I had no intention of getting into this minefield, but here I am! David Epstein writes in response to my countering Weinberg's contention that "for good people to do, evil things, that takes religion":
> I think this argument was nicely countered by someone on a discussion > board I follow. I'm going to quote him, with the caveat that I'm not > attempting to direct his anger at Allen! > > "I'm getting more than a little tired of the anti-atheist canard of > dragging out Hitler, Stalin, and Mao as examples of atheism. They were > not atheists at all, but people who created religions with themselves > in the position of the god/prophet/leader. They exploited the > credulousness of their people and the hierarchy, dogma, and symbolism > of religion in order to further their quest for power." Even with David's caveat, the implication here is that my *argument* is "anti-atheist" (note the emphasis the argument stands or falls irrespective of who is making it). I'd be interested to know why providing a counter-example to Weinberg's contention (or a similar one) should be described as "anti-atheist". If someone says of X that he has never been wrong, and I point out an occasion when X was wrong, does that make me anti-X? Re the argument that Stalin and Mao were "not atheists at all" (see full quote above): Sorry, I think this argument doesn't begin to hold water. In essence the protagonist is simply redefining the term "religion" in such a way as to ensure his/her position is irrefutable. > "Can you imagine Hitler, Stalin, or Mao getting anywhere in a society > of irreligious, rational freethinkers? The idea is preposterous. They > would have been laughed out of town. This argument begs a number of questions so it is difficult to know where to begin. Obviously there isn't going to be a society in which *everyone* is an irreligious, rational freethinker, so we can only consider one where this is the prevailing creed. Again, do we have to take "irreligious", "rational" and "freethinker" as an inseparable triumvirate? In which case the protagonist has again loaded the dice, in this instance by effectively *defining* the society to be of such intellectual perfection (in the terms he/she approves) that the aberrations in question could not occur. So let's try living in the real world instead. To take just one of the examples, the prevailing creed in the USSR from the beginning was not just irreligious, it was anti-religious. This did not stop Stalin "getting somewhere". Nor did it stop (before the advent of Stalin to power as well as after) the perpetration of misdeeds on a massive scale by the authorities. > The idea is preposterous. They would have been laughed out of town. What is preposterous is that in the face of twentieth century history (e.g. of the USSR) someone should make such an assertion while claiming the rational high ground. Now I want to bypass the above issues and cut to the quick. I have absolutely no religious belief, and never have done. I have no problem whatever in calling myself an atheist. But I don't feel the need to hold to the belief that a society in which atheism is the prevailing creed could not be guilty of barbarities on a massive scale. So what is it with people who have to (re)define the non-religious societies of Stalin or Mao as "religious" so that they can maintain their faith (and I use the word advisedly) that their atheist intellectual position somehow precludes the possibility of evil-doing on the part of other people holding the same basic atheistic position? Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London http://www.esterson.org/ ----------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2007 11:27:08 -0400 (EDT) Author: David Epstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Not another post on religion! > On Sun, 8 Apr 2007, Allen Esterson went: > > > On 7 April 2007 Stephen Black wrote, quoting Steven Weinberg: > >> "With or without religion, you would have good people doing good > >> things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do > >> evil things, that takes religion." > > > > My view on religious belief, broadly speaking, is similar to > > Weinberg's, but that is not one of his most perceptive > > utterances. It is massively refuted by the history of the twentieth > > century. If I need to give any clues for what I have in mind, try > > reading Arthur Koestler on his early political experiences. > > > > http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/koestler.htm > > I think this argument was nicely countered by someone on a discussion > board I follow. I'm going to quote him, with the caveat that I'm not > attempting to direct his anger at Allen! > > "I'm getting more than a little tired of the anti-atheist canard of > dragging out Hitler, Stalin, and Mao as examples of atheism. They were > not atheists at all, but people who created religions with themselves > in the position of the god/prophet/leader. They exploited the > credulousness of their people and the hierarchy, dogma, and symbolism > of religion in order to further their quest for power. > > "Can you imagine Hitler, Stalin, or Mao getting anywhere in a society > of irreligious, rational freethinkers? The idea is preposterous. They > would have been laughed out of town. > > "And in the case of the Nazis, Hitler explicitly invoked God in > speeches, plus remember the Nazi slogan, 'Kirche, Kinder, Kuche' > (Church, Children, Cooking). And Mein Kampf is full of fanatic > Christianity, most of it mystical Catholicism. Only later in the Nazi > era, after Hitler saw the Pope and other Christian leaders as rivals, > did they drop much of the explicit Christian references." > > Again, the above material is quoted, not mine. I wouldn't say that > Nazism, Stalinism, and Maoism were religions, precisely, but I would > say that they occupied religion's psychological niche (a niche that > freethinkers either don't have or don't fill). For example, each > incorporated the idea of a future paradise (an earthly one, but a > paradise nonetheless) that justified interim inequities or atrocities. > > --David Epstein > [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- To make changes to your subscription go to: http://acsun.frostburg.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=tips&text_mode=0&lang=english
