Powered By Blogger

Translate

Sunday, March 23, 2014

Why Do Atheists Ignore the Good Religion Does


Christians often ask atheists, "Why do you ignore the good Christianity does?"

This is an odd question since I never see Christians promoting the good done by other religions. Why would Christians think atheists should promote anything good they do?

I'm not one who denies that Christianity ever does anything good. I'm sure many religions do good, and it's a shame that with all the money and power they have they don't do more.

Instead, they seem to use their money and influence to take rights away from those they disagree with. It's one thing for them to have their opinion, but it's another to go a step further and influence politicians into creating laws that restrict people's freedom. 

Atheists who promote reason aren't focused on highlighting the good an organization does whether religious or secular (although it's great when they do and we often encourage it) - it's to get people to think critically about their beliefs.

Beliefs matter, beliefs are what cause religious terrorists to blow themselves up killing others around them. Beliefs are what cause some to think climate change isn't an issue to worry about because their god is ultimately in control.

As Sam Harris has said, "I know of no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too desirous of evidence in support of their core beliefs."

Yes, irrational beliefs can still motivate people to do good, but the good that comes from religion doesn't make up for the bad - and even if it did, it wouldn't make that religion true. Anything good that comes from religion can also be done without it. If we understand the reality of an issue we have a better chance of improving it, unlike relying on wishful thinking or superstition.

16 comments:

  1. The last paragraph describes them completely. I tried to explain that point to my mother and she quit taking to me, because Satan won :/

    ReplyDelete
  2. The Christian religion has done much good over the centuries. As I travel to nations around the world I have seen hospitals, orphanages, and feeding programs all founded by Christians.

    It is true that good can be done outside of religion, but the greater question is would it be done? Over time, Christianity has done far more good then atheism. This is because Christians take seriously the Biblical command to engage in "good works."

    In my city of Tulsa, OK there is a St. John's hospital, a St. Francis hospital, but not a St. Dawkins hospital anywhere to be found.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Many religions have done some good over the centuries, but it doesn't make the claims made by these religions true. And just because a religion has done some good, it doesn't mean they get to ignore the bad they have done.

      If the greater question is, “Would good be done without religion?” the answer is overwhelmingly YES. Just to name a few of these orgs there is UNICEF, Doctors without Borders, the SEED foundation, ACLU, Foundation Beyond Belief, Engineers Without Borders, Goodwill, S.H.A.R.E. - The Secular Humanist Aid and Relief Effort, and this is just a few examples. (Also, I might add there are many secular organizations that have been founded just to help people who have been negatively affected by religion.)

      You say Christianity has done far more good than atheism, well atheism isn’t a thing – it is simply the lack of belief in a god or gods (usually because they don’t see evidence to support god claims). So it wouldn't make any sense to compare the good Christianity has done against atheism. However, many people who are atheist are also Humanist. So it would be completely fair to compare the good Christianity has done against Humanism. Although, comparing the two still has nothing to do with Christianity being true or not.

      It’s not surprising that there is a St. John’s and a St. Francis hospital and no St. Dawkins where you live, because for many centuries religion ruled the world (and still does just not as much as it used to) and anyone who questioned the teachings of the church were either killed or locked up.

      It’s interesting that religion likes to take credit for starting hospitals and then has the audacity to ask, Why didn’t secular orgs start them? The answer is pretty simple, the church is the one with all the money and due to all the killing of atheists by the church, there weren’t a lot of people around to start hospitals other than the religious.

      But with all the advancement in medical treatment due to science, it is amazing that hospitals are still named after religious leaders and not scientists.

      Delete
  3. For a person who named their blog after "reason", I find your last response disengenuous. "Due to all the killing of atheists by the church, there weren't a lot of people around..." So I'm wondering what the numbers are. How many atheists were killed by the church? Let's compare that to the number of Christians killed by atheists under Stalin and Mao Zedong.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. I don't understand why that would matter, the killing of any people is a horrible thing. I don't think atheism is a solution to improving our world, instead we need to replace harmful dogma and superstition with Humanism and skepticism - atheism is just a by-product of this. Just because stalin and Mao were atheist it obviously doesn't mean they were humanists.

      So what would be accomplished if we compared the number of Christians killed by these atheists with the number of atheist killed by the church?

      Delete
    3. The accomplishment is that it reveals the intellectual dishonesty of many atheist arguments. To your credit, in this post you avoided the historical cherry picking that many new atheists are guilty of.

      Thank you for pointing out that the behavior of a person doesn't necessarily reflect on the truth of their worldview. That red herring needs to die.

      But it seems to be a dangerous thing to equate skepticism, atheism and humanism with excellent thinking. You have to do a good deal of cherry picking to maintain that belief as well. For instance, Francis Bacon was one of the founders of empiricism. Bacon was a theist. Gregor Mendel discovered gene theory. Mendel was a monk. Galileo, who made heliocentrism famous: a Roman Catholic. If you think theism is an antiquated superstition that "skepticism" has vanquished, you have to reckon with Francis Collins who mapped the human genome and John Polkinghorne who helped to discover the quark. Both Christians. So while you say that atheism is a result of humanism and skepticism (probably true for the most part) I think you have a lot of work to do before you can prove that atheism is the result of critical thinking.

      Delete
    4. I don't see that it accomplishes that. But anyway... it seems you like to make arguments from authority... citing scientists who have made important discoveries doesn't give their religious beliefs credibility. All that really matters is whether a religious belief has evidence for its claims or not. Pointing out smart people who were also religious/Christian is just evidence that smart people can still hold ridiculous beliefs.

      Darwin discovered the mechanism for what makes evolution work which is natural selection (which since you mentioned Francis Collins - I take it that you accept), he grew up catholic and then later became an atheist. This is not evidence that the position of atheism (not holding a belief in a god or gods) is correct - and it would be absurd if I tried to use such an argument. Yet this is basically what you are doing by citing scientists who are/were Christian.

      Delete
    5. Actually, I'm not trying to validate their religious beliefs. I'm demonstrating that critical thinking and skepticism are not the same thing. All those people were capable of critical thinking. They came up with different conclusions than you. What evidence do you have that your conclusions are correct while theirs are wrong?

      Delete
    6. I agree, they aren't exactly the same thing but they do compliment each other and when they are both used they are excellent tools which help us come to correct conclusions.

      They did come to a different conclusions than me, and they also came to different conclusions amongst themselves... that is just evidence that they did not use critical thinking and skepticism when it came to their religious views. It happens all the time!

      But I'm not the one making outrageous claims, therefore I don't need to provide evidence for my conclusion. My reasons for not believing in a god or Christianity is that there is not sufficient evidence to support any of the god claims or the claims made by Christianity. Just as you don't need to provide evidence for why Hinduism, Mormonism, scientology, or Islam, etc aren't correct - I don't need to provide evidence for why Christianity isn't correct. Again my reason for not believing is because no religion has met its burden of proof.

      Delete
    7. What evidence would you expect to see if the central claims of Christianity were objectively true? What, in your opinion would satisfy the burden of proof?

      Delete
    8. That's a good question, not sure where to start. But I guess I'll start with the biblical creation story which was basically taken from the Babylonian creation myth in the Enuma Elish (which should be a red flag on its own) - it says God made light before the sun and stars, but we know that light is a result of the sun and stars. It also says god made the plants before the sun, but plants can't live without sunlight. So you would think if this god created the universe he would at least know how it worked.

      Next, if this god character really created life he would have explain in the bible that life evolved to where it is now (which Francis Collins as you mentioned proved). But instead the Bible gives us a story of man made from dust and then took a rib from this man to make a woman.

      Another thing is that the Bible claims that this god is perfectly moral and all-knowing, yet his gives us a book with instructions for how to properly have slaves. Which includes, going over to other nations and giving them the option of surrendering and if they do they become your slave, and if they don't, kill all the men, women, children, but they can keep the virgins for themselves. That is not morality, and a moral god could not possibly instruct his people do to that.

      These are just a few examples of what would not be in the Bible if this god were real. I can not prove their is no god and I don't make that claim. I say there is no evidence to suggest a god exists. However, I could keep going on and on with reasons for why the god in the bible does not exist.

      The bible makes so much more sense when you look at if from the view that ancient men who knew little to nothing about the world wrote it, than from an all-powerful and moral god, that just doesn't make any sense.

      I'll be happy to continue with more reasons why it is safe to say this god does not exist. But, sufficient evidence is what is needed to satisfy the burden of proof, and to be honest I'm not sure what that would be. But we have good evidence that brad pitt exists, surely god could gives us at least the same type of evidence for his existence as we have for brad pitt.

      Delete
    9. But I was thinking, have you ever been asked. "What evidence would you expect to see if the central claims of Hinduism (or insert any religion you don't follow) were objectively true? What, in your opinion would satisfy the burden of proof?"

      Whatever your answer is, I'm guessing mine would be pretty similar for Christianity. And I would hope you would require your religion to meet the same burden of proof as you would ask of other religions.

      Delete
  4. Food for thought: http://www.academia.edu/2128659/The_Missionary_Roots_of_Liberal_Democracy

    ReplyDelete
  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  6. It is this hunger for power that has in a split second made a hotbed of abhor which has touched off the vast majority of the real wars since forever. Islamic Fiqh

    ReplyDelete