If you write for a newspaper or magazine, there is one sure way to avoid offending anybody, and to appear to the public as an amiable, likable person. And that is to say nice things about religion—even if you’re an atheist. After all, most believers love that stuff, and even a lot of nonbelievers have “belief in belief” and so won’t be affronted. Only petulant naturalists like me will call out someone who, like Francis Collins, publicly enables superstition. And yes, someone has just done it again—and, unsurprisingly, in the pages of the New York Times. Both the Times (which regularly publishes the faith-osculating blather of Tanya Luhrmann) and the New Yorker, which has an obvious policy of never directly criticizing religion, are two of my favorite venues, but both continue to cower before faith. That is a very odd policy for writers who are supposed to respect the truth. But I digress.
In last Sunday’s Times we have the ever-respectful columnist Nicholas Kristof (see here, for instance) affording even more respect to religion—conservative Christianity—in an op-ed called, “A little respect for Dr. Foster.”
Dr. Stephen Foster, it turns out, is an evangelical Christian missionary, but also a surgeon who gives medical help to the afflicted of Angola. Of course that’s a good and selfless thing to do, but Kristof uses it as a springboard to bash atheists who criticize evangelicals. After all, those missionary Christians do good things! As Kristof notes:
Today, among urban Americans and Europeans, “evangelical Christian” is sometimes a synonym for “rube.” In liberal circles, evangelicals constitute one of the few groups that it’s safe to mock openly.
Yet the liberal caricature of evangelicals is incomplete and unfair. I have little in common, politically or theologically, with evangelicals or, while I’m at it, conservative Roman Catholics. But I’ve been truly awed by those I’ve seen in so many remote places, combating illiteracy and warlords, famine and disease, humbly struggling to do the Lord’s work as they see it, and it is offensive to see good people derided.
Is he as awed by secular people who do the same type of good works, and don’t call it “God’s work”?
But, contra Kristof I doubt that good people like Dr. Foster have been derided for their works, although “good people” like Mother Teresa have been rightfully criticized because she didn’t really give much help to those she pulled off the streets of Calcutta, but used the opportunity to evangelize. Kristof doesn’t seem to recognize the difference between criticizing people and the good things they do on one hand, and criticizing their religious beliefs, which can be harmful, on the other. Those Catholics who give medical aid—well, they’re also evangelizing at the same time, opposing abortion and birth control so that the population gets even larger and more prone to famine and disease. Some Catholics even dishonestly argue that condoms are no preventive for AIDS, guaranteeing that even more people will die. Not to mention, of course, the terror instilled in much of humanity who are taught to fear a nonexistent Hell.
Kristof also notes that one of Foster’s sons got polio while in Africa. I’m curious why the child wasn’t vaccinated.
But Kristof does at least mention that secular organizations render help as well, but adds that out that most of the aid workers he meets are motivated by faith:
Most evangelicals are not, of course, following such a harrowing path, and it’s also true that there are plenty of secular doctors doing heroic work for Doctors Without Borders or Partners in Health. But I must say that a disproportionate share of the aid workers I’ve met in the wildest places over the years, long after anyone sensible had evacuated, have been evangelicals, nuns or priests.
But note that this aid by believers is usually combined with missionizing, so that the aid doesn’t come without some attempts at conversion, or even forcing those seeking aid to attend Christian services. I once knew someone who vetted these organizations in Africa, and she told harrowing stories about the religious hoops the afflicted were forced to jump through for their treatment. Doctors Without Borders does nothing like that.
Would the religious still tender so much medical aid if they were absolutely prohibited from evangelizing or missionizing? Some of them, perhaps, but not nearly so many.
But here is what I want readers to consider—and respond to. It’s the old argument that religious Americans do more good works than do non-religious ones. Now we all know that this by no means either justifies the faith claims of religion, or proves that religion has a net beneficial effect compared to nonbelief. After all, in today’s world atheists do nowhere near the amount of harm caused by believers. But still, consider Kristof’s claim:
Likewise, religious Americans donate more of their incomes to charity, and volunteer more hours, than the nonreligious, according to polls. In the United States and abroad, the safety net of soup kitchens, food pantries and women’s shelters depends heavily on religious donations and volunteers.
Sure, it puzzles me that social conservatives are often personally generous while resisting government programs for needy children, and, yes, evangelicals should overcome any prejudice against gays and lesbians — just as secular liberals should overcome any prejudice against committed Christians struggling to make a difference.
The only response I’ll add to this is that I have a great deal of admiration for the work that Dr. Foster does, and for his altruistic impulses behind it. What I have no admiration for is his superstitious beliefs, or the manifest harm that evangelical Christians do to the world alongside the good they do. (For one thing, just look at the hate bills evangelical Christians are promoting and passing all over the U.S., something that Kristof ignores.)
In my view, Kristof’s claim errs in two ways: he mistakes criticism of religous beliefs with denigration of believers themselves, and he implicitly argues that a world with faith does more good than a world of nonbelief, a claim for which he has no evidence. I would love to see him write a piece on an atheist who practices the same kind of self-sacrificing charity that Dr. Foster does (yes, they exist!), and then say that people shouldn’t bash atheists as heartless heathens.
But I am seriously interested in how readers would respond to Kristof’s article, so please read his short editorial and tender your reaction in the comments.
