(An abbreviated version of this was published in The Age, Melbourne, 23 February 2012)Louise Phillips (Letters, 22/2) does Alain de Botton an injustice by accusing him of perpetuating the myth that atheism is a religion. On the contrary, de Botton (The Age, 21/2) has highlighted some of the desirable features that atheism lacks precisely because it’s not a religion. It is perfectly understandable that an atheist would covet these and other elements of religious faith. Nor is it surprising that, according to de Botton, “during the riots in Britain last year, the first response of the government was to call in the faith people.”
Ms.Phillips asserts that “our morality comes not from religion, belief or faith”, but has “evolved over the centuries”. I wonder if she includes in this “evolution” the likes of William Wilberforce, the Earl of Shaftesbury, Elizabeth Fry, Florence Nightingale, Thomas Barnardo, William Booth, Albert Schweitzer, David Livingstone, William Carey, Desmond Tutu, Janani Luwum, Oscar Romero, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Rev.Dr.Martin Luther King, and thousands more like them.
Their morality did not “evolve” through secular “enlightenment”. Rather, it was inspired by their faith in Jesus of Nazareth and His teachings. The same faith and teachings played a pivotal role in the formation of such bodies as the Red Cross, Amnesty International, Alcoholics Anonymous and other 12-step programs, the Salvation Army, the Brotherhood of St.Laurence, Habitat for Humanity, Opportunity International, Samaritan’s Purse and World Vision, to name but a few.
A corresponsing list of specifically atheistic equivalents does not leap readily to mind.
Rowan Forster
~~
Facebook response from Daniel Batt:
The meaning of Romans 1 is quite disputed among commentators and theologians. While one version says that everyone knows deep down there is a God, but for atheists, their sin makes them deny God with the rest of their being.
Now, not only is this pretty offensive to a huge swathe of atheists (and is a view that if you do hold it, you should ‘shut up’ about it if you are ever witnessing to an atheist or former Christian who has become one) it is also a position that is not supported by any psychological study. It is purely based on a (mis)reading of Paul.`
So while it is understandable that some Christians think that theism is self-evident, most Christian philosophers and apologists concede that if God does exist, then he has chosen to make himself relatively hidden. As the bottom link below makes very clear, “the hiddenness of God” is a genuine and difficult concept for Christian philosophers and apologists to explain.
Lastly, the nature and extent of evil in this world is recognised by almost all Christian philosophers as the best argument (among the many) for the non-existence of God. No, it’s not a knock down case, but there is no Christian philosopher or apologist with any credibility who has a good explanation for the nature and extent of evil (a theodicy) in this world that they feel ‘comfortable’ with.
So if God’s existence is so self-evident (which “the hiddenness of God” article seems to suggest is not the case), then the goodness of God is something that should cause one to doubt almost immediately. Gregory Boyd, in the first link below, recounts the story “of a six-year-old Jewish girl named Zosia whose beautiful eyes were plucked out by the bare hands of two Nazi guards in front of her horrified mother. The mother went insane and both were subsequently gassed in one of Adolf Hitler’s concentration camps.”
Now I happen to believe in the goodness of God, but to suggest that those who do not believe in his existence, let alone his goodness, do not have some good reasons for this belief sounds a little smug to me.
http://theotherjournal.com/2012/02/27/randomness-and-assurance-does-everything-happen-for-a-reason/
http://assets.cambridge.org/97805218/03533/excerpt/9780521803533_excerpt.pdf
Like this:
Like Loading...
Related
Discussion
Comments are disallowed for this post.
Comments are closed.