True Skeptics Cannot be Religious

[jmercer]

Hitler and most of his top staff were certainly atheists.

Excellent post, luchog. However, I would hesitate to cite atheism as the cause for the deaths; I believe the primary motivation in all cases was the permanent elimination of any possible framework that could resist the establishment and/or ongoing stability of the various regimes in question. Atheism in these cases was probably merely a tool for creating a group identity for the ruling class, rather than a motivating philosophy that led to the bloodshed.

Regarding Hitler; he unquestionably started out as a Christian, but eventually turned against Christianity. Hitler was fascinated by the occult and paganism; arguably, one can say that Hitler's religion centered around these things with Germany as the deity. I believe that calling Hitler an atheist is an error - although it's certainly open to debate.

 

[Dogdoctor]

. Atheism in these cases was probably merely a tool for creating a group identity for the ruling class, rather than a motivating philosophy that led to the bloodshed.

This could be used as an excuse for religious wrongs also. Rulers over the masses are rulers regardless of their religions and want what they want regardless.

 

[jmercer]

This could be used as an excuse for religious wrongs also. Rulers over the masses are rulers regardless of their religions and want what they want regardless.

I agree 100%, even though both you and I are being cynical as all hell. But being cynical doesn't mean we're wrong.

In a very weird way, power is it's own religion.

 

[BS Investigator]

BS Investigator,

I have ordered Shermers book you reccomended and 2 others by him. In a month or so I will open a new thread to talk to you about it.

Dogdoctor, awesome. I look forward to those threads.

 

[Donn]

Luchdog - what an eye-opener.
While I'm hesitant to believe historical facts without some further reading of my own, this surely shuts me up when I spout the old "Religions are responsible for so many wars." line.

 

[Robin]

Luchdog - what an eye-opener.
While I'm hesitant to believe historical facts without some further reading of my own, this surely shuts me up when I spout the old "Religions are responsible for so many wars." line.

Although you have to put it into perspective that 20th century governments had access to better technology and were dealing with a larger population in the first place.

But on the whole the point is valid - once religion got taken out of the government equation state terror became worse, not better. And you could probably make a good case for atheist organisations having invented suicide bombing. But I am thinking of texts read long ago so I could be wrong on this.

In any case I have always thought the idea that religion is bad because some religious people did bad things was a stupid idea in the first place.

What seems to be the linking factor in the religious/atheist terror examples is absolutist power.

 

[CaptainManacles]

What seems to be the linking factor in the religious/atheist terror examples is absolutist power.

Yeah, accounting for time period, it's really difficult to tell weather state religion or state athiesm was doing more damage, but it's clear enough that where there's state enforced belief, there's trouble.

 

[Beady]

Actually, in terms of sheer numbers, mililtant atheists appear to win, or at lest be tied with religious groups for outright bloodshed...

I'm not sure of many of your examples. From what I've read of Stalin, for example, the purges and such were caused more by Stalin's ego than outright, generalized atheism. Most of the rest, it could be argued, were caused by political expediency.

 

[Anders W. Bonde]

Luchog,

I believe your figures are correct. However, I also believe you are misrepresenting atheism in the same way that the McCarthys did and Bushes of this world do. Atheism is mereley a lack of belief in deities, nothing more, nothing less. Without belief in a deity, most, is not all, religions and religious metaphysics become irrelevant to the atheist.

What dictators like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and others did was merely to create their own religion, with themselves as the deity, complete with rituals and places of worship. They used exactly the same methods and applied psychology, and did so deliberately, as the churces had used to obtain and maintain power for centuries. So on the surface they were anti-established-religion, because it competed for power, but in principle they acted exactly like religious fundamentalists.

Our Great Leader=God, The Ideology=Religion, Mass=Rallies, psalms=hymns, the clergy=the party, dissident=heretic, good for the people/The Party=good for God, evil bourgeois=satan, member of The Party=Saved/enlightened soul, One Party=Thou shalt not worship false Gods, Mao's Little Red Book=The Bible/The Quaran, censureship, book burnings, abstaining for the good of the group, the working class shall prevail=the meek shall prevail...etc. Anyone can add to that list.

The dictators you mention act(ed) exactly like the religious cult leaders we still see from time to time. Established religion to them was/is just another obstacle that needed to be cleared for full power. Unfortunately, the latter-day variants had access to technology that really allowed them to industrrialize genocide, making them more impressive in the statistics. Evil is evil, no matter how many are killed or oppressed.

It is the religious mindset that is the problem, not the lack of it. The willingness to irrationally, uncritically and blindly follow unsubstantiated or downright fallacious claims and concepts. We Know The Truth belief is what kills, not the lack of belief in those unsubstantiated or downright fallacious claims and concepts. The homicidal dictators of the 20th century, and all others of their ilk, had the religious mindset and exploited it for their own greed.

It is through education, rationalism, humanism and economy and social wellfare reforms that we can counter the religious mindset and the human conflicts that resukt, not through belief in deities. Religion is not part of the solution, it is part of the problem. If declared atheists act like religious fanatics then they are not atheists but brainless fanatics.

It is very unfortunate that this misrepresentation of atheism (i.e. lack of belief in deities, lack of belief in religious metaphysics and mythology) is still used by powerful, politically influential groups and individuals in the US and its goverment. It leads to ID being tought in schools instead of science, and it leads your president to believe that he has God on his side against anyone who doesn't believe in his or any other gods. It's downright scary.

Religious conflicts? The whole Middle East complex of conflicts, Iran, Iraq, Afgahnistan, India vs. Pakistan, Northern Ireland, countless conflicts in Africa, the crusades, numerous inter-European wars (usually Catholic/protestant), the wars against the Osmans etc. etc. I also count WWII: Hysterical, blind bias, 'them against us', not rational or atheistic in cause, but caused by unfounded, blind, erroneous bigotry and greed - just like any other religious war, The Japanese also had their emperor=god. Besides, the SS had "Gott mit Uns" pressed on their belt buckles, didn't they? Lots of popoulations have been held, and are still being held, in poverty and opression by strong ties between church and state, or the church actually being the state.

Also- religion, or rather the religious mindset, prevents human progress, no more apparent perhaps than in countries that have adapted Sharia Rule. And it inevitably leads to misery and hence to conflict. Religious law largely 'works' by oppressing basic human needs - it is therefore reasonable to call religious laws inhuman.

I believe religion is here to stay because it is part of human nature to readily fall into its trap, unfortunately, but my hope is that separation of church and state and education, education and education in science, reationality, critical thinking and history (and I do not include religious schools here) will relegate religion to where it belongs today: To the strictly personal sphere and as an interesting and educational object of historical, cultural and psychological study. Sadly, it looks like the religious mindset is currently having a resurgence, even in countries that have manged to overecome its oppresiveness - not least the US. Religion and woo flourishes ´like never before, it seems. Oh, the folly of Man...

Someone stated somewhere that religion has given us many beatiful works of art. This may be true; however from those pre-enlightenment days they are virtually the only works of art, because the church decided what was allowed to be depicted or not. So a disproportionately large share of all the artistic and monetary resources were channeled into depictions of fairy tales in a piece of fiction about a fictive Big Daddy in the sky and some poor geezer being nailed to a cross. If the church had not ruled (yes, we had the equivalent of Sharia in Christian Europe back then, but we have progressed in spite of the church, not thanks to it), we would probably have had beautiful works of art depicting the whole of then-contemporary society. Thanks to the church, we have very little depiction in art or litterature about how 'the common people' lived back then. But we do have lots of glorious alter tablets and lots of pretty angels and impressive but practically useless cathedrals that cost thousands of lives to bulid - money that could have been spent on human and technological progress and improving conditions for the poor rather than on building guilded places of worship for some spiteful, vindictive and vain airy-fairy.

Humans don't need gods. Humans need humans.

 

[BillyJoe]

I'm in tune with the Average White Band.

 

[Beth]

Anders,

Your post is quite eloquent, but it strikes me as a "no true scotsman" argument. Those horrible deeds were not perpetrated by atheists because they weren't really atheists.

Beth

 

[Donn]

What dictators like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and others did was merely to create their own religion, with themselves as the deity, complete with rituals and places of worship.

Brilliant comeback, really sharp observation. Love it.

It is the religious mindset that is the problem, not the lack of it. The willingness to irrationally, uncritically and blindly follow unsubstantiated or downright fallacious claims and concepts.

Hence BIS's rather controversial "True Sceptic" concept. Surely those Sceptics who uphold any portion of the Religious mindset are not using the tools of Scepticism properly?

I believe religion is here to stay because it is part of human nature to readily fall into its trap, unfortunately, but my hope is that separation of church ..snip.

Let's hope Iraq gets this right at this crucial stage in their democracy.
Let's not forget America either...

Someone stated somewhere that religion has given us many beatiful works of art. This may be true; however from those pre-enlightenment days they are virtually the only works of art ..snip... But we do have lots of glorious alter tablets and lots of pretty angels and impressive but practically useless cathedrals that cost thousands of lives to bulid - money that could have been spent on human and technological progress and improving conditions for the poor rather than on building guilded places of worship for some spiteful, vindictive and vain airy-fairy.

Yup, study art-history and you have to wade through centuries of the Madonna with this and the Madonna with that. JC in this pose and JC in that pose, in this style and in that.

I visited St Peter's (Rome) once years ago. I knew nothing of Scepticism then, even the Internet was not around back then. My first and abiding sensation upon walking in there was one of disgust.

The sheer opulence is it's own indictment...

Great post - thankyou.

 

[crimresearch]

Excellent post, luchog. However, I would hesitate to cite atheism as the cause for the deaths; I believe the primary motivation in all cases was the permanent elimination of any possible framework that could resist the establishment and/or ongoing stability of the various regimes in question. Atheism in these cases was probably merely a tool for creating a group identity for the ruling class, rather than a motivating philosophy that led to the bloodshed.

Regarding Hitler; he unquestionably started out as a Christian, but eventually turned against Christianity. Hitler was fascinated by the occult and paganism; arguably, one can say that Hitler's religion centered around these things with Germany as the deity. I believe that calling Hitler an atheist is an error - although it's certainly open to debate.

I would tend to agree. Atheism was an adjunct to those oppressive communist regimes, not their cause, or motivation.
Did any of them occur as a replacement for a theocracy?

Mao was also opposed to modern music...would that make him a militant folkie?

And the Ahnenerbe SS was the Reich's attempt to create academic credentials for occult/Atlantis/Aryan quasi-religious interests, so again, atheist doesn't seem like the proper identifier.

Works like "Festival of the White Gauze Scarves: A research expedition through Tibet to Lhasa, the holy city of the god realm"
seem incompatible with militant atheism.

 

[jmercer]

Anders,

Your post is quite eloquent, but it strikes me as a "no true scotsman" argument. Those horrible deeds were not perpetrated by atheists because they weren't really atheists.

Beth

I don't know if they were atheists or not; indications for at least some of them is that they were. I agree with you that linking their actions to athiesm is an error. Their actions were chosen by them not because of their personal views on religion, but because it was the most expedient means of gaining and/or preserving power.

The same goes for many atrocities committed by various religions; the people running the show claim to be fulfilling the will of God(s), but were really motivated by a desire to gain or retain secular power. God was just an excuse; if not religion, some other vehicle would have been forced to serve, such as Communism, Socialism, Nationalism, Patriotism, etc. History is rife with examples.

We blame religion for a lot of things; but in the end, it's not usually religion itself that's the issue - it's the people responsible for religion or those secular groups that use it for their own purposes. If you view most religion's primary tenets - PRIMARY tenets! - Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc., should be harmless and even benign in some aspects.

Unfortunately, these same exact institutions historically represented a path to secular power, lending to their use and abuse. (And they still do represent a path to power in the world today, albeit diminished.)

I'm not going to go into a detailed history lesson here, but if anyone thinks that medieval Europe's attitude and actions concerning religion were mostly motivated by religious beliefs, then allow me to disabuse you of that notion. If you look into it, I think you'll find that most of Europe's history concerning religion was a struggle for secular power between the Church(es) and ruling Monarch's of the time, or the use of religion to preserve and secure secular power... and events like the Crusades were motivated by far more than the excuse of regaining control of the "Holy Land".

Another example, if you examine it closely, is one of the most famous abuses of the Church - specifically Torquemada's Spanish Inquisition. Murder on a grand scale was performed in hidden support of King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella, who were having problems maintaining control of segments of the population. Torquemada - who became close to them - targeted Jews and Muslims (Moors), who were killed and/or expelled in the name of God - but a more honest statement would have been "In the name of the King". While the Monarchs were benefited, so was Torquemada, because it more strongly established the Catholic Church in Spain.... giving him tremendous secular influence and power. A third ruler of Spain, if you will... and one who could have - theoretically - also removed Ferdinand and Isabella.

My point is that viewing either religion or atheism as the root cause for these kinds of acts is far too simplistic; there will always be fanatics that perform horrible acts in the name of [You fill in the Blank]; but they are the minority. By far, the majority of these actions are performed with ulterior motives in mind. (Today's "terrorist leaders" are a good example of this.) Religion, anti-religion or atheism is merely the excuse du jour.

 

[sphenisc]

You don't have to go that far back in history to find religiopolitical leaders suggest policies which don't really accord with the teachings of their faith...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4178608.stm

 

[BS Investigator]

Luchog,


What dictators like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and others did was merely to create their own religion, with themselves as the deity, complete with rituals and places of worship. They used exactly the same methods and applied psychology, and did so deliberately, as the churces had used to obtain and maintain power for centuries. So on the surface they were anti-established-religion, because it competed for power, but in principle they acted exactly like religious fundamentalists.

...



It is the religious mindset that is the problem, not the lack of it. The willingness to irrationally, uncritically and blindly follow unsubstantiated or downright fallacious claims and concepts. We Know The Truth belief is what kills, not the lack of belief in those unsubstantiated or downright fallacious claims and concepts. The homicidal dictators of the 20th century, and all others of their ilk, had the religious mindset and exploited it for their own greed.

Exactly. And let's not forget that Hitler and Stalin were leading heavily religious populations. Probably 90% or greater of Germany's general population had been raised in religious traditions, which I have argued are dangerous because they teach people to abandon critical thinking and follow higher authorities (aka, "The Lord") blindly.

When entire populations are unable to question authority or think critically, it is a recipe for disaster, as witnessed in Germany, for example.

 

[jmercer]

And let's not forget that Hitler and Stalin were leading heavily religious populations. Probably 90% or greater of Germany's general population had been raised in religious traditions, which I have argued are dangerous because they teach people to abandon critical thinking and follow higher authorities (aka, "The Lord") blindly.

When entire populations are unable to question authority or think critically, it is a recipe for disaster, as witnessed in Germany, for example.

I disagree - in both cases, religion created an obstacle to Hitler and Stalin, not an opportunity. Hitler and Stalin went to great lengths (and expended enormous amounts of energy) to extirpate religion. Both ultimately failed and were eventually forced to resort to mass murder, terror and secret police tactics... all to suppress a social structure that opposed them and had enough influence to be a real obstacle to their goals.

The first people to die in both situations were religious figures that opposed the actions being taken (or proposed) by their respective leaders. Hitler eventually attempted to substitute a pseudo-religion when he failed in his efforts to destroy Christianity and Judaism in Germany; that effort failed miserably, too, so he resorted to heavy-handed terrorist tactics. Stalin simply attempted to remove religion from the equation entirely by promoting state sponsored atheism while murdering as many people as needed to eradicate religion. Of course, just like Hitler, he only succeed in driving it underground.

Further, I take direct exception to the implication of your statements; the majority of Germans and Russians did NOT support the actions of Hitler and Stalin. They were as much victimized as anyone else. To even imply that these people willingly followed these monsters because they were brainwashed by religion into "following higher authorities" is absolutely horrendous. History does NOT support your assertion in these cases, and I suggest you reconsider the implications of your position on it.

Regarding your argument about religious tradition teaching people to abandon critical thinking - nonsense. You cannot abandon something unless you have it to begin with. Critical thinking is taught; it's not some kind of instinct that people are born with and then can be deprived of. Saying that religion teaches people to abandon critical thinking is as fallacious as saying that science teaches people to abandon faith.

In fact, I challenge you to show me one single verifiable example of a critical thinker that was persuaded by religion to abandon critical thinking. Just one.

How about I cite a religious figure that understood critical thinking and used it?

St. Thomas Aquinas.

In light of your OP and most recent post, I guess I should point out that St. Thomas Aquinas is regarded as the first person to document systematic critical thinking in the middle ages.

A Brief History of the Idea of Critical Thinking from www.criticalthinking.org
In the middle ages, the tradition of systematic critical thinking was embodied in the writings and teachings of such thinkers as Thomas Aquinas (Sumna Theologica) who to ensure his thinking met the test of critical thought-always systematically stated, considered, and answered all criticisms of his ideas as a necessary stage in developing them. Aquinas heightened our awareness not only of the potential power of reasoning but also of the need for reasoning to be systematically cultivated and "cross-examined." Of course, Aquinas' thinking also illustrates that those who think critically do not always reject established beliefs, only those beliefs that lack reasonable foundations.

Methinks your agenda is showing. Better hide it, quick!

 

[Palimpsest]

I disagree - in both cases, religion created an obstacle to Hitler and Stalin, not an opportunity. Hitler and Stalin went to great lengths (and expended enormous amounts of energy) to extirpate religion. Both ultimately failed and were eventually forced to resort to mass murder, terror and secret police tactics... all to suppress a social structure that opposed them and had enough influence to be a real obstacle to their goals.

I have to question whether religion was an obstacle for Hitler and the Nazis. Of course he hated Jews, but my understanding is that a lot of Christians, both Catholic and Protestant (especially those high up in the hierarchy) supported the Nazi agenda: nationalism, fighting communism (and any left-wing or labour movements), judaism, feminism, gay rights, race-mixing, etc...

I'm aware that Hitler despised Christianity (and especially Catholicism, so I hear), but would he have gotten into power without the support of Xians who shared much of his world-view?

 

[Pragmatist]

Sorry for the delay in replying, I'm very busy at the moment.

Wait, wait. You might be taking that line out of context. This is advice Feynman was giving his students, ie "let's just go through the curriculum and not waste time with the perceived implications of undead cats, cos this ain't Philosophy 101." I very much doubt Feynman or any scientist would be giving his peers advice like that.

And you base this statement on what evidence precisely? This is not just advice he gave to his students, it was advice he gave to everyone and which he often repeated at public lectures. And I am quite certain that he didn't mean anything like your alleged context. You only have to look at something like the Douglas Robb Memorial Lectures and you'll see exactly what context he said this in.

It is cheating to not even try to understand it, and doubly cheating to appeal to authority to justify it. That way lies woo.

What appeal to authority? I gave an example of a physicist who claimed that there was no need to worry about understanding something that seemed intractable. What was important was to accept what the evidence showed regardless of whether it was understandable or not. My point was that some members of the scientific community see no problem in the fact that something is not understood and that they don't necessarily waste their time trying to make sense of something that seems senseless. Instead they operate with the data they have and hope that new data will arise which will provide further insight. Feynman was not alone in this view and he wasn't shouted out of the scientific community for expressing it, because it is a prevalent view. And the only reason I mentioned Feynman at all was because I specifically remebered him saying it.

I never said that he said that nobody should ever not try to understand it. Please look at what I actually wrote.

And, an "appeal to authority" is a logical fallacy which I did not make. Referring to an authority is not a fallacy of "appeal to authority" unless one uses it to avoid arguing a point - which I didn't.

Irrationality doesn't mean going against common sense. So-called "common" so-called "sense" can be deeply irrational. QM has rules, despite looking to the layperson like freaky sci-fi. However, it's sci and not fi. It allows for testable predictions. Religion doesn't have any rules that 3 random people can agree upon. Therefore it is irrational and not just in appearance.

I didn't say that it did. Again, please read what I actually wrote. I agree that religion is irrational. It's what I've been saying all along. Maybe we're getting tied up in words here. Let's break it down into logical bites:

1. If religion is irrational, then it can't be "false" because the logical judgement of "false" is inapplicable to things that are irrational because logic doesn't encompass the irrational.
2. If religion really is "false" then it must be rational.
3. Some people say science must be true because it is rational.
4. When science appears to be irrational some people still say it must be true despite the fact of that appearance.
5. The reason why some people say that religion is "false" is because it appears irrational.

Points 1 and 2 are contradictory. Points 2 and 3 are contradictory. Points 4 and 5 are contradictory. Draw your own conclusions what that says about the rationality of some of the arguments used against religion.

But I didn't define anything as unknowable. I said that we would never be able to know everything, but all that means is there will always be a lot of unknown. Not the same thing at all. I don't believe we will ever reach a point where we can't know anymore. We can only say for sure that something is unknowable (by us) when our species dies and therefore stops investigating, before researching it. But saying that something is a priori unknowable? No.

I've explained this in other posts. Maybe I expressed myself badly. I say that there are certain things which are simply not within the domain of "knowledge". For example, you can know about something, you can't directly, personally experience all things. Experience itself is "unknowable", you either experience something directly or you don't, but knowing about something is never a substitute for the actual experience of something. Experience itself cannot be conveyed by knowledge and is therefore a priori, "unknowable".

No I don't agree. Lots of people have been predicting that sort of thing ever since Democritus (the guy who coined the term "atom"), but it hasn't happened yet. And there's no particular reason why it should.

So you propose that we can continue to break things down into smaller units without limit. Do you agree that if there is no limit we will end up with an infinite number of things? And do you believe that anyone can "know" an infinite number of things?

It is not a question of what I "predict" (I haven't made any predictions!) it's a question of logic that either there is a limit or not. I don't know either way, but in any event I believe that if there is a limit then the thing at the end of that limit will be "unknowable" in and of itself. And if there is no limit, we will end up with an infinite number of things which by virtue of the fact they are infinite in number we will not be able to know.

If something is unknown, then obviously we can't presently understand it. But that doesn't mean we never will.

To me, that is tantamount to saying that a good enough map of the territory can possibly one day be the territory. To me, that is an error of logic.

 

[Pragmatist]

Isn't this just a variation of Sagan's dragon in the garage? Would you give some guy talking about an intangible, invisible, etc... dragon the same benefit of the doubt as you give people talking about "god"?

Of course! I don't have to believe him, I may even think he is crazy (just as I may even think some people who talk about god are crazy), and finally I may even tell him that it is my opinion that he is crazy. However, what I won't tell him is that dragons don't exist because I don't know that - and to pretend I do would be dishonest.

Doesn't that lack of definitions make "god" just a totally meaningless syllable? What do you mean when you write "god"?

That's part of what I've been arguing all along. "Definitions" of objects of the irrational are meaningless noise. I don't mean anything when I write "god" because as I have repeatedly explained I don't believe in god. I only refer to typical uses of the word by others - if you want to know what they mean, you'll have to ask them.

How many crazy theories have been dreamed up by scientists over the years? How many of those turned out to be just moonshine? Your analogy equates god with anti-matter, but maybe god is more like N-Rays?

Firstly it is not an analogy, it is a fact. Secondly it is not an "analogy that equates god with anti-matter". It is a demonstration that a "falsification" (or the grounds for one) is not absolute knowledge - that knowledge itself, including scientific knowledge is provisional. If anyone believes that our current knowledge is absolute truth then they are seriously deluded, indistinguishably in fact from any "true believer".