What is the source of that liberty, equality and fraternity that are now the guiding principles of the West, if not the modern world?
Historians note the anomaly that these principles originated and developed only in Western civilization. In this sense, they are not universal. Of late, however, these principles are being exported to the rest of the world. One may say they are Western in origin but universal in their application.
But where do the principles come from? With the death of Heidegger and Sartre, Jurgen Habermas is now regarded as perhaps our leading living philosopher. Habermas is also an atheist. Yet when Habermas found out that the European Union in its charter gave full acknowledgement to ancient Greece and Rome, but none to Christianity, he erupted in learned outrage.
Habermas's argument is that it is philosophically illiterate to locate the roots of the West in Athens but not in Jerusalem. In fact, Habermas argues that Jerusalem--by which he means Judaism and Christianity--is far more responsible than Athens for the modern principles of liberty, equality and fraternity. In "A Time of Transition," Habermas writes:
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.
Habermas's point is that there is too much arrogance in contemporary atheism. Even the atheist is standing on mountain erected by Christianity. How ungrateful it is to scorn the mountain that is still holding you up! How ridiculous the posture of the man who cannot acknowledge the very foundation that sustains him from below!
This is what Christians mean when they say that America is a Christian society. This is not a call for theocracy or "rule of the priests" but rather a call for a public acknowledgement of the historic role of Christianity in shaping our institutions, our values and our culture. The opinions of several leading Supreme Court justices on church-and-state issues would benefit greatly from a slight familiarity with the history that Habermas is talking about.
Habermas's argument would have struck a chord with the greatest atheist of modern times, the philosopher Nietzsche. Nietzsche argued that if you want to get rid of the Christian God, at least have the honesty and the guts to repudiate the Christian ideals of human dignity, human equality and human liberty.
Yet our village atheists want to have it both ways. They want to reject God but preserve at least certain core aspects of the Christian legacy. Nietzsche would have had nothing but scorn for these little men of unbelief, Lilliputians hurling their tiny javelins at the Christian God while they continue to live off His inheritance.
Reader Comments ( Page 5 of 29)
61. Sorry,
I did an appeal to authority after pointing out that Dinesh did. I think Sartre's view is worth considering but he is not the atheist spokesperson.
oneblood at 3:27PM on Aug 7th 2008
62. Hey NP it's that feak'n common sense thing again - I'm not a historian or a theologian or an Anthropologist or geologist - but doesn't it just make sense?
After all, the world didn't begin when someone decided to create Christianity or Judaism or any other religious sect, it just began and when humans slowly formed societies and cultures they developed rules and dictates that directed them to try and live cohesively. Of course we know by looking back at history who prospered and who didn't. It comes down to the power of persuasion and the gullibility or meekness of the human society in question. And Education: more = less religion, less = more. (My observation only)
TJ at 3:29PM on Aug 7th 2008
63. TJ,
I have never been in more agreement with you. I wonder how much less vindictive all of our atheist, theist debates would be if we all had some cheescake next to our keyboards.
Or pie, or ice cream, or slushees, or chocolate...
Man Teej! I don't have any of those with me!
Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!
oneblood at 3:33PM on Aug 7th 2008
64. oneblood, "...morality or respect for human dignity cannot be based in atheism itself."
For one thing they don't have to be 'based in atheism', the can be based in the notion that we should live and let live.(and that we can torture people into believing that they should live and let live too, of course! Just kiddin'.)
not-pboyfloyd at 3:36PM on Aug 7th 2008
65. not-pboyfloyd,
Israel does not attack her neighbors, except in self-defense. She is willing to live in peace. It is her neighbors which seek her extermination. When an Arab child is killed, Israel mourns. When a Jewish child is killed, he neighbors cheer. That is the diffrence. We abandon Israel at our peril. She is a true friend to this nation.
janesophie1 at 3:43PM on Aug 7th 2008
66. Jane, you sound like my dad. He says that Isrealis cant be touched because they are the chosen people. In the same sentence, he says the the jews are misguided and will come to know christ. Believe me, as a person with jewish relatives (i guess you would call me a quarter jew) i know that BOTH the jews and arabs are not innocent. They are both killing each other for their own ideals.
And when did Isreal become a she???
CaptainCack at 3:47PM on Aug 7th 2008
67. NPB,
Point well taken, I should've been more specific about the default behavior one ends up with when one ascribes to atheism. That behavior is based in naturalism. I think you have to make an exception to the rules of nature in order to come to 'live and let live.'
oneblood at 3:52PM on Aug 7th 2008
68. In spite of Dinesh's usual protestations (no pun intended) to the contrary, this post is, once again, an effort to "apologize" (pun intended) for most Christian's desire to either "convert" non-believers, or, failing that, to impose "Christian" virtues on evryone by force of law. What difference does it make if we see the well-recognized virtues of Liberte, egalite, fratenite as derived from Greco=Roman philosophy, from "natural" philosophy or, as Dinesh wishes to point out, at least partly from "Christian" sources? If these are truly characteristics for which nations or cultures should strive, what difference does it make "who" sugested or promulgated them initially. It only matters if you are trying to imply (as Dinesh said) that those of us who are not believers (let alone the "right" kind of Christians) "owe" some debt to the religion or philosophy that has promulgated these ideals. This is, once again, a back door effort to reiterate "What is so great about Christianity". It is also, as evidenced by one of the recent comments, an opportunity to support the idea that our founding fathers were not interested in freedom FROM religion, so much as freedom OF religion, since, if we owe this "debt" to Chriatianity, we ought to be willing to impose some of the other "Christian" precepts by law, as well.
Harvey at 4:01PM on Aug 7th 2008
69. not-pboyfloyd,
Israel does not attack her neighbors, except in self-defense. She is willing to live in peace. It is her neighbors which seek her extermination. When an Arab child is killed, Israel mourns. When a Jewish child is killed, her neighbors cheer. That is the diffrence. We abandon Israel at our peril. She is a true friend to this nation.
janesophie1 at 4:01PM on Aug 7th 2008
70. If the question were merely that Judeo-Christian beliefs had influence on Western culture and governments then I doubt anyone would argue. The issue of course that this fact is used to: 1) support a notion of causality that is not a forgone conclusion, 2) make an inappropriate negative inference that such a culture and government could not exist in its absence, and 3) falsely imply that because of its philosophical influence that said influence is in any way supportive of the metaphysical claims of Christianity. Those of course are all completely separate issues.
Skeptic at 4:02PM on Aug 7th 2008
71. CaptainCack,
Israel has also committed atrocities, but her Arab neighbors seek her annihilation and ours too! They hate the West and anything associated with it. They seek the extermination of the Jewish people. Israel had not been a nation for more than a few hours when every Arab country declared war and attacked. They don’t want peace. They would rather see violence plague the nightmares of their children than stop the violence.
janesophie1 at 4:19PM on Aug 7th 2008
72. janesophie, you say, "Israel does not attack her neighbors, except in self-defense."
Israel is a theocracy, yes or no? I don't remember accusing Israel of attacking 'her' neighbors.
" She is willing to live in peace."
If you mean making every effort to displace the Palestinians peacefully, then 'I guess'.
" It is her neighbors which seek her extermination."
I'm talking about Palestinians here, not other nations. I'm talking about how 'she' treats 'her' indiginous population.
It must be easy for you to switch to a Biblical 'nation' mode and argue from that pulpit, you being a 'Goddie' and all, but it just won't 'wash' with me sister because you are changing the subject!
" When an Arab child is killed, Israel mourns. When a Jewish child is killed, he neighbors cheer. That is the diffrence. We abandon Israel at our peril."
You must be joking right? That's like saying that 'til recently when a Catholic killed a protestant in N. Ireland all the Catholics mourned but when a Protestant killed a Catholic all the Protestants cheered, or when the U.S. Army kills an Iraqi all of the U.S.A. mourns etc.
" She is a true friend to this nation."
This is meaningless jibberish, why is Bush spreading 'democracy' to Islamic theocratic nations but is happy with the Jewish theocratic nation?
That's hypocrisy.
not-pboyfloyd at 4:28PM on Aug 7th 2008
73. Jane; you could make a case that Israel committed an act which started each of the various conflicts of the Arab-Israeli Conflicts. But the problem with wars is you can always make a case that the other side actually started it.
Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, Syria and Iran do not seek out destruction.
Did you know Menchan Begin (Nobel Peace Prize Winner) blew up the King David Hotel and killed 91 civilians? Self defense, indeed.
Ryan Anderson at 4:31PM on Aug 7th 2008
74. Don't forget too that Israel has nukes.
I've never understood how we could tell Iran they couldn't have them when Israel has a secret stockpile.
Ryan Anderson at 4:33PM on Aug 7th 2008
75. "Israel had not been a nation for more than a few hours when every Arab country declared war and attacked. They don’t want peace. They would rather see violence plague the nightmares of their children than stop the violence."
hmm I wonder why that is? Maybe, just maybe, and I know I'm going out on a limb here...Could it be because they booted everyone out and came on in without any of the Palestinian populations approval?
But their Arab's, screw them. Right?
Jane you're funny.
Botts at 4:35PM on Aug 7th 2008