Was Mother Theresa evil?

By Mano Singham

Christians (and other believers in god) should reject the entire concept of eternal torment in the afterlife. Otherwise they forfeit any respect from others because they have become evil simply by virtue of admiring and worshipping a god who is committing a massive evil.

All of us get a little disconcerted when we discover that someone we like turns out to be an admirer of some public figure whom we think is awful.

For example, take those well-known authoritarian rulers who unleashed immense cruelty on their own and other peoples, subjecting them to arbitrary imprisonment, torture, and death. Hitler, Stalin, Suharto, Idi Amin, Pol Pot, and Duvalier are among the many names that come to mind. Most people do not admire these tyrants and do not hesitate to label them as evil.

But what would your attitude be towards someone who admires the very people whose actions you unhesitatingly condemn as beyond the pale? Even if that person was thoroughly admirable in other ways and would not personally even dream of doing the things that these despots did, would you still respect her? Or would you think her to be evil the way you think the people that she admires are evil?

We can even pose the question about a person even one step further removed. Would you think of as evil someone who admires those evil despots?

The reason I pose these questions is because they form the basis of an interesting argument against religion that appeared in the December 2007 issue of Harper's magazine (p. 28). It is titled Another Argument Against God and is authored by David Lewis and Philip Kitcher, based on the chapter Divine Evil by Lewis that appeared in the book Philosophers Without Gods (2007).

Lewis and Kitcher say that while the "existence of evil is logically incompatible with the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, and completely benevolent deity" is a conclusive argument against god, there is also "a simpler argument, one that has been strangely neglected."

Lewis and Kitcher start with Hitler as someone whom very few would dispute did very evil things. Now he asks us to consider a hypothetical person named Fritz.

Fritz is a neo-Nazi. He admires Hitler. Fritz's admiration for an evil man suffices, we might think, to make Fritz evil . . . In this case, Fritz is evil, it seems, simply because it is evil to admire someone evil in full recognition of the characteristics and actions that express his evil. Evil is contagious, transmitted by clear-eyed admiration.

The authors then point out that accepting that premise put worshippers of god in an awkward position.

God has prescribed torment for insubordination. The punishment is to go on forever . . . In both dimensions, time and intensity, the torment is infinitely worse than all the suffering and sin that will have occurred during the history of life in the universe. What God does is thus infinitely worse than what the worst of tyrants have done.
. . .
Many Christians appear to be good people, worthy of the admiration of those of us who are non-Christians. From now on let us suppose, for simplicity's sake, that these Christians accept a God who inflicts infinite torment on those who do not accept Him . . . Yet they knowingly worship the perpetrator of divine evil. Perhaps they do not like to think about it, but they firmly believe that their God will consign people they know, some of whom they love, to an eternity of unimaginable agony.

Of course, our friends do not see this as divine evil. Instead, they talk of divine justice and the fitting damnation of sinners. If Fritz is clear about Hitler's actual deeds, he will tend to use similar locutions. Again, modest Fritz isn't disposed to persecute the Jews in his neighborhood. Yet Fritz would approve of the persecution being carried out by the proper authorities. So too with the Christians. Perhaps they would grieve that the punishment was prescribed for us; perhaps they would blame themselves for not having done more. But, in the end, they would worship the perpetrator.

Among those of us who do not worship the perpetrator, there are many who admire worshippers of the perpetrator. We admire some of our neighbors; we admire religious people famed for their selflessness, their courage, or their scholarship -- Mother Teresa, Father Murphy, Jean Buridan. Yet we also know that the perpetrator's evil extends to them. They admire evil and are tainted by it. In admiring them, we too admire evil. Does the evil spread by contagion to us? What of those who admire those who admire those who worship the perpetrator? If admiration transmits evil, then eventually almost every living person will be infected. The more we are prepared to be tolerant in religious matters, the more the contagion will spread.

Where does this leave us? One option is that we treat as worthy people even those who admire ruthless dictators as long as they personally don't do anything bad. The other is that we treat evil as a contagious affliction, transmitted by the very act of admiration, so that any admirers of evil persons are themselves to be classed as evil.

Since the eternal torment (which is undoubtedly torture on the worst possible scale) that god supposedly prescribes for those who do not worship him is worse than any evil ever carried out by any human, Christians (and other believers in god) should reject the entire concept of eternal torment in the afterlife. Otherwise they forfeit any respect from others because they have become evil simply by virtue of admiring and worshipping a god who is committing a massive evil. In other words, if religious people do not reject the idea of an awful divine retribution, then they are declaring themselves to be evil too. In fact, the more devout and religious such people are, the more evil they should be considered.

As Lewis and Kitcher point out, it is no use trying to evade the issue by arguing that the hell to which sinners are sent is a form of divine justice and is not an evil act by god. That argument should be rejected in the same way that we reject the actions of tyrants even they too can claim they are acting lawfully, according to the laws and procedures they themselves created. In other words, there is no essential difference between a tyrant who tortures and kills people who cross his path and a god who sends people to eternal torment in hell because they have gone against his will.

Evangelicals often urge their fellows to step up their efforts to 'save' the people they know by telling them how sad they will be if their loved ones end up in hell. As a result of my atheist writings, I occasionally get dark warnings from some people that I can expect a rather unpleasant afterlife. I have always found such warnings to be amusing. It had not occurred to me, though, that the people making such statements are the equivalent of admirers of Hitler. Next time I get such a comment, I will refer them to this post.


Your rating: None Average: 3.7 (3 votes)

Comments

To the Evil Admirers Whom Have Been Referred Here

As an atheist, I believe that the time has to fit the crime and that the crime has to be agreed upon by rational social consensus. If it doesn't rob other people of their life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness either directly or indirectly then it is not a crime at all. Eternal hell for, say, not obeying the sabbath day and keeping it holy is a cruel and unusual punishment indeed. In fact, there happens to be much better things for people to do on Sunday morning (or Saturday for Jews or Friday for Muslims) than to sit around and be indoctrinated about reality by a guy who doesn't even have a degree in the applied sciences, let alone any experience in the field of scientific discovery. At the very least, people could be pragmatic and use that time for volunteer work or something, instead of learning about how worthless they really are without an evil dictator, I mean, without God. There is actually no dignity whatsoever in the belief of deserved torment for being born, and there is not a shred of physical evidence for such a proposition in the first place. Maybe the Bible was written by Satan in order to torment your conscience and to make you feel guilty about things that are widely known among the secular community to be just ordinary biological or human processes. If you are giving tithe money to such federally funded institutions as Churches in hopes of an evil deity's blessings (eternal torment being the alternative!?), and if you actually think it is working in your life, then you ought to be ashamed of yourself for being such proud fools.

The key to being happy in life entails a combination of (1) pleasure, (2) flow, and (3) purpose. I realize that your religion can supply you with a false sense of self-purpose, but it actually is not your own life's agenda that you are living for, but merely that of whatever ideology that you hopelessly subscribing to. The only person who can give you a sense of purpose in your life is yourself, and you are the only person who can truly define your own goals and ambitions in life, nobody else can or should do that for you unless you choose to be a sucker and a tool in the grand scheme of life. The consequences of choosing not to think for yourself are that you will be taken advantage of by everybody who comes your way.

That being said, (1) nobody deserves eternal torment just for being born, and (2) agape love or the act of loving everybody you meet unconditionally, including the ones whom would do you harm, is just setting yourself up for being manipulated by everybody else whom you meet. Actually, when atheists say they love somebody they really mean it since they don't whore-ishly worship unverifiable and vaugely subjective things that bring about unecessary pain and suffering, such as what your particular religion falsely preaches.

Syndicate content