My Two Cents #112 – Atheism

1. 

   psykotedy

   Dec 10 2007

   Science wins. Thanks for playing.

   Log in to Reply
2. 

   Louis

   Dec 10 2007

   Once again, when evolution and its bed-buddy atheism are applied logically, without Christian and human ethical restraints, they lead to where all such lies have always led in history – to atrocity.
   Does this explain the various examples of atrocities committed by xians throughout history? For example, the Thirty Years War between Protestant and Catholic xians wherein 1 in 3 Germans were killed or murdered, or the 16th century mass murder of Protestant Huguenot by French Catholics? Or perhaps the genocide committed against Native Americans instigated by Catholic xians? Or the Catholic Inquisition? Or the numerous examples of murderous pogroms against Jews and gays committed by both Catholic and Protestant xians? I could go on, but you get the point.
   It seems that, applied logically, without the restraint of secular human ethics or, indeed, simple human decency, xianity is just as capable of committing atrocities as any other philosophy. People in glass houses…

   Log in to Reply
3. 

   danielg

   Dec 10 2007

   What does science win, and whom were they competing against? Does that have anything to do with this post?
   Does this explain the various examples of atrocities committed by xians throughout history?
   Yes, Louis, I have explained this repeatedly, as mentioned in the post linked to above on atrocities. The answers are clear and simple:
   - Many wars attributed to religion are not religious in nature
   - Religious fanatics commit evil in religion’s name, but Jesus’ teaching stand as a rebuke to such, not a support
   - Religion is NOT the main progenitor of violence – really it is mankind, *unrestrained and unconverted by faith* who has been the worst problem
   - Fanatics of all stripes embarrass their ideologies because humans are fallen, and can abuse even the most noble system of thought – the difference is that while Christian ideals logically and practically lead to peace and service, atheism (and Islam) logically lead to atrocity, whether or not such ends are intended by their followers (usually not).
   As I wrote in a comment:

   And the whole point here is to show that (1) Christianity is not responsible for the vast crimes that anti-religionist secularists and atheists claim, and to the contrary – atheism, esp. as witnessed in our century, has killed more than religion ever has.
   And in fact, since the past is so vulnerable to historical revisionism, why don’t we just stick to what we have witnessed in the last 200 years?
   I’d say that anti-Christian, anti-Jewish and atheist forces, along with Islam, have shown their true potential in modern history….
   Secularism and atheism seek “redemption” through reason and intellect. And my main point is that, when you enthrone reason as the ONLY king of mankind, it becomes a despot because human nature (and reason), given ultimate power, always ends up in corruption.
   This is why godless philosophies will not work on a grand scale. We need to appeal, at the very least, to the self-evident truths seen in the Natural Law, and as given by a benevolent God of objective truth.
   That’s my whole point here – not that atheists are evil – even communists were aiming for a noble goal – but both misunderstand the nature of man and of God – that is, reality, so they are doomed to failure.
   And again, we most certainly should employ reason, logic, scientific analysis, and ethics. But apart from God, we will always end up in a ditch.

   And lastly:

   atheism has little room to condemn Christianity for two reasons: (1) claims of xian atrocities are usually misrepresented (Crusades, Inquisition), exaggerated in their numbers (Witch Trials), and atheistic groups, whether or not you think they represented true atheism, have killed millions more than religion.
   And, I argue, it is so because
   (1) man without God is more likely to fall into the ultimate corruption of ultimate power, and
   (2) the core teachings of Jesus are clearly in opposition to such totalitarian and cruel methods (“love your enemies”), and of course
   (3) other religions that do evil (Islam) often do so because their core teachings are evil – Mohamed himself took part in many jihads, ordered assassinations, and was openly anti-semitic. I would not lump xianity into their bucket.
   And once more:
   And as for not imputing to Darwinism the guilt of Social Darwinism, or imputing to atheism the sins of Communism, and then comparing that to those who abuse Christianity, that comparison is only partly valid. What is valid is that people do twist or misapply the teachings of ideologies and do evil, misrepresenting the ideologies and their core teachings.
   However, I would say that in the case of Darwinism and atheism, more than just the perversity of human nature is involved. With Darwinism, even Darwin recognized, and failed to condemn the OBVIOUS conclusion that the principles of natural selection could be applied as a conscious social policy. The fact is, Darwinism logically but unwittingly gives scientific “validity” to eugenics, and played what appears to be an obvious historic role in the Nazi ideology. Does that make Darwinism wrong, or does it make it evil?
   No. But it does make Darwinists naive if they don’t see the connection. And the fact that the idea of Darwinism dovetails so well with these other heinous ideas is a sign that the theory itself may be wrong, since it fails to integrate well into other established scientific and social constructs.
   Regarding atheism, what we see in Communism and the other atheistic, despotic governments is again more than just the perversity of fallen humanity. It has more to do with the fact that atheism is deeply flawed, and can not help but lead to such horrors despite the well-meaning atheists out there (like Marx ;).
   It errs in two critical ways. First, it gives all moral authority over to man’s reason, and in so doing, gives ultimate power to mankind to determine right and wrong. And giving man ultimate power leads inevitably to corruption. Second, it deceives itself into thinking that its hatred for religion won’t inevitably manifest itself in suppression and persecution. The fact is, it can NEVER let religion have any power in public affairs, because it is, both in principle and emotion, against faith. As long as faith is inert (like state churches in China, or many nominal and liberal churches in America), atheism can afford to think itself noble and “not harm religion.” But get a faith with commitment and teeth, and watch your lovely atheistic government imprison and kill at will.
   What we see in China, and what we saw in the other cruel Communist governments, is exactly what you will always see under atheistic rule, because it flows from their beliefs, despite their motives, just like cruelty flows from Islam despite their desire to be a “religion of peace.”

   Log in to Reply
4. 

   psykotedy

   Dec 10 2007

   Oops! The link in my previous comment was to the wrong section of the page. This is what I was going for. Science is always at odds with religion; religion steps in when there's not definitive proof of something and states that divinity made it happen. Well, that's just as foolish as saying that thunder is giants throwing boulders at one another. It's a way in which things which cannot be explained are explained nonsensically.
   That being said, it can be helpful to have fairy tales to lean on. I know a number of reformed alcoholics that rely on prayer to keep themselves out of bottles. However, that does not mean that somehow the hand of some divine being steps in and gives them the strength to resist alcohol, it means that they use a divine being as a focus point…much like that used in Lamaze to dampen the pain.

   Log in to Reply
5. 

   danielg

   Dec 10 2007

   That is one way to look at the relationship between Faith and Reason, or religion and science.
   You may like to read about one engineer's take on this, in Reconciling Faith and Science.
   Or, you may take the view that historian Rodney Stark does, which is that monotheism, and specifically Christianity, gave rise to modern science, and that it was essential (see The biblical origins of science).
   But to some extent, while you are right about superstition and some flavors of immature, institutional faith, you are also playing into the Atheist's Caricature of Faith.
   More often, people of faith have not only made the most significant historical contributions to science (think Boyle, Newton, Kepler, Mendel, Pascal, Faraday, Joule, and Pasteur, just to name a few), but have also added the necessary ethical and moral framework in which to curtail abuse (though in general, whatever IS possible will eventually be tried).

   Log in to Reply
6. 

   danielg

   Dec 10 2007

   And again, the idea that faith hinders science was actually promulgated, not by FACT, but by anti-Catholic "enlightement" historians who misrepresented, or in some cases like that mentioned in the Rodney Stark article discussing the false accusation that the church supported a flat erath, *fabricated* such contentions.
   Even with Galileo, a man of faith, his opposition was not so much the church as the established Aristotlian rubric accepted by science AND the church (unfortunately).

   Log in to Reply
7. 

   Louis

   Dec 10 2007

   Yes,seeker,we've been over this many times. However, it always irritates me how xians constantly try to duck any responsibility for their religion for the historical atrocities in which it has been involved. The excuses are always the same: it's not the religion, it's man's depraved nature that's responsible, and it's only a perversion of the religion, not the "true" religion, which is at fault. I can agree that we can exract a philosophy from Jesus which, by itself, condemns the actions taken in his name. However, I maintain that the fault lies in the religion itself for much of what has occurred. It contains authoritarian and exclusivist dogmas which lie at the heart of the atrocities it commits. It maintains that it is the only one, true religion, and all others (including other philosophies) are not only false and misleading, but horribly so, because they result in the damnation of their followers. Also, as the Bible is so vague on so many points, and open to interpretation, it has spawned innumberable competing cults, all of which claim exclusive right to "truth."
   I'm not interested in a numbers competition – which is responsible for the most atrocities, atheism or religion? – the very fact that organized xian religion does perpetrate atrocities based on the Bible, is shocking in itself. In my opinion, if God wanted to design a religion which is infallible, why didn't he make himself abolutely clear, and make frequent updates to communicate his intent to us? His "Word" combines vagueness with abolutist demands – a lethal combination.
   I realize you will disagree, but I still think it's disingenuous of you to excuse the misuse of xianity while holding atheist to the hightest standard of responsibility possible. You are applying a double-standard which cannot be maintained.

   Log in to Reply
8. 

   danielg

   Dec 10 2007

   Well, those are good comments which deserve more reflection and discussion – I think you are right about people making excuses, but also, some of the faults you find in religion are not only due to man's abuses, but due to the nature of objective truth and the need for justice in the light of real evil, which may seem harsh, yet it is unloving for God not to bring justice for the oppressed.
   Atheism does not get off easily b/c, while it may be innocent of some abuses as xianity is, others it is fully responsible for are a result of atheism's ideas themselves. And perhaps you could argue something similar against christian ideas, but i think the argument would be a lot weaker b/c xianity works in many ways that atheism fails at.
   I agree that things could be clearer. That too is a subject worth exploring.
   But again, though we make demands on how we think God should do things if He exists, and we must answer or at least address our logical and ethical/moral objections to "God's plan," ultimately, the question is not "does it sound right to me?" but rather, "is it true?"
   I don't like the fact that certain things are true, but that does not change them.

   Log in to Reply
9. 

   danielg

   Dec 10 2007

   BTW, Louis, your comments have been very good lately, and show a respectful, if not non-argumentative approach. Thank you, nice job.

   Log in to Reply

Share your thoughts, post a comment.

You must be logged in to post a comment.