The following article, which appeared in yesterday's USA Today, is adapted from my new book What's So Great About Christianity:
We seem to be witnessing an aggressive attempt by leading atheists to portray religion in general, and Christianity in particular, as the bane of civilization. Finding the idea of God incompatible with science and reason, these atheists also fault Christianity with fostering a breed of fanaticism comparable to Islamic radicalism. The proposed solution: a completely secular society, liberated from Christian symbols and beliefs.
This critique, which comes from best-selling atheist books, academic tracts and a sophisticated network of atheist organizations and media, can be disputed on its own terms. What it misses, however, is the larger story of how Christianity has shaped the core institutions and values of the USA and the West. Christianity is responsible even for secular institutions such as democracy and science. It has fostered in our civilization values such as respect for human dignity, human rights and human equality that even secular people cherish.
Consider science. Although there have been many civilizations in history, modern science developed in only one: Western civilization. And why? Because science is based on an assumption that is, at root, faith-based and theological. That is the assumption that the universe is rational and follows laws that are discoverable through human reason.
Science is based on what James Trefil calls the principle of universality. "It says that the laws of nature we discover here and now in our laboratories are true everywhere in the universe and have been in force for all time." Moreover, the laws that govern the universe seem to be written in the language of mathematics. Physicist Richard Feynman found this to be "a kind of miracle."
Why? Because the universe doesn't have to be this way. There's no particular reason the laws of nature that we find on Earth should also govern a star billions of light years away. There's no logical necessity for a universe that obeys rules, let alone mathematical ones. So where did Western man get this idea of a lawfully ordered universe? From Christianity.
Christians were the first ones who envisioned the universe as following laws that reflected the rationality of God the creator. These laws were believed to be accessible to man because man is created in the image of God and shares a spark of the divine reason. No wonder, then, that the first universities and observatories were sponsored by the church and run by priests.
No wonder also that the greatest scientists of the West - Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Boyle, Newton, Leibniz, Gassendi, Pascal, Mersenne, Cuvier, Harvey, Dalton, Faraday, Joule, Lyell, Lavoisier, Priestley, Kelvin, Ampere, Steno, Pasteur, Maxwell, Planck, Mendel, and Lemaitre - were Christians. Gassendi, Mersenne and Lamaitre were priests. Several of them viewed their research as demonstrating God's creative genius as manifested in his creation.
If modern science has Christian roots, so do our most basic political institutions and values. Consider Thomas Jefferson's famous assertion in the Declaration of Independence that "all men are created equal." He claimed this was "self-evident," but one only has to look to history and to other cultures to see that it is not evident at all. Everywhere we see dramatic evidence of human inequality. Jefferson's point, however, was that human beings are moral equals. Every life has a worth no greater and no less than any other.
The preciousness and equal worth of every human life is a Christian idea. We are equal because we have been created equal in the eyes of God. This is an idea with momentous consequences. In ancient Greece and Rome, human life had very little value. The Spartans, for example, left weak children to die on the hillside. Greek and Roman culture was built on slavery.
Christianity banned infanticide and the killing of the weak and "dispensable," and even today Christian values are responsible for the moral horror we feel when we hear of such practices. Christianity initially tolerated slavery- a universal institution at the time - but gradually mobilized the moral and political resources to end it. From the beginning, Christianity discouraged the enslavement of fellow Christians. Slavery, the foundation of Greek and Roman civilization, withered and largely disappeared throughout medieval Christendom in the Middle Ages.
The first movements to abolish slavery completely occurred only in the West, and were led by Christians. In the modern era, first the Quakers and then the evangelical Christians demanded that since we are all equal in God's eyes, no man has the right to rule another man without his consent. This religious doctrine not only supplies the moral justification for anti-slavery but also for democracy. Yes, the idea of self-government is also rooted in the Christian assumption of human equality. One reason the atheist philosopher Nietzsche hated democracy is because he understood its religious foundation.
Consider finally modern notions of human rights - the right to freedom of conscience, or to property, or to marry and form a family, or to be treated equally before the law - as enshrined in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The universalism of this declaration is based on the particular teachings of Christianity. The premise is that all human lives have equal dignity and worth, but this is not the teaching of all the world's cultures and religions. Even so, it's appropriate that a doctrine Christian in origin should be universal in application. Christianity from the start promulgated its message as one for the whole world.
There are some atheists and even some Christians who admit that theism and Christianity have shaped the core institutions and values of America and the West. But now that we have these values, they say, why do we still need God and Christianity? Oddly enough, the answer is supplied by Nietzsche.
Nietzsche argued that since the Christian God is the foundation of Western values, the death of God must necessarily mean the erosion and ultimate collapse of those values. Remove the base and the whole building will slowly crumble. For a while, Nietzsche conceded, people would out of custom or habit continue to respect human life and treat people with equal dignity, but eventually there would be ferocious assaults on these values, and practices once unthinkable such as the killing of people deemed inferior or undesirable would once again occur. This is precisely what we have seen in our time, and Nietzsche predicted that it will only get worse.
If we cherish the distinctive ideals of Western civilization, and believe as I do that they have enormously benefited our civilization and our world, then whatever our religious convictions, we will not rashly try to hack at the religious roots from which they spring. On the contrary, we will not hesitate to acknowledge, not only privately but also publicly, the central role that Christianity has played and still plays in the things that matter most to us.
What's So Great About Christianity, Regnery, 2007
Reader Comments ( Page 3 of 15)
31. So shinningstar, the fact people point out that DD gets history wrong by being freakishly selective (ie: democracy is a Christian invention. The Galileo affair is "overblown' etc) leds you to ask a question about the meaning and purpose of life and say atheists don't have dogmatic answer to that?? seriously?
I'm not saying DD should shut up or not have his say. That would be undemocratic. What I, and others are saying is that while trying to prove his case DD often gets the history wrong. Democracy is not a Christian invention. Science was not born on the back of the faith. I mean, it would be true to say some great names were believers. To not be a Christian in Galileo's time would have just be odd. Eisenstein an Newton were deists of a sort. But their science is not informed by whatever religion they have. Galileo himself said, and this is what started to get him in trouble, that if science and the bible come into conflict over questions of the natural world, we aught to side with science. That is not informing or basing science on faith as DD claims.
Facts matter, and you don't get anywhere by selectively choosing history or distorting it to prove a point.
Grant at 12:04PM on Oct 23rd 2007
32. wow. this guy is *not* smart. galileo, huh?
wow.
dan at 12:07PM on Oct 23rd 2007
33. As an agnostic, I am always interested in what other people think - all peoplel: agnostics, thiests and athiests.
However, Mr. D'Souza, every blog you post on this subject (well, on your book actually) is stretching reason more and more.
I have finally decided after reading this blog with it's numerous inaccuracies and fallacies, that your book's target audience must be those with double digit IQs.
That's OK for you, though. There's an awful lot of double digit IQs out there.
FL Chick at 12:07PM on Oct 23rd 2007
34. 4. As always, the same angry mob of atheists waiting the moment to gang up on everything DD writes about. How many of you would love to just shut him up. You see that is precisely the problem with some of you. There is no way you can respect someone's opinion if it is different to yours especially if it's a Christian (God forbid).
First, I'm not angry, I disagree with what he says. Because I'm vocal about my differing opinion, that doesn't make me any part of an angry mob. Secondly, I don't want to "shut him up", I'm a veteran. I was willing to fight and die for everyones right to speak their mind, not only for myself. As far as "respecting someone's opinion", respect should be mutual. Dinesh has called me "stupid", because of my opinion, and tried to back it up with the new conservative standard straw man arguments, and circular "logic". When someone has no respect for my right to be what I want or to think what I want, not only do I not respect his opinion, I question his motives - And this man's motive is nothing more than good old fashioned greed. He hasn't failed to mention his money grabbing opportunist venture for the last week.
Ken at 12:14PM on Oct 23rd 2007
35. Dinesh wrote, "Because science is based on an assumption that is, at root, faith-based and theological. That is the assumption that the universe is rational and follows laws that are discoverable through human reason."
Huh? Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it believers, those who believe in the supernatural that believe in REVELATION and that we can know things about the universe WITHOUT reason and that the laws of the universe are subject to the whim of the creator?
Is he for real?
Gerry Dantone at 12:23PM on Oct 23rd 2007
36. I have been a fan of D'Souza's for many years. His books:The End of Racism, Illiberal Education, and What's So Great About America are quite good with some Conservative bias but informative and fun. I read random chapters from What's SO Great About Christianity is nowhere near the quality as his previous works. It is certainly quite biased. He also applies double standards without even respecting the intelligence of the reader. In a section on the Inquisition he justifies its atrocities by stating that the Inquisition only had rights over Christians anyway...So he states that it is ok for the inquisitor to torture Christians! I am disappointed! I did not buy the book!
Drona K at 12:42PM on Oct 23rd 2007
37. Although Christianity and other religions are good hall monitors for the behavior of people, most people have the sense that certain things are right and others are wrong without the Church's help. That's why they create governments to create and enforce laws. Who would really want the Church creating and enforcing laws when it has no more compass. When its priests rape children the church does not turn the raping priests over to the authorities for punishment. Instead, the Church moves raping priests to another parish to rape again. Then moves the raping priest to another parish when his activities are discovered. Such a Church cannot guide society when it cannot keep it's own house in order.
The Church DID keep the masses in line with the Ten Commandments in Europe. It also controlled the behavior of some monarchs and feudal lords by having them pay indulgences for their "sins." The effect on their wallets probably did reduce their crimes.
Some Monks who had too much time on their hands thinking about sex DID work on the science of genetics and reproduction and described dominant and recessive traits. They discovered the theories that would later lead to evolutionary theory and debunk Intelligent Design. Although Evolution is just a theory with many holes to be filled and perhaps it will be replaced by another theory in the future, it is the best working wtheory at this time. The Theory of Intelligent Design has a problem because it is totally faith based. That is certainly ok for an individual - BUT, it is not useful for everyone since we could pick any random religion like Scientology and believe that we are descendants of aliens and sopme other stuff. Maybe we are, BUT, shouldn't we go with the evidence at hand?
Drona K at 1:23PM on Oct 23rd 2007
38. We need more Christian intellectuals like this...thank you, Dinesh.
Zach at 1:31PM on Oct 23rd 2007
39. Im tired of hearing the BS that America was founded on Christian principles
The following presidents were NOT, I repeat NOT Christians:
George Washington- deist
Thomas Jefferson- deist (Atheist later on in life)
James Monroe- Deist
James Madison- Deist
Abraham Lincoln- deist/ Atheist
so that means 4/5 of the first presidents didn't believe in Christ, the only one being John Adams who said this at the Treaty of Tripoli: "The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion"- John Adams
75% of the presidents on Mt Rushmore didn't believe in Christ
USA started as a secular nation, with freedoms of religon and freedoms from religion
Our founding fathers would be appalled at what has happened in the past 30 or so years
Buggs at 1:31PM on Oct 23rd 2007
40. I keep reading about how us atheists are ganging up on Dinesh.
When it's Dinesh that attacks US.
Or haven't you noticed that all his rants in his book are directed at us?
So shut up when we defend ourselves on this post. It's your side throwing the stones, so when I heave one back at you and it hits one of you in the BIG MOUTH, you shouldn't be so surprised. Take it like an adult and not a snivelling coward.
Dinesh is not on the side of good. He's for divisiveness, which is evil. He's a promoter of it in this world. He writes books and sells them, trying to divide people even more. And his hate is thus disseminated to all his loving sycophantic subjects, and re-used over and over.
Isn't it nice that you christians have things to read that make you hate us more?
Well, too bad about that acting like jesus thing, which you've lost in the process of learning how to hate so well. Hey, you can still call yourselves christians, since we're used to your hypocrisy by now. The only effect is that you've sullied the name. I won't even capitalize it anymore. I refuse. Capitalization is a sign of respect, and I cannot respect the unrespectable. Today when most people think of christians they think of Larry Craig, Ted Haggart, creepy pedo priests, and people like them, and not some decent person working to help the poor and sick. So you've ruined the good name of christ. I bet he's pissed.
Brian at 1:40PM on Oct 23rd 2007
41. In a way, fundamentalists are the truly "god-damned" ones, since they've damned themselves by their refusal to give up or change any of their beliefs, to a life of simplicity and egotism, hurting others constantly with their divisiveness and hatred, convinced of their illusory superiority. They've "bought the farm." It's very ugly actually.
Brian at 1:44PM on Oct 23rd 2007
42. Responding to pboy (535)
You wrote: “I really don't know/want to know what you were driving at... unless it's to say that it is complicated... “
It is more than complicated. There are SO MANY FACTORS that come into play when we discuss and develop morals and morality. There are many points I could discuss, but, for the sake of brevity, I’ll focus on two points: trust and balance. (Not fairness) Read on.
You also wrote: “I think that it is a bit odd that your 'answer' was more of a quiz than an explanation though.”
I know. That is why it took so long to prepare and post. It was getting too complicated because there were many tangential thoughts, many conditional statements. I was tempted to post a questionnaire, let you answer, and then, put together my thoughts based on your answers. This is a topic that is best discussed face-to-face where we can bounce comments, ideas, and questions off each other. It is like building a tall building. You start with the foundation and build one floor at a time. I was having to offer a “complete building”, so I built it to be flexible. That is why I asked the questions. Let’s face it: my answer is somewhat similar to what we as a society have to do each day. Discover, discuss, debate, and decide.
You wrote: “You say, "The fairness that religion brings..." ...oh ray, ray, ray... that is arguably the most devious five word phrase that I have heard written in earnest. It 'fairly' REEKS 'agenda'.”
EXCUSE ME! I just used YOUR WORD. I should have put quotation marks around the word “fairn”, but, I expected you to have a decent memory. Even if you didn’t, I included your statement in my response. I just built my answer around your question!
Let me re-quote you: “Perhaps 'GOD' is just a sense of fairness, because the 'message' from theists seems to be that without GOD things would get chaotic... therefore with GOD things have at least a sense of structure and organization etc.”
You wrote: “You think that religion brings fairness…”
Actually, I do not believe that is the focus of any religion. Most religions advocate righteousness and justice. They may do a lousy job of delivering, but that is part of their message.
You wrote:... “fair is when we split the apple pie exactly in half, not when you tell me that your morals are better than mine.”
You definition of “fair” seems OK, but, then it is oversimplified. What if it was YOUR apple to begin with? Some would argue that you would deserve a bigger portion. What if I had already eaten my apple and now expected you to share yours with me? What if you had dropped my apple effectively ruining it? Seems o ly "fair" for you to share your with me.
And what if my morals are better than yours? Surely you are not suggesting that all ideas and belief systems are equal? I will admit that deciding which set of ideals is better is very difficult and that our decision will be heavily biased by our own history and preferences.
You wrote: “'Yea, if we try to impose a Christian agenda on this secular society... that'll be fair for US Christians!!!'... 'How could anyone else even think that that wasn't fair?'
No argument. That is why I posed the “stranded on an island” scenario. The US Constitution and our laws are not “sacred”. We have the power and authority to revise them. We effectively operate like “castaways” each time we vote and whenever our governmental agencies convene. We are having to develop and revise rules and policies that are “fair” and just. And no matter what the rule-makers decide, there will always be some segment of our society that will cry “unfair”.
I go back to the “7 deadly sins”: lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy, pride. These are ultimately the source of all of the strife in our country.
Example: Who is really the greedy person? The doctor, or lawyer, or CEO who spent years getting the most out of their education and then worked long hours to build their career? Or, the un-educated laborer who simply chose to goof off in school, showed no self-discipline, etc and now wants more than they are capable of earning. I will be the first to admit that there is a huge gap between the haves and the have-nots, but, the root cause of that gap is much more than “unfairness”.
Yes, there are people who are hurting due to no fault of their own. Often, it was simply “bad luck”. Often, it was stupid or immoral behavior on the part of someone else, even someone close to them. Children do suffer for the “sins” of their parents. But, in a “free” country, can we really expect to protect people, and their children, from their own greed and impatience? It is no secret that the person most likely to prey on a homeless person is another homeless person.
Let’s use a real-life contemporary situation: The sub-prime mortgage crisis.
Based on incomes, my wife and I and our children are considered “haves”. However, we have exercised significant self-restraint when it comes to spending. I drive a 14 year old car with 200K miles. We live in a house much smaller than our incomes would suggest. My two sons, with a 7 year age gap, share a room. We give much to our church and its ministries as well to other local charities. Now, with this sub-prime crisis, there are tens of thousands of people, with less income than my wife and I, who got greedy and bought way too much house. They have much more house than we do. Many of them have two big car loan payments that rival their house payment. THEY ARE THE ONES WHO ARE GREEDY.
(Yes - there was some dishonest behavior on the part of some sub-prime lenders. But, that is separate issue.)
Now that they are asking me, the taxpayer, to bail them out. Why? Because I make more than they do? Like I asked earlier, if I have already eaten my apple, how can I expect you to share your apple with me?
Back to the original topic of developing a system that at least attempts to be fair. Atheist, agostic, or theist, just how do we decide what is fair? What set of values do we use?
Let’s look at another contemporary issue: health care.
I tend to agree with the liberals that “heath care” is a “right”. Even if it is not a “right”, I do believe it is the right thing to do.
But, there has to be BALANCE. If the “have-nots” expect the “haves” to pay for their health care, then they must be willing to yield some of the decision-making.
I have argued, “With every ounce of responsibility, there must be a corresponding ounce of authority.”
If I have to pay for your health care, I have the authority to impose some reasonable restraints on your behavior. I will insist that:
1) You shall not smoke cigarettes and cigars.
2) You shall not drink alcohol beverages.
3) You shall not be gluttonous. If you are obese, you shall go on a diet. (If you need medical assistance to achieve that goal, we will accommodate you.)
4) You shall exercise properly.
5) You shall not engage in high-risk behaviors. (sky-diving, motorcycle riding at night, etc)
6) You shall not misuse drugs. (prescription or illegal)
7) You shall engage only in monogamous sexual activity.
Sound familiar? Do you see now where this is going? Even with a secular perspective, we end up with a list of “commandments”. Why? Because as a specie, we are guilty of the 7 deadly sins: lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy, pride.
Per the OT testament, God gave Moses and the Hebrews 10 rules. The Hebrews then developed thousands more to guide their behavior.
Jesus left his disciples with two simple rules: (paraphrasing)
#1 Love God with everything you are and have
#2 Love your neighbor as yourself
And Christians have spent the past 2000 years debating just what that means and turning out all sorts of edicts from the pope and denominational leaders.
The Muslims, with the Koran, are no better.
The USA started off with the Constitution (including 10 built in revisions) and now we have a legal system that is a bureaucratic joke.
Why? Because no matter how well we write laws, no matter the justification for those laws, there will always be people who rebel against those laws. They will find loopholes and ways to get around the rules to serve their own interests. Sometimes they do it just for the sake of doing it. It is in our nature to rebel! Even if they obey the letter of the law, they do not respect the spirit of the law.
You may say that OK, there needs to be rules, but, why should you TRUST me to make the right rules.
My answer: If I pay for the system, I get to make the rules. Don't like my rules, then pay for your own health care. Let's face it - if you were so smart and trustworthy, you probably would not be suffering from your medical condition or wol dhave the means to take care of it.
Again, there are the "innocents", but, so much of our health care issues are life-style related.
In summary, no system (legal or political) is going to be effective for any length of time unless you address the “spiritual corruption” of the human being.
I see nothing that atheism can offer that addresses that problem. Most religions at least attempt to address that problem.
So yes, I have no problem stating that my belief system is better than yours.
You quoted me: "There are obstacles, but, I do think fairness is one of the big ones."
That statement SHOULD have read “There are obstacles, but, I do NOT think fairness is one of the big ones." At 3 AM, I am not operating at my best.
ray at 1:45PM on Oct 23rd 2007
43. Please ignore post #39. Wrong article.
ray at 1:47PM on Oct 23rd 2007
44. #1 Comment: I doubt whether anyone other than a Church librarian will buy or read D'Souza's book. Judging by the excerpts, if God isn't dead, Dinesh is surely trying to kill Him--with boredom. The fact that most highly-educated people are agnostics or atheists (which of course proves nothing) clearly rankles, and he seems determined to protect his intellectual credentials by attacking the intelligence of those who believe differently than he. Good try, Dinesh, but with every excerpt you publish, my opinion of your intelligence drops just a bit.
normanoel at 1:51PM on Oct 23rd 2007
45. Why Dinesh should stop publishing.
Because he is:
1.Wrong
2.A Liar
3.Flogging the agenda of ignorant radical conservatives.
Dinesh is proof the education does not equal intelligence or thoughtfulness.
Enough of this moron.
Alouisis at 1:57PM on Oct 23rd 2007