invention. That Christianity is more than compatible with kingships and theocracies (looking at you, Vatican. Looking at you, Charlemagne).

UPDATE: Just realized I goofed with calling democracy a relatively recent invention. When I wrote that, I had completely forgotten that it came from the ancient Greeks, and was practised in one form or another by them and the Romans.
At any rate, my mistake doesn't really change my retort to liamconnor. Christianity is not inherently democratic, what with Jesus Christ being called the King of Kings and Lord of Lords.

[Tcg]

If you are demanding I have a ready consensus of every Philosopher and social analyst in all the world, my response: that is a desperate and ridiculous demand.

I see. You can't provide evidence and you blame that on me for asking you to support your claim. What other questions would you prefer I not ask you?

[liamconnor]

If you are demanding I have a ready consensus of every Philosopher and social analyst in all the world, my response: that is a desperate and ridiculous demand.

I see. You can't provide evidence and you blame that on me for asking you to support your claim. What other questions would you prefer I not ask you?

As I have said, I have provided evidence. Read the OP. If you merely object to my broad language "Philosophers and social analysts" because it may imply the word "All" in front of it, very well,

"The Philosophers and social analysts and reports in the OP...".

Now, have you anything to challenge their claims?

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 41 by liamconnor]

point to any place on a map where Christian missionaries have taken hold, and you will find that the principles of democracy have grown."

And I counter by pointing out that correlation does not equal causation. That Christianity has had missionaries for going on 2,000 years and that democracy is a relatively recent political invention. That Christianity is more than compatible with kingships and theocracies (looking at you, Vatican. Looking at you, Charlemagne).

UPDATE: Just realized I goofed with calling democracy a relatively recent invention. When I wrote that, I had completely forgotten that it came from the ancient Greeks, and was practised in one form or another by them and the Romans.
At any rate, my mistake doesn't really change my retort to liamconnor. Christianity is not inherently democratic, what with Jesus Christ being called the King of Kings and Lord of Lords.

I believe I corrected myself by bringing the focus to Protestant Christianity.

Causation, perhaps not. But given that where Protestant Christians preach and practice altruism along with democratic ideals of equal rights, we do in fact find an increase in these virtues; well, let us call it a curious coincidence in strong favor of Protestant Christianity (unless of course you think altruism and democratic ideals to be bad). Will a survey of non-Christian nations reveal the same tendency? YOu will of course remember that the Greek democracy apparently had no problem with slaves. One can reply that neither did American Protestant Christianity for a time; but then, it was American Protestant Christians who were behind the abolition movement.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 45 by liamconnor]

I believe I corrected myself by bringing the focus to Protestant Christianity.

Strange. I could easily shift focus to showing where the Roman Catholic Church has supported democracy.
In case you don't understand the angle I'm coming from, I'm arguing that democracy is not inherent in Christianity. It is not something that necessarily follows on once Christianity has been introduced.

But given that where Protestant Christians preach and practice altruism along with democratic ideals of equal rights,

All Protestants? Throughout history? Where is it in the various Protestantisms that makes them incompatible with theocracies or divine monarchies?

well, let us call it a curious coincidence in strong favor of Protestant Christianity (unless of course you think altruism and democratic ideals to be bad).

Unlike yourself, I don't see altruism and democracy as being part and parcel of (Protestant) Christianity.

YOu will of course remember that the Greek democracy apparently had no problem with slaves.

And neither did Protestant Christian nations for a good long time.
Your point?

One can reply that neither did American Protestant Christianity for a time; but then, it was American Protestant Christians who were behind the abolition movement.

After having been all for it for a good long time...also are you attempting to hint here that Roman Catholic Christians, or Orthodox Christians, weren't part of the abolition movement?

[Tcg]

Now, have you anything to challenge their claims?

It is your duty to support them given your claims rely on them. Not surprisingly, you can't. You simply piggy back on other's who can't support their claims either. What you provide is nothing but a massive log pile of unsupported claims.

[liamconnor]

Now, have you anything to challenge their claims?

It is your duty to support them given your claims rely on them. Not surprisingly, you can't. You simply piggy back on other's who can't support their claims either. What you provide is nothing but a massive log pile of unsupported claims.

So you are calling them liars? That is an odd claim: what motive would a non-Christian have to exalt a philosophy to which they do not adhere above their own?


I recognize that their claims (it is, afterall, their claims) cannot be demonstrated logically. But personal testimony is not irrelevant. And, as in court, when the testimony actually goes against the witness testifying, it is given greater value.

[rikuoamero]

Now, have you anything to challenge their claims?

It is your duty to support them given your claims rely on them. Not surprisingly, you can't. You simply piggy back on other's who can't support their claims either. What you provide is nothing but a massive log pile of unsupported claims.

So you are calling them liars? That is an odd claim: what motive would a non-Christian have to exalt a philosophy to which they do not adhere above their own?


I recognize that their claims (it is, afterall, their claims) cannot be demonstrated logically. But personal testimony is not irrelevant. And, as in court, when the testimony actually goes against the witness testifying, it is given greater value.

Please explain your last sentence, or rewrite it. I'm not entirely sure what it is you mean.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 46 by rikuoamero]

I recognize the knee-jerk reaction to point out the many flaws of Protestant Christianity (the OP's testimonies were about Protestant Christians; therefore, I have nothing good or bad to say about any other demonination). And, if the OP made a claim that PC was spotless in its effects on the world, obviously it would be demonstrably false.

But that is not the OP. Let us return to it:

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?

Note, it is a question.