Governments Using Atheism by Force

[Robert Tulip]

Robert, ironically the thought that atheism is secondary (I mean as not a causal factor) came to me through Niebuhr in "The Irony of American History." There he is very clear that the outrage was the Soviet Union's setting up a new religion based on giving power to the proletariat. He declares that it is not the S.U.'s "atheism" (even using the quotation marks) that we should look to to explain its monstrous nature. It is its concentration of absolute power in the hands of a few, so ironic given the ideals it started with. (I am trying, unsuccessfully so far, to find the quotation from the book.)

Bill, if you have a look at the site Grim linked (which I also posted here some time ago when we had a similar conversation) you will see that Niebuhr was wrong in his analysis of the Soviet Union. Lenin saw stamping out Christianity as a central task.

Just to touch upon the assumption: did we ever have a unified and coherent worldview? If we did, was it necessarily a good thing? It sounds good, has a comforting ring, but let's examine it. On atheism being such a worldview, I don't see how not believing that the world didn't have a creator and doesn't have a superintending God adds up to a religion as you define it.

All explanatory narratives seek to be unified and coherent. They argue their corner when challenged. You are right that atheism, when confined to merely negative assertions, does not add up to a worldview. However, it provides the main explanatory narrative for modern science, and most certainly does argue its corner. These days science has a much better case for being unified and coherent than any religion. The trouble is that science achieves this unity by avoiding value questions which are central to human identity.

But couldn't anyone adopt this as a moral and ethical vision without belief in mystical Christianity? And like Penelope, I don't see how other religions must be cancelled out because some believe the Sermon on the Mount to be the "greatest" source of rebinding. This is a passage from the Christian Bible, but it holds no magical sway over the actions of Christians, as we can see through the centuries.

You make a good point about the problem of mysticism. My own view is that Christianity needs major reform to become compatible with science before it will be credible. I think this will involve movement on the part of both science and religion to recognise a mystical basis for science. I do not at all suggest any religions should be cancelled out. All religion is part of the rich heritage of humanity and should be valued as a source of learning, even where at face value people believe things that are not true. Mahatma Ghandi, when asked "What do you think of Western civilization" replied: "I think it would be a good idea." He also said “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” The problem with the Sermon on the Mount is that it has never been tried.

[Penelope]

Robert:

Arguing, in your rather patronising term, about 'whose fairy is best' would probably have been a more productive task than the recent Gaza invasion.

Oh Robert, you are quite right, it does sound patronising. I got excited because I thought the 'photosynthesis' analogy was rather good (and it was original - not something I read somewhere). So I got a bit carried away and puffed up with my own 'imagined' brilliance. Sorry!

[Penelope]

A REQUEST:

The Beatitudes - The Sermon on the Mount.

The meek shall inherit the earth......well, I don't want the earth anyway.

Robert - Could you, would you, lead at discussion on The Beatitudes?

Chris - would you allow it on here?

I have so often wanted to know what it was all about. You can't discuss it with a vicar because they are not allowed to say what they really think - 'Jobsworth'.

Do you think, we might have a forum on this subject?

[DWill]

]Bill, if you have a look at the site Grim linked (which I also posted here some time ago when we had a similar conversation) you will see that Niebuhr was wrong in his analysis of the Soviet Union. Lenin saw stamping out Christianity as a central task.

It's a back-and-forth at this point, Robert. If your intention is to convince me of terrible persecutions committed by the Soviets, I didn't need convincing. Grim's original thought was that states such as the F.S.U. might use atheism as a tool to consolidate power. That sounds as though the main impulse behind Marxism/Leninism is the destruction of Christianity, that its vision is that kind of negative one. But the vision is a positive one (not in the sense of "good"), entailing a particular dream of human purpose and destiny. When Niebuhr weighed in on what makes the Soviet system bad or demonic, he did not choose atheism because that would have been missing the main point. And that's all I'm saying. A further point, though, concerns the bad track record of regimes who have replaced religion with some kind of faith in the state and have therefore been officially atheistic. These have indeed been bad regimes, but are we justified in saying that therefore atheism is bad or doesn't work? I think not. Some theocracies do no better. The best conclusion would be that anti-democratic governments, which don't allow freedom of thought among citizens, are bad for human flourishing.

[Robert Tulip]

The anti-democratic nature of forced atheism is its main problem, rather like the stultifying thought-police of George Orwell's 1984. I just finally bought a copy of Robert Conquest's The Great Terror, as I have a strong interest in 20th century Russian history. Koba the Dread by Martin Amis could be one to consider here. My view is that the distinction between atheism and the positive doctrine of communism is false and forced, as atheism is central to the "progressive" communist ideology which consigns religion to the dustbin of history in favour of a glorious evolution towards equality. The unequal misery of Communist Russia's bleak atheism is a big part of why this term 'progressive' makes my hackles rise.

Sorry Penelope if I seemed mean about your fairy comment. Maybe I have a colonial chip on my shoulder about accidentally snooty Poms. A great book on the Beatitudes is Plan Be by Dave Andrews. http://www.daveandrews.com.au/publications.html

[Penelope]

Thank you Robert, I'll try that link.

Snooty???Moi????

[Grim]

Grim's original thought was that states such as the F.S.U. might use atheism as a tool to consolidate power. That sounds as though the main impulse behind Marxism/Leninism is the destruction of Christianity, that its vision is that kind of negative one. But the vision is a positive one (not in the sense of "good"), entailing a particular dream of human purpose and destiny.

And also that the control of religion is essentially the task of an authoritarian state, whether they arrest clergy or limit the political power of an particular religion.

It seems logical to say that global atheism will never be achieved without some (extreme) measure of force. However it is also a realistic to believe that church's are best kept within their proper limits of an open society. How can this be achieved but by force?

The most pointed claim of Scientology is that it has religious freedom, yet it is literally a cult!! What are we to do arrest the leaders, or tell them that they don't have free speech?

Ignoring the problem of pervasive religion is a large mistake, to say that somehow the Constitution is still upholding the separation between religion and politics is an even bigger one.

How, without the use of force, can you rationally contain the irrational when it has every right to be wrong? I don't assume that America wants to start building on Chinese or Soviet traditions here, but the dilemma seems obvious.

This is simply about using a set of ethical values as a basis for dialogue.

I agree with Penelope on this a big part of the issue is why and how these "set of ethical" walls must fall.

[richards1000]

Respecting Robert's statement: "My own view is that Christianity needs major reform to become compatible with science before it will be credible. I think this will involve movement on the part of both science and religion to recognise a mystical basis for science."

Given the ability of Descartes, Pascal, Mendel, and Teilhard de Chardin, among many others, to successfully integrate Christianity with science, what reforms, exactly, are needed to render that integration credible?

Robert

[Grim]

That sounds as though the main impulse behind Marxism/Leninism is the destruction of Christianity, that its vision is that kind of negative one. But the vision is a positive one (not in the sense of "good"), entailing a particular dream of human purpose and destiny

Of course you are absolutely correct; however, in the future please make a point of separating whatever practical relationship you may believe there to be between Marxism and Leninism. Lenin adored the teaching of Marx, the methods he used to attempt achieving them give definition to his particular political philosophy. Terror.

"At this meeting, pass a secret resolution of the congress that the confiscation of valuables, in particular of the richest abbeys, monasteries, and churches, should be conducted with merciless determination, unconditionally stopping at nothing, and in the briefest possible time. The greater the number of representatives of the reactionary clergy and reactionary bourgeoisie we succeed in executing for this reason, the better. We must teach these people a lesson right now, so that they will not dare even to think of any resistance for several decades."

Stalin, who developed Stalinism directly from Leninism, essentially claimed legitimacy by how closely he followed Lenin's horrific ideas continued the terror.

"It is precisely now and only now, when in the starving areas people are eating human flesh, and hundreds, if not thousands of corpses are littering the roads, that we can (and therefore must) carry out the confiscation of the Church valuables with the most savage and merciless energy, not stopping [short of] crushing any resistance

It is this type of decree that defines Leninism. Yes it is true that Lenin always found a high degree personal legitimacy in Marxism and would undoubtedly claim a heightened understanding of Marx's works, but his horrific implementation of it had to be eviscerated into his own brand of political philosophy lest a confusion between the two be made.

"It is certainly sad and regrettable that so many innocent people died. But I believe the terror of the late 1930s was necessary. Of course, if we had used greater caution, there would have been fewer victims, but Stalin was adamant on making doubly sure; spare no one, but guarantee absolute stability in the country for a long time - through the war and postwar years, which was no doubt achieved. I don't deny that I supported that view. I was simply not able to study every individual case.... It was hard to draw a precise line where to stop,[and so no lines were drawn at all]....That policy of repression was the only hope for the people, for the Revolution. It was the only way we could remain true to Leninism and its basic principals. Today that policy would be out of the question, of course."

Reading these quotes as a historical subtext for the present it becomes ever clearer exactly what tactics and ideology must be avoided to our own great peril as free citizens.

[richards1000]

Respecting Grim's statement: "Ignoring the problem of pervasive religion is a large mistake": Would you please elaborate? Religions are extremely numerous and diverse. Scholars of religion, anthropologists, and sociologists tell us that there are hundreds of religions practiced in the world today. Each has its own doctrines, and within some religions, there are multiple, competing doctrines, as, for example, within the different denominations of Judaism. Moreover, many religions have a very wide range of activities, including formal group worship, individual spiritual practice, informal social gatherings, education, health care, social work, political advocacy, and institution building. In many nations, institutions sponsored by religions, particularly schools, hospitals, and institutions that serve the poor and marginalized, make up a substantial component of civil society; that is, they make a substantial contribution to social order. Are you contending that each and every religion and religious denomination in the world, considered in the full range of its doctrine and practices, poses a threat to social order? If so, on what grounds? If not, which particular religions or denominations, in what nations, do you see as a threat to social order and why?

Respecting Grim's statement: "to say that somehow the Constitution is still upholding the separation between religion and politics is an even bigger one": The Constitution provides, respecting the relationship of religion to politics: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." That is all it says. To my knowledge, Congress is obeying these instructions. In what ways, exactly, is Congress acting inconsistently with these rules?

Robert