Is God Necessary to Liberty?

Timothy Birdnow

In a discussion about the importance of God to concepts of liberty (see the post below) an atheist argues the God is not necessary.

John Levalley says:

A proposition that belief in God is necessary for liberty to exist should also address the various transgressions against liberty in the name of God. I think that probably under deeper and broader examination it will not be an acknowledgement

Tim replies:

John, you are making a fundamental error in logic in your argument it seems to me. You are trying to equate the behavior of individuals or even some organizations with a fundamental flaw in philosophical reasoning.

The fact is human beings are all fallible and as such subject to mistaken ideas or hypocrisies. There is no dispute about that. Christians call it Original Sin; the tendency to do the wrong thing. Yes, there have been religious people who have done bad things, and there have been good atheists. BUT the Christian or Jew who does the wrong thing is violating the tenants of their own faith. They are turning their backs on what they believe.

Slavery was a case in point. Many avowed Christians supported it. But who ended it? Wilberforce was a devout Christian. So too were those who fought slavery in the U.S., and that because of the necessity of accepting the dignity of human life in all it's forms. That idea would never have occurred to a culture based on atheism. There are no moral absolutes to the atheist, and as a result they can justify means to accomplish what they themselves choose as ends.

One need but look at the Communist world, which was and is officially atheist. People are mere material things and are to be utilized as the ruling class sees fit. It's the matter of being hypocritical to your own standard or having no standard at all. The hypocrite is constrained by his own official stance.

I would also add that much of the accusations made against the religious folk (mainly in Christendom) are dishonest. The Crusades? The Turks started them by murdering over 1200 pilgrims going to Jerusalem. And this was on top of centuries of aggression against Christian nations. And while there were some atrocities by the soldiers (who were not actually sent by the Church, nor under any oath of obedience to the Church but rather to their own often ambitious feudal lord) The same held true of their enemies. It was a time of great cruelty in war. At least the Christians were violating their own beliefs. The transgressions were exactly that. The Muslims were FOLLOWING theirs. Medieval Scholar Thomas Madden explains the Crusades here. https://www.catholicity.com/commentary/madden/03463.html

He also explains that the Inquisition was not what modern scholars make it out to be; often it was an attempt to rein in lynch mobs or overzealous civil authorities who were leading the charge against former Jews or Muslims in Spain. In point of fact the Inquisition did not have law enforcement authority; theirs was only spiritual. BUT they could imprison someone while heading up an investigation, which was often employed as a way of allowing things to cool off. See Madden again. http://www.churchinhistory.org/pages/spanishinquisition/truth-spanish-inquisition.htm

What else have we? The trial of Galileo? Did you know Galileo was entirely free to teach Copernicanism, provided he said it was a theory and not settled science? He refused to do that. He also horribly insulted his king and employer, Pope Urban, calling him "simplicio" in his dialogue. Urban had been a good friend of Galileo. In those days you just didn't insult your king, nor your boss. In the end Galileo was convicted and sentenced to a very light house arrest. It was quite gentle by the standards of the time.

But all three of these cases have been twisted by the modernists to make them appear worse than they are. This was done to paint Christianity in a bad light. I am NOT saying there weren't bad things in all of these. I am saying that, given the times, they were not so terrible as we have been led to believe. If Galileo had done what he did in the Caliphate his head would have rolled on the desert sands.

The fact is the admonitions of Jesus tempered the Christians at all times. The late Roman Empire was brutal and barbaric indeed until civilized by Christianity. And so were the many barbarian tribes who invaded.

There was a Medieval prayer asking God to "protect us from the Northman" meaning the Vikings. Today Sweden, Norway, and Denmark are the very apex of civilized behavior. THAT was the triumph of their Christianization.

And yes the Ten Commandments were quite innovative in their day. There was the blood feud, which meant if someone killed your brother or father or whatnot you could wipe out his whole family. "Thou Shalt Not Kill" ended the concept of the blood feud. Why else do you think it was there?

Ditto adultery. The Israelites had settled in a land where Baal was worshiped (or were about to resettle there) and it was no big deal jumping some temple prostitute. The Commandment against Adultery (and the one against coveting neighbors wives) was innovative for the times. It meant a wife was more than just property; she had rights. And you had responsibilities to her that transcended your personal desires.

I agree; goodness and liberty go hand-in-hand (as the Founding Fathers made clear).

I would also agree there are atheists who want to be good, but how do they determine what is good or evil? It becomes just a social convention, and that then becomes a matter of who controls the convention. The Overton Window means changing the norms, and that is done by control of government, media, and education (which is what we see the Left doing today). In a nation of cannibals cannibalism is just fine. But is it moral? No, because there is Natural Law which says it is not. But the collective will is that it's o.k. That is the inevitable end of an atheistic culture (or a simple pagan nature worshiping culture as well).

Without admitting there is a law built into the fabric of the Universe we cannot have any real standard of behavior or thinking. The human heart is treacherous and it will find a way to fit our desires into our malleable concepts of right and wrong if we let it happen. If religious people can't control that then how can someone without the absolutes control it? They can't.



Michael Smith adds:

I told y'all this was difficult.

I've noted before that even an empiricist like Immanuel Kant said that people were justified in believing in God even if His existence could never be empirically proven if that belief provided the basis for a moral and civil society.

Our founding documents are filled with references to God and the Christian beliefs of the time. Just because those beliefs have faded with time does not change those facts - but it might also be those same beliefs, not necessarily the rituals of any particular sect, are necessary to maintain America in a status where non-believers can enjoy the same benefits as those who do believe.

Perhaps it is time to consider that you are enjoying freedoms provided by the beliefs of others?

I'm not asking you to believe or not to believe, but maybe acknowledging those tenets are responsible for the liberty we have enjoyed and the deviations from them are responsible for the loss of liberty we are currently experiencing isn't the worst outcome.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 10:57 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 1625 words, total size 10 kb.