Secularism versus the Demonization of Atheists

[Immanuel Can]

Immanuel Can wrote:

'We" aren't. We ought to be against handing over the moral compass of the individual to the collective, though, and against any hope of looking to large-scale governmental solutions to purge us of our social ills. That hope has piled up the corpses; the sooner it's given up, the better for us all.

Each individual in a democracy has the right and responsibility to evaluate collectives , their moral systems, and individuals.

That's in theory. I agree with you, in theory; but in practice, in all political bodies, and even in a democracy, the individual is swallowed up by masses. If anyone's not sure about that, tell them to just take a placard and go picked a government all alone. They'll quickly see how much "responsibility" the government feels to them as individuals.

However, democracy is still likely our best option. Personally, I'd rather live in a society in which individual conscience matters, in which no ideology can be imposed, and in which the collective cannot submerge the individual entirely. I'd also argue for strong limitations to political and governmental power over the individual. But all of that will still never be enough. For even democracy is a fallible response to a perpetual problem, the problem of human nature. And human nature is not improved when the collective is empowered. What happens is that certain propensities of human nature are magnified, and at the same time the moral qualms of the individual tend to be swallowed up by the collective. What you get, then, is veniality-plus-power without morality.

When there are individuals in theocracies those individuals who have not been brainwashed have the right and the responsibility to evaluate the theocracy within which they are oppressed.

Which "theocracy" are you agonizing about? You mean ISIL? So far as I can see, that's the only vaguely "theocratic" entity that anybody's campaigning for today.

The moral compass of theists can be the same as the moral compass of atheists and secularists. The supernatural narrative of theists does not have to involve God in punitive responses to human frailty, but can posit a God of mercy, reason, and knowledge.

I think the moral compass is pretty much the same: it's called the conscience. But basic human conscience isn't enough, clearly; for it can be chilled by use of rationalizations, dulled by solipsism, or killed off by indoctrination into political ideology. Then men do what men do.

As for "human frailty," that's a nice euphemism. I assume you can't be using it for what happens in political ideologies: indoctrination, dispossession, incarceration, torture, gulags, and executions. I think that any God purporting to be a God of Justice would surely have to address these rampant exhibitions of "frailties," wouldn't you?

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can wrote:

If anyone's not sure about that, tell them to just take a placard and go picked a government all alone. They'll quickly see how much "responsibility" the government feels to them as individuals.

Some have done so and that is why these people are our heroes. Socrates, Jesus, Nelson Mandela, Anna Stepanovna Politkovskaya, Emmeline Pankhurst.

Immanuel Can wrote:

As for "human frailty," that's a nice euphemism. I assume you can't be using it for what happens in political ideologies: indoctrination, dispossession, incarceration, torture, gulags, and executions. I think that any God purporting to be a God of Justice would surely have to address these rampant exhibitions of "frailties," wouldn't you?

The forgiveness that Jesus exhibited on the Cross towards his torturers was the sort of forgiveness that only God can do. We are not called upon to forgive torturers .

I think the moral compass is pretty much the same: it's called the conscience. But basic human conscience isn't enough, clearly; for it can be chilled by use of rationalizations, dulled by solipsism, or killed off by indoctrination into political ideology. Then men do what men do.

Yes, all of that. It's our responsibility to maintain our consciences in as good condition as we can. We challenge and retaliate against these departures from the truth.

[Londoner]

Me: And so you would not find fault with the state of society during the Maoist 'Great Leap Forward'?
No, no: did I not say that the GLF had killed millions? Did you think I meant to recommend it? The GLF had no modicum of humility about it. The Maoists were quite certain they had both the knowledge and means to take people "forward": it just meant they had to kill a bunch of dissenters to get there.

No, I didn't think you meant to recommend it. But nor can you mean to condemn it, and advocate something else, because if you did that then it would be you who was claiming to have both the knowledge and means to take people "forward". And you seemed to say you are suspicious of such people. But you also say:

Just as I said. There's nothing wrong with the desire to do good, in itself. But having the desire to do good is no insurance that one is actually about to do good. Many bad causes have been called "good."

Indeed, but now we are just back to regular politics, disagreements about policies, what will work. The original claim was that left wing policies were different in kind, faulty because of their ambition. You can say the left has good intentions but is misguided; they will say the same about you.

I'm merely advocating suspicion of people who try to reform it through the expansion of governmental powers and by political collectivism. That the status quo needs changing, I do not doubt: but that the means of change will be collectivism and governmental fiat, well, that I doubt completely.

Personally, I would say that the highly organised nature of our modern society has enabled people to live far longer and more productive lives than would be possible in a state of lawless individualism, but I can understand that it would be possible to think otherwise. But as I say, this is just routine politics.

Me: But we have no choice. Our present situation is also the expression of a political ideology. So 'not doing anything' is also a political act.

We do have a choice. Political ideology is not our only recourse. It's just the most obvious refuge for those who don't want to address the problem at its root. For ultimately, the problem is inside you and me.

From whence come bad political "solutions"? I think you can see. They come, ultimately, from the human heart. We dreamed them up, and we made them happen. Human beings do those things. And until the faults of the human heart are addressed, we need not expect that giving those faults power (through collectivism, or through the instrumentality of government power) will result in anything but more failures, and more corpses.

But by neglecting to set up government doesn't mean that government won't happen, that we will live in a state of Rousseauist individualist bliss. On the contrary, it is anarchy that gives birth to dictators.

The examples you give of left wing horrors all occurred after normal government had broken down, after civil wars. People like Mao were not created because of government; they are the sort of people who get to the top when you don't have a government.

[Immanuel Can]

No, I didn't think you meant to recommend it. But nor can you mean to condemn it, and advocate something else, because if you did that then it would be you who was claiming to have both the knowledge and means to take people "forward".

Not at all. I've made no claim to advance an alternate political program. I'm merely pointing out that the aspirations of the collectivists and socialists are dust...and the dust of bodies, mostly.

My argument is "avoid political solutions," especially Leftist collectivist utopian ones. They kill people. History bears me out on that caution.

And you seemed to say you are suspicious of such people. But you also say:

Indeed, but now we are just back to regular politics, disagreements about policies, what will work.

Not at all. As I said, I'm not advocating the political. I'm pointing to the need for personal reform.

Personally, I would say that the highly organised nature of our modern society has enabled people to live far longer and more productive lives than would be possible in a state of lawless individualism,

Who said "lawless individualism"? Not me. My issue is not with law per se, and certainly not with civilization. It's with utopian political solutions, such as Marxism and "the just society."

The examples you give of left wing horrors all occurred after normal government had broken down, after civil wars. People like Mao were not created because of government; they are the sort of people who get to the top when you don't have a government.

This is not true. Stalin rising was dangerous; Stalin secure at the top was genocidal. And after Mao locked himself in, China didn't become a more loving, tender place. In fact, to this day, it remains a human-rights disaster area.

Don't think that the problem is merely a temporary social unrest that will settle down and issue in good government. That's not how Leftist utopians do their work. As I said, they become upset that their political "paradise" fails to appear, and then go looking for people to blame. That's when the gulags open.

[Immanuel Can]

duplicate post.

[Immanuel Can]

Socrates, Jesus, Nelson Mandela, Anna Stepanovna Politkovskaya, Emmeline Pankhurst.

These are not instances of democracy. Only the latter lived in a democracy, and even she was powerless without the support of masses, it's clear. So again, we see that democracy has extremely limited responsiveness to the individual.

We are not called upon to forgive torturers .

Actually, we are. But we're also called not to become torturers -- even in the name of "the Communists State" or "the just society."

I think the moral compass is pretty much the same: it's called the conscience. But basic human conscience isn't enough, clearly; for it can be chilled by use of rationalizations, dulled by solipsism, or killed off by indoctrination into political ideology. Then men do what men do.

Yes, all of that. It's our responsibility to maintain our consciences in as good condition as we can. We challenge and retaliate against these departures from the truth.

Challenge? Perhaps. But retaliation? That is no virtue.

[Greta]

IC is from the fundamentalist religious right.

Never the twain shall meet.

[Londoner]

My argument is "avoid political solutions," especially Leftist collectivist utopian ones. They kill people. History bears me out on that caution.

You would have to argue that one out. First we would have to decide what counted as 'Leftist', then we should have to try to trace some direct line of cause and effect. That seems to me to be an impossible game of chicken-and-egg. For example, plainly the Russian revolution was not caused by people reading Marx - if it was, then since Americans and British also read Marx we should have had revolutions there too. So we are obliged to explain the Russian revolution by looking at the situation of Russia generally at that time. To cherry pick anything in particular as 'The Cause' just reveals our own prejudices.

Me: Personally, I would say that the highly organised nature of our modern society has enabled people to live far longer and more productive lives than would be possible in a state of lawless individualism,

Who said "lawless individualism"? Not me. My issue is not with law per se, and certainly not with civilization. It's with utopian political solutions, such as Marxism and "the just society."

So you are OK with governments, policemen etc., as long as they are not working towards a utopian solution. But in that case, what is supposed to be their objective? I do not see how you can organise society without having some set of values you believe in. And it would be a bit odd to deliberately pick a set of values, or make a plan, that you didn't believe in, just so you could avoid the charge of being 'utopian'.

Me: The examples you give of left wing horrors all occurred after normal government had broken down, after civil wars. People like Mao were not created because of government; they are the sort of people who get to the top when you don't have a government.

This is not true. Stalin rising was dangerous; Stalin secure at the top was genocidal. And after Mao locked himself in, China didn't become a more loving, tender place. In fact, to this day, it remains a human-rights disaster area.

But that's not what I wrote. Look again at the sentence you quote. I don't say Stalin and Mao were good, I was pointing out that what enabled them to rise to the top was the unsettled states of the societies they lived in. You blame their rise on excess government control; I think a more likely enabler was the opposite - civil war. You see the communist regimes of the 20th century as a cause; why can't they be an effect?

The problem here is not Marxism, but looking at history through blinkers, such that you make everything fit your theory. A Marxist could do exactly the same thing you are doing; look through history and explain everything according to Marxist theory. An atheist can similarly go through history and blame everything on religion. Or a religious person can go through history and blame everything bad on our failure to follow God's will...

Don't think that the problem is merely a temporary social unrest that will settle down and issue in good government. That's not how Leftist utopians do their work. As I said, they become upset that their political "paradise" fails to appear, and then go looking for people to blame. That's when the gulags open.

In the case of Marx, the opposite of the case. Remember, Marx writes in the wake of the 1848 revolutions, all of which failed. There is the great example of the French Revolution, which ended up creating the Emperor Napoleon. And the fate of the Paris Commune. If you read Marx, there is no illusion that revolutions work like magic and bring about utopias. There is almost nothing in Marx about what perfect communism might be like, only one passage which gets quoted again and again. The bulk of Marx is about practical politics, contemporary and studies of history.

[Belinda]

Socrates, Jesus, Nelson Mandela, Anna Stepanovna Politkovskaya, Emmeline Pankhurst.

(IC)These are not instances of democracy. Only the latter lived in a democracy, and even she was powerless without the support of masses, it's clear. So again, we see that democracy has extremely limited responsiveness to the individual.
(Belinda)Read again please. These are individuals who stood up against evil regime.

We are not called upon to forgive torturers .

(IC)Actually, we are. But we're also called not to become torturers -- even in the name of "the Communists State" or "the just society."

(Belinda)It's not in human power to forgive like God forgives.Need to recognise what Jungians call the shadow in ourself.

I think the moral compass is pretty much the same: it's called the conscience. But basic human conscience isn't enough, clearly; for it can be chilled by use of rationalizations, dulled by solipsism, or killed off by indoctrination into political ideology. Then men do what men do.

Yes, all of that. It's our responsibility to maintain our consciences in as good condition as we can. We challenge and retaliate against these departures from the truth.

(IC)Challenge? Perhaps. But retaliation? That is no virtue.

(Belinda)But Christians are to be active individuals. To stand up to bullies.

[uwot]

My argument is "avoid political solutions," especially Leftist collectivist utopian ones. They kill people. History bears me out on that caution.

Mr Can, take your nose out of the bible for once, and have a look at the real world. The number of people who think as you do is vanishingly small. All Utopias are premised on the assumption that everyone accepts one set of values. If you think that the world would be a better place if everyone were to agree with you, you are a Utopian. The chances of that, as this forum demonstrates, are not significantly greater than nil. Your options are to eradicate all dissent, which is what the real headbangers do, or accept that, while you can't please everyone all the time, you have to rub along with people who have different beliefs to your own.
If, as you do, one refuses to engage with divergent views, how do you intend to deal with dissent? As I understand you, you believe that your god will judge us. Not for our behaviour towards others on Earth, but for our belief in a particular interpretation, of an ambiguous 2000 year old story. For all I know, that's true. You, by contrast, have convinced yourself it is.

Not at all. As I said, I'm not advocating the political. I'm pointing to the need for personal reform.

Personal reform is all very well, but do you believe that any individual's interests will be served by reforming in any way that doesn't align itself with your own beliefs? However destructive Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot and Wot Not were, they only killed people. They didn't then torture them forever. Which is precisely what your 'good' god does to the vast majority of blameless souls he apparently loves.
Suppose any genocidal maniac sincerely sees the error of his ways on his deathbed, personally reforms, repents and accepts Jesus as his saviour, will they get into heaven?

[Immanuel Can]

My argument is "avoid political solutions," especially Leftist collectivist utopian ones. They kill people. History bears me out on that caution.

You would have to argue that one out.

It's not hard at all. It's awfully easy to prove that Stalin, Hitler ("National Socialist," remember?), Mao and Pol Pot, for a start, were all "Leftists." There's no case for them being "Right." But even if some dictators are "Right-wing" that's not a problem for my case: for as I said at the end, totalitarianism is not better if the Right does it than if the Left does.

So you are OK with governments, policemen etc., as long as they are not working towards a utopian solution.

Absolutely.

But in that case, what is supposed to be their objective?

To preserve the legitimate rights and freedoms of the individual, not to "engineer" their conception of "the good society" at the expense of the individual.

I do not see how you can organise society without having some set of values you believe in.

You can't. But that's a very far cry from saying that a single ideological vision must be imposed by engineering it upon others. It's quite possible for a society to exist and thrive with a wide range of values, as chosen by the individuals within it, provided that basic rights and freedoms are protected. Not every difference among people is a make-or-break issue, by any means. That's democratic pluralism, not autocratic social engineering.

And it would be a bit odd to deliberately pick a set of values, or make a plan, that you didn't believe in, just so you could avoid the charge of being 'utopian'.

There's no problem with anybody believing in anything they want...provided that they are not able to impose it on others by force. They can speak for it, teach it, assemble to advocate for it, or anything else they want, provided that they do not use violence or coercion to get results.

I don't say Stalin and Mao were good, I was pointing out that what enabled them to rise to the top was the unsettled states of the societies they lived in. You blame their rise on excess government control; I think a more likely enabler was the opposite - civil war. You see the communist regimes of the 20th century as a cause; why can't they be an effect?

Civil war may be preparatory, but it's not a cause of totalitarianism. Napoleon may have been, as historians have sometimes dubbed him, "The heir of the Revolution," but no equivalent totalitarianism appeared in the wake of, say, the American Civil War. And then there are things like Cuba...no civil war, but a Leftist revolution and a dictator.

The problem here is not Marxism, but looking at history through blinkers, such that you make everything fit your theory. A Marxist could do exactly the same thing you are doing; look through history and explain everything according to Marxist theory.

Easy to defeat. Name one country that was made happy and responsive to human rights by Marxism. Just one. Any one. But there are countries made happy and responsive to human rights by Christianity, for example. Read John Locke, and you'll see that every human rights code we have now is premised on Christian assumptions that have been secularized without explanation.

An atheist can similarly go through history and blame everything on religion.

He could "blame," but he could never prove that. He'd be mistaken or lying. Not more than 8% of the violent deaths in history can be attributed to "religious" conflicts...half of those by Islam, and the other 3.5% by all other religions in the world combined. By any metric, that's a case that simply cannot be made; it can (and has been) asserted...but it has not been backed by the evidence.

If you read Marx, there is no illusion that revolutions work like magic and bring about utopias. There is almost nothing in Marx about what perfect communism might be like, only one passage which gets quoted again and again. The bulk of Marx is about practical politics, contemporary and studies of history.

Marx got everything wrong, really. He wrote of England, where nothing he predicted came about. He was disgusted by Russia, where some of them seemed to. But practically everything he said has historically turned out to be wrong; and every case of Marxism we've ever had has produced not equality and justice but tyranny, poverty, exploitation, misery and death.

In the days of the Soviet Bloc, I used to hear Marxists on campus tell people that there was an ideal Marxist state in the real world. And only because we had never been there, they said, we didn't know that. But if we had, we'd have seen that Marxism could truly produce the good society.

"And what was that society," you may wonder? Their glowing exemplar of Marxist utopia was Albania. Yep, that's right...Albania.

I have observed that Marxist don't mind lying through their teeth. Because although the great Marxist experiment has always failed, they always think that there is some misunderstood reason why society X wasn't "real Marxism," and, they say, if we had "real Marxism," things would be different. If they just convince enough people to try the NEXT experiment....

[Immanuel Can]

But Christians are to be active individuals. To stand up to bullies.

That's a new teaching to me...what part of the Bible are you thinking of there?

[Arising_uk]

... Marx got everything wrong, really. He wrote of England, where nothing he predicted came about. ...

The Proles are here and increasing?

The rich are appropriating more and more of the wealth and financial and economic inequality is increasing?

The contradictions in Capitalism are causing regular financial and economic collapses?

But practically everything he said has historically turned out to be wrong; and every case of Marxism we've ever had has produced not equality and justice but tyranny, poverty, exploitation, misery and death. ...

I agree but Kerala seems to be doing okay?

You ignore that by Marx's Historical Materialism none of these cases are Marxist, as it's a theory of social and economic history which sees Socialism as an historical outcome from the forces or means of production. As such any attempt to engineer the outcome will not be Marxist hence Marx himself said he was not a 'Marxist'.

[Arising_uk]

...
Easy to defeat. Name one country that was made happy and responsive to human rights by Marxism. Just one. Any one. But there are countries made happy and responsive to human rights by Christianity, for example. Read John Locke, and you'll see that every human rights code we have now is premised on Christian assumptions that have been secularized without explanation. ...

Why would an explanation be needed? After all Christianity is predicated upon us being a moral social primate and that existed long before Christianity occurred and it gives no explanation for this.

I agree that Marxism as a political act has failed but you ignore that without its existence many Christian capitalist countries would not have addressed their social and economic inequalities at all, after all the Church was very happy with such things for a very very long time and has supported all manner of despots during its existence.

[Belinda]

But Christians are to be active individuals. To stand up to bullies.

That's a new teaching to me...what part of the Bible are you thinking of there?

Jesus. Blessed are the peacemakers. Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after righteousness.Blessed are the merciful.

(IC)

But there are countries made happy and responsive to human rights by Christianity, for example. Read John Locke, and you'll see that every human rights code we have now is premised on Christian assumptions that have been secularized without explanation.

Many self identified and peer identified Christians supported the worst excesses of the British Empire for which Africa is still suffering, not to mention the descendants of African slaves in the USA.

On the other hand both Islam and Christianity for all their sins and evil doing have also preserved the basic message which as you rightly hint underlies the human rights code of the United Nations.

This dissonance shows that 'Christianity' is not uniform and immutable. To review the nature of virtue we need tradition and we also need reasoned judgement and up to date facts.