Atheism and Violence

[joel]

Here's an interesting article on First Things about the relationship of atheism and violence:
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=961

[M.Talkingsworth]

Here's an interesting article on First Things about the relationship of atheism and violence:
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=961

I felt that the author failed to propose a thesis to tie together the rather wanton facts and quote that comprised the essay. I left wondering what the author was trying to say.

Was he trying to say that atheism causes violence? Was he trying to say that atheists ought not criticize religion because atheism has caused problems too? Was he trying to say that atheist philosophy cannot stand on its own? That man cannot live without God?

It struck me as a bit of a mixed-up befuddled rant of ideas and points that, if organized could be useful or salient to *something*; but as it stands, I was left rather confused.

What did you think the author was trying to say?

Cheers,

Matt

[Zeluvia]

But who can take seriously these recent tub-thumping accusations that believers are the sole source of violence, all coming from writers who themselves advocate violence in their next breath

I think he failed to support

A. The authors say that believers are the SOLE source of violence

and

B. The authors as a group advocate violence against believers.

[OfficialPro]

the dude prolly could have worded it better. But I think the heart of the matter is that atheists have no objective basis NOT to be violent. If there happens to be atheists against violence, that's just great. But finding one that's not, is not contradictory. Since with atheists all they can go on is their gut feeling or their opinion, and their opinions are as varied as anybody else's, you can't count on an atheist to be either for or against violence on the basis of their philosophy.

I think there is a great irony in some (whackjob kookball--like some tin-horn dictators) atheists complaining that the religious people are the only source of violence...and in the same breath saying the only way to deal with that is with violence. Now THAT'S hypocritical.

[M.Talkingsworth]

I think he failed to support

A. The authors say that believers are the SOLE source of violence

and

B. The authors as a group advocate violence against believers.

Agreed. The "essay" bordered on being rant-ish.

Cheers,

matt

[John Powell]

the dude prolly could have worded it better. But I think the heart of the matter is that atheists have no objective basis NOT to be violent. If there happens to be atheists against violence, that's just great. But finding one that's not, is not contradictory. Since with atheists all they can go on is their gut feeling or their opinion, and their opinions are as varied as anybody else's, you can't count on an atheist to be either for or against violence on the basis of their philosophy.

I think there is a great irony in some (whackjob kookball--like some tin-horn dictators) atheists complaining that the religious people are the only source of violence...and in the same breath saying the only way to deal with that is with violence. Now THAT'S hypocritical.

POWELL:
An important difference is that the atheist acknowledges that his basis for ethics is himself and his society. The theist imagines that ethics is based on her God.

John Powell

[M.Talkingsworth]

But I think the heart of the matter is that atheists have no objective basis NOT to be violent.

I completely disagree. I think there are likely many objective reasons for an atheist to crave peace. Here is one that springs readily to mind.

It is an objective and observable fact that violence destabilizes societies. It can also be objectively measured that members of a stable society have a better quality of life than members of an unstable society. Therefore it makes sense, objectively, for an atheist to promote peace rather than violence because it results in a better quality of life.

Cheers,

Matt

[lao tzu]

Here's an interesting article on First Things about the relationship of atheism and violence:
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=961

What strikes me most profoundly about the article is the myopic breadth of its view. For all of its reach, including an acknowledgment of Nietzsche's "star on which clever animals invented knowledge," Oakes fails to note the insignificant span and realm of christianity itself here on this planet, even within its own contemporary frame. At its largest extent, christianity reaches only a third of humanity, and that only within one percent of the history of anatomically modern humans. What then is the value of this christian morality, even were it uniquely christian, even were it inextricably linked with christianity itself? Risible indeed.

Beyond this myopia, as other have implicitly noted, Oakes fails to create even the sketch of a defensible argument linking atheism to violence, or absolving christianity of its own excesses. No screed against atheistic violence would be complete without the "shopworn, stale hand-me-downs and threadbare heirlooms" of Hitler and Stalin. Never mind that his own quote from Hitler includes the decidedly theistic "according to the eternal will that rules this universe." Oddly or ignorantly, he adds in Robespierre, whose contribution of a deistic state religion for the French republic becomes a "seamless" bridge between atheism and the Reign of Terror.

While admitting his counter to the asserted tu quoque of atheist authors is another tu quoque, he leads one to wonder whether he is merely engaging in self-refutation or absolving the logical error of the original attack against theism.

In attacking atheism as a religion, he attempts to impose the dogmatic authority of his own belief system by citing atheist authorities no less, in a transparent appeal to the reasoning of adherents of revealed belief systems, never noting how this reduces to the argument against revelation that lies at the core of atheism. In effect, he has taken the clean slate of atheism and, inspired by his own loathing of self-examination, written upon it afresh, covering up the very thesis he wishes to examine with the safe and secure words of a magnanimously donated revelation that plays no role in philosophical atheism.

All of this serves as backdrop to the most phenomenal blindness behind his essay. The argument from consequences is a valid criticism only of those belief systems that are not true.

As ever, Jesse

[Stabbytheclown]

I think there is a great irony in some (whackjob kookball--like some tin-horn dictators) atheists complaining that the religious people are the only source of violence...and in the same breath saying the only way to deal with that is with violence. Now THAT'S hypocritical.

Is the number of atheists who actually say that greater than or equal to zero?

[TolkienFan]

Personally, I don't really care what violence is linked to who. I only care about if that belief system is true (which violence is not evidence against). The only times I really care to involve myself in these affairs is to see whether the attributing of violence to whatever party is historically accurate.

In these arguments, one party says the other has a chain of violence linked to it, the other denies it or just brushes it off and then says that the other side has a chain of violence linked to it. In the end, no one ends up being closer to answering the question of if said belief system is true. If such arguments are going to take place, at the least, historical accuracy should be tested. That way, someone comes a way with some type of truth.

[Zeluvia]

The real question is what causes humans to be violent.

Neither religion NOR atheism do. I would blame testoerone = )

The issue with religion is that it is EASILY used to support violence for two reasons.

1. Most teach that death is not real.
2. Many teach that the followers of the religion are "special" in some way, that allows dehumanization of non-followers.

Atheism is not a religion, but many atheists think death is quite real, and the end of the intelligence, so it is much more of a tradgedy.

Any idealogical system can be used to dehumanize other people.

[John Powell]

The real question is what causes humans to be violent.

Neither religion NOR atheism do. I would blame testoerone = )

POWELL:
It's an appropriate thing to blame.

Zeluvia:
The issue with religion is that it is EASILY used to support violence for two reasons.

1. Most teach that death is not real.
2. Many teach that the followers of the religion are "special" in some way, that allows dehumanization of non-followers.

Atheism is not a religion, but many atheists think death is quite real, and the end of the intelligence, so it is much more of a tradgedy.

Any idealogical system can be used to dehumanize other people.

POWELL:
How about the ideological system that no person should be dehumanized?

Be careful with universals. Often they're mistaken. Notice I didn't say "always."

John Powell

[joel]

I felt that the author failed to propose a thesis to tie together the rather wanton facts and quote that comprised the essay. I left wondering what the author was trying to say.

Was he trying to say that atheism causes violence? Was he trying to say that atheists ought not criticize religion because atheism has caused problems too? Was he trying to say that atheist philosophy cannot stand on its own? That man cannot live without God?

It struck me as a bit of a mixed-up befuddled rant of ideas and points that, if organized could be useful or salient to *something*; but as it stands, I was left rather confused.

What did you think the author was trying to say?

That seems to be a valid critique. I don't think he ever does make a thesis statement. Rather there is just some interesting musings with the implication seeming to be that athiests can't criticize religion for being violent because atheism entails violence, saying that Nietzsche so argued and pointing out the examples of Marxism and eugenics.

The author also seems to indicate that atheists also have no grounds from which to condemn religion, for Nietzsche debunked science itself, "But you will have gathered what I am driving at, namely, that it is still a metaphysical faith upon which our faith in science rests—that even we seekers after knowledge today, we godless anti-metaphysicians, still take our fire, too, from the flame lit by a faith that is thousands of years old, that Christian faith which was also the faith of Plato, that God is the truth, that truth is divine. (Nietzsche’s emphases)".

Reading the article also reminded me of when I watched Dawkins' The God Delusion, and when it came to the second half (or so) of the film the major point was that religion is the root of all evil (i.e., violence). I laughed when I got to that part of the film--for how can one objectively make such a claim if there does not objectively exist any evil of which religion may be the root.

[joel]

Is the number of atheists who actually say that greater than or equal to zero?

I think the point is that many popular atheist apologists are saying things similar to that.
For example, Dawkins saying that religion (especially Christianity) is the root of all evil and that violence (via the government) should be wielded against, for example, parents who teach their religion to their children.

In the article, he quotes Sam Harris saying, "Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them."

[joel]

The issue with religion is that it is EASILY used to support violence for two reasons.

1. Most teach that death is not real.
2. Many teach that the followers of the religion are "special" in some way, that allows dehumanization of non-followers.

Good thing Christianity doesn't teach either of those things.
Though I can imagine how some people might twist the teachings of Christianity to come to those conclusions, and use them to support evil acts.