kersten060709

On the homepage

Food shelf

Out There

Cranes

Crane recovery threatened by small insect

Valentine's

Hostility to religion bodes ill for society

Without belief in a higher truth, people may give way to base impulses.

By KATHERINE KERSTEN, Star Tribune

Last update: June 6, 2009 - 7:09 PM

Featured comment

And I was almost beginning to miss her. ;) Is her attack on "reason" by using a total lack of it actually intended to be comical? Does she … read more realize that she is stating that one should believe in God for no other reason than that society might otherwise suffer? (I certainly hope that her faith is deeper than that; if not, she owes an apology.) Is she aware of how wide open to criticism she leaves Christianity and all other religions by citing historical bloodshed? In mentioning that Ancient Romans left disabled babies on hilltops to die, does she hope that it will occur to no one that she is referring to the practice of leaving babies for the GODS to deal with? Does she not realize that referring to two books opposing religion could result in a slew of examples of religious books opposing atheism? Is she of the belief that Christians have never been hostile towards atheists, and therefore this hostility towards Christians is entirely unwarrented? Did she bother to read atheist foundations for an ethical society, or did she just assume what they are based upon Hart's criticisms and... Stalin? Really? I am an atheist, and I promote tolerance. I like diversity of beliefs (I'm happily dating someone who has strong spiritual beliefs). I would have no one deny their religious beliefs out of fear, or merely because it makes one feel more powerful, as Kersten seems to think the primary reason for atheism is. That's as ridiculous a reason to believe in something as, oh, "believing" in God solely to promote a common morality. Final question: Does anyone think that this piece -- or any of her pieces -- would score higher than a D as a position paper in a ninth grade writing class? Now that's something I definitely don't believe!

Close comment

337 comments | See all
Hide reader comments

Print this story

Follow Opinion Exchange on Twitter

More from Commentary

We're increasingly uncomfortable with religion these days.

As a society, we tolerate pastors, priests, rabbis and other religious folks, so long as they confine their message to a vanilla "God is love" theme and bless babies, brides and caskets.

But when religious leaders speak out on the issues of the day -- especially using morally tinged language -- the elite gatekeepers of public opinion in the media, government and academia warn shrilly that a new Dark Age is upon us.

More and more, we see outright hostility to religion -- particularly to Christianity. Consider the wild popularity of a recent spate of best-sellers by "New Atheist" superstars, including Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion" and Christopher Hitchens' "God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything."

Far from being dispassionate critics of faith, the New Atheists are zealous crusaders for their own creed: materialism. They are passionately committed to the idea that the universe is a random accident, that transcendent truth is a myth, and that man's life has no inherent purpose or meaning.

Why the growing audience for notions like these?

Religion poses a serious challenge to our cherished idea of personal autonomy. Unlike our forebears, we define freedom as the right to live as we choose -- to "be ourselves" -- unconstrained by social norms or a morally grounded sense of guilt or shame.

Judeo-Christianity throws a wrench in this, teaching that universal standards of right and wrong trump our personal desires.

In addition, it raises troubling questions about the vision of scientific "progress," so central to our modern age. The mere fact that we are capable of, say, genetically altering or cloning human beings doesn't give us moral license to do so, it cautions.

It's tempting to embrace the New Atheist gospel -- that man makes himself and has no higher judge. But before we do, we would be wise to consider the potential consequences.

What, for example, is the source of the bedrock American belief in human equality? It has no basis in science or materialism. Some people are brilliant, powerful and assertive, while others can't even tie their shoelaces. If "reason" alone is the standard, the notion of equality appears to be nonsense.

And why should we act with charity toward the poorest and weakest among us? "Reason" -- untempered by compassion -- suggests that autistic children and Alzheimer's sufferers are drags on society. In ancient Rome, disabled babies were left on hilltops to die. Why lavish care and resources on them?

We Americans take the moral principles of equality and compassion for granted. Yet these ideas are deeply counterintuitive. We've largely forgotten that their source is the once-revolutionary Judeo-Christian belief in a loving God, who created human beings in his image and decreed charity to be the first of virtues.

Can we reject belief in such a God and still retain the fruits of faith -- including a belief in the dignity and infinite value of each human being?

The signs aren't promising.

Human beings are prone to selfishness, lust, vindictiveness and cruelty. Once we cease to believe that the moral rules constraining us are rooted in transcendent truth, they become mere preferences -- a matter of personal taste, and so expendable.

Theologian David Bentley Hart, a critic of the New Atheists, puts it this way: "How long can our gentler ethical prejudices ... persist once the faith that gave them their rationale and meaning has withered away?"

The historical record here should give us pause. The French Revolution, Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Soviet Union -- all sought to replace Judeo-Christian ethics with reason, and ended in massive bloodletting.

Nor does science offer moral guidance. That way lies Social Darwinism -- the notion of the survival of the fittest. Unless scientific ambition is constrained by religion, it can come to see humanity as just another form of technology, to be tinkered with and perfected with utility in mind.

Hart dismisses the New Atheists as intellectual lightweights. They push "attitudes masquerading as ideas" and fail to honestly consider the likely consequences of their creed, he writes. But he takes a different view of Christianity's greatest critic -- philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, who declared in 1882 that "God is dead."

"Nietzsche was a prophetic figure precisely because he, almost alone among Christianity's enemies, understood the implications of Christianity's withdrawal," Hart has written. "He understood that the effort to cast off Christian faith while retaining the best and most beloved elements of Christian morality was doomed to defeat."

Katherine Kersten is a Twin Cities writer and speaker. Reach her at kakersten@gmail.com -- or join the conversation at her blog, www.startribune.com/thinkagain.

Recent Commentary stories

Google roundup: Hear, hear, for standing up against evil - June 6, 2009

Google roundup: Hear, hear, for standing up against evil - Google may not win its fight against the Chinese government, but bless it for trying. More

Comment on this story | Read all 337 comments | Hide reader comments

About Opinion Exchange

Opinion Exchange is produced by the Editorial Department, which is dedicated to hosting the discussion on a range of issues of interest to Star Tribune readers online and in print. In its new format, it's our hope that Opinion Exhange will create a more dynamic dialogue between Star Tribune readers and the Editorial Board. Many individual posts will be written and signed by members of the Editorial Board and will reflect their own opinions. Daily editorials will continue to represent the institutional voice of the newspaper and be researched and written by the Editorial Department, which is independent of the newsroom.

Subscribe to RSS|Learn more about RSS