Robert Meyer
Christianity and atrocity
By Robert Meyer
One of the age-old arguments that has been foisted against Christianity, is the canard about how Christianity is responsible for most of the world's hatred and bloodshed. Of course we would be remiss to deny that in the historical analysis of man's incivility to man, people and groups haven't done evil in the name of Christ. We could list the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the European custom of burning witches and heretics, and that would merely touch on some of the more familiar atrocities. As Christians we cannot deny the black marks of our heritage, or escape being reminded of them.
Having said the above, we are able to answer the critic who uses this rational in justifying his dismissing of Christianity. There are two distinct approaches. First of all, we must insist that a sense of proportionally is brought into the argument. This is a test pertaining to the sincerity of the critic. Does he or she criticize across the board, or do they single out Christianity, as though they have a vested interest in diminishing and impugning it? Secondly we must view and evaluate Christianity as a system of thought, rather than simply evaluating it on the basis of the poor examples of a few select movements or individuals.
When people say that there has been much bloodshed in the name of Christ, it is a legitimate criticism. But do they also then condemn all the killings and genocide done under the aegis of non-theistic worldviews? As an example of this rhetorical approach, people frequently bring up incidents such as the Crusades or the Salem Witch Trials. These are events from hundreds of years ago, yet they are dredged up as though they occurred last week. In the case of Salem, only 19 or 20 people were executed, yet we dare to compare this with schemes of exterminations a la Hitler and Stalin. One man who was a presiding judge in the Salem trials, Samuel Sewell, publicly repented of his role in this hysterical phenomenon. He is the same individual who wrote one of the first American treatises against slavery in 1700.
On the other hand, when have you last heard that more people were slaughtered during the "enlightened" 20th century, as a result of non-theistic causes, than all the people murdered in the name of religion since the beginning of recorded history? Secular intellectuals never seem to mention this fact because it opens the ugly can of worms on top of their ideological cake.
To this charge, the secularist will say that people like Stalin didn't murder others because of a godless worldview, but because they were fanatics. Of course they are trying to head off any implications that secularism and atheism heavy contributed to genocide and atrocities. Here they tackle a straw man when the ball carrier is running around the end. The point is not that every humanist or atheist will engage in a career of axe murdering as a result their unbelief; but that with God out of the equation, they no longer have a foundation from which to legitimately criticize that which they say is wrong. The Russian author Dostoevsky points out that without God all acts are equivalent.
There are two distinct worldviews at loggerhead. The Judeo-Christian position, which claims that humanity, is created in God's image; and the naturalistic worldview, which promotes the belief that man is nothing more then material and energy, which has arranged itself in its current complex form merely by chance. One can only wonder how time, plus matter, plus chance can morph into a moral imperative?
So we have situations where we have people profaning the name of God or failing to apply the necessary diligence to their stated worldview, which has resulted in abuses. On the other hand, we have people believing in a materialistic and evolutionary paradigm that is consistent with such abuses. The difference is that as a Christian I can join the humanist in criticizing the atrocities committed in God's name, whereas they are consistent with the metaphysical position embraced by the humanist. In fact, I can correct them by a proper application of the Christian worldview.
The non-believer however, cannot be intellectually honest without admitting that the atrocities committed by Stalin's purges, Hitler's concentration camps, Mao's red death, Pol-Pot's killing fields, and others, are consistent with assumptions of naturalism and atheism. For example, when Stalin talks of breaking a few eggs to get an omelet, he is applying a standard of "survival of the fittest" to justify his ruthless purges. We might note that animals out in the forest or jungle appeal to the sharpest teeth and fastest legs in deciding who survives. What did Hitler do but give a militaristic interpretation to the philosophy of Nietzsche?
If man is merely another animal, albeit more advanced, why should he not merely develop more cunning devices to ensure his survival, rather than a moral system that is sometimes self sacrificial? Humanists believe that man is on an ever upward progressive journey. But if he is a merely a by-product of a cosmic accident, why should we expect a continuous flow in a progressive direction? Could he not easily go in the opposite direction by chance? Indeed, the beginning of the 20th century was crowned with optimism, as a new gilded age of human "enlightenment" which would end all armed conflict. Then came WWI and the most violent century humanity has ever known followed along.
The person claiming the Christian world and life view has created the worst atrocities of history, is not merely wrong, but has a vested interest in his disregard of the obvious.
© Robert Meyer
One of the age-old arguments that has been foisted against Christianity, is the canard about how Christianity is responsible for most of the world's hatred and bloodshed. Of course we would be remiss to deny that in the historical analysis of man's incivility to man, people and groups haven't done evil in the name of Christ. We could list the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the European custom of burning witches and heretics, and that would merely touch on some of the more familiar atrocities. As Christians we cannot deny the black marks of our heritage, or escape being reminded of them.
Having said the above, we are able to answer the critic who uses this rational in justifying his dismissing of Christianity. There are two distinct approaches. First of all, we must insist that a sense of proportionally is brought into the argument. This is a test pertaining to the sincerity of the critic. Does he or she criticize across the board, or do they single out Christianity, as though they have a vested interest in diminishing and impugning it? Secondly we must view and evaluate Christianity as a system of thought, rather than simply evaluating it on the basis of the poor examples of a few select movements or individuals.
When people say that there has been much bloodshed in the name of Christ, it is a legitimate criticism. But do they also then condemn all the killings and genocide done under the aegis of non-theistic worldviews? As an example of this rhetorical approach, people frequently bring up incidents such as the Crusades or the Salem Witch Trials. These are events from hundreds of years ago, yet they are dredged up as though they occurred last week. In the case of Salem, only 19 or 20 people were executed, yet we dare to compare this with schemes of exterminations a la Hitler and Stalin. One man who was a presiding judge in the Salem trials, Samuel Sewell, publicly repented of his role in this hysterical phenomenon. He is the same individual who wrote one of the first American treatises against slavery in 1700.
On the other hand, when have you last heard that more people were slaughtered during the "enlightened" 20th century, as a result of non-theistic causes, than all the people murdered in the name of religion since the beginning of recorded history? Secular intellectuals never seem to mention this fact because it opens the ugly can of worms on top of their ideological cake.
To this charge, the secularist will say that people like Stalin didn't murder others because of a godless worldview, but because they were fanatics. Of course they are trying to head off any implications that secularism and atheism heavy contributed to genocide and atrocities. Here they tackle a straw man when the ball carrier is running around the end. The point is not that every humanist or atheist will engage in a career of axe murdering as a result their unbelief; but that with God out of the equation, they no longer have a foundation from which to legitimately criticize that which they say is wrong. The Russian author Dostoevsky points out that without God all acts are equivalent.
There are two distinct worldviews at loggerhead. The Judeo-Christian position, which claims that humanity, is created in God's image; and the naturalistic worldview, which promotes the belief that man is nothing more then material and energy, which has arranged itself in its current complex form merely by chance. One can only wonder how time, plus matter, plus chance can morph into a moral imperative?
So we have situations where we have people profaning the name of God or failing to apply the necessary diligence to their stated worldview, which has resulted in abuses. On the other hand, we have people believing in a materialistic and evolutionary paradigm that is consistent with such abuses. The difference is that as a Christian I can join the humanist in criticizing the atrocities committed in God's name, whereas they are consistent with the metaphysical position embraced by the humanist. In fact, I can correct them by a proper application of the Christian worldview.
The non-believer however, cannot be intellectually honest without admitting that the atrocities committed by Stalin's purges, Hitler's concentration camps, Mao's red death, Pol-Pot's killing fields, and others, are consistent with assumptions of naturalism and atheism. For example, when Stalin talks of breaking a few eggs to get an omelet, he is applying a standard of "survival of the fittest" to justify his ruthless purges. We might note that animals out in the forest or jungle appeal to the sharpest teeth and fastest legs in deciding who survives. What did Hitler do but give a militaristic interpretation to the philosophy of Nietzsche?
If man is merely another animal, albeit more advanced, why should he not merely develop more cunning devices to ensure his survival, rather than a moral system that is sometimes self sacrificial? Humanists believe that man is on an ever upward progressive journey. But if he is a merely a by-product of a cosmic accident, why should we expect a continuous flow in a progressive direction? Could he not easily go in the opposite direction by chance? Indeed, the beginning of the 20th century was crowned with optimism, as a new gilded age of human "enlightenment" which would end all armed conflict. Then came WWI and the most violent century humanity has ever known followed along.
The person claiming the Christian world and life view has created the worst atrocities of history, is not merely wrong, but has a vested interest in his disregard of the obvious.
© Robert Meyer
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
