Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Happy Monkey
The "haves vs have-nots" view of the world is a completely different axis to the religious/nonreligious view. If you don't want to help less fortunate people, and you're religious, you just say that the way things are is the will of God. If you don't want to help less fortunate people, and you're not religious, you just make that social darwinism argument (Or, in either case, you can just admit you're selfish and/or lazy). If you're generous, you can either say that you are carrying out the will of God, or that you have empathy.
The view that the only reason to help the less fortunate is because God says so is a very simplistic ethical system. Your characterization of nonreligious people wanting to let the weak die to increase the strength of the species is one of the confusions you are succeptible to when you equate evolution with religion. Evolution is something that happens, not something to worship.
|
But that's not what the quote was about.
The quote was about people, in their argument against believing in God, say they don't believe in him because there is suffering in the world.
Those same people (the majority of them) do NOT help the suffering.
I would say many people of faith (whatever faith it is, usually) do help suffering people more than atheists or humanists. Whether they do it because God said so or becaue they are good people is open to debate.
But the fact remains that more often, the people who help people in need are people of faith.
Of course, people can always make up excuses not to help people, (or simply say "I don't want to help people"). So I do see your point that not all religious people help, and not all atheists or agnostics don't help. But I would say generally, it's rare that people who do help suffering people complain that they don't believe in God because people are suffering.