In the comments to an article on oppression and Islam, fellow blogger Robert Speirs said, "Please don't lump Stalin and Mao in with real secularists such as the followers of objectivism." And another blogger, Sam from Estonia, said that, "...an 'atheocracy' is pretty much tabula rasa as it comes to ideologies, whereas theocracies have a pretty bad track record of repression in the name of the Almighty."
I responded in the comments, but I want to say more here. Because both of them are off-base, in my view.
Fierce secularists and atheists deserve having Mao and Stalin thrown in their faces exactly as little, and exactly as much, as Christians deserve to have the inquisitions and the crusades thrown in their faces. It is every bit as fair, and every bit as appropriate, whether that secularist is named
Atheism and rabid secularism start with the presumption that all values are equal and entirely matter of opinion. You could say this is the ultimate expression of unfettered liberalism--which is why unfettered liberalism is as foolish as conservatism, libertarianism, or anything else is when it's unfettered and taken to extremes.
Stalin firmly believed that the world, and his system of government, was "tabula rasa." So did Pol Pot--indeed, "tabula rasa" was pretty much Pol Pot's whole
Which, I would say, the 20th century proved to be the most dangerous outlook of all.
This is why, ultimately, there's no such thing as "tabula rasa" when it comes to the human condition. When you throw out tradition and the received wisdom of past generations (which inescapably involves religion), you wind up with a huge galumphing gob of presumption anyway. Secularism is therefore not tabula rasa--never has been, never will be. Quite often, it works, but just as often, it's just a way of sowing wind. I mean really now: If there are a few million inconvenient people, well, why not just be rid of them? There is no higher authority than man, right? Everything's equal in our Godless, human-centered world, right?
I also note that there seem to be few truly "atheocratic" states anywhere in the West. All spring from ancient religious traditions, and most retain religious trappings and religious influence. Most Scandinavians may be areligious, but those flags all have crosses on them for a reason.
The 20th century is littered with the corpses of people killed in the name of secularist societies. When the Turks massacred the Armenians, it wasn't in the name of God.
By the way, for anyone who cares, I'm not a Christian. On Mondays I'm an atheist, on Tuesdays through Saturdays I'm a confused agnostic deist, and on Sundays I try to take the day off. I'm not trying to push my religious views on anyone. I quite often annoy Christians when I talk to them about spiritual matters. I'm just tired of the all-too-common view that secularism is a sovereign remedy for opression.
I can enslave people all I want without ever once mentioning God.
I think I agree completely with you on this. Does that ruin things for your disagreement streak? ;>
Then again, I'm getting sleepy, so who knows. I think you said the same things I've thought and said in different words with different reasons, but maybe when I'm wakeful I'll wonder why I thought that.
"Mondays I'm going to see Lorrain,
Tuesdays, I'm going to dance with Jane,
Wednesday, I'll go with Shierly Lee,
Thursday's, it's Betty Sue and me,
Friday's, I'm at the downtown hop,
Saturday and Sunday everybody Rock!"
Sorry you, inspired me to Quote Moon Mullican.
And this is precisely why I like coming to this site.
Dean, my (liberal Protestant) take on Sam's post in that other thread is that Sam was simply taking an opportunity to vent a little anti-religious spleen, in the guise of some bizarrely unreal statements.
Many of us, I think, find ourselves talking back to something we're reading, something we're listening to on the radio or watching on TV, and I know sometimes I blow off steam by being just as grotesque and counterfactual as possible in my backtalk: "Yeah, that's right, you're all loony-left Democrats, so of course you'd be oblivious to the enslaving of millions-- as long as they're enslaved by the 'correct' side!" I sometimes talk back this way to my car radio as I'm driving down the highway, and I myself took Sam's post on about that same level.
At any rate, for me it all works out for the better, since Sam's post led me to his blog, which I find interesting and entertaining.
Though if Sam is from Estonia, why does his blog have a header in Welsh, and a Welsh dragon in its logo? Being part Welsh myself, I'm curious.
Oh, and while I'm at it, like Jay I think overall I agree with your remarks above. Tabula rasa? No, no such thing, can't be, never has been. The idea that we can, or should, become a tabula rasa has been responsible for a great deal of pernicious nonsense (and worse) in modern times.
Dean, I agree with most of what you wrote, but I think you've missed one important distinction. As you pointed out, Stalin, Mao, et al., acted consistently with their atheistic worldview. However, Torquemada and company acted in direct opposition to the teachings of Christ, despite claiming allegiance to Christianity. Atheists and "fierce secularists" (I like that!) can't be consistent and decry Pol Pot and the boys, but a Christian can't be consistent without decrying the Inquisition and anything remotely like it.
Oh, I don't know that I can support that exactly. Many atheists are decent human beings, and many have constructed elaborate philosophical edifices that duplicate the same basic moral premises as the broad Judeo-Christian worldview. Others go off in radical directions, like Ayn Rand, claiming that by reason alone we can perfect humanity and reach a more moral and decent society. That Marx believed exactly the same thing should tell you why I may like things about Ayn Rand, but I'll never be one of her worshippers.
The problem being that, while the individual atheist may be a moral person, they have yet to show that atheistic societies are any more decent, tolerant, or compassionate than any other type of society. Indeed, in the 20th century, atheistic societies racked up a bigger body count than all the oppressive theocracies of the world put together.
Yes, yes, some will want to rush to say, "Well, I'm not that kind of atheist." Although why I'm supposed to think that's any different from the Muslim who tells me he's not a terrorist, or the Christian who is mortified by Torquemada, I have no idea.
Right on, Dean.
My wife is prone to knee-jerky anti-religious "bleah!", but I've never been that adamant.
I've recently come to realize the people, in general, are good, and moreover, are similar.
Unfortunately, sameness isn't very interesting. Media can't sell it. When was the last time you read a book that had no antagonist?
More to the point, difference is interesting, and an extremist (of any color) can overshadow the masses of moderates. People only casually aware of the opposing viewpoint see the extremists first, and dismiss the argument.
This is the other side of the leadership coin, I think. There's that tribal instinct, again.
Dean, I have known atheists who were decent human beings--that's not at all the issue. My point is that their "decentness" is not grounded in their atheism. They can construct philosophical edifices, but they lack a moral foundation. I have yet to see an atheistic ethic that's compelling. If you know of such a beast, please point me in the right direction so I can read it.
A Christian who is rightfully mortified by Torquemada can show you the teachings of the New Testament that are antithetical to the Inquisition. A Muslim who is not a terrorist can show you the passages in the Koran that say you must give infidels a chance to convert before you kill them (hence invalidating the World Trade Center attack and suicide bombing).
The problem is that an atheist may be moral, but without a moral lawgiver, where is the grounding for their morality? Attempts have been made (Bentham's utilitarianism and its felicific calculus, for example), but they would appear to be woefully inadequate.
"Atheism and rabid secularism start with the presumption that all values are equal and entirely matter of opinion."
While there are certainly atheists who believe this, it definitely isn't something all atheists have in common. It characterizes what I may term "morally anarchic atheists," a group to wich Lenin and Mao certainly belonged.
Many atheists derive moral judgment (and hence distinctions between values) from places other than Divine Revelation. In fact, most Libertarians I know fall into this class; even utilitarian libertarians (who believe that free markets and limited government are not a priori morally superior, but just more useful) would be surprised to hear that they are supposed to believe all moral values to be equal.
In other words, the moral nihilism you ascribe to atheists as a group is not inherent in atheism. Obviously a moral nihilist must deny religion, since religion refutes his idea of moral equivalency, but the oppose is not generally - and I think not even in the majority of cases - true.
It is my experience that atheists have a bad habit of casually asserting that religion has been an oppressive influence on many societies. They also tend to scoff when religious believers say, "Well, not my brand of religion," or, "Well, those societies weren't really living up to the tenets of their faith."
But then the same atheists, when confronted with the horrific crimes of religious nonbelievers--which dwarf those of religious believers over the last century--will say, "ah, but that's not my brand of atheism."
The challenge for atheists face, in my view, is that there is nothing inherent in the the viewpoint to lead it to any particular moral position. It is therefore more vulnerable to moral nihilism. Even if many atheists don't wind up in that place, the fact is that if everything's a matter of opinion, you have no higher authority to hold the moral nihilists in your ranks to.
Atheism lacks, and will always lack, any appeal to higher authority. Some find this refreshing and liberating and exhilirating. More conservatively inclined thinkers wonder what madness lies beneath abandoning thousands of years of hard-gained knowledge about how to make a functional and relatively free society work.
Especially when field tests on atheistic regimes have been, well, not all that encouraging, to put it mildly.
Ayn Rand was not, and modern objectivism is not, about rabid secularism, but about liberty, individualism, and the necessity of each person to assume total responsibility for his or her own life, enjoying results or suffering consequences thereby, depending upon the wisdom of their choices.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Many atheists derive moral judgment (and hence distinctions between values) from places other than Divine Revelation.
Perry, what are those places? And what's to stop a twisted fellow atheist from claiming to derive a moral judgment that it's okay to torture babies for pleasure?
Ayn Rand was not, and modern objectivism is not, about rabid secularism, but about liberty, individualism, and the necessity of each person to assume total responsibility for his or her own life, enjoying results or suffering consequences thereby, depending upon the wisdom of their choices.
Arnold, I'm unable to see how Jeffrey Dahmer or Mohammed Atta & his posse fail to meet your criteria as stated. They demonstrated individualism and liberty in their actions, took responsibility for those actions, and suffered the consequences. How then can we say their deeds were unacceptable, let alone evil?
Randy,
If you imagine that "liberty, individualism and the necessity of each person to assume total responsibility for his or her own life" implies a right to steal those rights from any other person, or to commit perversions or murder, then you know nothing about Ayn Rand, objectivism, or, for that matter, life in a well-ordered constitutional republic such as the United States was designed to be for the ages.
Get real. But don't put up phony arguments just because you find someone else's ideas distasteful.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Arnold, I'm not saying you intend for anyone to do as they wish. I'm looking for reasoned arguments as to why the villains I mentioned can't justify their behavior.
Ayn Rand seems to make some pretty arbitrary leaps at times, but I'm asking because you know more about objectivism than I do, and because your statement was not comprehensive enough to preclude my scenario. I'm not saying you don't have more, I just want to know what it is.
Please show me why my argument is phony. Mere assertion is insufficient.
Randy,
I have no idea what impelled Jeffrey Daumer to engage in homosexual acts with his intended victims, kill them, refrigerate parts of their bodies, and even consume them. About his aberrant behavior, I assume Ayn Rand would have commented that he was criminally insane, that he lived a life unguided by any productive purpose, and probably suffered from a serious lack of self-esteem.
Mohammed Atta and his 18 fellow mass-murderers were violent servants of the sect of a widespread contemporary religion whose priests routinely proclaim their hatred of the our country and our way of life, which is capitalism as an outcome of individual liberty. Their act of destroying the World Trade Center towers, their partial destruction of the Pentagon building, and their probable planned attack on either the White House of the United States Capitol -- had the passengers of the fourth plane not caused it to crash in the Pennsylvania countryside -- was obviously an act of war in the name of Islam against very focal points of the power of the capitalist system and the United States government. In short -- a carefully planned act of war. Ms Rand has said:
"The basic social principle of the objectivist ethics is that no man has the right to seek values from others by means of physical force -- i.e., no man or group has the right to initiate the use of physical force against others. Men have the right to use force only in self-defense and only against those who initiate its use."
Objectivism, in describing human nature, holds that:
"Man is a rational being. Reason, as man's only means of knowledge, is his basic means of survival. But the exercize of reason depends on each individual's choice. 'Man is a being of volitional consciousness', she wrote. That which you call your soul or spirit is your consciousness, and that which you call free will is your mind's freedom to think of not, the only will you have, your only freedom. This is the choice that controls all the choices you make and determines your life and character. Thus objectivism rejects any form of determinism, the belief that man is a victim of forces beyond his control, (such as God, fate, upbringing, genes or economic conditions)."
Therefore, I think Ms Rand would describe both Jeffrey Daumer and Mohammed Atta as humans who rejected or never developed into their human purpose of exercizing reason, rejecting mysticism and building human self-esteem.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Paul Burgess - I'm a die-hard welshophile, started learning the language a couple of years ago. Why? Well, first of all, I love the sound and structure of the language, and I guess there's also a feeling of kinship with another small nation struggling to retain its culture, language, and identity. And Wales is the most beautiful place on earth I've ever been to.
Dean - I guess this is a somewhat futile debate (I've debated this before, to no avail).
"Atheism and rabid secularism start with the presumption that all values are equal and entirely matter of opinion."
I disagree - atheism starts and ends with 'there is no god'. I don't think that all values are equal and entirely a matter of opinion, nor does atheism imply this. It just says 'god cannot dictate our values because he does not exist'. I think this is a good thing to say.
I don't think secularism is a sovereign remedy for oppression. I do think that a fully secular world would have less of it.
I am not aware of any theocracies where people have not been persecuted in the name of God. Torquemada is a drop in the ocean.
And my statement wasn't directed at current Christianity, because, to be frank, Christianity has taken a pretty big chill pill since the Reformation. You can't deny that the west has become a much, much better place to live in since it secularized. Yes, Scandinavian countries have crosses on their flags, but they are secular societies. Those crosses aren't battle standards anymore.
Why did Christianity become a tolerant, peaceful religion? Why wasn't it one before Martin Luther nailed his thesis to the door of the church in Wittenberg, 1500 years after it started?
That should be 'theses', not 'thesis'.
Thanks, Arnold.
re: Dahmer
>I assume Ayn Rand would have commented that he was criminally insane, that he lived a life unguided by any productive purpose, and probably suffered from a serious lack of self-esteem.
So he wasn't evil, he just needed more self-esteem, purpose and sanity? Are those sufficient grounds for punishment?
re: Atta and his act of war
> no man or group has the right to initiate the use of physical force against others. Men have the right to use force only in self-defense and only against those who initiate its use."
What is the basis for this ethic? Is it Ayn Rand's mere assertion, or does she attempt to prove some transcendent grounding principle? Also, are wars of deterrence wrong?
> objectivism rejects any form of determinism, the belief that man is a victim of forces beyond his control, (such as God, fate, upbringing, genes or economic conditions)."
I admire objectivism's doing away with common sociological excuses, but I fail to see the foundation. Or are objectivists happy to say that they simply follow Ayn Rand's teachings as a matter of preference, without claiming their worldview is superior to the alternatives?
> I think Ms Rand would describe both Jeffrey Daumer and Mohammed Atta as humans who rejected or never developed into their human purpose of exercizing reason, rejecting mysticism and building human self-esteem.
That's descriptive, but insufficient; after all, on what grounds can we distinguish between your exercising of reason and building self-esteem and Dahmer's? He was known to be intelligent and smooth-talking, and may well have thought highly of himself. He reasoned that since we were evolved slime, you could do whatever you wished, and he chose his twisted lifestyle to build his self-esteem even more. What is the response beyond objectivism's seemingly arbitrary aversion to violence?
Sam,
You can't deny that the west has become a much, much better place to live in since it secularized.
You mean like Columbine? Go back a generation or two when Christian principles held greater sway and violent crime was less of a threat. The Judeo-Christian ethic encourages us to think of others first and to be good citizens (not that others can't be good citizens). Secularism's ideals are a little more forced.
I'm not in favor of theocracies. Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place." John 18:32
True Christianity has never been coercive and has never persecuted anyone in the name of God. That was my original point. Torquemada may be a drop in the ocean, but his behavior was antithetical to Christian teaching, and therefore can't be identified as such. If someone identifies himself as a supply-side economist, yet successfully lobbies for quadrupled tax rates, may we then criticize true supply-side economists for the results?
"Go back a generation or two when Christian principles held greater sway and violent crime was less of a threat. "
Yes, let's go back a generation or two when jim crow and racial intolerance and bigotry of the most violent kind were the norm. Let's go back a generation or two when lynchings were a common form of racial control throughout the American South. Let's go back a generation or two farther to when slavery "forced" millions of africans out of their homeland to a strange place where they were keot in forced servitude for the rest of their lives; where families were broken up and dispersed at the wills of their masters. Let's go back a generation or two to the excesses of capitalism and wage slavery where children were forced to work 12 and 16 hour days right beside adults. I personally find it VERY insulting to hearken back to "the good ole days" as an example of what kind of society we should be.
"True Christianity has never been coercive and has never persecuted anyone in the name of God."
If Torquemada wasn't a "real" Christian, then Stalin wasn't a "real" atheist (or secularist). This is a completely disingenuous arguement. You can't claim the good for yourself while winnowing out the bad to make yourself look good while simultaneously doing just the opposite to your opponent.
What is the point of all of this? The point is that if I want, I can ALWAYS find examples of those who adhere to a certain point of view who go to extremes and perpetrate certain abuses upon society. One remarkable aspect of the human mind is its ability to hold two contradictory notions in the mind at the same time. Humans possess the ability (exercised quite frequently) to believe whatever they want to believe in reference to a certain fact or piece of evidence, and can therefore justify their actions in their distorted minds by whatever means available. It is called "cognitive control". Read about it. Humans can justify 1+1=3 if they wish.
I or anyone alse can always point to examples of extremism in any philosophy or religion. I don't find it reasonable to evade serious argument by pointing out the violent extremists and leaving it at that, because practically any philosophy or system practiced on a large enough scale will experience such deviants. As for Mohammed Atta, he justified his acts by the same "appeal to higher authority" you so cherish. If the problem with secularism is that anyone can justify his claims on the basis that there IS no authority, then the problem with theism and religion is the same in reverse. That is, anyone can justify his actions on the basis of an appeal to a higher authority. If you think all one has to do to refute such nonsense is crack open your favorite bible to a passage refuting it, then guess again, for anyone can go to another passage supporting his claims. If you think people within a religion all agree on one interpretation of their holy scriptures or their interpretation of the divine will, then you are sadly mistaken.
The problem of violence shouldn't be seen as a problem of philosophy, but as a HUMAN one, for no philosophy in and of itself ever killed a single person. To borrow a phrase from the right-wing gun lobby, "Philosophies don't kill people; people kill people." People only justify their bloody deeds in their own minds. Such people should be rounded up and imprisoned and immediately dismissed as deviants no matter what they believe. They will justify their bloody deeds no matter what. There isn't a philosophy in the world that will do either harm or good outside of the human who makes it so. As we can all toss claims of deviancy and bloody tyranny against almost any philosophy or religion, we should rather seek to decry deviancy in all its forms rather than lumping all members of a group together into one category based on the actions of a few violent individuals. If this were the case, I could say society is illegitimate and must be destroyed on the basis of the existence of crime. It is ludicrousness pushed to new levels. Let us not seek to throw blatant charges of deviancy against all the members of a given group but rather to judge them with fairness, honesty, and objectivity. Does this mean that all philosophies or religions are valid? not nececssarily. No decent human being would argue for the validity of nazism. However, no honest individual would seek to disingenuously tie any philosophy or religion in with such an intolerant, hateful sect of humankind. As most Christians, Muslims, Jews and secularists are peaceful, let us all promote greater tolerance of peaceful philosophies and religions and intolerance of hateful, inhumane ones.
"Fierce secularists and atheists deserve having Mao and Stalin thrown in their faces exactly as little, and exactly as much, as Christians deserve to have the inquisitions and the crusades thrown in their faces."
That's utter crap. There is a difference between being killed by a christian, and being killed by christian doctrine going berserk.
Fierce secularists and atheists deserve having Stalin thrown in their faces exactly as little or as much as those sporting big mustaches.
The fact that atheism is based on rationalism does not make every unbeliever a rational person.
And it is telling that you cannot come up with an equivalent INSTITUTION to the inquisition, but only a person. Killing Stalin may have saved millions of people, taking out Torquemada wouldn't have mattered all that much, cos he was one of many.
Ayn Rand was not primarily an athiest but an individualist. This is what sets her apart from both Torquemada and Stalin. The beneficiary of Torquemada's morality is God. The beneficiary of Stalin's morality was the collective good - the Soviet State. Could either of these slaughterers have committed such vast atrocities by promulgating a morality that respected the sovereignty of the individual?
There is a common misconception that athiesm necessarily represents a lack of morality - because morality has forever been associated with religion. But athiesm does not specify any morality; it is simply the absense of a belief in the supernatural - not a substitution for a philosophy or moral code.
Ayn Rand was in fact a fervent moralist. Her morality was based on the sovereignty of the individual to live his life in his best interest - what she called 'rational egoism'. She believed that morality came, not from some God in a supernatural realm (like Torquemada) nor from a collective of men (like Stalin), but from each man's need to be free to use his mind and its faculty of reason to achieve his values (values that must adhere to reality). This is his 'right' to live as he chooses, and in return he may not violate another's 'right' to live as they choose. This means she is utterly opposed to any criminal or governmental use of physical force - including the Inquisition's gruesome stake-burnings and the Soviet gulags and famines - unless that force is being used in self-defense.
Ayn Rand's is the only philosophy that is truly grounded - grounded to reality, that is.
Atheism was not a factor in the development of Ayn Rand's philosophy. She believed in adhering to reason - and any form of theism, especially given our current state of scientific knowledge, relies on a great degree of reason's opposite: faith - the absense of proof.
If you're interested, the best place to start reading about Objectivist ethics is in an excellent and easy to read book called 'Loving Life: The Morality of Self-Interest and the Facts that Support It' by Craig Biddle (www.glenallenpress.com/lovinglife). You can also try Ayn Rand's essay "The Objectivist Ethics" from her book 'The Virtue of Selfishness'.
Incidentally Ayn Rand chose to leave Russia early in her life, making her way to the United States. She saw the future consequences of the Bolshevik revolution before they happened and escaped communism shortly before the Iron Curtain was lowered. Note also that the aforementioned 'atheistic regimes' have dispensed with religion only because it serves a different Lord than theirs - the State.
And as for Martin Luther...
The "chill pill" the Christian Church has taken in recent centuries has less to do with the Reformation and more to do with a tolerence for reason and logic via Thomas Aquinas' rediscovery of Aristotle. This rediscovery and the rediscovery of all things Greek and Roman - philosophy, science, art - led to the Renaissance, the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution. The church, though still important in the lives of many, was no longer all-important as it had been in the Dark and Middle Ages. Martin Luther was in disagreement with Aristotle and I think it would be fair to say that his anti-semitism was very influential on the Third Reich.