Download PDF - America

Christians, ranging from Augustine’s defense of using violenceto repress heretics to the “silence” of Pius XII duringthe Holocaust. One could just as easily (and cheaply) blamereason for similar horrors. If the Nazis had not been sointelligently organized, they could not have managed theirfactories of death so efficiently. I say this facetiously, but thewritings of the new atheists are replete with such simplemindedrhetoric from self-appointed champions of reason.Is the Christian Ethic of Love Unrealistic?Some of the new atheists, informed by sociobiology andevolutionary psychology, hold that Christian morality proposesan impossibly high norm of love;meanwhile, the actual conduct ofChristians tends to conform to neo-Darwinian expectations that we care for“our own” and not others. In their view,what we need is a more realistic ethic,less lofty but more effective.Dawkins regards morality as a set ofnormative standards that rewards goodacts with social approval and punishesbad acts with social disapproval, andwithin which an individual promotes hisor her evolutionary self-interestthrough morality. Altruism typicallytakes one of four forms: “kin altruism”toward relatives and especially our ownchildren; “reciprocal altruism,” whichtrades benefits with friends in mutuallybeneficial relationships; generous acts,which accrue “reputational benefits”;and acts of assistance, which enhance anindividual’s own social status. In everysociety morality promotes individualconformity to socially agreed-upon patternsof reciprocity that allow communitiesto function with some degree oforder, regularity and peace. Christianmorality does the same.The new atheists regard Christianlove as a completely unrealistic form ofaltruism. Despite high-flown sentiments,most Christians channel theirresources to their own loved ones ratherthan to the poor. A small degree ofaltruism can be taught by culture, butinstructing human beings to be altruisticis, to use Dawkins’s metaphor, liketraining a bear to ride a unicycle.Altruism toward a stranger is an “evolutionarymistake,” and those who regularlypractice indiscriminate altruism can expect to be evolutionaryfailures as well as impoverished.Advocates of Christian morality can respond to thisposition in several ways.First, it is important to admit that the actual conductof Christians often leaves a great deal to be desired. Ingroupfavoritism and out-group oppression, sometimesagainst one another’s subgroups and more often againstoutsiders, can do more damage to the Christian communitythan any new atheist tract ever could. The new atheistsecho Freud’s denunciation of the contradictionbetween the universal ethic of the Gospel and the historyMay 5, 2008 America 25