Christianity is a healthier lifestyle than atheism

It is hardly unreasonable that, in the light of the New Atheist literature, you might feel compelled to admit that Christianity has had its fair share of moral horrors. Case after case we see Christian-inspired immorality: the needless slaughter of abortion doctors, the fervent burning of witches; the multiple crusades against Islam; the refusal of contraceptives; the practices of the Westborough Baptist Church; the subjugation of women – you do not have to go far to find them. How, then, could anybody concede that Christianity is a healthier position than atheism? Is it not clear that it is the cause of so much suffering? It is my intention to demonstrate why I believe, as an agnostic, that Christianity is a far more constructive lifestyle choice than atheism. My argument is formulated as such: P1) The gospel message is morally good P2) Christians actively practice the gospel message C1) Christianity is a healthy lifestyle In order for my argument to be refuted, premises one and two must be addressed. Premise #1: The Gospel Message is Morally Good If New Atheist literature is all you have to go by, I can assure you that “religion” does not poison everything. If a Christian is asked for justification for a good deed, it would not be unreasonable for him to refer to the teachings of Jesus, the pillar of orthodox Christianity. Whilst the Old Testament is renowned for its barbaric portrayal of God, it is generally accepted that Jesus “fulfilled” the laws of the Old Testament both through his teachings and his crucifixion. Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished… [1] Here we see Jesus’ claim to fulfil and his reference to his crucifixion, “until all is accomplished. ” One example is the ceasing of animal sacrifices; theology asserts that Jesus’ atonement acted as the ultimate scapegoat. With this in mind, it is worth looking at what the New Testament has to say. It is undeniable that the teachings of Jesus are considered to be morally good. His respect at the Samaritan widow at the well was culturally unheard of; his overall respect of women was unorthodox; his teachings on poverty were inspiring; his washing of the servant’s feet was humble and his actions towards the ailed were respectable. From the stories as described by the gospels, we can conclude that the gospel message is morally good. It is not surprising, therefore, that there is only one doctrine deemed immoral by society’s standards: the doctrine of Hell. I will reject this refutation because it does not contain any injunction towards the Christian. Unlike the Qur’an, which advocates hostility towards infidels, the doctrine of Hell is not a command but merely that, a doctrine. It is this point which I wish to press: without this command, the doctrine oughtn’t impact the Christian’s lifestyle. Thus, I maintain my first contention, that the gospel message is morally good. Premise #2: Christians actively practice the gospel message When I refer to the term “Christians”, I am speaking in infinitely broad terms. What exactly is a Christian? In my opinion, a Christian is anybody who accepts and lives by the teachings of the New Testament. Except, they don’t. There is a very pointed difference between what Christians ought to be doing and what Christians actually are doing. As C. S. Lewis remarks: “When a man who accepts the Christian doctrine lives unworthily of it, it is much clearer to say he is a bad Christian than to say he is not a Christian. ” [2] It is for this reason that I wish to argue that Christianity, in its “good” form, leads to the healthy lifestyle which I am defending. Let us name it “active” Christianity. Active Christianity abides by what Christians ought to do. This is manifest in biblical scripture: Proverbs describes the richness of the giver; Luke irks all of Christianity by issuing them to sell all of their possessions; Acts describes the goodwill of the early Church [3] – perhaps John puts it the most succinct: “But if anyone has the world's goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God's love abide in him? ” [4] These imperatives would be considered by most to be moral tenets. An active Christian has these moral commands taught to him for fifty-two Sundays a year in addition to personal prayer and biblical study. Thus, we can expect an active Christian to be adhering to these doctrines by donating to the poor, helping the sick and generally aiding those in need. [5] What, then, say the statistics? If our reasoning is anything worthy of credit, we should expect positive input from active Christians. Lo, the odds are ever in our favour. Alain de Botton, an outspoken atheist, published “Religion for Atheists”, a book detailing everything secularists can benefit from religion. Botton writes on religious benefits concerning education, community, art, architecture and good will. [6] Perhaps a notable example is that of encouraged kindness amongst Christians; “. .the Church asks us to leave behind all attachments of Earthly status. It is the inner values of love and charity rather than the outer attributes of power and money that are now venerated. ” [7] The Hoover Institute is not sparing in its stark revelation of secular giving rates. According to the statistics, 91% of believers are more likely to donate money to charity compared to a 66% chance amongst secularists. The study also shows how believers are 67% more likely to volunteer time, 23% percentage points above secularists. The most interesting point made, however, is that, “practicing a religion is more important than the actual religion itself. ” [8] Conclusion: (Active) Christianity is a healthy lifestyle If we accept both premises one and two, we can conclude that Christianity is, in fact, a healthy lifestyle. With regular exposure to the morally good New Testament, Christians will be more likely to practice moral teachings. Unlike atheism, which has no imperatives to its name, active Christianity is a lifestyle choice, one that benefits both society and the individual. Indeed, those of religious affiliation are reported to have several medical benefits. [9] Is it not a leap of logic to accept that active Christians, living by a morally good doctrine, is a healthier lifestyle choice than atheism? I think not! [1] Matthew 5 : 17-18, NIV [2] C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, p4 [3] Proverbs 11: 24-25; Luke 12: 33; Acts 2: 45, ESV [4] 1 John 3: 17, ESV [5] Spiritual disciplines taught: Philippians 4: 8 combined with 2 Timothy 3: 16, ESV. [6] Alain de Botton, Religion for Atheists, contents page [7] Alain de Botton, Religion for Atheists, p32 [8] The Hoover Institute, Religious Faith and Charitable Giving, reference coming [9] The American Psychologist, reference coming