ARTICLE : Does Atheism Lead to Despotism?

[STR Ambassador]

Some counter the charge that atheism leads to despotism by pointing to religious tyrannies. This misses the point, says Greg. With religious groups, despotism is an aberrant outcome, a wrong use of power. But with atheism, tyranny is the natural consequence a government unrestrained by transcendent law.

Does Atheism Lead to Despotism? by Greg Koukl

Let's have a little lesson in logic.
As you know, I enjoy perusing the letters to the editor to see how the "man on the street" reasons about critical issues, especially religious and moral issues. Generally, it's a depressing experience. It's tragic that so many Americans, indeed Christian Americans, have not been equipped to think more carefully. This is obvious to me when I read letters that attempt to refute another person's point of view.
Case in point: Last week the paper featured a piece about the Pope, communism, atheism, and Cuba. The author noted that totalitarian communist countries were also officially atheist. Today's paper (L.A. Times 1/26/98)posted the replies of two atheists who were deeply offended by the implication that atheism leads to totalitarianism.
See if you can figure out what's wrong with these responses.
"George Wigel [the author of the original article] argues that because communist countries are atheistic and tyrannical that atheism inevitably leads to tyranny. This is false reasoning. If we consider the record of countries that do officially support belief in God, we find that tyranny and oppression are just as common."*
He goes on to mention the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades, the Nazi Holocaust--all supported ostensibly by Christian countries--and the abuses in Islamic fundamentalist nations. Then he says, "Wigel demonizes atheists and claims that concern for humanity requires a belief in God. However, a respect for the inherent worth and dignity of every person requires no belief in God and can serve as a common moral ground between secular and religious humanists."
Can you tell me what's wrong with his response?
Let's state the writer's objection clearly: It is wrong to conclude that the atheism of communist regimes has anything to do with their tyranny. Here is his evidence: Religious countries can be tyrannous, too.
This writer has made two errors here. The first is called tu quoque in the Latin, or in English, simply "you too." Religious governments can be despotic also, he points out.
True enough, but that tells us nothing about the source of tyranny in communist governments. It simply points the finger in another direction. "You do it too." Tu quoque. This is not helpful.
But there's something else going on here, friends. This writer's response never actually addresses the charge in the article, that atheism leads to tyranny. He seems to think he's off the hook if religion is capable of producing the same result. That's a mistake. It may be that religious governments lead to oppression, but that fact alone (if it is a fact) can't exonerate atheism of the charge.
There is a monumental difference between the influence of religion and the influence of atheism that is a relevant factor here. Dennis Prager puts it in the form of a question: If you were in a dark alley in South Central Los Angeles and saw ten young men walking toward you, would you be more at ease if you knew the men had just come from a Bible study?"
The answer, of course, is yes. It comes spontaneously to us because we know that one of the chief aims of at least the monotheistic religions is to improve moral behavior, in part because of accountability to God. People who believe they must answer to God for their behavior are more likely to live moral lives than those same people would be if they answered to no one with no ultimate consequences for their behavior.
Since a main teaching of religion is accountability, and a main teaching of atheism is freedom from accountability, which system do you think would more naturally produce tyranny?
If Lord Acton's dictum is correct—that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely—then it seems to me that atheist regimes naturally and inevitably lead to corruption expressed in despotism.
It makes sense. The one who has absolute power, who answers to no higher power, makes his own rules.
You know what happens after that? Might makes right. If there is no God, and I run a country, guess who the absolute power is? Me. And if power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, and I think I'm the absolute power because there is no God above me, do you see how naturally this leads to despotism?
By the way, communism isn't just incidentally atheistic. It is necessarily atheistic. Atheism is communist doctrine. Atheism is what justifies their right to rule. The strong rule the weak--social Darwinism.
By the way, if evolution is the whole story, then we have the same situation. There's no God, nothing but the natural order, no morality dictating behavior. There's no moral obligation to protect the weak. Anything is allowed. The strongest win.
So if we believe there is no God, that leads naturally to the idea that we are the final arbiter of truth, and if we have power, there are no moral restraints to its use. We might desire to use it beneficially, but we could equally choose to use it viciously. And, in fact, power does that to people in positions of power.
Bad thinking here, in the letters to the editor.
One additional thought. In his letter to the editor the atheist writes, "A respect for the inherent worth and dignity of every person requires no belief in God."
Well, in one sense he's certainly right, friends. There are people who are atheists who also hold to the basic worth and dignity of every person. My question is: Why do they hold to that?
Is it really true that human beings have transcendent worth and value, and are somehow better than animals, and that's why we treat them that way? Or is it just the case that we've chosen to believe they are better than animals, but we're morally free to change our minds tomorrow?
That's really the crux of it. The atheist might be a very nice person. He might be saying, "Yes, human beings have value and I treat them with dignity and respect." But my question is going to be: Why?
It's going to turn out that—since there is no God—morals are relative and so the moral viewpoint the atheist has is just his own personal viewpoint. His moral view that human beings are valuable is a matter of his personal opinion. Other people might hold a different opinion, or he might change his own opinion in the future, and that's fully legitimate, on this view.
So one could say, then, it's incidental that some atheists believe in the dignity and worth of human beings. It's just a matter of momentary personal preference.
As a Christian theist, I'm in a much different situation. I believe that human beings actually are valuable regardless of what others think. My ethics are objective, not subjective. Human beings ought to be treated in a certain way--respected and cared for--in virtue of the fact that they actually are made in the image of God. People have transcendent intrinsic value, not just temporary instrumental value.
Even if I don't like a person, I still have an obligation to treat him with respect. Even if a new child in my family is going to be a tremendous burden on me personally, I don't have the liberty to take that child's life--either before birth or after birth--because every child has value made in the image of God.
You can see how there's a marked difference here in the way we think about these things. The difference is that I'm compelled by an objective moral rule outside of me that gets its validity from a holy God to whom I answer. Therefore I'm obliged to treat human beings in a certain way.
When Christians don't treat human beings properly--inquisitions, crusades, etc.--it's because they are living contrary to Christian teaching. Such behavior isn't a result of Christianity, but an aberration of it.
Any observation that governments that are Christian—or have religious ties, or are theistic in some sense—still do despotic things misses the point entirely. Such governments are acting in a way contrary to their claimed belief, whereas an atheistic government that is despotic is acting in a way that is fully consistent with its claimed belief.
Another point that may have escaped you: The fact that religious communities or countries that do believe in God can also be evil and despotic actually strengthens my point, not weakens it. Even when a nation is committed to the idea that there is a God to whom one must answer, even when you have a government that believes in transcendent rights, even when you have a government where human law is secondary to God's law, men can still abuse their power.
How much more, then, for atheistic governments led by men unrestrained by any fear of God, unrestrained by any commitment to a higher law? How much more evil will those nations do when there is no restraint on human evil, but rather a celebration of autonomy, man without law?

Stand to Reason - Training Christian Ambassadors in the areas of knowledge, wisdom, and character - www.str.org (http://www.str.org)

[Bill Mutz]

I am about to go out on a limb here and say that there really isn't any such thing as atheism. Not all religions must require things that do not exist or require things to have nonexistent properties. I think that Nationalism is a form of religion with officials, elected or not, as the clerics, bishops, etc. Humanism is an anarchic but very pervasive religion that has as its apologists all who have been leaders in Human and Humanistic thought. Science is a religion that is headed by professors, intellectuals, etc. They say "In the name of my nation/Mankind/Science", respectively. Anyone who makes a trespass upon Humanity is in conflict with Humanism. Despots are enemies of my religion, whether they are Islamic, Nationalistic, Christian, or Ba'athist. Therefore, you cannot say that Humanism, Secular or otherwise, leads to despotism. I mean come on, look at places like Netherlands! Would you call Netherlands despotic? They're not perfect, but I would describe them as anything but despotic. By the way, Netherlands is the only country to my knowlege that has "atheists", for lack of a better term, as a majority.

[chickenman]

well, obviously atheism doesn't LEAD to despotism - it allows for it

however, so does theism

basically what you've shown is that human nature leads to despotism, and atheism places less restrictions on it

ultimately the only real restriction on despotism is other people

[Kulindrichnus]

What the hell is this dribble, presented as an essay? Its' author, despite peddling 'reason', clearly does not engage in much critical reading, as this is filled with all sorts of flaws.

Does Atheism Lead to Despotism? by Greg Koukl1. Who the hell is 'greg koukl' that his opinion should be entertained by the critical reader? no bio is given. He might be a famous philosopher or a tramp muttering in a doorway, for all the critical reader knows.

As you know, I enjoy perusing the letters to the editor 2. Eh? What editor?

It's tragic that so many Americans, indeed Christian Americans3. Parochial. This suggests the article, dealing as it does with international government, only has relevance to Americans who are Christian. Consequently it discredits its' own subject matter before it has even got started.

Last week the paper featured a piece about the Pope, communism, atheism, and Cuba.4. What paper?

paper (L.A. Times 1/26/98)5. That paper? Does the critical reader have to guess? Yes or no? :blush:

See if you can figure out what's wrong with these responses.6. Idle and meaningless rhetoric. The article is not written for children.

Can you tell me what's wrong with his response? 7. More idle rhetoric, a poorly executed device designed to develop expectation before the delivery of an opinion and lend the opinion weight of authority in proportion to the degree of expectation. This is very poor argument construction and explicitly tells the critical reader that the author is not, in his own mind, confident that he has soundly built his case.

"George Wigel [the author of the original article] argues that because communist countries are atheistic and tyrannical that atheism inevitably leads to tyranny. This is false reasoning. If we consider the record of countries that do officially support belief in God, we find that tyranny and oppression are just as common."*
He goes on to mention the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades, the Nazi Holocaust--all supported ostensibly by Christian countries--and the abuses in Islamic fundamentalist nations. Then he says, "Wigel demonizes atheists and claims that concern for humanity requires a belief in God. However, a respect for the inherent worth and dignity of every person requires no belief in God and can serve as a common moral ground between secular and religious humanists."8. It is not clear to the critical reader what elements of that are a) the words of George Wigel (re. 'George Wigel', see point 1) b) the words of the respondant in the LA Times (re. the respondant, see point 1) or c) the words of the author of this piece, one Greg Koukl (re. Greg Koukl, see point 1). Large parts of what is presumeably the respondant's letter are paraphrased. Parts are quoted in isolation. It is impossible from this miasma for the critical reader to be assured that the respondant's words have been reported accurately and the critical reader cannot exclude the possibility that this is now a straw man fallacy in construction. The latter point is directly a consequence of poor writing style on the part of the author.

Let's state the writer's objection clearly: 9. Paraphrasing. No proof of need for further paraphrasing the already paraphrased quoted material is given. When an argument is paraphrased for no apparent reason the critical reader will always look for the construction of a Straw Man, as that is usually the motive. In conjunction with point 8. above the critical reader will suspect couching at this point, and has sufficient reason to dismiss the article's credibility.

This writer has made two errors here.....Religious governments can be despotic also, he points out.
True enough, but that tells us nothing about the source of tyranny in communist governments. It simply points the finger in another direction. "You do it too." Tu quoque. This is not helpful.
But there's something else going on here, friends. This writer's response never actually addresses the charge in the article, that atheism leads to tyranny. He seems to think he's off the hook if religion is capable of producing the same result. That's a mistake. 10. Both criticisms are the same; the opponent has, in the authors' opinion, only actually made one 'error', but it is rhetorically reiterated by the author for no discernable reason. The word 'friends' is used for ingratiation and is exclusional to the critical reader. This begins to look like the execution of a straw man; if not, it is a sign of confusion on the part of the author.

It may be that religious governments lead to oppression, but that fact alone (if it is a fact) can't exonerate atheism of the charge. 11. Contradiction. This, in the author's words, 'tells us nothing about the source of tyranny in [religious] governments. The critical reader will note the immediate employment of a device previously dismissed.

There is a monumental difference between the influence of religion and the influence of atheism that is a relevant factor here. Dennis Prager puts it in the form of a question: If you were in a dark alley in South Central Los Angeles and saw ten young men walking toward you, would you be more at ease if you knew the men had just come from a Bible study?" 12. Opening with an assertion fallacy the author once more introduces an individual (Dennis Prager) whose credibility has not been established (see point 1). Prager provides a further opportunity for the introduction of unnecessary rhetoric.

The answer, of course, is yes. It comes spontaneously to us because we know that one of the chief aims of at least the monotheistic religions is to improve moral behavior, in part because of accountability to God.Rhetoric again. This critical reader is quite certain that if the question were rephrased, "If you were in a dark alley in South Central Los Angeles and saw ten young men walking toward you, would you be more at ease if you knew the men had just come from a radical Islamic Mosque?", then the rationale of the above rhetoric would still demand the answer be yes, but that very few fundamentalist Christians would honestly give it. Consequently this is another straw man; a situation where familiarity brings reassurance is misrepresented as one where religion brings reassurance. The critical reader will recognize poor writing, disingenuous argument, and poor logic.

People who believe they must answer to God for their behavior are more likely to live moral lives than those same people would be if they answered to no one with no ultimate consequences for their behavior. Unreferenced opinion dressed as fact.

Since a main teaching of religion is accountability, and a main teaching of atheism is freedom from accountability, which system do you think would more naturally produce tyranny?Unreferenced opinion presented as fact; misrepresentation of a non-system as systematized; unnecessary rhetoric repeating the expectation = authority device (see point 7).

If Lord Acton's dictum is correct'Lord Acton', see point 1.

then it seems to me that atheist regimes naturally and inevitably lead to corruption expressed in despotism. Opinion refreshingly presented as such, and consequently not worth presenting as opinion has insufficient authority to conclude an argument which the author has taken outside the limits of personal view.


You know what happens after that? Might makes right. If there is no God, and I run a country, guess who the absolute power is? Me. And if power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, and I think I'm the absolute power because there is no God above me, do you see how naturally this leads to despotism?Rhetoric handed over to opinion dressed as fact and ending in more rhetoric (see point 7).

By the way, communism isn't just incidentally atheistic. It is necessarily atheistic. Atheism is communist doctrine. Atheism is what justifies their right to rule.Opinion dressed as fact.

The strong rule the weak--social Darwinism. Misrepresentation.

By the way, if evolution is the whole story, then we have the same situation. There's no God, nothing but the natural order, no morality dictating behavior. There's no moral obligation to protect the weak. Anything is allowed. The strongest win. This is getting tiring. Misrepresentation, straw man, opinion dressed as fact.

So if we believe there is no God, that leads naturally to the idea that we are the final arbiter of truth, and if we have power, there are no moral restraints to its use. We might desire to use it beneficially, but we could equally choose to use it viciously. Direct contradiction of the original straw man that atheism = despotism. The emphasized passage explicitly says that it does not.

Ah good grief, this drivel goes on forever. I can't be bothered to do the rest of it, I am going out tonight. Conclusion: the author of this piece seldom writes critically, has no training in how to present a written argument (or a logical one; actually, the whole thing would smack of poor education if it were not for the absence of the sp.s) and is taking the mickey calling it 'stand to reason'. Why does this thing deserve a 'sticky' in a non-theist area?

K

[Trout]

Kulindrichnus,

Your initial responses worked well without the adjectives you chose to use.

And whoever you might assume Greg Koukl to be, he along with the rest of the folks at STR are valued guests at our site, and should be treated with respect.

Thanks

[dizzle]

I would futher add K that within the guideliens of this section your entire tone was inappropriate. If you cannot treat our invited ministry guests with respect, do not post in this section. Here is the STR guideline:

Notice – The ministries featured in this section of TheologyWeb are guests of this site and in some cases not bargaining for the rough and tumble world of debate forums, though sometimes they are. Additionally, this area is frequented and highlighted for guests who also very often are not acclimated to debate fora. As such, the rules of conduct here will be more strict than in the general forum. This will be something within the discretion of the Moderators and the Ministry Representative, but we simply ask that you conduct yourselves in a manner considerate of the fact that these ministries are our invited guests. You can always feel free to start a related thread in general forum without such extra restrictions. Thank you.

[Barron]

Case in point: Last week the paper featured a piece about the Pope, communism, atheism, and Cuba. The author noted that totalitarian communist countries were also officially atheist. Today's paper (L.A. Times 1/26/98)posted the replies of two atheists who were deeply offended by the implication that atheism leads to totalitarianism.
See if you can figure out what's wrong with these responses.

It would have been nice to read the original letter and the responses in full to judge their application. If the argument is that "atheism leads to despotism and theism doesn't" then the "you do it too" response is actually a valid reply.

But there's something else going on here, friends. This writer's response never actually addresses the charge in the article, that atheism leads to tyranny.

But we can't really know that because we don't have access to the original. I figure Greg's probably fair in his assessment, but it would be nice to have the full texts. Like I said, if the argument is that atheism leads to despotism while theism doesn't, then the reply is on point.

There is a monumental difference between the influence of religion and the influence of atheism that is a relevant factor here. Dennis Prager puts it in the form of a question: If you were in a dark alley in South Central Los Angeles and saw ten young men walking toward you, would you be more at ease if you knew the men had just come from a Bible study?"

I should say that this rather points out one of the classic despotic ideas on religion. That it is used to keep the low born, violent masses in line.

The answer, of course, is yes. It comes spontaneously to us because we know that one of the chief aims of at least the monotheistic religions is to improve moral behavior, in part because of accountability to God. People who believe they must answer to God for their behavior are more likely to live moral lives than those same people would be if they answered to no one with no ultimate consequences for their behavior.

First I think all (surviving) faiths tend to teach moral behaviour whether monotheistic or otherwise. In fact Buddhism, without any gods, teaches moral behaviour as a path to enlightenment. Second this makes a rather base idea of religion, making it into a vision of punishment and control. People do good not because they choose too freely, but because they fear the punishment or displeasure of God. Doing a good deed because someone points a gun at you rather debases the goodness of the act.

Since a main teaching of religion is accountability, and a main teaching of atheism is freedom from accountability, which system do you think would more naturally produce tyranny?

This is rather an oversimplificiation. All atheism teaches is that we are not accountable to God(s) because they don't believe they exist. One can reasonably say that atheism teaches accountablity to one's self and one's community.

If Lord Acton's dictum is correct—that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely—then it seems to me that atheist regimes naturally and inevitably lead to corruption expressed in despotism.
It makes sense. The one who has absolute power, who answers to no higher power, makes his own rules.

Then wouldn't this make God omni-corrupt? :teeth:

You know what happens after that? Might makes right. If there is no God, and I run a country, guess who the absolute power is? Me. And if power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, and I think I'm the absolute power because there is no God above me, do you see how naturally this leads to despotism?
By the way, communism isn't just incidentally atheistic. It is necessarily atheistic. Atheism is communist doctrine. Atheism is what justifies their right to rule. The strong rule the weak--social Darwinism.

This is just wrong. Social Darwinism was, IIRC, an invention of wealthy plutocrats to justify their power. It was also a gross perversion of any form of Darwinism. You'll find that such strident evolutionists as Gould and Dawkins as the FIRST to condemn Social Darwinism.

By the way, if evolution is the whole story, then we have the same situation. There's no God, nothing but the natural order, no morality dictating behavior. There's no moral obligation to protect the weak. Anything is allowed. The strongest win.

Not in the least. I encourage you to read Dawkins on the tyrranny of the selfish gene. He fully recognizes a 100% natural evolutionary system and yet maintains that human consciousness allows us to raise above the inherent violence of nature.

So if we believe there is no God, that leads naturally to the idea that we are the final arbiter of truth, and if we have power, there are no moral restraints to its use. We might desire to use it beneficially, but we could equally choose to use it viciously. And, in fact, power does that to people in positions of power.

Which argues more for liberal democracy and checks and balances than it does for theism or against atheism.

One additional thought. In his letter to the editor the atheist writes, "A respect for the inherent worth and dignity of every person requires no belief in God."
Well, in one sense he's certainly right, friends. There are people who are atheists who also hold to the basic worth and dignity of every person. My question is: Why do they hold to that?

Because we are human too. Because we learned good behaviour from our parents, on our schoolyards and in growing up.

Is it really true that human beings have transcendent worth and value, and are somehow better than animals, and that's why we treat them that way? Or is it just the case that we've chosen to believe they are better than animals, but we're morally free to change our minds tomorrow?
That's really the crux of it. The atheist might be a very nice person. He might be saying, "Yes, human beings have value and I treat them with dignity and respect." But my question is going to be: Why?

Again, because we are human too. We share a common humanity that doesn't require anything "transcendant". We treat others with dignity becasue that is how we prefer to be treated. We act with compassion because we have empathy for fellow humans.

As a Christian theist, I'm in a much different situation. I believe that human beings actually are valuable regardless of what others think. My ethics are objective, not subjective.

If they are objective they can be demonstrated and tested by anyone. Can you really offer a moral system that is objective? I really doubt it. Theists have a bad habit of referring to their interpretation of theist morals as objective even though other theists differ (often wildly). If these morals were trully objective such arguments would be moot.

When Christians don't treat human beings properly--inquisitions, crusades, etc.--it's because they are living contrary to Christian teaching. Such behavior isn't a result of Christianity, but an aberration of it.

I mostly agree with this, but there is a problem. Many times in the past these aberrations have been justified in Biblical and religious terms. Far too often the Bible is quoted by BOTH sides of the conflict. Both the pro and anti-slavery forces marshalled Biblical evidence. Both sides in wars quote scripture. Religious wars are replete with such examples. This doesn't make religion bad, but it does make it powerful, and its adherents should keep in mind the dangers that creates.

Any observation that governments that are Christian—or have religious ties, or are theistic in some sense—still do despotic things misses the point entirely. Such governments are acting in a way contrary to their claimed belief, whereas an atheistic government that is despotic is acting in a way that is fully consistent with its claimed belief.

But too often they DON'T think they are acting contrary to that belief. In fact they often parse the belief carefully to support their abuses.

Another point that may have escaped you: The fact that religious communities or countries that do believe in God can also be evil and despotic actually strengthens my point, not weakens it. Even when a nation is committed to the idea that there is a God to whom one must answer, even when you have a government that believes in transcendent rights, even when you have a government where human law is secondary to God's law, men can still abuse their power.
How much more, then, for atheistic governments led by men unrestrained by any fear of God, unrestrained by any commitment to a higher law? How much more evil will those nations do when there is no restraint on human evil, but rather a celebration of autonomy, man without law?

Again, a better argument for liberal democracy than theism.

Barron

[C. D. Ward]

Does anyone else find it even mildly ironic that someone who believes that the entire universe is ruled by a single being with ultimate and supreme power who rules without any input from those ruled and who reserves to himself the ability to mete out ultimate justice is arguing that the lack of belief in such a being leads to despotism?

[Heathen Dawn]

And I also find it ironic that someone who believes justice is eternal torment (see the STR statement of faith (http://www.str.org/about/statemen.htm): all those who persistently reject Jesus Christ in the present life shall be raised from the dead and throughout eternity exist in a state of conscious, endless torment and anguish) should preach morality and human dignity. Christians are in no position to speak about morality, being as the have the most gaping moral hole in their system.

[EvoUK]

Are we going to get any replies to the posts, or are we just commenting on the OP?

[Gilgaron]

Are we going to get any replies to the posts, or are we just commenting on the OP?
It isn't very frequent, in my experience, for the author of these things to engage in debate. I suppose I haven't read all of these threads, but it has generally been the case in the ones I have read.

[Bob Jenkins]

From the guidlines to Naturalism 101:

"This forum is strictly for discussions and debates between nontheists only. The topic range is for nontheist "in house" issues much like Theology201/Ecclesiology201 is for "in house" Christian/theist issues."

With all due respect to STR Ambassador and Dee Dee and even though discussion of the post is to be held in this forum, the "teaser" for the thread does not belong in Naturalism 101. It frankly violates both the restriction for who may participate and the range of topics of that forum.

As an introduction to the topic it is better placed in either the Locker Room or Apologetics 301.

[Queen]

Some counter the charge that atheism leads to despotism by pointing to religious tyrannies. This misses the point, says Greg. With religious groups, despotism is an aberrant outcome, a wrong use of power. But with atheism, tyranny is the natural consequence a government unrestrained by transcendent law.

Does Atheism Lead to Despotism? by Greg Koukl

Let's have a little lesson in logic.
As you know, I enjoy perusing the letters to the editor to see how the "man on the street" reasons about critical issues, especially religious and moral issues. Generally, it's a depressing experience. It's tragic that so many Americans, indeed Christian Americans, have not been equipped to think more carefully. This is obvious to me when I read letters that attempt to refute another person's point of view.
Case in point: Last week the paper featured a piece about the Pope, communism, atheism, and Cuba. The author noted that totalitarian communist countries were also officially atheist. Today's paper (L.A. Times 1/26/98)posted the replies of two atheists who were deeply offended by the implication that atheism leads to totalitarianism.
See if you can figure out what's wrong with these responses.
"George Wigel [the author of the original article] argues that because communist countries are atheistic and tyrannical that atheism inevitably leads to tyranny. This is false reasoning. If we consider the record of countries that do officially support belief in God, we find that tyranny and oppression are just as common."*
He goes on to mention the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades, the Nazi Holocaust--all supported ostensibly by Christian countries--and the abuses in Islamic fundamentalist nations. Then he says, "Wigel demonizes atheists and claims that concern for humanity requires a belief in God. However, a respect for the inherent worth and dignity of every person requires no belief in God and can serve as a common moral ground between secular and religious humanists."
Can you tell me what's wrong with his response?
Let's state the writer's objection clearly: It is wrong to conclude that the atheism of communist regimes has anything to do with their tyranny. Here is his evidence: Religious countries can be tyrannous, too.
This writer has made two errors here. The first is called tu quoque in the Latin, or in English, simply "you too." Religious governments can be despotic also, he points out.
True enough, but that tells us nothing about the source of tyranny in communist governments. It simply points the finger in another direction. "You do it too." Tu quoque. This is not helpful.
But there's something else going on here, friends. This writer's response never actually addresses the charge in the article, that atheism leads to tyranny. He seems to think he's off the hook if religion is capable of producing the same result. That's a mistake. It may be that religious governments lead to oppression, but that fact alone (if it is a fact) can't exonerate atheism of the charge.
There is a monumental difference between the influence of religion and the influence of atheism that is a relevant factor here. Dennis Prager puts it in the form of a question: If you were in a dark alley in South Central Los Angeles and saw ten young men walking toward you, would you be more at ease if you knew the men had just come from a Bible study?"
The answer, of course, is yes. It comes spontaneously to us because we know that one of the chief aims of at least the monotheistic religions is to improve moral behavior, in part because of accountability to God. People who believe they must answer to God for their behavior are more likely to live moral lives than those same people would be if they answered to no one with no ultimate consequences for their behavior.
Since a main teaching of religion is accountability, and a main teaching of atheism is freedom from accountability, which system do you think would more naturally produce tyranny?
If Lord Acton's dictum is correct—that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely—then it seems to me that atheist regimes naturally and inevitably lead to corruption expressed in despotism.
It makes sense. The one who has absolute power, who answers to no higher power, makes his own rules.
You know what happens after that? Might makes right. If there is no God, and I run a country, guess who the absolute power is? Me. And if power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, and I think I'm the absolute power because there is no God above me, do you see how naturally this leads to despotism?
By the way, communism isn't just incidentally atheistic. It is necessarily atheistic. Atheism is communist doctrine. Atheism is what justifies their right to rule. The strong rule the weak--social Darwinism.
By the way, if evolution is the whole story, then we have the same situation. There's no God, nothing but the natural order, no morality dictating behavior. There's no moral obligation to protect the weak. Anything is allowed. The strongest win.
So if we believe there is no God, that leads naturally to the idea that we are the final arbiter of truth, and if we have power, there are no moral restraints to its use. We might desire to use it beneficially, but we could equally choose to use it viciously. And, in fact, power does that to people in positions of power.
Bad thinking here, in the letters to the editor.
One additional thought. In his letter to the editor the atheist writes, "A respect for the inherent worth and dignity of every person requires no belief in God."
Well, in one sense he's certainly right, friends. There are people who are atheists who also hold to the basic worth and dignity of every person. My question is: Why do they hold to that?
Is it really true that human beings have transcendent worth and value, and are somehow better than animals, and that's why we treat them that way? Or is it just the case that we've chosen to believe they are better than animals, but we're morally free to change our minds tomorrow?
That's really the crux of it. The atheist might be a very nice person. He might be saying, "Yes, human beings have value and I treat them with dignity and respect." But my question is going to be: Why?
It's going to turn out that—since there is no God—morals are relative and so the moral viewpoint the atheist has is just his own personal viewpoint. His moral view that human beings are valuable is a matter of his personal opinion. Other people might hold a different opinion, or he might change his own opinion in the future, and that's fully legitimate, on this view.
So one could say, then, it's incidental that some atheists believe in the dignity and worth of human beings. It's just a matter of momentary personal preference.
As a Christian theist, I'm in a much different situation. I believe that human beings actually are valuable regardless of what others think. My ethics are objective, not subjective. Human beings ought to be treated in a certain way--respected and cared for--in virtue of the fact that they actually are made in the image of God. People have transcendent intrinsic value, not just temporary instrumental value.
Even if I don't like a person, I still have an obligation to treat him with respect. Even if a new child in my family is going to be a tremendous burden on me personally, I don't have the liberty to take that child's life--either before birth or after birth--because every child has value made in the image of God.
You can see how there's a marked difference here in the way we think about these things. The difference is that I'm compelled by an objective moral rule outside of me that gets its validity from a holy God to whom I answer. Therefore I'm obliged to treat human beings in a certain way.
When Christians don't treat human beings properly--inquisitions, crusades, etc.--it's because they are living contrary to Christian teaching. Such behavior isn't a result of Christianity, but an aberration of it.
Any observation that governments that are Christian—or have religious ties, or are theistic in some sense—still do despotic things misses the point entirely. Such governments are acting in a way contrary to their claimed belief, whereas an atheistic government that is despotic is acting in a way that is fully consistent with its claimed belief.
Another point that may have escaped you: The fact that religious communities or countries that do believe in God can also be evil and despotic actually strengthens my point, not weakens it. Even when a nation is committed to the idea that there is a God to whom one must answer, even when you have a government that believes in transcendent rights, even when you have a government where human law is secondary to God's law, men can still abuse their power.
How much more, then, for atheistic governments led by men unrestrained by any fear of God, unrestrained by any commitment to a higher law? How much more evil will those nations do when there is no restraint on human evil, but rather a celebration of autonomy, man without law?

Stand to Reason - Training Christian Ambassadors in the areas of knowledge, wisdom, and character - www.str.org (http://www.str.org)

This is a perfect example of the one way mind of Mr. Koukl. As always he uses so-called logical arguments to prove he is right. He is darn wrong again. Atheism is not as self centred as Religion. Atheists often have more respect for the environmant and for people of other religions than religious people. Everywhere I look religion is used as an excuse to hate or to judge people that are living differently.....The only "religion" that doesn't do this is Buddhism. A good buddhist respects the world around him, but they do not believe in an Allmighty deity either. Their love and lifestyle comes from within the heart. In my chats and so on with other Christians I discovered their one way mind. Now I am a Christian and therefor I must see the error of sins. But everything is laid in the hands of God......He will solve it and that makes them less moral. Hesus died for our sins so if we sin and repent we will be saved: rapists, murderers and so on......if they repent they will be free and in heaven. THAT is weird and illogical and it proves how Christians think.......do a sin....repent.....free of the sin. But if you don't repent for your "sins" you will be thrown in the lake of fire. :doh: How tyrannic is that? That is spreading fear, but also the fact that moral standards can change AFTER you raped your wife!

Atheists never judged me for becoming a Christian. They just asked me why and accepted that...treat me like before because many of my POV haven't changed with becoming a Christian. Christians on the other hand judged me for my POV's and told me that I should repent. Suddenly I have to change all I stand for because I believe in God and Jesus......because THAT will make me a true Christian. I must repent for what I did and only then I will be saved. God works in mysterious ways, but I truly believe He never meant that rubbish.

Mr. Koukl uses communism (from an atricle in the paper) to prove that Atheist regims are more tyrranic......well :tongue: (what an argument here :teeth:).....The USA just invaded a country that is very religious.......of course that is the "wrong" religion......So how come that we both struggle and fight and murderer because we both think each religion is false???? Their God is not the real God.....yadayadayada.....

Murderer, rape, torture in the name of your religion untill they repent and are saved......as long as you don't repent or believe in their God you will die. What can be more cruel than to force people to change their believes to save their lives and the lives of their family, children????

Living in a state that is abusing atheism or religion to rape murderer and to oppress human beings is wrong........it has nothing to do with what you believe.....it has something to do with the cruelty of the human being that is oppressing you.......THEY are scum.....simple. Atheism has nothing to do with it.....Human nature has!!!

Queen

[Bill Mutz]

Queen:

You are Dutch, yes? Would you describe your government as "despotic"?

[Queen]

Queen:

You are Dutch, yes? Would you describe your government as "despotic"?

For the record: I did NOT vote for them! They behave like despotic idiots........I don't know. They irritate me all the time.....that is one thing I know. Darn Christian party, they drive me nuts with their misbehaviour against immigrants (what happened with human rights???)......and that darn so-called moralistic finger that tells "us" that we are wrong in saying this and that. For the FIRST time (as I can remember) they have forbidden two tv-shows......which is despotic in my book. And they want to ban coffeeshops. I mean.....Helloooooo, we live in fricking Holland. There goes the neighborhood!


Lots of love and sunshine,
Queen

[dizzle]

Queen, please tone down a bit the level of emotionalism and let's not stray too far from the immediate topci. This is not as open as the rest of the forum and has stricter standards of decorum.

[Queen]

Queen, please tone down a bit the level of emotionalism and let's not stray too far from the immediate topci. This is not as open as the rest of the forum and has stricter standards of decorum.


Well, I was asked a question and answered it.....simple.

please do not question Moderator intervention in the thread, but rather by PM, thanks

[Bill Mutz]

:lol:

Sweet irony!

Question: does fundamentalism lead directly to despotism?

[garthoverman]

The false premise that the author bases his argument upon is that Atheism in itself is a singular worldview with necessary positive beliefs that define it. Contrary to religions like Christianity or Islam, or theism in general, atheists don't necessarily hold any beliefs in common. The minimum thing that they have in common is the *absence* of a particular belief -- the belief that a god or gods exist -- but that's it.

Certainly, there will be atheists that share other beliefs -- like the belief that the Dodgers are the best baseball team, or that abortion should remain legal -- but there is nothing inherent in atheism that requires them to see eye-to-eye on anything.

Look at it this way: Atheists are any and all members of the entire set of not-theists. Similarly, an elephant and a ballpoint pen are members of the entire set of not-hamsters. Sure, the pen and the elephant may both be grey (just like two not-theists might share some other belief), but there's nothing inherent about being a member of the set of not-hamsters that requires it's members to be the same color (or in the case of atheists, to share common beliefs).

So, with that in mind, atheism doesn't necessarily "lead" to ANYTHING because it doesn't necessarily contain any positive beliefs. Atheism just describes any of the myriad worldviews that don't happen to include belief in the truth of the statement "God exists." Some of those worldviews might be held by dastardly individuals that will seek to do dastardly things for dastardly reasons, but as we can obviously see, there's nothing about holding a belief in God that necessarily stops such individuals from acting equally dastardly.

Yours,
Garth

[Vorkosigan]

That article is ridiculous from almost any standpoint. Communism, Christianity, Islam, Facism, Nazism, and other beliefs that argue for objective morals reposed in some authority (God, the State, Marx) are inherently despotic. All are authoritarian by nature, and mostly indistinguishable from each other.

Vorkosigan