It's shouldn't, but it happens all the time. The good that Christians have done is ROUTINELY brought out as an argument why they are the one, real, true religion.
The common thinking is that if someone doesn't have a religious basis for their morality, they essentially are not going to have a sense of morality, and are therefore going to behave immorally. That line of reasoning is fraught with problems.
1. If a person lacks a religious (god-given) basis for their sense of morality, it really does NOT follow that they therefore have no sense of morality.
2. Atheists actually DO have a sense of morality, and can be morally exemplary people.
I'm not arguing that atheists can't be morally exemplary people. Rather, I'm saying that Christianity provides wisdom, guidelines, and a fresh start for morally bankrupt people to improve. To become right with the Lord. Jewish law also provides guidelines and wisdom, but Jews are usually raised with these. Some contemporary Christians are as well, but many have abandoned their faith. Meaning their faithfulness, to the Lord may be severely lacking. Atheists can arguably "better" Christians than many Christians, but that doesn't change where these morals came from.
If you want to go off on a tangent, I personally think morality and wisdom is from the creator of the universe regardless of where it's found. Not that I think all moral codes are good. I don't. Rather, I think all good morals are from the Lord. It's just more difficult to find them through some avenues than others. I'm not saying that slapping a "Christian" label on something makes it good either. Does it adhere to scripture with strong contextual support, or is it just out of context and given a spin that the authors didn't intend? Whether they are actually following what they claim to believe makes a difference.
For example, secular humanism is an atheist worldview that grounds right and wrong in human reason, empathy, and concern for human well-being rather than in divine command or religious authority. A secular humanist would try to behave morally by promoting human dignity, minimizing harm, acting fairly and honestly, respecting individual rights, relying on evidence and critical thinking, and taking responsibility for improving society through compassion, justice, and cooperation.
The idea of human dignity is enshrined in our religious traditions. That we are created (whether in an instant or through evolution) by the Lord in his image and therefore have innate value.
When atheism becomes political, human dignity is the first thing to go. Stalin, Pol Pot, Mau, etc. Theocracies also have a bloody history, but at least they can be judged against their scripture for violating the moral code of their own religion. The leaders of atheist governments cannot. Whatever dear leader wants goes, and the dignity of the individual is thrown into question if not thrown out entirely.
I agree. Just as Christians have a tendency to presume Christians are more moral, I've encountered atheists who presume atheists are more moral.
It's the identical "us/them" mentality kicking in. "Us" are smarter, funnier, friendlier...and more moral.
They often do. However, that is misguided. Christianity gives people struggling with moral issues guidelines to improve their lives. Along with a reason to feel grateful. They can also convert to Judaism in theory, but the process is more difficult.
I'm not disagreeing that anyone born into our culture isn't shaped by Christian thought, which in turn is shaped by Jewish thought. But I would like to point out that if you look at pre-Jewish civilizations, you can find examples where the morality is civilly based, not theologically based. There was nothing religious about the Hammurabi code.
Judaism was the first religion to connect morality to the worship of a deity. That idea has since spread all over the globe. Today, we take it for granted that one of the things religion does is teach a person right from wrong. But it simply was not always that way. For most of homo sapiens' existence, morality has existed independent of religion.
And what that means is that the assumption that atheists will be more immoral is full of holes.
Morality exists independently of religion. I don't disagree with that. What I'm suggesting is that it's easier to achieve a moral life by learning moral narratives and making peace with God (or the universe) than having to figure everything out on your own and being told that you're not intrinsically valuable. If an atheist is reasonably intelligent, privileged, has healthy self esteem, and has a contemplative demeanor, they can certainly live a morally exemplary life. Christianity, however, does not require being smart enough, contemplative enough, or otherwise good enough in the eyes of others to stand a chance.
I'm listening. I'm always open to the possibility that I'm mistaken. But my standards for evidence are quite high. I you are going to make this statement and have me take it seriously, you will need to produce the actual studies that show "religion x" produces people more inclined to "virtue a" than "religion y."
Whose moral code will we use to measure this? It will be important to compare those those who at least try to live by their claimed codes of conduct. Not because those who don't aren't true Scottsmans, but because the underlying moral codes are what's important.
We might compare those whose morality resembles the core teachings of Christianity and Judaism to those whose doesn't. We might also learn what narratives were influential in their lives and where those narratives came from. I suspect that we may find faithful Christians and Jews, conscientious followers of some far Eastern traditions, and some atheists who just happen to be nice people ranking near the top of the list. People who use Christian social circles for power and hedonistic materialists, however, I imagine might rank near the bottom.
Let's say we have roomful of people. Each of whom has a key that opens a door to harmonious existence. The fact that they need to actually use the key in order to open the door doesn't necessarily mean everybody who has a key will use it. But if they don't use it, that doesn't mean it isn't a good key.
