Secularism’s Ongoing Debt to Christianity
An honest article in the American Thinker today reflecting on the Judeo-Christian influence on our society from a secularist viewpoint. I don’t agree with all of the points, but refreshing to read nonetheless, as I feel that humanists, secularists and atheists often overlook these issues.
Rational thought may provide better answers to many of life’s riddles than does faith alone. However, it is rational to conclude that religious faith has made possible the advancement of Western civilization. That is, the glue that has held Western civilization together over the centuries is the Judeo-Christian tradition. To the extent that the West loses its religious faith in favor of non-judgmental secularism, then to the same extent, it loses that which holds all else together.
Succinctly put: Western civilization’s survival, including the survival of open secular thought, depends on the continuance within our society of the Judeo-Christian tradition.
Arguably the two most defining and influential Christian concepts are summarized in two verses of the New Testament. Those verses are Romans 14:10 and John 8:32.
Romans 14:10, says: “Remember, each of us must stand alone before the judgment seat of God.” That verse explicitly recognizes not only each man’s uniqueness, but, of necessity, implies that man has free will — that individual acts do result in consequences, and that those acts will be judged against objective standards. It is but a step from the habit of accepting individual accountability before God to thinking of individual accountability in secular things. It thus follows that personal and political freedom is premised upon the Christian concept of the unique individual exercising accountable free will.
John 8:32 says: “And you will know the truth and the truth will set you free.” Whatever the theological meanings that have been imputed to that verse, its implicit secular meaning is that the search for truth is in and of itself praiseworthy.
Although I am a secularist (atheist, if you will), I accept that the great majority of people would be morally and spiritually lost without religion. Can anyone seriously argue that crime and debauchery are not held in check by religion? Is it not comforting to live in a community where the rule of law and fairness are respected? Would such be likely if Christianity were not there to provide a moral compass to the great majority? Do we secularists not benefit out of all proportion from a morally responsible society?
An orderly society is dependent on a generally accepted morality. There can be no such morality without religion. Has there ever been a more perfect and concise moral code than the one Moses brought down from the mountain?
Those who doubt the effect of religion on morality should seriously ask the question: Just what are the immutable moral laws of secularism? Be prepared to answer, if you are honest, that such laws simply do not exist! The best answer we can ever hear from secularists to this question is a hodgepodge of strained relativist talk of situational ethics. They can cite no overriding authority other than that of fashion. For the great majority in the West, it is the Judeo-Christian tradition which offers a template assuring a life of inner peace toward the world at large — a peace which translates to a workable liberal society.
March 25th, 2010 at 9:27 am
Mr Steinrucken (the author of this piece) starts with a rational and uncontroversial premise that modern Western society owes a debt to the Judeo-Christian set of values upon which it is based. Many secularists would agree.
However, he then gets rather carried away, and one begins to doubt whether he has thought through the implications of what he goes on to write.
He implies amongst other things that whilst the elite may be able to be “good atheists”, the majority of less enlightened souls need religion to stop them indulging in crime and debauchery. (His words). He implies that Chritianity continues to be needed to provide the moral compass for the masses.
If he really thinks this then he most certainly cannot call himself a secularist, and he clearly believes that secularism is not a viable model for a civilised society.
This may be music to the ears of those who profess to be Christians, but it does not accurately represent the secularist position. Perhaps it’s no surprise that the comments following the piece are from approving Christians
March 25th, 2010 at 11:48 am
Ah fair enough Jim. Must say I quite enjoyed it anyway
March 25th, 2010 at 12:25 pm
Agreed. Think perhaps I was being a bit harsh there and into my “Martian” mode as my best female friend would say. I don’t think it’s a bad thing that there are articles like this out there. To be honest I think they are more helpful in promoting understanding than the hectoring and abusive artciles one so often finds from both sides of the fence, and I would agree that it’s a refreshingly tolerant article. Thanks for finding it.
March 29th, 2010 at 10:47 pm
I rather like this piece, though I agree with Jim that he gets a bit carried away at the end.
@Jim: If I believe – which I do – that all human life is of value – where would I get this belief from if I was a Humanist? I was lying in bed the other night wondering.
Everyone I love is a person. People are my species. Therefore people are important to me. But if human beings aren’t sacred, I can easily slide off into an approach of thinking that, for example, only nice people are important, if you see what I mean.
That bottom line belief that even a mass murderer or someone with severe brain damage is a uniquely valuable being – where does that come from without God? I believe it because if some people don’t matter then why does anyone matter. I
suppose what I’m trying to say is that I take a lot of moral absolutes from faith – Christianity, done right, demands a lot in terms of forgiveness, humility. My belief that good actions are worth doing whether other people know or not, for example. That’s not evolutionary or social animal stuff. It’s more sophisticated.
I am expressing myself very badly. It’s frustrating. Am I making any sense?