There is an old saying, which fits the village atheist
right down to the last shirt button: “Figures don’t lie, but liars figure.”
When I see professional would-be point-makers throw out stats and numbers with
few if any references, I always remind myself that statistics do not lie, but
liars can use statistics. My suspicion rises. Let’s look at some recent
claims.
Atheist Sam Harris makes much of the idea that living
standards in primarily “atheistic” countries are much more positive than those
in “unwaveringly religious” nations. As usual, he does not relay the whole
truth. Digging just below the surface of his claims illustrates how biased
statistical presentations can be. For example, he cites the United Nations
Human Development Report (2005) in order to support his boast that nations
in which atheism prevails are safer, healthier, and more prosperous than religious
nations. Such a claim hides too many economic assumptions to spell out here at
length, but one thing is certain: the nations he lists—Norway, Iceland,
Australia, Canada, Sweden, Switzerland, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, the
United Kingdom—all were built by Christian civilization and have rich
Christian tradition infused at their root. Their prosperity today results from
living off of the moral and social capital that the Christian faith graced them
with long ago.
Actual comparative studies (not
politically-self-motivated reports from would-be world governments) have shown
just the opposite of what Harris (and the now herd of atheist voices following
him) claims.
(This article is an excerpt from the author’s The
Return of the Village Atheist, available in our store.)
One such study, done by Sweden’s own Institute of
Trade, compared median household income in Sweden with that of the U.S., and
found that the Swedes fell far below the American average, and even below the lowest
socioeconomic group in America.1 This
result even took into account “purchasing power,” that is, the amount of actual
goods you can buy in different national markets with an equivalent amount of
money. The obvious conclusion? Sam’s “atheism” hardly accounts for prosperity.
Honest hard work, productivity, and thrift bring prosperity—and these are
classically Christian virtues born out of the Protestant work ethic.
Now, Sam might immediately retort that atheists work
hard and can be productive, too. I would not object. But when they do so they
are carrying out the dominion mandate found in Genesis 1:28
and Matthew 28:18–20—a mandate that is essential to and
inseparable from Christian faith, and which has no necessary or logical tie to
atheism. In short, by being industrious and productive, atheists are acting
like good Christians. Of course, in most of the nations mentioned—in which
greater levels of atheism prevail—the level of atheism has grown side-by-side
with increased socialism. The government welfare programs destroy incentives
for greater productivity because everyone knows that their checks will be the
same whether they out-produce the next guy or not. Then they go to the doctor
on someone else’s dollar. Sloth and welfare-theft are taking over, and the
borrowed capital will only last so long. At least one mighty Communist nation
that once vaunted its image with hard work—hammer and sickle—learned that
lesson the hard way.
“Charitable”? “Giving”? Really?
The most laughable part comes when Sam begins arguing
about “charitable giving.” He knows he cannot honestly claim that atheists give
more to charitable causes than religious folk, so he uses the word
“charitable,” but narrows the definition of the word almost into nothingness.
He says,
Countries with high levels of atheism are also the
most charitable both in terms of the percentage of their wealth they devote to
social welfare programs and the percentage they give in aid to the developing
world.2
Such a fact might shock the average casual reader
until he sniffed out Sam’s fishy “terms.” Then we, together, have a good full
belly-laugh. If by “devote” and “give” Sam means “devote through government
confiscation, and give by forced taxation,” then he can hardly call it charity.
Is this the charity of atheism? “Giving” when you may not want to, an amount
you may not want to, and to be spent somehow you may not care for? What a blessed
assurance! My, how charitable our atheist is with other people’s money. No,
charity is voluntarily given. If it’s tax-generated, it ain’t charitable.
Besides, boasting that less religious countries take more in government welfare
reveals about as much as pointing out that Christians put more in church
offering plates than atheists do. What? Really? Get outta here!
If, however, Sam means “devote” and “give” in the true
sense of “charity,” then his claim is so embarrassingly bogus that not even a
third-world tax bureau would accept his tax returns. Unfortunately for Sam, he
wrote this nonsense in his Letter to a Christian Nation just a few
months before the actual science was done on charitable giving. November
2006 saw the release of the definitive in-depth study on the subject of
charitable giving: Who Really Cares? by Syracuse professor Arthur
Brooks. Results? Across the board, in every category, accounting for every
variable, no matter how you slice the pie, the single biggest factor behind
charitable giving is . . . religious faith.3
The amount of private charitable giving from American
individuals alone (not including foundations, corporations, etc.) could easily
finance the entire gross domestic product of Sam’s more “atheistic” nations,
Sweden, Norway, or Denmark.4
The results must be alarming for all secularists. The
working poor in America give more than the poor on welfare who have the same
income. In fact, the working poor give a larger percentage of their income than
the middle class. Two-thirds of American private donations go to other than
religious activities (in other words, about 70% in places other than church
offering plates). Yet, religious people are more likely to donate even to
secular causes than non-religious people are. America gives as much to foreign
aid as other nations do, the difference is that we do it mostly through private
charity and not government aid. We give it freely—not through socialist
government compulsion. No European nation comes close to us in freely-given
charitable donations.
Dr. Brooks, who conducted the study, explains that
“atheistic” Europe continues to criticize the government foreign aid from
religious America because they have been socialists for so long, and they have
lost all concept of private giving. He writes,
One reason is that giving at the private level is a
foreign concept to them. . . . There is so little private charity in Europe
that it is difficult to find information on the subject—so irrelevant is it
that few researchers have even bothered to investigate it recently.5
Sam and other secularists might like to argue that
high taxation for welfare actually works better than private giving, since most
people would not think to give on their own without government intervention.
This, of course, not only would ignore the facts of the study, but would just
further illustrate my point: secularists, even your most loving atheists, are
just not known for charitable giving on their own accord.
In the end, the “charitable giving” plea for atheism is
a pitiful lie. The scientific evidence from every angle concludes the obvious:
Religious people are far more charitable than
non-religious people. In years of research, I have never found a measurable way
in which secularists are more charitable than religious people.6
So, far from Sam’s boast, atheism does not appear to
lead to a land flowing with milk and honey. Rather, high-crime, higher
taxation, lower than the lowest American living standard, and less charitable
giving all seem to trail organized unbelief. This is not to mention the history
of government murder, but we can talk about that another time.
(Get the rest of the author’s The
Return of the Village Atheist here.)
Notes:
2.
Sam Harris, Letter
to a Christian Nation, 46.(
)
)
3.
Arthur C. Brooks,
Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism
(America’s Charity DivideCWho Gives, Who Doesn’t, and Why it Matters) (New
York: Basic Books, 2006).()
)
4.
Brooks, Who
Really Cares, 3.()
)
5.
Brooks, Who
Really Cares, 120.()
)
6.
Brooks, Who
Really Cares, 34.()
)
Filed Under: Apologetics, Articles, AtheismTagged With: Atheism, charity, private property, sam harris, United Nations, welfare
