A Correlation between Secularism and Tyrany

[epan]

"As I said: never has war or genocide been commited in the name of atheism. Just mentioning dictators who happened to be nonreligious does not count; they did their ills in the name of ideology. Some enforced atheism, some enforced christianity.

I am open to changing my mind, to being disproven. Show to me evidence that indicates there is a correlation between secularism and tyranny, and I will accept it."

This is what I was told by a guy I am debating. He claims that atheism has its hands clean of blood, where as religion does not. Stalin, Mao, Robespierre, he claims all used ideology and did not kill in the name of atheism. So Atheism can’t be blamed in people’s deaths the way Christianity and religion can when tyrants have killed in its name.

Can someone help me come up with a correlation between secularism and tyranny please?

This claim has been made by Dawkins and others.

Marxism, which was the underlying ideology of the large modern Communist states, did explicitly reject all religion. As such, it could be called a form of atheism. Stain did engage in genocide as head of the newly formed communist state, and under the authority of purifying the state of those who would corrupt or oppose communism.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

You are wrong.

No, you are wrong. I have made tony’s comment and your argument against it in red, bold, and a larger font.

Toneyrey said:

5. Evidence of such intolerance is the claim by Richard Dawkins that religious education is child abuse

• and would therefore be abolished and forbidden by law if he and/or those who agree with him were in power.

I said:

Richard Dawkins claims not that religious education is child abuse, but that telling children that certain beliefs are true (such as that their non-believing parent will go to hell) are child abuse, because of the terror inflicted on children by the infliction of such beliefs, without evidence. I think I have read everything Dawkins has published on religion, and I do not recall him ever saying that he sought power, or sought power for those ‘like him’.

I have also never read him saying anything other than that he sought a democratic majority on his ideas. Dawlins says a lot that Catholics can disagree with. Why not criticise him for things he actually says?

This directly addresses the point made by Toneyrey, which is inaccurately summarized above by you. A ‘straw man’ argument is not created by making any comment wider than the point being responded to.

Tony stated that Dawkins thinks so poorly of religion that it ought to be outlawed. You argued that he is not looking for political office. There is quite the disconnect between tony & yourself when it comes to comment #5 above.

 

[Darran]

I’m not buying it. Secular humanist values says burning people for thought crimes is always wrong and slavery is always wrong.

Objectively wrong?

 

[ASimon]

Objectively wrong?

Yes.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Objectively wrong?

I’d say “not justifiable” simply because “Objective” as used in discussions such as these may carry with it meanings that are not agreed up or compatible with how all parties use the word.

 

[Hokomai]

I’d say “not justifiable” simply because “Objective” as used in discussions such as these may carry with it meanings that are not agreed up or compatible with how all parties use the word.

This is the best approach. many many years ago when I was a believer, I thought like believers think, and imagined that without God there would be no way for me to tell right from wrong. I was wrong. Recovery from belief does not remove a sense of right and wrong, or the urge to explain and justify one’s sense.

 

[Hokomai]

Marxism, which was the underlying ideology of the large modern Communist states, did explicitly reject all religion. As such, it could be called a form of atheism. Stain did engage in genocide as head of the newly formed communist state, and under the authority of purifying the state of those who would corrupt or oppose communism.

Marx and Engels did not so much reject religion as religious belief. They saw religion as a stage in humanity’s intellectual development. as they put it ‘it is the heart of a heartless world, the spirit of spiritless conditions’. Marx and Engels were not particularly hostile to organized religion (given the level of their hostility to almost everything else in bourgeois society!). But they certainly welcomed signs of its weakness, and looked forward to it ‘withering away’ under communism. Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin and the other leaders of the Russian revolution were implacably hostile to religion in all its forms. Their Marxism was obviously a part of this, but there was also their experience of active religious support for the Tsar and capitalism. It is an entirely valid question to ask whether their atheism formed part of their willingness to engage in mass murder. My own view is that it did play a part, but was neither necessary nor sufficient to provide justification for their actions. It was clearly not necessary, given that history and contemporary society is full of believers who did the same things, or worse. And it was clearly not sufficient, in that there are many atheists who actively oppose such actions. Atheism leads neither to good things nor bad. The same is true of lack of belief in anything: fairies, unicorns, alien abduction, the efficacy of homeopathy, and so on. A comparison could be made with the intensely religious Catholic fascists of Europe in WWll, such those as in Croatia. They were Catholic, and their Catholicism formed a part of their propensity to genocide of Serbs, Muslims and Jews. But it was neither necessary (since others do the same thing) nor sufficient (since other Catholics opposed such action). Human beings do terrible things. Establishing universally-accepted rights and supra-national authorities to constrain them has proven much more effective since Word War ll than religion at achieving this constraint.

 

[Hokomai]

No, you are wrong. I have made tony’s comment and your argument against it in red, bold, and a larger font.

Tony stated that Dawkins thinks so poorly of religion that it ought to be outlawed.

But this is not true. Dawkins does not propose the outlawing of religion. .

You argued that he is not looking for political office.

I did not ‘argue’ this. I stated it for context. I also said other things, which directly addressed the point Tony was making.

There is quite the disconnect between tony & yourself when it comes to comment #5 above.

 

[tonyrey]

This claim has been made by Dawkins and others.

Marxism, which was the underlying ideology of the large modern Communist states, did explicitly reject all religion. As such, it could be called a form of atheism. Stain did engage in genocide as head of the newly formed communist state, and under the authority of purifying the state of those who would corrupt or oppose communism.

Incontestable!

 

[tonyrey]

Marx and Engels were not particularly hostile to organized religion (given the level of their hostility to almost everything else in bourgeois society!). But they certainly welcomed signs of its weakness, and looked forward to it ‘withering away’ under communism.

In short, **the Communists everywhere support every revolutionary **movement against the existing social and political order of things.

In all these movements they bring to the front, as the leading question in each, the property question, no matter what its degree of development at the time.

Finally, they labour everywhere for the union and agreement of the democratic parties of all countries.

The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims.
They openly declare that **their ends can be attained only by
the **forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions.
Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution.
The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains.
They have a world to win.

Karl Marx, MANIFESTO OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY

gutenberg.org/cache/epub/61/pg61.html

 

[Darran]

…and imagined that without God there would be no way for me to tell right from wrong. I was wrong. Recovery from belief does not remove a sense of right and wrong, or the urge to explain and justify one’s sense.

Then you thought wiser in the past. Without God, objective morality can’t exist. There is no other definition of “objective” short of calling it “subjective”. Subjective morality would mean that something is only right or wrong based on a single person’s outlook and not either right or wrong in itself. In other words, “not justifiable” would be nonsense.

At least be sincere with yourselves, this is what you claim to believe. If anything is “always wrong” then you are alluding to an objective moral code. Thus an objective moral code exists, therefore God exists. If any of you say that something is always wrong, or that something is never right, then you have stepped out of atheist pseudo-philosophy.

Ofcourse though, determining that a crime has been committed requires a full knowledge of the situation which none of you have, nor understand, nor care to understand since your only focus is to accuse. In which case your worldview falls back on you since according to you, your judgement is subjective and holds no weight in actuality.

Forgetting subjective morality altogether and back onto this topic (because nobody actually believes it is subjective, face it) a claim is made by Sample that religion causes “atrocious actions” from people. Put a person like that in a place of power, and his morals would incline him (if he really believed it and didn’t just say it out of grudge) to want to eradicate this dangerous mindset in whatever way he feels.

Tryany, or at the very least injustice is unavoidable, all because:

A: The person chose not to do his homework on what he wanted to “eradicate” and ended up condemning innocence, or:

B: Worse, he plainly had a bigoted hatred for it.

Tyrany fits atheism like a glove, and thats exactly what history shows. Ofcourse though, convenient (subjective) self interpretation of history seems to raise it’s ugly head all too often on this particular spot.

 

[Hokomai]

Then you thought wiser in the past. Without God, objective morality can’t exist. There is no other definition of “objective” short of calling it “subjective”. Subjective morality would mean that something is only right or wrong based on a single person’s outlook and not either right or wrong in itself. In other words, “not justifiable” would be nonsense.

At least be sincere with yourselves, this is what you claim to believe. If anything is “always wrong” then you are alluding to an objective moral code. Thus an objective moral code exists, therefore God exists. If any of you say that something is always wrong, or that something is never right, then you have stepped out of atheist pseudo-philosophy.

Ummm - freed from the idea of God, one is able to make moral choices. ‘Objective’ morality is not the same thing. and as the idea of God is so vague as to have been used to justify everything from sex with children, to murder, to genocide, to rape, it seems to be that the idea of God is of not much use in determining ‘objective’ morality either. It gets back to people making choices, and trying to make the consistent, one with the other. And please try to avoid language like “at least be sincere with yourselves”. It does not contribute to the debate, and I have seen no more evidence of insincerity among non-believers on CAF, than among believers, and that is not much.

 

[Hokomai]

Karl Marx, MANIFESTO OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY

gutenberg.org/cache/epub/61/pg61.html

Tony I know Marx and Engels were revolutionaries.

 

[tonyrey]

Tony I know Marx and Engels were revolutionaries.

Marx was the creator of dialectical materialism - turning Hegel’s idealist philosophy of development on its head - thereby establishing a direct link between secularism and plebocracy, i.e. tyranny by the plebs or people (nominally but in practice by the Communist party leaders)!

That doesn’t mean that secularism is the sole villain.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Ummm - freed from the idea of God, one is able to make moral choices. ‘Objective’ morality is not the same thing. and as the idea of God is so vague as to have been used to justify everything from sex with children, to murder, to genocide, to rape, it seems to be that the idea of God is of not much use in determining ‘objective’ morality either.

Agreed!

 

[tonyrey]

mmm - freed from the idea of God, one is able to make moral choices

The teaching of Jesus put paid to that idea for once and for all!

 

[Hokomai]

The teaching of Jesus put paid to that idea for once and for all!

Which teaching? And how, given that Jesus repudiated ‘not a jot’ of the old testament, and, in your belief, is actually literally the same god who ordered all those abominable things done in the time of the old testament?

 

[TheAtheist]

Make that none. Atheism, defined as the lack of belief in gods, isn’t an -ism, isn’t a worldview with dogmatic tenets…or any tenets at all. It’s a position on a single question.

Secularism, however, can arguably be considered a worldview or a system of organizing society. As such, it’s conceivable that someone could kill “in the name of secularism,” but in the case of the secularism we now see in the West, which is intertwined with humanism, a worldview that repudiates genocide and puts a great deal of value on human life, it would be almost impossible for anyone to kill in the name of that form of secularism (and still be logically consistent).

Hitler killed in the name of a nutty racist philosophy, and Stalin killed in the name of a nutty Communist ideology. Both of those nutty positions are consistent with atheism and arguably consistent with some form of secularism, but the atrocities that resulted from those positions cannot be argued to be caused by atheism or secularism (and certainly not caused by the humanist secularism currently practiced in Western countries).

Please observe the difference between an action being consistent with X and an action being caused by X. If I yell at someone, that action is consistent with not being friends with that person, but we could hardly argue that my lacking a friendship with the person caused me to yell at him (if that were the case, I would be hollering all day long at everyone who is not my friend). Instead, the cause would be something like, “The guy dented my car.”

And just a note to the moderators: this is a discussion about causality and about secularism. It is not a discussion about atheism – a subject that came up as a brief, tangential point. As it is a discussion about causality, it is well-placed in the philosophy section and deserves to remain open.

Probably the best piece of logical thinking in this thread.

Sadly, the atmosphere has degenerated to the usual.

 

[Darran]

Ummm - freed from the idea of God, one is able to make moral choices. ‘Objective’ morality is not the same thing. and as the idea of God is so vague as to have been used to justify everything from sex with children, to murder, to genocide, to rape, it seems to be that the idea of God is of not much use in determining ‘objective’ morality either. It gets back to people making choices, and trying to make the consistent, one with the other. And please try to avoid language like “at least be sincere with yourselves”. It does not contribute to the debate, and I have seen no more evidence of insincerity among non-believers on CAF, than among believers, and that is not much.

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS72Vk1CqP0hyXDF2EdxC9sNNRhaTthCfLI7XD4zyjVx9tIucrz

Nobody has said that a persons perception of God determines objective morality, but logically if God does not exist, an objective moral code is impossible to exist. If you mention anything about religion being the cause of immoral activity then you are (repeating myself) alluding to an objective moral code, which cannot exist in atheism.

I say it again, be sincere. You should know your philosophy if you’re so firm in a particular stance to warrant hating the other. Unless of course bigotry or stubbornness is your focus and not logic.

 

[Sair]

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS72Vk1CqP0hyXDF2EdxC9sNNRhaTthCfLI7XD4zyjVx9tIucrz

Nobody has said that a persons perception of God determines objective morality, but logically if God does not exist, an objective moral code is impossible to exist. If you mention anything about religion being the cause of immoral activity then you are (repeating myself) alluding to an objective moral code, which cannot exist in atheism.

I say it again, be sincere. You should know your philosophy if you’re so firm in a particular stance to warrant hating the other. Unless of course bigotry or stubbornness is your focus and not logic.

If I may jump in here, upon what basis do you claim that objective morality is impossible without your god? After all, it may well be the case that there exist in the universe objective standards of good and evil, independent of the existence of deities - to which, it would have to be said then, even the deities themselves are subject.

This, of course, takes us back to the Euthyphro dilemma - the question of whether what is good is so because god says it is, or whether god declares certain things to be good by some other standard, a standard by which god himself (assuming the God of Classical Theism, almost invariably conceived as masculine) is bound. On the other hand, it’s hard to see how standards set by a personal being could be anything other than preference-based, and therefore arbitrary - certainly from the perspective of anyone who doesn’t share those preferences.

As I pointed out earlier, the leaders of the monotheistic faiths all tend to claim privileged access to the divine will, as if this is something that can be known. But such claims often rest upon scripture, which can be interpreted in various ways such that it might be used to justify any action, even those of the most brutal absolutist regimes.

What I would say, by way of contribution to this particular debate, is that it is objectively true that humans are subjective beings, and that morality, as we understand it, would not exist if this were not the case. If we couldn’t care, then no moral question would be worth considering.