Human Dignity: The "Effluvium" of Christianity
By Anthony Rogers
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Introduction 

Though atheists anxiously want to be thought of as the paramount defenders of rationality and science as well as of human dignity and freedom,1 insofar as they advocate worldviews that are destructive of both meaning and morals, worldviews therefore that cannot possibly be true in any meaningful or obligatory sense, they make it exceedingly hard for others to share their overinflated self-assessment or the value of their proposed service to the world. As the history of philosophy has provided ample attestation, atheists have proven themselves incapable of constructing a justifiable and workable worldview on god-denying premises, and not for a want of trying. When left to their own sin-guided devices, to nothing but the internal inconsistencies of their own philosophical perspective(s), atheists end up intellectually warring with themselves and living conflicted lifestyles, lifestyles wherein they profess one thing but must live in terms of another, all the while routinely and ignobly putting the problem out of mind.  

Atheism Undermines Human Dignity 

One of the areas where their failure comes acutely to the fore and their vain effort to hold down the truth in unrighteousness is exposed is on the issue of human dignity. The religious and philosophical foundations for human dignity have historically been located in the Christian worldview, and for good reason: only in Christianity is man recognized for what he is – the image bearer of God. But in atheism, not to mention all lesser theisms where the gods (or god) in question are either finite or not exhaustively personal,2 there is not only an absence of any comparable belief that could warrant this idea, instead there is a substitute account of man’s origin and constitutive nature that is altogether antithetical to the notion that man has any special value.  

In one of those candid moments for which atheists usually kick themselves later, realizing that they’ve unwittingly given up the store and provided no end of trouble for the cause (often followed by the proverbial thirty-nine lashes minus one which they receive from their co-conspirators for letting the dirty little secret out), James Rachels, professor of philosophy at the University of Alabama and ardent defender of atheism and its creation myth (evolution), at least until he was brought down by cancer in 2003, said:  

After Darwin, we can no longer think of ourselves as occupying a special place in creation – instead, we must realize that we are products of the same evolutionary forces, working blindly and without purpose, that shaped the rest of the animal kingdom. And this, it is commonly said, has deep philosophical significance…. 

Darwinism undermines both the idea that man is made in the image of God and the idea that man is a uniquely rational being. Furthermore, if Darwinism is correct, it is unlikely that any other support for the idea of human dignity will be found. The idea of human dignity turns out, therefore, to be the moral effluvium of a discredited metaphysics.3 

As can be seen here as well as other places in his writings, Rachels not only cedes the historical genesis of the belief in human dignity to Christianity but also sees it as philosophically dependent upon and inextricably bound up with Christianity. Simply put, according to Rachels: Christianity uniquely underwrites the notion of human dignity, while atheism does not.4 It is little wonder, therefore, that Rachels was an advocate of a utilitarian approach to ethics that made no distinction between human and nonhuman life, as well as an animal rights activist, i.e., a proponent for the “equal treatment for other great apes”, and advocate of so-called moral vegetarianism (not to mention abortion, euthanasia, homosexuality, et cetera).  

In light of the above it may be asked, if there is no fundamental difference or qualitative distinction between animals and people, as an atheistic, evolutionary account of man implies, why should we choose to treat animals like we believe people ought to be treated instead of opting to treat people like animals are treated? If there is no significant rational and moral difference between man and animals rooted in man’s creation after the divine likeness, why expect people to act and live as if animals were as important as humans are, rather than expect people to act and live as if they are no more important than animals or any other unintended product of “evolutionary forces working blindly and without purpose”? Why assume that animals have value like the people who supposedly evolved from them, when people have no special dignity being nothing more than evolved animals? In other words, Rachels arbitrarily continues to operate on the assumption that people do have inherent value and thinks by leveling any distinction between humans and animals he can transfer the dignity of the former to the latter. But on Rachels’ atheistic presuppositions one may equally choose to say, since people have no special dignity, being nothing more than modified apes, then people should be treated like, well, modified apes. In other words, on an atheistic account of man, the statement that animals have equal value to humans should be seen as equivalent to saying that animals and man are equally worthless. 
 
 
 

Vegetarianism or Cannibalism? 

To bring the above problem out further, consider the example of Richard Rorty. Like Rachels, Rorty was an atheist and an evolutionist,5 and saw these “truths” as signposts, wobbly as they are, tipping in the same direction: a denial of human dignity and a consequent commitment to vegetarianism. Rorty himself provides a good thought-experiment for his view and in the process provides a more riveting example that a naturalistic and evolutionary outlook undermines human dignity and commits atheists to arbitrariness and inconsistent foolishness. With atheism unquestionably assumed, Rorty sets forth the following scenario, challenging all comers to give a satisfactory naturalistic answer that comports with eating meat: 

Aliens from another planet, with vastly superior intelligence to humans, land on earth in order to consume humans as food. What argument could you make to convince the aliens not to eat us that would not also apply to our consumption of beef? 

For the Christian, the answer to this question is as simple as pie: man was made in the image of God; therefore, thou shalt not murder. As the author of life and judge of all the earth, God alone has the right to kill and God alone has the authority to delegate those situations – like He has in the cases of self-defense, execution of criminals, and just wars – where the life of someone who bears His image can, if necessary, be taken. For someone to arrogate this right to himself without any divine warrant is murder, an assault on the image of God. [The Christian answer that man bears God’s image and is of special worth in the eyes of heaven is all the more strengthened by the doctrine of redemption, where God shows His great concern for humanity by taking on our nature. It is the fact that man was originally made in God’s image that makes the incarnation of the Son of God possible. In becoming a human being, Christ not only dignifies human nature, he moreover provides the basis for its restoration from the devastating effects of human rebellion and sin. On this basis Christ sends His Spirit to dwell in us and renew us after the image of God, in true knowledge, righteousness and holiness.]  

What, by comparison, could an atheist say in response to Rorty’s question (or a secularist for that matter who insists on keeping God and interplanetary-politics separate)? Remove God from the picture and what reason could be given for why it is wrong to take the life of another person and consume him or her for food that would not also apply to the consumption of other animals? Unless one commits oneself to cannibalism, saying, “If it is okay to eat one animal (say, a cow or a chicken) then it is okay to eat another animal (say, Bob and Jane next-door)”, then the only choice one has given an anti-theistic and anti-Christian approach is to become a vegetarian,  

Commenting on this thought experiment, Greg Mankiw, a professor of Economics at Harvard University and a former student of Rorty’s who once had to tackle this very question as part of a class assignment, sums up the matter as well as can be expected: 

I can't remember what I said in the paper, but I remember becoming a vegetarian for several weeks thereafter. My carnivorous ways eventually resumed not because I figured out a good response, but because I ignobly put the question out of mind.6 

An atheist who chooses to eat meat is just such a person, someone who has ignobly put the question out of mind. But even those who choose not to eat meat, trying harder than their fellows to be consistent with the dictates of atheism, have failed to see just how deeply the problem goes. For why can’t a person on atheistic principles freely choose the cannibalistic option? Why is the belief that man and animals are on a continuum an argument against eating meat rather than an argument for eating humans as well? That’s what animals do after all; they eat other animals. Indeed, it is just because man and animals are on such a continuum, biologically speaking at least – and what else is there to go on according to atheism? – that it is a digestively beneficial possibility for one animal to eat another animal. In other words, atheists can either be vegetarians or cannibals, with no non-arbitrary way of deciding between the two. Given atheism, it all comes down to a coin toss: heads you win (and live to tell the tale); and tails you lose (your head - literally). Fortunately this is an area where atheists rarely have the courage of their convictions, routinely substituting a coin that is rigged to come up heads every time, all the while hoping that no one will see what they are doing and bring the uncomfortable truth to light, a truth which they try to hide from themselves as much as from others.  

One of the great ironies in all of this is that atheists argue that animals should be accorded a number of the same rights as man because of what they perceive to be a great similarity between the two, and yet rather than leave animals to argue their own cause they take charge of the matter themselves, acting as if they were stewards (in their own misguided way) over the animal kingdom.7 Furthermore, atheists use their own markedly superior status and abilities to argue for things that animals themselves give no thought to. In all of this they prescind from the obvious: women, minorities, slaves, and other humans who have perceived themselves to be inequitably treated have often asserted the right to be respected and to have certain basic liberties in common with their fellows, due to their common nature, but no great ape has yet done so. Perhaps when a great ape walks out of the forest, marches on Washington, and says “I have a dream”, then we can all take note.  

Conclusion 

As has been seen, atheists say and do things which show that they cannot live consistently with their own approach to life inasmuch as it undermines the dignity of man (and the same could be said touching on many other subjects). Whereas their own outlook commits them to say that men and women are no better than animals, which in turn are no better than evolved pond-scum, several generations removed of course, they continue to act and live as if human beings do have an inherent dignity about them, and that there is a profound difference between humans and animals. Indeed, in the very process of arguing for an atheistic view of man and beast, they show the great chasm that obtains between the two. While their atheism dehumanizes man to the level of brutes, atheists, freethinkers, humanists, and secularists are never fully consistent with their principles. 

For all their failure philosophically and otherwise, dishonoring God and defacing in the process the image of God after which they were created, thereby showing their great need for the remission of their sins and for a spiritual renovation of their nature after the divine image, Christians still believe that atheists, as well as every other human being, have an inherent dignity, on the basis of which they are to be personally respected and accorded equal treatment before the law. In other words, although it is tempting, rather than treat atheists as their foolish philosophy would dictate, Christians believe in treating atheists as they would have others treat them, as men and women who bear God’s image. Above all, Christians believe in treating atheists as people who desperately need Christ, the image of the invisible God, the effulgence of the Father’s glory and the exact representation of His being, for only then will they be the champions of human dignity they allegedly want to be, for it was in Christ’s image that man was made and it is only in Him that individuals and societies can be remade and reconstructed.

< Back to Articles