Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The Root of All Evil?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

I am Richard Dawkins’ worst nightmare — a former militant atheist and Darwinist, who finally realized that everything he believed about everything that mattered was wrong. My conversion came from many sources, too numerous to outline in a brief post, but one of them was reason and examination of the evidence.

Since my conversion I have come to know many wonderful people whose lives have been transformed for good in truly miraculous ways through their religious faith. One of them is the pastor of our church, Gary Kusunoki, who is a true saint in the traditional sense of that word.

Gary founded Safe Harbor, an international relief organization. He has repeatedly risked his life to help “the least, the last, and the lost.” Gary and his wife have adopted two Sudanese daughters. The first was an infant on the verge of starvation who was brought into his medical clinic. (She was living on a diet of grass, not expected to live through the night, and she fit in the palm of Gary’s hand.) The second adopted daughter was shot and left for dead at the age of nine when the people in her village were massacred.

You can view Gary’s family at our Calvary Chapel website.

I am curious. Where are the Safe Harbor organizations founded by fundamentalist atheist groups like those promoted by Richard Dawkins? And how is pastor Gary’s religious faith the root of anything that could be construed to be evil? In my opinion, his faith is the root of sainthood.

Whom should I admire and attempt to emulate, Gary Kusunoki or Richard Dawkins?

Comments
cfrench Secular isn't the same as atheist. Try again.DaveScot
October 27, 2006
October
10
Oct
27
27
2006
08:38 AM
8
08
38
AM
PDT
"For example: How many athiest organizations were responsible for the inquisition? The knife has two edges." Scary Facts wrote this. Well, the "real" facts are that probably around 100 (78 in one book; 150 in another) people died in two centuries and a half of the Inquisition, many by the Spanish Inquisition of which the Vatican had to suppress because of its excesses. The "Inquisition", like Darwinism, is a complete myth made up by the same secularists who are firmly attached to Darwinism. While there is no excuse for this, how does 100 compare to 6 million Jews, or 3 million Cambodians?PaV
October 27, 2006
October
10
Oct
27
27
2006
08:29 AM
8
08
29
AM
PDT
"Near as I can tell the only people these organizations are interested in helping are other atheists. The charitable works that typify Christian organizations appear to be absent from atheist organizations..." There are plenty of secular organizations that do charitable works: http://www.aclu.org/ That one came to mind...cfrench
October 27, 2006
October
10
Oct
27
27
2006
08:29 AM
8
08
29
AM
PDT
Charlie The statistics you referenced certainly point to more marriages amongst those with "no religion" end in divorce. For every two married people in this group there is one divorced person. This is quite a bit higher ratio than any other group. However, it ocurred to me that there is a critical category missing in the "married" percentage for all groups. There should be a category for married (in first marriage) and married (not first marriage). There may be a much larger propensity to remarry quickly in religious groups (peer pressure perhaps) so that the divorced number is small at any one time but is much larger in comparison to those still in a first marriage. I suspect that is the case but without the data I don't know if non-religious still come out with the highest divorce per marriage rate. The reason I'm suspicious is I've too often heard that one of every two marriages will end in divorce. Even if that's exagerated the overall number of married/divorced for all adults is about six to one which is far more than the commonly tossed about number of one of two marriages ending in divorce.DaveScot
October 27, 2006
October
10
Oct
27
27
2006
08:27 AM
8
08
27
AM
PDT
"I actually think the real problem with Dawkins’ POV is that he believes in the perfectability of man..." What's wrong with that? "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect..." Jesus seems to believe in the perfectability of man... he seems to command it. As Christians, I should hope that we believe in the perfectability of man. Jesus was a perfect man, right?cfrench
October 27, 2006
October
10
Oct
27
27
2006
08:23 AM
8
08
23
AM
PDT
“More than four out of every five adults donated some money to non-profit organizations last year. Eighty four percent made at least one donation during the year, which is a slight decrease from the 87% who did so in 1998. The people most likely to share their wealth with others were evangelicals (93%),…” I would assume the high percentage of evangelicals is due to the fact that churches are 501( c)(3) "charitable" organizations. As far as the inquistion: I don't necessarily he was pointing the finger at the "common Christian," he was merely pointing out the fact that religion was used to rally the troops... sort of like jihad. The leaders may have had their own motives, but it was done in the name of religion.cfrench
October 27, 2006
October
10
Oct
27
27
2006
08:13 AM
8
08
13
AM
PDT
littlejon, You said "I presume we want to say he had free will in so doing / changing beliefs, so God deserves no praise at all. Otherwise, every time someone moves from a faith to a rationalist position do we blame God? " I think we are getting tripped up in semantics. While I don't know what was in the mind of jpark320 meant by saying "praise God" since I have not yet received the mind reading mutation that would certainly be eligible for natural selection, I suspect he is not implying that God forced someone to move to faith. No, rather we are thankful that we have such a choice that is possible to us. Everyone must make a choice, that is the nature of life.Ekstasis
October 27, 2006
October
10
Oct
27
27
2006
07:38 AM
7
07
38
AM
PDT
ScaryFacts: “Are you saying atheists have no morality?” No. But I’d say that materialist atheists have no basis for morality and therefore no basis to call anything “evil.” Their own world view tells us explicitly and repeatedly (and stridently, in Dawkins’ case...) that the world and everything in it—including us—has been created and preserved by a blind process which cares nothing about us or anyone else. Indeed it cannot care and cannot prefer one course over another, because it is non-thinking and amoral. We’re here because we’ve won the abiogenetic lottery and have no more value than any other chemical reaction that might be performed in a science lab. Given these facts, which from the Dawkinsesque perspective are not in dispute, what basis does he or any other materialist have to call anything “evil?” The best explanation for morality that they can come up with is a just-so story that goes something like this: we’re a social animal and somehow being altruistic conferred an evolutionary advantage. And so altruism (or "good" or "love" or some other moral value) was “selected for” and it developed over the millennia. A typical example is here: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/kenneth_krause/shermer.html What’s interesting though is to compare the standard story to what Sam Harris said in the Wired article a couple days ago. He says that there is:
nothing more natural than rape. But no one would argue that rape is good, or compatible with a civil society, because it may have had evolutionary advantages for our ancestors."
Hmmm. The experts clearly tell us that the altruism is "good" and the rape is "bad." No disagreement there, but what’s the basis for that distinction, when both were presumably created by the same unthinking mechanism for the same non-moral reason: to confer “evolutionary advantages for our ancestors?” C’mon: everybody knows rape is bad. Yes, but Why? The only way they can make this distinction is by applying a standard that is higher than either of them: a standard that stands over natural evolutionary processes, that is higher than these processes, that judges and evaluates some outputs of the processes as being better than others. It’s a tough position to be in: their own dogma informs them that no such standard exists—no such standard can exist. Their humanity tells them that they’re more than just very intelligent overgrown squirrels and that some things really are good and other things terribly evil. What to do? As a theist, I think I know where the standard comes from. At least I have a reason for believing in such a standard. The atheist, on the other hand--the rational man who stands on “facts and science”--can only say as Dawkins did recently that this is an example of “an inconsistency that we sort of have to live with otherwise life would be intolerable.” Intolerable, indeed. For once I agree with Dawkins.SteveB
October 27, 2006
October
10
Oct
27
27
2006
07:33 AM
7
07
33
AM
PDT
Christianity recruits converts from a notorious pool. Starting with Jesus himself, missionaries and evangelists have always sought out the worst kind of people for converts. You don't see many Great Men flocking to Christianity, but lots of outcasts, criminals and misfits. Atheism is a luxury that wretched men and women cannot afford. They bring many of their failings with them into the church.russ
October 27, 2006
October
10
Oct
27
27
2006
06:42 AM
6
06
42
AM
PDT
I often hear atheists or agnostics blame their unbelief on all the evil done in the "name of religion." What they fail to realize is that MAN is corrupt - not God and not Christianity. God instructs us to *be forgiving (Matthew 18) * love (which means “an active goodwill”) my enemies (Luke 6:27) *do good to those who hate us (Luke 6:27) *bless those who curse us (Luke 6:28) *pray for those who spitefully use us(Luke 6:28) *be giving (Luke 6:30) *do to men as I want them to do to us(Luke 6:31) *repay no one evil for evil (Romans 12:17) *live peaceably with all men as much as it depends on us (Romans 12:18) *obey laws (Romans 13:1), as long as they do not conflict with God's laws These behaviors are far from evil and are actually necessary if we want to avoid living in chaos.Berly_K09
October 27, 2006
October
10
Oct
27
27
2006
06:21 AM
6
06
21
AM
PDT
from no.1: ex-Militant atheist, wow praise God. No, surely not. The original post said that the impetus came from studying evidence, not revelation. I presume we want to say he had free will in so doing / changing beliefs, so God deserves no praise at all. Otherwise, every time someone moves from a faith to a rationalist position do we blame God?littlejon
October 27, 2006
October
10
Oct
27
27
2006
06:11 AM
6
06
11
AM
PDT
"If you are going to tout a statistic, it’s up to you to provide a meaningful context." Mike, if you are going to demand things like that, then you are going to ruin the general use of statistics.jwrennie
October 27, 2006
October
10
Oct
27
27
2006
06:01 AM
6
06
01
AM
PDT
ScareyFacts: "Are you saying atheists have no morality?" Their morality is more or less derived from the culture they live in. What do you suppose atheists living in the Assyrian culture would have been like 2500 years ago? On what basis would they have been less cut throat and terrorizing? ScaryFacts: "I can demonstrate atheists, for example, have a lower divorce rate than professing Christians. Is this considered in your morality?"" That statistic is meaningless without also considing the marriage rate among atheists. You could go one further and point out that the divorce rate among gay people is much less than the average Christian. Again, meaningless without an accompanying statistic of marriage. If you are going to tout a statistic, it's up to you to provide a meaningful context.mike1962
October 27, 2006
October
10
Oct
27
27
2006
05:40 AM
5
05
40
AM
PDT
ScaryFacts: "For example: How many athiest organizations were responsible for the inquisition? The knife has two edges." The common Christian had very little, if anything, to do with the Inquisition. Rather it was the Catholic leaders and heads of state who were responsible for the inquisitions (plural, there were several of them.) I would say that neither atheism or religion is the primary motive of such things. Rather it is the possessors of power (no matter what convenient guise it falls under) who do most of the damage to humans and society. Most people down thru history seem to just want to eat, sleep, work, have sex, travel, and play with their kids and grandkids.mike1962
October 27, 2006
October
10
Oct
27
27
2006
05:33 AM
5
05
33
AM
PDT
Another quick note on Atheists. When Barbara Walters did her interview on Heaven and it aired on network tv (more on: http://www.beliefnet.com/story/181/story_18118_1.html) She interviewed Atheists, and even attended and filmed one of their "events". Oh yes, they had a retreat and picnic, made to look like your standard church retreat. As if to say, we can have that fun and fellowship as well. The thing that struck me is that, as hard as they worked to gin up a sense of joy and frivolity, it just came across as pathetic. As if they, particularly the kids, were trying so hard to experience joy, but not quite getting there. It was painful to watch, I just felt a sense of sorrow.Ekstasis
October 27, 2006
October
10
Oct
27
27
2006
04:41 AM
4
04
41
AM
PDT
ScaryFacts Non Christians per se are not an organized group but that's a straw man. Atheists certainly form atheist organizations and it's those that Gil was asking about. Near as I can tell the only people these organizations are interested in helping are other atheists. The charitable works that typify Christian organizations appear to be absent from atheist organizations. That was Gil's point and nothing at all you've said shows otherwise.DaveScot
October 27, 2006
October
10
Oct
27
27
2006
04:14 AM
4
04
14
AM
PDT
WinglesS your post no16 -is a mirror .great quote from G.K.Chesterton.Can I use this post on my blog? Cheers.WormHerder
October 27, 2006
October
10
Oct
27
27
2006
04:12 AM
4
04
12
AM
PDT
Going back to the charitable giving topic for a moment, check this out: http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=52 "More than four out of every five adults donated some money to non-profit organizations last year. Eighty four percent made at least one donation during the year, which is a slight decrease from the 87% who did so in 1998. The people most likely to share their wealth with others were evangelicals (93%),..." and, "The people least likely to give contributions included adults who do not attend a church (27% of whom made no donations last year)" Well, while it is true that we all need to give more, it is certainly true that one set of beliefs leads to more giving than another, as demonstrated.Ekstasis
October 27, 2006
October
10
Oct
27
27
2006
04:04 AM
4
04
04
AM
PDT
I actually think the real problem with Dawkins' POV is that he believes in the perfectability of man. He thinks one of the worst things Christianity teaches people is that they are bad and need to work against this. Of course, on this at least, the guy is an idiot because if you look at history, those endorsing this sort of perfectability of man nonsense, be it through education, ideology, economic method, sharia law, etc , have been those most expert at creating immense suffering and evil.jwrennie
October 27, 2006
October
10
Oct
27
27
2006
03:16 AM
3
03
16
AM
PDT
"Non Christians are not an “organized group” so you argument is from silence. But Gil was specific in asking where these “atheist” groups exist. I think you could likely include all sorts of socially conscious groups in many countries including government programs and international relief agencies." This makes it more difficult, since many Christians are involved in otherwise secular aid organizations (like my wife, who worked many years at United Way, as did Jews, Muslims and more at her office). It still stands that atheists do not self-organize to do good, this makes sense since there is no need or desire to self-organize--why should they, according to their worldview? Remove the religious from the world and those altruistic (either selfish or inconsistent) atheists will have a real problem getting anything done (partially because there aren't enough of them spread about). Remove the atheists and good will still flourish.rswood
October 27, 2006
October
10
Oct
27
27
2006
03:14 AM
3
03
14
AM
PDT
Jesus said the problem is with man’s heart. It wasn’t long before the sheep were fleeced and slaughtered. History shows us time and time again that the root of evil is man’s heart! Evolution and religion are often used as a justification for the evil, but if you look closer you will see that the motives are from the heart. The orthodox will never seek conquest, politics, murder, fights, steal, lust, etc because their hope is not in this world. If science can explain the actions of a man’s heart I’ll become an evolutionist.vpr
October 27, 2006
October
10
Oct
27
27
2006
02:59 AM
2
02
59
AM
PDT
"If you are asking if Christians today are sometimes lacking in compassion, there are a number of examples. For instance: Take a look at the average church member in your own church today and ask yourself how much he has sacrificed for the poor. As a group the Christian population of the US doesn’t give 10% to their church, let alone the poor." - ScaryFacts The word Christian can be defined in many ways: 1. Anyone with the spirit of God. Unfalsifiable.. and thus near meaningless definition. 2. Anyone who believes in Jesus Christ. Reasonable, but this definition also happens to include Adolf Hitler as well as, according to the Bible, false prophets, demons and satan himself. "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven." - Matthew 7:21 3. Anyone who believes in, and follows the example of Jesus Christ. This is to me probably the best definition of a Christian. For even in the Bible it is written: "Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?" - Matthew 7:16 In the days following 9/11, too often people see the danger of religious fanticism, without seeing the danger of indifference. While it may be true that Christians, defined as anyone who identifies with the Christian faith, doesn't give 10% to their Church, let alone the poor, more often than not most of such professing Christians aren't living as Christians at all, but rather as practical atheists. This is the opposite of religious fanaticism, the evil of religious indifference. "Bigotry may be called the appalling frenzy of the indifferent. This frenzy of the indifferent is in truth a terrible thing; it has made all monstrous and widely pervading persecutions. In this degree it was not the people who cared who ever persecuted; the people who cared were not sufficiently numerous. It was the people who did not care who filled the world with fire and oppression. It was the hands of the indifferent that lit the faggots; it was the hands of the indifferent that turned the rack. There have come some persecutions out of the pain of a passionate certainty; but these produced, not bigotry, but fanaticism — a very different and a somewhat admirable thing. Bigotry in the main has always been the pervading omnipotence of those who do not care crushing out those who care in darkness and blood." - GK ChestertonWinglesS
October 27, 2006
October
10
Oct
27
27
2006
02:16 AM
2
02
16
AM
PDT
Hey GilD, I also admire pastor Gary as a man who truly walks what it means to follow Messiah. His faith was one of the beacons of light that kept me from abandoning the faith when I left my own conservatism...just one of those examples that there are real men of faith still around. I love his organization and the work they do. You're blessed to have him as a pastor. AtomAtom
October 27, 2006
October
10
Oct
27
27
2006
01:00 AM
1
01
00
AM
PDT
OT: For whatever reason one might want to look at divorce/marriage rates:
The data in Exhibit 8 underscore the accuracy of conventional wisdom in the main: those who identify with one or another of the main religious groups are considerably more likely to be married than those who have no religion. Particularly the "no religion" group was far more likely to be either single, never married or single, living with a partner than any other group. Indeed, the "no religion" group shows the lowest incidence of marriage (just 19%) of all twenty-two groups. In sharp contrast, those identifying with the Assemblies of God or Evangelical/Born Again Christians show the highest proportions married, 73% and 74% respectively.
http://www.gc.cuny.edu/faculty/research_briefs/aris/key_findings.htm Stats at http://www.gc.cuny.edu/faculty/images/image022.gif NO RELIGION 19% married 9 % divorced CHRISTIAN 56% married 9 % divorced CATHOLIC 60% married 9 % divorced Assemblies of God 73% married 10% divorced Evangelical 74% married 7% divorced Total US 59% married 9% divorcedCharlie
October 26, 2006
October
10
Oct
26
26
2006
11:58 PM
11
11
58
PM
PDT
ScaryFacts, For example: How many athiest organizations were responsible for the inquisition? That's very narrow - The Inquisition, rather than atheist groups that behaved in the same manner as the inquisition, or worse. Plenty of examples of those - I wonder even bother naming them, since I'm sure you've heard them all before. Still, 'Plenty of good atheists and bad christians'. Certainly, but those are by the christian standard - because there actually is a christian standard. There's no real atheist standard to speak of; how can there be when you're dealing with a group of people who are united in their belief that certain things do not exist, or effectively don't? A good example - you talk about the comparative divorce rate of christians. Christians look upon divorce with varying degrees of negativity, that's true. But do atheists? Are you saying that atheists would look negatively upon a thrice-divorced man? Couples engaging in premarital sex? Adultery? Polygamy? The list can go on and on. Mind you, I'm sure many atheists WOULD frown upon these things, some more likely than others. Would the stances be owed to their atheism? I would suspect not. In fact, it's my experience - your mileage may vary - that 'good atheists' tend not to like to dwell on just where their 'good' comes from, and why it does - it's important they assert it certainly doesn't come from any god or religion, and change the subject. It's an important disconnect, right up there with Dawkins professing belief in the strictest determinism, but admitting it's strangely important for people to not actually believe it day to day.nullasalus
October 26, 2006
October
10
Oct
26
26
2006
10:33 PM
10
10
33
PM
PDT
An ideology can’t be defined by the actions of individuals that adhere to that ideology. That goes for atheism and Christianity. Just because you know a guy who did some good things who happens to be a Christian it doesn’t mean that all Christians are good and people who aren’t Christians are evil. There are plenty of “good” atheists and plenty of “bad” Christians" Exactly my point cfrench. Thanks.ScaryFacts
October 26, 2006
October
10
Oct
26
26
2006
09:56 PM
9
09
56
PM
PDT
"He means the rate (%) of divorce among Christians is higher than among non-Christians. It’s not a raw number, it’s the percentage of marriages that end in divorce. " No, data demonstrates the Christians have a higher rate of divorce than Atheists.ScaryFacts
October 26, 2006
October
10
Oct
26
26
2006
09:54 PM
9
09
54
PM
PDT
"BTW, I suspect athiests have a lower divorce rate because they get married less." Um... no. He means the rate (%) of divorce among Christians is higher than among non-Christians. It's not a raw number, it's the percentage of marriages that end in divorce.cfrench
October 26, 2006
October
10
Oct
26
26
2006
09:39 PM
9
09
39
PM
PDT
Amen, Brother Scary! An ideology can't be defined by the actions of individuals that adhere to that ideology. That goes for atheism and Christianity. Just because you know a guy who did some good things who happens to be a Christian it doesn't mean that all Christians are good and people who aren't Christians are evil. There are plenty of "good" atheists and plenty of "bad" Christians.cfrench
October 26, 2006
October
10
Oct
26
26
2006
09:37 PM
9
09
37
PM
PDT
"Gil was simply countering Dawkins’ claim that religion is ‘the root of all evil’. Neither he or russ was trying to ‘demonstrate the truth of Christianity’ through the morality of Christians, or the immorality of athiests." Yet, he challenged Dawkins to provide examples of atheists who have done things comparable to his own pastor. Yet, is he willing to provide evidence he is willing to do the same things he expects of atheist Dawkins? I have risked my life to share the gospel with others. Those who take that lightly I don't treat with much respect. "BTW, I suspect athiests have a lower divorce rate because they get married less." And you source for this is...?ScaryFacts
October 26, 2006
October
10
Oct
26
26
2006
09:35 PM
9
09
35
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply