There’s a new study out that says atheists don’t donate as much money to charities as religious people do. Of course, the title of this article is overly broad, and nearly every atheist would deny its premise, but there is nothing inherent in the worldview of atheism to support the claim that altruism (helping people) can be substantiated empirically. There is nothing in our DNA that says “Thou shalt” or “thou shalt not.”
New Atheist Richard Dawkins has a problem on his hands since he believes that “human super niceness is a perversion of Darwinism because, in a wild population, it would be removed by natural selection. . . . From a rational choice point of view, or from a Darwinian point of view, human super niceness is just plain dumb.”
The operating presuppositions of the atheistic evolutionary worldview cannot objectively and empirically account for a required morality. In fact, a case could be made that helping people who can’t make it on their own is contra-Darwinian.
So it’s rather inconsistent for an atheist to donate to an organization to keep the infirm alive. They will only taint the gene pool.
Atheists don’t seem to have trouble donating to organizations like the American Atheists and The Freedom From Religion Foundation to support anti-Christian billboards and legal actions against school boards and city councils.
There is logic to atheists who use their money on unproductive anti-Christian campaigns instead of helping their evolved fellows. And it may be one of the reasons that conservatives, who are generally more religious, donate more to charitable causes:
“One of the continued debates surrounding charitable giving centers upon whether liberals or conservatives donate more to charity — and it’s a question that one expert wasted no time answering while speaking recently about the current state of philanthropy in America.
“‘There’s no question that conservatives give more to charity,’ Rick Dunham, president and CEO of Dunham+Company, told the Blaze. ‘The research objectively demonstrates that … conservatives tend to be more religious and therefore they give more to charity.’
“In addition to these claims, which are consistent with some of the past research highlighted on the subject, Dunham, whose company assists with brand strategy and fundraising, was sure to note that it’s not as though non-believers don’t have a culture of giving.
“While some non-theists are charitable, he explained that individuals who attend religious services donate six times more than those who don’t, as ‘giving is more of a lifestyle’ for them.”
Survival of the fittest is the operating premise. Charity disrupts the natural outcome of the strong over the weak. Consider the film Quigley Down Under (1990), starring Tom Selleck and Alan Rickman. American Matthew Quigley (Selleck) is hired by Australian Elliot Marston (Rickman) to kill aborigines. “Quigley, who believed he was hired to shoot dingoes, finds the idea abhorrent.”
Marston considered the aborigines less than human. Putting a bullet in them or forcing them off a cliff was no different from killing a dingo or wolf.
“Nature, red in tooth and claw,” as Alfred Lord Tennyson put it:
Who trusted God was love indeed
And love Creation’s final law
Tho’ Nature, red in tooth and claw
With ravine, shriek’d against his creed.
“If nature is purposeless and heartless,” and according to consistent atheism it is, “how can we believe in creation’s final law? But, as a Christian, how could [we] not?”
Atheists are operating with borrowed moral capital because they can’t find any of their own giving what they claim are the only things that exist – impersonal matter animated by electricity.