On the question of evil perpetrated by proclaimed believers in a philosophy, or the good done by proclaimed believers in a philsophy.
There’s a lot of banter about “who killed whom,” and whether theists or atheists have done more good works (orphanages, scientific discoveries of better species of wheat, whatever). I think this is misdirected, as you cannot judge a philosophy by those who fail to live up to it or indeed by the actions of a few. You have to judge the philosophy itself.
In terms of practical consequences, when judging a philosophy the two most meaningful questions are: “is a given philosophy more or less likely to be consistent with the commission of a grave evil?” and “is a philosophy more or less likely to promote the common good?” The answer to the first question is critically important, because if a philosophy is consistent with the commission of a grave evil, then that philosophy is self-evidently bad (practically). If honest, even AntiTheist would have to agree, as he or she believes that theism is wrong and results in “bad things”. The answer to the second question is an indicator of how closely a given philosopy conforms to the Truth.
If a philosophy is practically bad, it must be abandoned as detrimental to the self and society. That is why people get so upset and defensive about defending their philosophy as being correct.
So, we are comparing atheism and theism. There is some debate as to what “atheism” is, but for my purposes both “lack of belief without evidence” and “disbelief” in God can be equivalent. As for Theism, for simplicity, I will confine myself to Catholicism because that is what I assert is the philosophy that holds the
fullness of Truth. (Other philosophies, even atheism, can have aspects of the Truth).
At it’s core, Catholicism preaches love God, in the person of the Trinity, above all other things and love for neighbor as for self, including enemies, to the point of self sacrifice. Catholicism admonishes both the active promotion of the common good, as well as both avoidance of and opposition to evil.
Any evil deed commited by a Catholic is inconsistent with Catholicism
itself. Therefore, for both the individual and for society, Catholicism as a philosophy is
ordered towards establishing order, promoting good, and suppressing evil.
In contrast, atheism, does not preach anything other than either 1) lack of belief or 2) disbelief. Atheism, in either form,
by itself, stands for nothing. An atheist may believe whatever he or she wants, and different atheists can have radically different moral conclusions regarding actions.
However, nothing stops an atheist from taking a more sinister road. For example, nothing about atheism prevents Stalin (an atheist) from stating that his murderous pogroms were
good. While Leela and other atheists may naturally recoil from such a statement and provide various reasons why Stalin’s pogroms were NOT good (maybe even Evil), nothing about atheism as a philosophy
itself contradicts Stalin’s position. Atheism is consistent with Stalin’s actions and his beliefs regarding the rightness of his actions.
AntiTheist has argued that you cannot logically be lead from atheism to evil (Stalin, killing all religious people, etc.) Upon further reflection, in a vacuum, AntiTheist is correct - nothing
compels an atheist to do evil.
However, atheism is consistent with Stalin or any other evil. This should be self evident; there’s a
reason why Soviet Russian and China have adopted atheism as the state religion, because nothing in atheism *prevents *the belief that the
state has absolute uncontested authority over everything, including life and death, and those in power can do what they want with no limits.
So, the crux of the problem is that atheism,
as a philosophy in and of itself, is not inconsistent with the commission of what nearly everyone acknowledges is grave evil. While an atheist may properly deny that atheism leads to or compels evil,
it is undeniable that evil is consistent with atheism. Whether that consistency derives from a lack of fear of eternal consequences, from the unprovability of a given ethical standard, or something else, is a matter of interesting speculation.
If so, then atheism is a philosophy to be rejected as bad for both the individual and society. Ironically, even if atheism were the Truth (a disputed point) for the same reason atheism should be rejected as a philosophy because it is inherently dangerous in that it is consistent with evil - as demonstrated by history.
Turning to the second question posed above, atheism is at best neutral on the second question (whether it is more or less likely to promote the common good). Again, the decision of the atheist to support the common good is up to the atheist; atheism in either form neither confirms nor denies promotion the common good.
The question then becomes, “which philosophy to adopt?” Obviously I would advocate for Catholicism because I assert it proclaims the fullness Truth (I’ve advanced arguments a plenty on why, but leave them off from here). Catholicism
as a philosophy meets the test of both questions, whether it is consistent with evil (it actively opposes evil) and whether it promotes the common good (it actively requires adherents to promote the common good). The assertions to the contrary are one of 1) false, 2) lies, or 3) misdirected onto a fallen person instead of on the philosophy itself.
The atheist might challenge, why not Budhhism or Islam or Hinduism, Hellenism, or the Baptist Church down the road? That’s a different question, directed towards which of all of the race horses in the race is the winner, but the question itself does not change the above conclusions - especially the conclusion that atheism is a broken philosophy.
