Dear Friends,
It seems to me, the argument that atheists always fall back on, “I am a good person and I don’t believe in God…” presumes human nature to be saintly, when the direct opposite is true. Philosophers from Hsun Ching to the Victorian era came to the same conclusion, that the congenital nature of human beings is evil and the good in us is a learned trait. Others have believed that we are innately good, and before to be evil takes an outside force, Mohamed and Mencius are examples. Any rational glance at the nature of humanity however shows unequivocal that we, you and I, are evil at heart and civilization in us is taught. Moreover, the fundamental role of religion, not all but most, is to create a foundation upon which civilization can exist. Without that grounding, civilization itself must crumble, like a building with it’s foundation removed.
Take the spoiled child. He or she is anything but civilized. They are all ego and lack empathy. The spoiled child is a terror to be around, they speak out of turn, are violent, brutish, offensive and often friendless. No one wants to be around them. That missing civilization in them, (poor socialization), doesn’t serve them well, in fact a spoiled child typically has a very hard time being a productive member of society. Their antisocial tendencies alienates them from others, potential friends, bosses, coworkers and society at large. A culture of spoiled people, children in all but name, would not produce enough food to eat, let alone a scientific method. Clearly the path to barbarism then is to remove the socialization from the people. Some might argue, atheism is not the same as a spoiled child, which at first glance might seem true, but after a little bit of reflection is clearly spurious, because atheism is all about spoiled children. The atheist doesn’t want any limitations, just as a spoiled child shrugs off responsibility and limitations… and religion imposes responsibility and limitations.
Why would people be moral if not for the foundation of morality taught in most religions? Why self sacrifice, why play by the rules and why not just take what you want from someone weaker? Like a spoiled child. I am reminded of the Gaul King who when asked by the Roman, “By what right do you attack this city?” and answered, “By natural right, that the strong must take from the weak so the weak will perish and the strong may live.” Nietzsche had much the same philosophy, that each person create their own morality, and what is the logical end of such a philosophy? Anarchy. As a philosopher once said, life under anarchy is short, violent and brutish. Remove the civilizing impulse that religion gives, and you remove civilization itself, and all the goods that come of it as well.
Some atheists argue people will become civilized as a result of rational thought. They might recon that people would self control and become self interested rightly understood, as Tocqueville said, but to come to such a conclusion, one must not have read Tocqueville because he said America is good because her people are good, if the people cease to be good, America will cease to be good. He also laid the credit for the innate goodness in the American people of the time to our Christian foundation. It was the morality that Christianity teaches that allows people to be self interested rightly understood, not some innate rational conclusion. It is perfectly rational to rob a bank in the absence of law, and moral not to, in that same absence.
Moreover, history is unambiguous, those nations that have embraced atheism as a philosophy, namely socialist experiments, have all been catastrophes. From the French Revolution that ended in the mass slaughter of human beings, to Pol Pot’s Cambodia, where little girls went down rows of middle aged men tied up, placing a plastic bag over each head until the man stopped struggling for air, atheist nations have been the focus of evil in the modern world. The crimes against humanity by atheists, like Hitler, were and always will be industrial in nature, effect and quality.
While religion has been perverted to justify crimes, those crimes were in opposition to the actual teaching of most religions. Imagine Jesus Christ’s revulsion to the slaughter of people in his name, you suppose Buddha wanted people harmed in his name, the fundamental conflict in the Bagavaad Gita was not the war, but Arjuna’s inner moral battle about the killing. No matter what you think of Christianity and Christians, Christ is and can only be described as a good man, and his teachings, do unto others, turn the other cheek, love thy enemies, love thy neighbors, let he who is without sin cast the first stone, etc… prove that. Crimes against humanity done in Christ’s name, Lao Tzu, Confucius or Buddha, is spitting in their faces.
One thing most atheists have in common is their love of tyranny. They shirk the limitations of morality and therefore must impose limitation through oppression. They judge others by themselves, and seeing themselves wanting, assume everyone else is as empty inside as they. Of course not all atheists are evil, most consider themselves to be good people, and many are. That is not because of some innate morality they carry, but is the result of the morality they were taught as children, often Christian morality, the very morality they so despise. They even judge goodness by the template of Jesus’ teachings. Remove the foundation, and you destroy the edifice, demolish the structure and it can no longer provide shelter. We can become spoiled children or civilized adults, but remember this, spoiled children cannot create civilization, only civilized people can do that.
Sincerely,
John Pepin
