Nobody disagrees. Charitable activities of the churches of various denominations and types alleviate much human suffering. A good many of these activities have an accompanying function, propagation of the faith, which to my mind slightly colors the admiration one otherwise feels. My guess is that, in terms of ethical demographics, atheists as a group are probably as active or more active than any sample of theists. The problem with your scenario is that you don't have a test case to compare it with, ie a democratic, non-theist society, in terms of a humanitarian index-- although we're getting there in parts of northern Europe --Sweden, for example --where religious belief is plummeting and where there is wide support for humanitarian activity to be implemented both privately and with taxpayer dollars.
Good parents make people aware of the greater good there is in helping other people. Religious parents who are inhumane produce, for the most part, inhumane children.
Starting any organization takes, you are surely right, deep commitment. That quality and vision are not restricted to the religious.
This argument is a retread, and I am not going to go into it further. I look forward to finishing the Reagan discussion and unbookmarking this nasty thread for a while.
(I am not referring to you, Michael, as I'm sure you know.) |
