Provocative enough title? Maybe it was provocative enough to get you here. But what I hope to do is justify the provocative title with some thoughtful questions. However, I ask that you please do not read this with boiling over emotion. Please calm back down and read this knowing that I am not being mean, but I am trying to be sincere. I am encouraging you to calm down because I know what goes through my head when I read provocatively titled posts about Christianity, so I am not trying to belittle you, but I am trying to relate to you.
Setting the scene
I went to church the other day. This is not an abnormal act for me, but I went to a church that I do not usually attend. Whenever I step into an environment, especially a new environment, I am constantly analyzing practically everything. There are many subjects I can bring up here in my analysis of the church, but I will focus on just one observation.
One of the subjects the pastor spoke about was being active in the community to help others in need. This church seemed to make that a priority and seemed to be excelling at doing that. The reason they were so engaged in helping the community in need was because of a foundational principle in Christianity. The principle is that God saw us in need of forgiveness, and so He created a way for us to be forgiven through His Son, Jesus Christ. Christ was willing to lay down His comfort for the sake of others, therefore these Christians were willing to lay down their comforts for the sake of others.
Analysis
In my analysis of this situation, I asked myself, “What if I were not in a church?” What if I had just walked into a non-church meeting and they were saying that everybody ought to be active in the community to help others in need?
As a Christian I can easily get behind the idea that I should be helping others in need. That is because my worldview is completely centered around someone who saw others in need and helped them (i.e., Christ). So whether the message of helping others in need comes from church or not, it does not affect my receptiveness to the idea that I ought to be helping those in need.
But in my continued analysis of the situation, I asked myself, “What would I feel like being in a meeting like that if I were not a Christian but rather an atheist?”
What foundational principle does atheism have that would cause me to be receptive to the idea of sacrificing my comfort for the sake of someone in need? The answer is that there is no foundational principle. Atheism provides no moral framework whatsoever. In atheism morality is up to the individual.
If I were an atheist, I could either be receptive or hostile to the idea of sacrificing my comforts for those in need. Neither approach would be right or wrong from an atheistic perspective.
The reason is you
Let us say that I were to stand up in the atheist meeting and ask why I should be sacrificing my comfort for those in need. What do you think the final answer would be?
No matter how anyone would answer, I can guarantee you that the atheistic reason for helping those in need would ultimately come back to the self. Someone should help those in need because ultimately it benefits themselves. If anyone wants to challenge me on this, please do so in the comments and I will prove it to you.
But in a Christian meeting the ultimate reason for sacrificing comfort for the sake of another in need is because of what Christ did for us. So the ultimate reason is external to the self. The Christian speaker at the church that I went to continually kept pointing back to Christ as the reason for why we sacrifice for others in need. A Christian speaker would continually point to the fact that we are all sinful and in need of saving, but since someone saved us, we should act in kind to others. The self is removed from the center to the peripheral.
In a Christian meeting the listeners are constantly reminded as to why they should help others in need. But what is the constant reminder of the reason as to why atheists should help others in need? Oddly enough when I hear secular calls, not even atheist calls but even just secular calls for helping others in need, the reason is almost never given or the reason is most commonly one of the reasons I give below.
The inevitable self-righteousness and selfishness in atheism
What reason would an atheist speaker give for me to sacrifice my comfort for others in need? Maybe the speaker would say it is what a good human would do. But do you see the self-righteousness inherent in that reply? If a good human would do that, then what about the humans who would not do that? They are morally inferior.
Maybe the speaker would say because it makes you feel good. In fact, it is not hard at all to find people who give this very answer as to why they help others in need. But what this reveals is a selfish reason. What if it did not feel good to help others in need? Would you continue to do so? Many people would not.
Here are just a couple examples where atheism inevitably leads to either self-righteousness or selfishness. For atheism, morality ultimately is centered around the self and that is why it must inevitably fall into either self-righteousness or selfishness.
If you disagree with my claim, please comment and I will prove my point to you.
Conclusion
If you were to go to a Christian meeting and ask why you should help others in need, you will be given an answer that ultimately completely removes the self. If, however, you go to an atheist meeting and ask why you should help others in need, you will be given an answer that ultimately appeals to some part of the self (e.g., “be a good human” – ego; “it is good for you or society” – self-preservation).
Clarifications, aka, Do not hear what I am not saying
I am not saying that it is impossible for atheists to be humble or self-sacrificing. What I am claiming is that logically, whether the atheist knows it or not, their morality is grounded in either self-righteous or selfishness.
I am also not saying that all Christians are not self-righteous or selfish. Unfortunately there are Christians that betray their worldview and act in self-righteousness or selfishness. But their worldview is logically built on facts that should encourage them to remove any self-righteousness or selfishness.
curtis e schulz 
I disagree on this point:
“morality ultimately is centered around the self and that is why it must inevitably fall into either self-righteousness or selfishness.”
Atheist morality is centred on family and society. We are social animals and function best in family groups. It is here that we source morals. Coincidentally, the same place theists get their morality
LikeLike
Essiep,
Thank you so much for replying. It really means a lot to me as I can only have my thinking refined if someone challenges the thoughts.
“Atheist morality is centred on family and society. We are social animals and function best in family groups.”
Assuming that your statement is correct, why do atheists center their morality on family and society? Why do they try to protect family and society?
LikeLike
They do it because everybody does. Atheism isn’t a moral system, it’s a denial of a theist claim.
LikeLike
Essiep,
Unfortunately that answer is incorrect. Everyone does not center their morality around family or society. If that claim were true, divorce rates would not be nearly as high and we would not see so many broken families and we would see a more unified society. But these are not things we see.
You also in effect contradicted yourself. Your first comment said, “Atheists morality is … .” And now you claim atheism is not a moral system. I agree with you that atheism is not a moral system, but atheists still have to come to moral conclusions (or outright reject morality and claim moral non-realism, but it does not sound like you would do that). How do they come to their moral conclusions?
So I ask again, why should people center their morality around family or society.
LikeLike
It’s how we naturally organise ourselves. Some species are solitary, some flock, some herd. We mostly form societal groups which sub-divide into families. Divorce doesn’t disprove that.
Some societies claim their morality derives from religion, but religion is merely an alternative personal government. Morality comes from society, it can’t come from a deity. Or at least if it does, then there must be multiple deities for there are many moral value sets. Morals change over time and in different places.
How do atheists arrive at their moral conclusions? They think, that’s how.
LikeLike
You still have not answered my question. My question is “Why?”.
I think you are purposefully not answering it because you know that people do this for self-preservation, in other words, for selfish reasons.
You also have not answered why people should protect the family. You are avoiding answering this because you know that you are trying to avoid saying, “because a good person should”, that being a self-righteous statement.
LikeLike
No, your second-guess is wrong.
‘Why’, because it’s in their own and others’ interest to. I support you, you’ll return the favour, we all win in the end. Each contributer utilises their strengths so the group is greater than the sum of its members.
I’m.not afraid of answering your rather obvious question. If that makes each person ‘good’, we need to explain what goodness is. With the above explanation, goodness is not an end in itself.
LikeLike
Essiep,
I believe you just proved my point. Your answer shows that ultimately the reason we help others is because it benefits the self. Hence my main point that atheism inevitably leads to selfishness is correct.
I agree that we need to explain what goodness is. However, from an atheistic perspective, goodness is defined on an individual basis, so declaring something good and another thing bad inevitably leads to self-righteousness (one person thinking their moral standards are better than another’s).
LikeLike
No I didn’t say that. Please be so kind as not to misrepresent my posts
We help others because it benefits all, including ourselves. Overall, it benefits our family or society
I have not proven your one sided point. It’s all a two-way trade based on trust
LikeLike
Essiep,
You are refusing to go to the root of your motivation. What you keep skipping over is that the reason we do actions that benefit society is because it ultimately benefits ourselves. This is the clear evolutionary reason. Self-preservation. If it did not benefit the self, then it would not happen.
Allow me to demonstrate this. Let us assume that I did not want to help others in need. What would you say to convince me that I should help others in need?
LikeLike
And you are ignoring half of the trade . I may be selfish, but I’m also altruistic. The two balance and you can’t ignore that. The net effect is balance; the selfishness is cancelled out.
I suspect you are doing this because you believe atheism is morally inferior.
LikeLike
Essiep,
Thank you for sticking with me this long, but you again did not answer my question. What would you say to convince me to help others in need if I did not want to do so? What reason would you give me to persuade me that I should help others in need?
What you are not recognizing is that the altruism is fueled by selfishness. That means selfishness is primary and altruism is secondary. That is my point. Ultimately the most foundational motivation is selfishness. Of course there are other motivations, but they are not foundational.
I believe that atheism, whent trying to answer questions on morality, will inevitably logically lead to selfishness or self-righteousness. I do not believe that atheists are morally inferior, but I do believe that atheism cannot satisfactorily handle questions on morality without stepping on its own toes.
LikeLike
[…] will inevitably lead to either self-righteousness or selfishness (you can read one example of that here). What my friend said perfectly proved my point. His best way to avoid self-righteousness was […]
LikeLike