by OneSTDV
Over at Friendly Atheist, Hemant posted this video featuring a dialogue about atheism. The religious participants offer trite arguments concerning atheism’s supposed intolerance. At 1:57, a religious think tank commenter drudges up Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao as evidence for the purported terror associated with atheism. This exceedingly simplistic and reductionist argument belies the actual basis of these totalitarian systems and its parallels to the Church and religious fervor.
While the dictators mentioned were all non-believers, their intellectual basis and central objectives differ markedly from the scientific and logic-based atheism most common today. The historic argument for atheism’s noxiousness almost always points to Communist leaders and their regimes. In this case, the aforementioned dictators fit the criterion. Each led a violent and suffocating brand of Communism that resulted in the deaths of many innocent people. The argument seems to mirror the atheist argument against religion, using institutions like the Gulag as proxies for the Crusades and the Inquisition.
Why the Argument Fails
Yet, the religious argument fails for two reasons. First, the primary motivations differ in the two cases. Religious uprising and violence are explicitly caused by religious texts and/or the relevant interpretation of these scriptures. Religious zealots act “in the name” of religion, using supernatural justification for their actions. Contrastingly, while Communist regimes did support atheism, none of their actions could derive from some universal laws of atheism. Atheism exists as merely a lack of belief, not as a moral or social guide. Thus, it’s inconceivable that a lack of belief could dictate one’s actions, especially in regards to violence. Communist leaders were motivated by political power, not the edicts of a moral system that atheism doesn’t even espouse.
Second, the religious argument falsely depicts Communism as an atheistic system in the same mold as modern atheism. The link between atheism and Communism is tenuous at best. The purveyors of Communism didn’t arrive at disbelief through rational thought, reasoned analysis, or scientific rumination. Rather, they promulgated disbelief in order to subvert the most powerful opposing institution to the State: the Church. To define Communism as a godless system is to misrepresent the motives and underpinnings of their government structure. It wasn’t about ultimate truth, it was about ultimate State power.
This spurious characterization of Communism as an atheistic system belies its’ dominating faith-based aspects. The familiar structures of the Church and religious belief are all present in Communist systems. In fact, one could easily define it as a religion, wherein “thoughtcrimes” replace sin, denigration of individualism exists as a proxy for the sin of avarice, omniscience of the State as proxy for God’s presence, indoctrinating constituency with “faith” in the State instead of faith in the Church/God, revising historical events replacing the flexibility of Biblical interpretation as justifying almost any action, and the cult-like worship for dictators replacing God-worship.
These societies were not based on secularism as defined by Dawkins and other atheists. Communism was defined by adherence to a pervasive and suffocating governing body, much like religion. Faith was simply transferred from unseen, intangible powers into the hands of an opaque State regularly engaging in duplicity.
The religious argument using Communist dictators fails because the underlying premise of Communism’s secularism is undoubtedly false. Instead, it proves that undying faith and fanatical obedience to any authority is ultimately harmful.
OneSTDV is an unabashedly honest blogger at OneSTDV
Heidi: And before that we had rocks! And we were damned glad to get them! My dad went to school in a... 
1minion: That was going to be my question, Jerdog. Do some good with all that “evil” stuff for a... 
Phil E. Drifter: Schools teach conformity. They teach you to sit down and shut up and be quiet and be... 
Nelly: ditto 
Anthony D Jacques: I love how God saying “Thou Shalt Not Kill” comes off so Do as I say, not as I do. Christians are... 
Leah: These people came to my school and protested…. I can’t help wondering if maybe they are just a... 
gmcfly: Someone needs to read Romans 13. 
74 Comments
I always thought that Communism was atheist because a cult of personality could only function in a country without a strong religious element.
It seems quite the opposite to me.
It seems to me that one can create a cult of personality from a religious position (an Ayatollah or a Pope), or from scratch, like a Stalin or Castro. The first provides a ready framework which makes some parts of the process easier, but also places some practical restrictions in the form of dogma that either has to be followed or explained away deftly. The personality cults from scratch have no such inherent limitation, though they are harder to get off the ground..
Except of course that in the early 20th century Russia had a very strong, very pervasive religious element known as the Orthodox Church that Lenin and Stalin had to brutally oppress in order to exert their own power. And they were never completely successful in stamping it out either. Russia wasn’t any more “godless” than the rest of Europe before the Communist takeover. The “atheism” of Western Communist societies is mostly a rejection of the coercive power of religious organizations – you can’t have a totalitarian government if there’s a parallel government that the people also owe allegiance to (as is the case with a church). So it gets replaced by personality cults because in a totalitarian society all honor and glory needs to flow to “Dear Leader”, and God (and by extension anyone who claims to speak for God) is a competitor for that.
It’s a bit different in China, where there wasn’t a pervasive Church with that kind of control over the populace. Still, Mao went out of his way to quash other religions not because he was an atheist (neither Taoism nor Confucianism are particularly theistic) but because they were philosophical paths in competition with his vision of Communism, and Confucianism in particular had ties to the old Imperial dynasty that made things difficult for his vision.
Communism was atheistic, in large part, because Marx (correctly) saw religion as a distraction to the masses, something to ease their pain, to prevent them from lashing out in agony at their oppressors (he called it the opiate of the masses, which in context means a powerful painkiller rather than an addictive drug)
he certainly didn’t see how his own thoughts could be turned into dogma.
Okay, so atheism does not lead to communism. And the real problem some communist governments had toward religion was more focused on the power of the church. Atheism is not the source of evil that will destroy the world. Makes sense to me.
We can say the same thing about religion. It can be used to do evil, but it is not the source of evil.
I’ll be the first to say that there are plenty of evil people who use religion to get their power and oppress people. And there are lots of kooks who use religion to justify their crazy actions. But reasoning does not follow that all religious belief is bad. Misuse of religion does not make religion evil.
And of course, most of us – or at the very least this atheist here – would agree with you entirely.
Except religion has a sort of “taboo” status in which it’s considered impolite – or politically incorrect – to criticize its many flaws. That’s the whole problem to me: not that religion is inherently good or bad, but that its bad is more-often-than-I’d-like protected while its good is exalted. Makes sense?
Certainly. In fact, as a minister, I reserve a front row seat, or maybe a podium, in the discussion as to what’s wrong with religion, although I have a few more tasks, as well–one of them is not discussing the evils of atheism. Some of them have to do with helping the poor–little things like that.
And I applaud your mentality but unfortunately many ministers do not seem to agree with you. There’s a strong vibe that one mustn’t question God (and those who speak in his name) and mustn’t doubt, ever. That’s what opens the door for one charismatic vulture to do evil in God’s name: the essence that (like in communist countries) one cannot argue against the system.
In essence, I don’t blame God (would be silly, since I don’t think there’s any such a creature out there), but the fanclub.
I think that is more in the US this not questioning God.
Here in Western Europe many people that are catholics do question a lot. A lot of Catholics actually think that Jezus is some historical figure and heaven and hell is something that does not exist except to scare small children. Just like the boogymen. Just a story.
Vey interestingly is that Western Europe is becoming more and more scientificly advanced and the US is losing their scientists fast because of those creationism questioning evolution and science so they have to import them. If those religious fanatics believing that Earth is 6000 year old get a hold on education in the US, then it will lose all science and technology advantages and will become a second degree country in a few generations.
Those creationinst are also trying to infiltrate here in Europe but so far response from most people are very harsh against them.
I have no problem that you have some religious believe, but if you start with the evolution denial and the 6000 year old Earth BS, then sorry, I have no respect if you start to spread lies!
There’s a strong vibe that one mustn’t question God (and those who speak in his name) and mustn’t doubt, ever.
Nietzsche with the win, here.
“The craving for a strong faith is no proof of a strong faith, but quite the contrary. If one has such a faith, then one can afford the beautiful luxury of skepticism: one is sure enough, firm enough, has ties enough for that.” (Twilight of the Idols)
I love Nietzsche. What a guy!
I disagree. Religion IS inherently bad, at least in the abrahamic tradition, because it claims to have all the answers (without evidence) and claims that anything or anyone that doesn’t agree should be condemned to suffer for all eternity. Perhaps there could be a religion that didn’t incorporate such arrogance and hostility, but I’m not familiar with one, and it sure as heck isn’t one of the abrahamic ones. The abrahamic religions promote hatred, bigotry, misogyny, violence, ignorance, etc.
And just because some of the people who happen to be religious do good things is not evidence at all that religion makes people do good things. Some good people just happen to do good things in the framework of their particular religion. The same applies to atheism. The problem is, you rarely, if ever, hear of anyone doing anything horrible in the name of atheism. History is replete with examples of people doing horrible things in the name of religion. Religion is a disease.
I would disagree entirely. Religion is often the sole cause for the kind of evil done in it’s name. The Crusades were entirely religious, as are the jihad suicide bombers. These things wouldn’t have happened if they didn’t think they needed to do it for God.
We obviously have a difference of opinion here. People do evil for selfish or crazy reasons and then find a rationale, or religion do so.
So religion attracts crazy people so tehy have an excuse to do bad things?
How do religious people arm agains these bad people that give religion a bad name?
So, if religion wasn’t the defining motivation, why did Catholic inquisitors torture Jews until they agreed to convert to Christianity? Why did they burn people suspected of witchcraft at the stake? Why do some Muslim extremists blow themselves up, if not because of the teachings of their imams?
I agree that many “religious” atrocities have other, more direct causes (the crusades had more to do with money and power than religion, for example), but there are some cases where “religion” is not just a handy coat to wear, but is the primary (or even sole motivation) for bad things happening.
Are you suggesting that religion never has an effect on someone’s behaviour, but is only ever tangential to their actions? I find such an argument a little odd…
Obviously religion affects behavior–those of us in the biz are sort of hoping that it can inspire us to be better people. So of course religion can also be used to make people crazy, even evil.
However I still say that the cause of evil will always go back to hatred, greed, and fear. And yes, religion can be in the mix. But is it the basis of evil? I don’t think so.
It’s “Us” vs. “The Other”, and I tend to think it doesn’t much matter how the two groups are delineated. To call the Inquisition “about Religion” misses the point in a serious way. Both Jews and Catholics are with us today, and the Inquisition is not still occurring. Such things are brought about by proximate sociopolitical conditions where it becomes advantageous for one group to destructively Other-ize another (e.g. because they are perceived to be a threat, or because they want to take their stuff); if Jews had been in the majority, and the Catholics were the diasporadic minority, and the same sociopolitical conditions existed, it is likely that the “Inquisition” would have gone the other way. (Certainly in the Bible, the Jews were not shy to say that God told them to go over to the next field, kill everyone, and take their stuff.) The name of the group is irrelevant and the given reason only a pretext.
Yup.
While I don’t think any of that was because of religion, I’d say religion was the catalyst – much like communism was a catalyst.
Different dogma, same effect.
I think there is something to the notion that the presence of a ready-made dogma may ease a situation over the tipping point into calamity that otherwise might not, but I also think that that point i over-emphasized at the expense of taking full account of the depravity of humans just being humans.
Strictly from a personal standpoint, there are things I would have done or allowed to be done as a religious person that really would have bothered my conscience, but I would have assumed ‘god knew best’.
I’d never do or allow to be done those things now.
At least in my case, I feel that my religious beliefs actually made me more likely to do something I would have found shameful.
I need to expand on that, I think…
I belonged to a Christian sect that believed in a literal Armageddon. According to that belief system, god would wipe out every single person on earth who was not a member in good standing of the group. This included the children of unbelievers, as well as those who had not ever even met one of group’s members or listened to their teachings.
I found this idea quite disconcerting, but I was able to overcome that by repeating the mantra ‘god knows better than I do’.
The danger of religion is that it creates an unassailable source of authority. You can be ordered to do terrible things, and as long as the authority for those orders is ‘god’, then there can be no argument or compromise. Personal feelings are secondary to obedience.
Now, religion is not the only thing that lays claim to such authority. Communism of the sort practiced by Stalin placed itself as such an authority. National Socialism did the same thing. Lots of groups lay claim to absolute authority.
Where the comparison totally breaks down is when you bring atheism into it. There is no such thing as atheist authority. Atheists have no pope, no clergy, no rule books or holy script. No charismatic leader will every tell his people to commit terrible deeds in the name of their atheism.
@ Ty
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment
I know everyone’s heard of the experiment, but it bears repeating that absolute authority is not necessary to get people to do terrible things. All you need is a dude in a white coat.
@ JonJon
Isn’t it interesting how people will bow to anyone’s authority? The scientist knows what he’s doing, the scientist knows better… sheep indeed.
Religious atrocities do, indeed, often have other more immediate causes, as you said. However, the manner in which they drag the leity into it to fight their battles is by making it a religious issue and convincing the layman it’s the will of god that they slaughter the opponent. It has happened throughout history, and it even happened here in the U.S. under Dubya’s watch, i.e. “Axis of Evil”.
It was preposterous to call them that, both the terms “axis” and “evil” are objectionable. The first conjures up images of WWII, when there was an actual alliance of countries on the offensive. Iraq and Iran have been bitterly embattled for a long time. It’s absurd to imply a collaberation there. North Korea has ties to Iran, but not in the sense implied by Dubya. The latter term, “evil” is purely religious in nature, and was used to stir the emotions of the christians in this nation as a rallying cry for god.
I agree with the fact that evil is undeniably done in religion’s name, but I also have no doubt that it is usually done by someone who is intentionally exploiting religious belief of someone weaker to manipulate them into doing evil.
I think it is rare that a whole system does evil expressly out of faith and not because of some internal desire to do evil that then uses faith as a justification. There are obviously varying levels of this, from those that really believe they are doing the right thing in faith to those who pretend at faith in order to use its power.
The question is, what would people do without religion? Would they still find a way to manipulate others into doing evil?
Inserting religion and non-religion into discussions about who had the most blood-thirsty regime is an utter waste of time. There are depressing examples on either side of the argument and attempting to defend an evil regime in terms of it’s position on faith has always seemed somewhat weak to me. The common link that I see amongst all the great merchants of misery is the creation of an unfounded construct about how the world should behave, and then having the wherewithal to do something about it. Utopianism, I think, is a much greater indicator of so much suffering in the world. All the great tyrannies had a utopian worldview and it was that drive to create a perfect society that caused so much harm over the centuries.
When some boy genius comes along and figures out that we would all be happy if we only do x, y, and z, the result is very often a disaster. In history, these people have come from all backgrounds, both religious and non-religious, but what they have all shared in common was an unfounded rigid certainty that they had found the keys to a perfect society.
In this sense I think that secular, science based atheism can act as a bulwark against Utopianism, in that it would be quick to call foul on the woo. No more so, however, than any society that is founded on the ethical treatment of its citizens.
With my background in Soviet studies, I’ve written a long article debunking the atheism=communism canard, as well as interacted with some of its loudest Christian promulgators (Dinesh D’Souza, David Aikman), at my blog.
So let me get this straight.
A group of religious people brought up examples of atheists who were really bad people and used their power and influence to oppress and antogonize others (even entire socieities). But, that argument doesn’t work — and I agree with you here — because it’s simplistic and reductionist.
So, how does that argument fundamentally differ from This, this, or even this?
I really don’t see how your argument isn’t completely self-serving. I’ve made the exact same point you’ve made repeatedly:
about religion over and over again, and it’s dismissed almost autonomically. People can become consumed with power or an agenda, and they can hijack religion to serve those ends. If one were to point out that such people are really motivated by political power, or if one observes that there is at best a “tenuous” connection between any of the people linked above and Jesus and/or Orthodox Christian teaching, or if one claimed that “These societies/movements/groups were not based on Christianity as defined by Jesus and other church leaders,” that person would be dismissed out of hand with a “No True Scotsman!!!” accusation.
The irony of it is that I actually agree with your fundamental point: that Dawkins, et al, cannot reasonably compared to Stalin, et al, and that blind commitment to anything can result in fanaticism — which can be dangerous.
I simply fail to understand why the mode of argumentation is acceptable when it’s made by one side but is simply dismissed out-of-hand when used by the other.
The problem is that in many of the examples Religion is the root and the sole cause for the violence and evil. The actions are done for god and in the name of god. Without religion, it’s likely that events like the Crusades or the witch hunts wouldn’t have happened.
There’s also the problem that many people claim that all morality comes from religion and try to say anyone religious is automatically perfect and holy. It’s necessary to point out the bad religion has done in order to demonstrate that being religious doesn’t automatically make you good.
I get where you’re coming from, but there are differences in blaming religion for jihad bombers and blaming atheism for genocides.
That part I understand … and it makes good sense to me.
That’s where I would disagree. I have no doubt that there were a lot of people (perhaps the majority, I don’t know) who believed they were fighting for God. But I have equally no doubt that politics and greed played a major and determinative role in the Crusades as well — and I think you need look no farther than the church leaders of the day to find it. To claim that religion is the sole cause for violence is overstating things by quite a bit, in my opinion.
The witch hunts are a different story, though. You wouldn’t get witch hunts without a belief that witches do exist. Religious superstition is undoubtedly to blame there.
Right, I understand that. Hence, my admission that you can’t just compare Dawkins to Stalin; that’s not a fair comparison. Likewise, not all religion produces Osama Bin Laden, just as not all atheism produces Stalin.
My point is not that the argument is flawed; just the opposite. The argument and the mode of argumentation are sound — but that cuts both ways. To make that argument as OneSDTV has done and then turnaround and dismiss religious people who make the analogous argument from their perspective with a “No True Scottsman” doesn’t make any sense to me. (Not that OneSDTV has explicitly done so, but I think you catch my drift).
The step you’re missing is, though, that “atheism” in and of itself has no tenets beyond the individual atheist saying, “I don’t think there’s a god.”
The place where the entire argument diverges is in the issue of dogma. Atheism has no dogma (no matter what the enemies of atheism might argue). There is a shared set of beliefs, generally in empirical evidence, the scientific process, free thought, self-determination, etc., but you don’t have to pledge allegiance to the atheist flag or recite the Darwinian Creed at the beginning of the atheist church service. Thereby, if atheists do something that’s evil it’s generally on their own heads, since they haven’t been pushed to it by some larger atheist organization.
Religion, on the other hand, is chock full of dogma. The primary dogmas of religion, meanwhile, are generally built around the idea that “we” are right and “they” are wrong. “They” are often, then, evil. Or, at least, “we” need to convert “them” to “our” right thinking ways.
To claim that the argument is flawed is to not understand the underpinning differences between religion and atheism. Religion almost always has to make a No True Scotsman argument whenever one of its own goes off the reservation. Atheism can’t make a No True Scotsman argument, since there’s no such thing as a real, true atheist. You say there’s no god, then you’re an atheist. You say that being an atheist means you get to kill anyone you want, well, you’re still an atheist. And the rest of the atheists will probably be the first ones to try to stop you.
Did you miss the part where I said I didn’t?
For every religious organization/movement that encourages the type of evil we’re talking about, there are 100 that discourage it. What I fail to understand is why reasonable atheists fail to apply that very same differentiation when it comes to religion, religious people, and religious fanatics who do evil things and choose to blame religion generally when it’s a few twisted individuals and/or groups who espouse those types of idealogies. Why is it always all religion that’s bad/dangerous and not the individual and/or fringe group?
Right, I get that.
Why can’t religious people do the same without being dismissed with “No True Scotsman”?
For every religious organization/movement that encourages the type of evil we’re talking about, there are 100 that discourage it.
That may be so. However, the vast majority of religious organizations are built around a religious test if they’re going to help someone or accept someone as part of the group. You don’t have to go out and kill someone in order to show them they don’t belong.
Take charity for the poor. Churches will go out and feed the homeless, but that’s generally accompanied by a pitch for salvation. This sets up not only a mentality that, “I’m helping you, but only because my holy book tells me to,” but a sometimes subtle, sometimes overt message that, “You are poor and starving because you’re not part of my group.”
There are many ways to allow evil to propagate in the world. Setting up death squads is the most obvious, but subtly pushing people out in to the cold because they aren’t the right kind of person is far more insidious and harder to combat.
Did you miss the part where I said I didn’t?
But, see, you did. “My point is not that the argument is flawed; just the opposite. The argument and the mode of argumentation are sound — but that cuts both ways.” You might be claiming that the argument itself is sound, but you’re claiming that use of the argument is flawed. Thereby, you’re claiming that the argument as used is flawed or the user of the argument is flawed in his/her thinking. You are, therefore, negating the entire argument based on a tu quoque fallacy.
I didn’t miss the thing you said. I also didn’t miss what your entire line of reason implied.
I’m not claiming that the use of the argument is flawed. I’m saying clearly that I think the argument is just fine — but that it’s fine for both sides of the debate (what’s good for the goose is good for the gander is a better cliche that it cuts both ways, probably).
If I make the claim, “The connection between ______ and Jesus/Orthodoxy is tenuous because of _________” then that type of claim shouldn’t be simply dismissed as a No True Scottsman — because that’s not what it is. It’s a reasoned statement that demonstrates the disconnect between two people and two ideologies — exactly what OneSDTV is doing above.
If you can establish that comparing Dawkins and Stalin is unfair because of insert-argument-here, then a Christian should be able to use the very same mode of argumentation without being dismissed out-of-hand as a No True Scottsman.
That’s all I’m saying.
If you can establish that comparing Dawkins and Stalin is unfair because of insert-argument-here, then a Christian should be able to use the very same mode of argumentation without being dismissed out-of-hand as a No True Scottsman.
Um, first you’d have to figure out how it’s fair to compare Dawkins to Stalin.
See, this is the nature of the extraordinary claim. Dawkins is an atheist. Stalin fairly likely was an atheist. But there is no atheist ideology. Atheism is no more likely to lead to Stalin than the invention of the wheel lead to the Cash for Clunkers program. What you’ve been doing is obfuscating the original point of the claim. OneSTDV wasn’t saying that Dawkins’ view of a secular society was is prescriptive, he’s saying it’s descriptive. Or, at least, that’s how I read the original post. And you’ve already conceded that point without, apparently, understanding the consequences.
So you can have a secular society that ends up being lead by someone like Stalin and Pol Pot directly off a cliff. But that’s not the fault of atheism, that’s the contributing factors of the various ideologies that go in to it. You can also have a secular society based on, say, a Constitution and an underlying idea that all people are equal and entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That, also, is not going to be to the credit of atheism. However, a society simply based on the ideas espoused by someone like Dawkins is more likely to end up like the former than the latter, since the idea of an egalitarian society that’s composed of people who are enfranchised and empowered to think for themselves is more likely to be more free.
The main issue at hand is that you can’t rile up a bunch of atheists and get them to do crazy things in the name of atheism. It’s not an ideology. It’s not a belief. It is a view of the world based on skepticism of extraordinary claims and application of empirical evidence to the same.
On the other hand, we have plenty of evidence of the religious saying, “Everyone has to behave this way because it’s written in the inviolate holy book,” and dissidence being quashed. Within Christianity alone we have the externally focused activities such as the Crusades, Inquisition, and the general anti-Semitism that lead to such things as Jews being banished from entire countries during the Medieval period. We also have the internecine wars of religion during the Reformation and Counter-Reformation. Then there’s the direct oppression, such as the crackdown on the Anabaptists and the Husites. There are also the examples of the places where it simply would not have been fun to live under a theocracy, such as John Calvin’s Geneva and Oliver Cromwell’s England. Move it in to more modern terms and we have the likes of Al Qaeda and the Taliban and we also have the people who don’t want gays to get married because it’s against the teachings of the Bible.
Yes, there might be extenuating circumstances in those examples. But the moral underpinnings of all the various moralistic crusades are, “My religion says you have to behave like this.” The fact that the statement is based on the construct of “my beliefs” leading to “these actions” indicate that the beliefs lead directly to that actions.
On the other hand you’d have to prove that a negative belief does the same thing. “I don’t believe in god” is a self-contained statement. It is also much harder to follow with a prescriptive statement. There is no atheist holy book filled with commandments that everyone without a god belief has to read.
So, perhaps, if the entire world were composed of people who said, “I don’t believe in god,” or people who said, “I do believe in god,” and no one followed either thought up with holy writ then we could probably all get pizza and beer. But “I believe in god” more often than not is followed by “and I believe god says _______________.”
That’s where the problems start. And that’s why you can make the argument that religion leads to bad things while you have to look at the extenuating circumstances for the non-religious.
“I don’t believe in god and I also think everyone should bow to me” is an intensely personal statement. “I don’t believe in god and I also think everyone needs to do what the Party says,” is a political statement. In both cases the construction is, “I’m an atheist and I’m also,” not, “I’m an atheist, therefore.” Religious statements are almost always, “I’m religious, therefore.”
What I think is behind this disagreement is that while atheism and theism are on equal footing good-evil wise to you, the more reasonable theists and most of the atheistic readers it’s not to the vast majority of theists.
Saying look at the evil theists, and then don’t judge atheism by the evil atheists is an argument against the (unfortunately common) idea the religion=good morals, atheism=bad morals. It doesn’t really say much against the moderate position.
I feel like you can’t have your cake and eat it, too.
If you’re going to attack the idea that religion necessarily implies good morals by exposing religious hypocrisy, that’s fine by me. But I don’t think that’s all that’s going on in the posts I linked to above.
Pointing out the “bad theists” has another effect in my view, though, in that it tends to reinforce the at least somewhat common idea around here that religion itself is dangerous and/or evil.
If you’re going to make that point, then in the interest of intellectual honesty, wouldn’t it be fair to 1) Admit that there have been some damn evil atheists and 2) Let religious people who want to distance themselves in a though-out fashion from the “bad theists” to do so without dismissing them as “No True Scottsman.”
In other words, I’m not sure it’s fair to judge religion based solely on the “bad guys” while only judging atheism by the “good guys.”
because religion is about having a set of ultimate rules set by an ultimate authority, who will the the ultimate judge of your worth as a human. however no matter what someone does in the name of that religion theres someone else saying that they don’t actually believe in that religion. aka “no true scottsman”
However, aethiesm doesn’t have such a concept of ultimate judges or ultimate values of right and wrong. calling yourself an aethiest merely means that you don’t believe in a higher power, or at the very least that its not a relevant issue to how we lead our lives. Therefor any morality decision must be left to us as society, and us as individuals. so two people could be “atheists” and yet not agree on any other subject in life, and that doesn’t affect there status of atheist.
Methinks my fellow atheists are missing the point here. Let me try to show my POV why the argument differs:
Let’s take a Christian. I suppose we agree that all (or, if not all, most) Christians take their morals from the Bible.
The Bible says “love thy neighbour”. But the Bible also says “suffer not a witch to live”.
A reasonable Christian would stick with the former and dismiss the latter. An unreasonable Christian would see both as equally valid – they’re both in the Bible, after all – and would be led to do exactly that: kill the witches.
Can you say one is more Christian than the other? I’m not sure. They both find their justification in the same book; it’s unquestionable that the book says both things. They both believe the same things; they follow the same guideline, but one believes things one step further than the other.
With atheists, this doesn’t exist: there is nothing in common among atheists but the fact they’re a) human, b) don’t believe in God.
(I feel like such a stalker. In every thread it seems I *have* to reply to you :p)
I see your point, but let me offer another way of understanding why Christians such as myself dismiss the latter. It’s not just about being reasonable, although that certainly has something to do with it. It’s about being a Christian.
There’s no way to connect with hunts with Jesus. In fact, in the Gospels, Jesus sets a trajectory of including (not excluding, let alone killing) outsiders.
I absolutely question people who self-identify as Christian and think we ought to kill witches (and/or invade and slaughter other ethnic groups in the name of Christian democracy, etc.).
At least I’m saying something worth responding to, then :)
And I’m glad you do. That means you’re an intelligent person (not that I had any doubt).
But I can’t say these people do not believe they are indeed doing what they think is right, in accordance to their holy book. I can’t say that they do not do what they do out of religious fervor and out of religious conviction; I’m not sure I can say they are not Christians when they label themselves as such, and justify their actions with scripture – such as, say, men who feel justified to keep their wives as subservient housewives because Paul said so, or who believe that the old testament laws still apply because Jesus said so (as far as I remember, anyway).
I can’t really say those people don’t have faith in Jesus Christ, which is one of the defining points of who is a Christian and who isn’t. I’ll concede they’re missing the point of Jesus’s teachings, but I can’t really say they do not think themselves Christian and have faith in what they do.
Makes sense?
Sorry to be late to the discussion and I want to say the input from everyone is really great. I would like to suggest that group decision making is complex. For instance, President Chirac is recently purported to state that GWB told him during the build up to the Iraq War that God told him (Bush) to invade Iraq in fulfillment of end time prophecy, specifically to oppose Gog and Magog. Assume for the moment that this is true and the ostensible reason for the Bush decision. It is clearly religiously motivated. But simply blaming the Iraq War on religion does not give sufficient weight to the sociological and psychological reasons for the placement of GWB with his particular construct in a position to make this decision, nor does it give weight to other non-religious forces in his personal and political life with some or many of them being unconscious.
I suspect that the deeper problem we face is the way in which atavistic patterns are used in the organization of human groups. And although religion may not be the root of the problem, from a sociological perspective it seems to provide a lot of the infrastructure to grow such problems. A thought experiment I’m playing with is this: What would the world really look like if I woke up tomorrow and there was no more religion?
Bertrand Russell considered communism to be a religion.
In our day, a new dogmatic religion, namely, communism, has arisen. To this, as to other systems of dogma, the agnostic is opposed. The persecuting character of present day communism is exactly like the persecuting character of Christianity in earlier centuries…
What is often missing from the accusations by religious people about the evils of atheism is that many atheists who value free-thinking over dogma would be considered to be intellectuals. And we all know how tyrannical regimes have viewed intellectuals…
Also, any atheist opposing a Communist society will be hunted down just like any other dissident.
Many intellectual atheists were als sent to Siberia!
Indeed!
:p
[hoards intellectual atheists in her basement, whistles innocently]
Hey, let us out of here, damnit!
Damn you and your gulags…and why the heck is there fifty liters of borscht down here?!
LOL!
Great article, but as always part of me wishes I hadn’t read it as now I’m all riled up! Another point I thought of (haven’t got time to read all the comments, I’ve scanned them but sorry if this is a repeat) is that even if Hitler, Stalin et al *were* atheists and even if they *did* commit their crimes in the name of atheism, how in the hell does that mean it’s more likely that God exists?! It just doesn’t. Incidentally, if God does exist, it also means he made these people. The stupid, it burns!!
Great blog Daniel, and you have some fascinating guest bloggers. Keep up the good work!
I think people who equate atheism with communism are looking at things from the wrong perspective. What they are doing is looking at the content of beliefs. They’ll say that since neither Communism nor atheism believes in God the two should be considered identical, or at least related, schools of thought. This is often combined with the naïve notion that atheism paves the way for immorality and a lack of decent societal values – “just like Stalin and Pol Pot”. They compare the two things from their perceived shared values – or rather, lack of values.
A better perspective is to look at the mechanisms by which Communism works, its modus operandi. Communism (or any other totalitaran system) puts its own survival above all. Compliance is mandatory, and the ruling elite defines what is the right way to think and behave.
In this respect it has nothing in common with atheism, which, not having any unifying tenets or ideology or any commonly established form of conduct, simply doesn’t compare in any meaningful sense.
On the contrary, there are quite a lot of parallels between the most infamous totalitarian systems and organised religion at its worst:
- The totalitarian systems have an undisputed, messiah-like leader (Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot) who is worshipped on an institutional basis (North Korea being especially relevant here, as Kim Jong Il and especially Kim Il Sung have practically been considered gods).
- They have a mission, a unifying ideology, which is glorified with religious fervor, complete with obligatory holy scripture (Mein Kampf, Mao’s Little Red Book, Das Kapital).
- They believe in a future utopia (Arian Thousand Year Reich, equality between all citizens in the worker’s state).
- A ruling elite comparable to a clergy defines what (and who) is right and wrong. Morality is dictated.
- Laws and statutes regulate the most intimate aspects of people’s private lives.
- Worship and compliance are virtues, doubt and deviations are sins.
- Complete disregard for any opposing viewpoints, which are by default considered wrong, damaging, and immoral, and are dismissed out of hand.
The problem that I see in this debate which I believe was alluded to by Siberia, is that the comparison and contrast of religion to atheism is a fallacious comparison (apples to oranges). http://www.angelfire.com/ks2/fallacies/fallcomp.htm
Atheism is nothing more than a stance on the existence of gods. Religion is a vast conglomeration of diverse and contradictory doctrines. Even narrowing religion to Christianity doesn’t solve the problem, nor does narrowing it to a particular Christian doctrine.
If you wish to compare apples to apples, why not compare a particular Christian doctrine to, say, secular humanism?
As a side note: I believe most rabid Christian fundamentalist hate secular humanism more than atheism because it advocates the good points of Christianity and throws out the crap.
I think the problem is intolerance and intolerance is what makes some religious people and some atheists into violent persecutors. If you think that only one religion is true and all other religions are false and that you have a moral obligation to force people to believe the true religion, then you become an inquisitor. If you think atheism is true and therefore all religions (or anyway all theistic religions) are false and furthermore they lead to religious fanaticism, you might think you have a moral obligation to stamp out religious belief.
Neither atheism nor theism by themselves turn people into persecutors. It’s the element of self-righteousness, the belief that any disagreement is morally dangerous and has to be stamped out by force that makes people persecutors.
Yes, the root problem is dogmatism. All religions, as well as some other regimes (Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Kim Jong-Il / Il-Sung, etc), are dogmatic.
Well, no, not all religions are dogmatic and inevitably lead to intolerance. All theistic religions have members who think they should be intolerant because of their faith, but not every theist is dogmatic in the sense that you mean. Me, for instance, and hundreds of millions of others like me. There are people who are not comfortable with the thought that others disagree with them on fundamental questions and these people can often find some reason within their belief system for cracking down on the heretics.
What religion is not dogmatic? Kind of seems like they are by definition. Dogma is what you believe, not how you react to other people’s beliefs.
Siddhartha Gautama, the Buddha, once purportedly said: “Believe nothing, no matter where you have read it or who has said it, even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.”
That, I think, is about as close as a major religion comes to anti-dogmatism.
I don’t believe you.
That is why humans invented teh Internets. :)
He actually did :D
Except, of course, he also implied such skepticism didn’t apply to his doctrine…
Except, of course, he also implied such skepticism didn’t apply to his doctrine…
Um…
““Believe nothing, no matter where you have read it or who has said it, even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.”
He explicitly *included* his own doctrine as one of those to be rightly skeptical.
To me it sounds like he wants people to turn off their critical thinking.
To me it sounds like he wants people to turn off their critical thinking.
You’re gonna have to explain that one.
Elemenope:
Actually, I hadn’t read your quote in full. The version of it that I have differs quite a bit:
Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.
As quoted in the Kalama Sutra, as translated in The American Buddhist Directory (1985) by Kevin O’Neill, p. 7 [my source: Wikiquote]
In context, Siddharta does advise them to think before following. In another sutta he advises the neophytes not to trust the wise on the assumption they are wise, but actually demand proof they are, in fact, wise. He invites the students to see into his heart and confirm that he is indeed pure, so I suppose both versions are right in their own way…
Forgot to mention: nowhere in the Kalama sutta does he invite the people to doubt his teachings. That happens in another sutta.
Excellent article. Thank you!
I like to think of the Stalin argument as “God Wins!” Law:
“As a discussion about atheism on the Internet or in real life grows longer, the probability of a theist mentioning Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao Zedong, the USSR, China, or North Korea approaches one.”
One issue not mentioned, its does seems they many atheists of the late 19Th and early 20Th century were communist or supported the communist cause, even after the news of the mass deaths started to filter out of the Soviet Union in the 1930s. This has allowed religious people to make the atheist/communist connection. But there were atheist voices against communism, George Orwell, Emma Goldman and Ayn Rand.
It should also be pointed out that many religious institutions were supported of communism or fascism.
ideology is a mask over antisocial disorder
You’ll find that Stalin (Iosef Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili 1878-1953) a native of Georgia, spent his formative years in Orthodox schools and a theological seminary. His brutal home life and repressive schooling overseen by Russians led him finally to atheism and anarchism during his first year in seminary. During the siege of Lenningrad in 1941 (now St. Petersburg), Stalin had to modify his anti-religious views — he needed to invoke the old ideology:
“Whatever the reason . . . he began making his peace with God. Something happened which no historian has yet written about. On his orders many priests were brought back from the camps. In Leningrad, besieged by the Germans and gradually dying of hunger, the inhabitants were astounded, and uplifted, to see the wonder-working icon Our Lady of Kazan brought out into the streets and borne in procession.” (See Wikipedia)
Mass murderers, like “born-again” George W. Bush, reach levels of power which permit uninhibited scope for their pre-existing psycho-social pathologies.
the anti_supernaturalist
It’s interesting to me that a discussion about the danger of religion comes out of the discussion of comparing atheism with communism. There is a danger in individuals who blindly follow rules, traditions, or especially words without question. THAT is being Dogmatic. Belief is different from Dogma, otherwise everyone would be dogmatic since everyone follows some basic guideline in making decisions, either personally or as part of a group. A religion that has certain rules which must be followed also has certain guidelines that must be used (according to context) if it is to be accurately interpreted which eliminates in certain religions (my belief, in the Christian religion specifically) the responsibility of the religion itself for followers who use these words for their own benefit (and believe me, there are atheists who “dogmatically” attempt to force individuals to follow their personal opinions and beliefs, but that does not lump all atheists together!). You may call that dogma (which in the greek simply means that which seems to be, or an opinion) but personal belief is not evil, it is the foundation of the intellectual mind and human spirit. People who choose to interpret religion for their own purposes or do not understand what they follow (following it blindly) will allow social influences to prevail over religious belief or will turn religious belief into social influence (radical Isalm is an example of this). A person who believes personally within a social context without demanding that everyone else change (the majority of U.S. Christians fall into this category in my opinion) is following their own personal convictions, just as an athiest follows his or her own personal convictions as diverse as they might be. Yet once again atheists participate in name calling, broad stroked statements that are full of bigotry and generalizations (like, religion is evil, harmful, just like communism), and muck up the intellectual position that many civil atheists employ. To hold atheism up on a pedestal and shout down that religion is evil is equally as perverse as Christians comparing atheism per se to communism.