STR Ambassador
April 6th 2004, 01:43 PM
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)
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)