Atheism and other isms

Christianity is often associated with various doctrines and creeds that are regarded as defining them as Christians. Atheists typically say they just don't believe in God, and have no doctrines and creeds to follow. However, it's my impression that atheists who make an impact on society tend to do so in the context of belief systems that incorporate atheism as an integral component. Historically, Marxism-Leninism or "scientific socialism" was the most successful and influential of these. Many Christians who opposed communism did so because it was "atheistic". Scientific socialism, as the name implies, purported to offer a worldview based on dialectical materialism which could predict the inevitable direction of history. In Oklahoma, where I'm from, atheists tend to be from the opposite side of the political spectrum: objectivism, which is closely aligned with libertarianism and played a leading role in founding the Libertarian Party. Objectivists are staunch believers in Reason and unbridled capitalism as set forth in the teachings of Ayn Rand, the "Prophet of Profit", who has attacked altruism as a vice and promoted sefishness as a virtue. Another prominent belief system which has always been prominent in atheist circles, although not generally acknowledged and labelled, is scientism--a belief that the great unknowns of our physical reality, like the origins of the universe, life and human consciousness have natural causes that science will one day figure out. This view comes through in the recent rash of popular writings by Dawkins, Dennett, Harris,Hutchins,Stenger, etc. Finally, there is a non-rationalistic perspective ("system" seems inappropriate) that I'd label existentialist/nihilist, with apologies to Sartre and Nietzsche for putting them in the same bed. This perspective, most prevalent in the humanities, posits the non-existence or death of God as a source of liberation and/or responsibility. I realize that there are plenty of atheists who don't fit into these boxes, just as there are lots of Christians who don't fit the stereotypes non-Christians hold of them. But I'm interested in your comments about the categories I've identified, and your views about the merits of each of them.

 

I think people need to remember that liking the sound of atheism doesn't mean you have to be an atheist. "-isms" are for ideas, not people, and applying them to people just serves to dehumanise them and downplay their individuality.

 

Yes, I agree. "Pin the label on the atheist" (or Christian) can be a dangerous and unproductive game. As I said,"I realize that there are plenty of atheists who don't fit into these boxes, just as there are lots of Christians who don't fit the stereotypes non-Christians hold of them". It would certainly be hard to put you into any of the categories, just as I think it would be hard to fit me into one of the standard slots people think of for Christians. And it is "dehumanizing", to some extent, to categorize people. But I also think it can be useful to try do so, as an important step in being analytical--so long as we don't fall into the reductionist, "nothing but" trap. Few of us are as individualistic as we might like to think. All of us are shaped by genetic, familial, societal, and cultural influences that constrain our individuality. There are patterns and realities to human as well as physical behavior, and I've encountered these on Hip Forums--from both atheists and Christians. There really are atheist objectivists, existentialist/nihilists, Marxists and naturalists. Even I, an "independent, unclassifiable individualist" (in my own mind) show some tendencies that I share with others that would make it possible to pin me down with some degree of meaning. In trying to label myself on these Forums, I've used the labels "Christian existentialist", "Christian pragmatist", "Progressive Christian", and even "Christian agnostic"(for which I received much flack for being an oxymoron). Certainly any of these labels would set me apart from other Christians, like Olderwater Brother (whom I deeply respect), who believe in "inerrant" scripture that can be taken literally. Also, they would set me apart from Catholics who emphasize tradition, ritual, and institutional authority; and from charismatics who experience direct connection with the Holy Spirit who guides and directs their daily lives. The labels would suggest a connection between my views and those of other Progressive Christians, such as Marcus Borg, the Jesus Seminar, and other liberal mainline Protestant theologians. And by and large, they'd be right--although I have my own issues with those Christians. Such categorization could be the first step toward dismissing me as a serious independent thinker, but it could also be a useful first step in understanding where I'm coming from.

 

Any "ist" is necessarily different from an "ism". One can live within a communist system without being a communist. Most people living within a capitalist system could not be said to be capitalists.

 

But some people living under capitalism are communists and they believe in communism (Marxism-Leninism; dialectical materialism), and therefore probably do not beleive in God, although a minority might be following some personal mutant God-friendly form of the ideology. Likewise, some people living in capitalist societies are objectivists, and as such have greater faith in capitalism than some CEOs do. (There may even be some in Cuba or North Korea, but we don't know, because they're lying low. Wherever they are, it's reasonable to expect that they're also atheists, because that is an important tenet of objectivist philosophy. They may not wear objectivist shoes and read the objectivist news, but most will share the characteristic beliefs of Ayn Rand in most respects. Otherwise we'd have to call them (and they'd be calling themselves) something else. I'm interested in what individuals believe, not what their societies have established as official policy.

 

Oh indeed. What I meant was more that a person is not (by some definitions, at least) a "capitalist" purely because they exist within a capitalist society. To be a capitalist, they would have to believe firmly in capitalism as right and just, and/or actively participate in it, rather than just taking the path of least resistance.

 

I wish people would quit trying to conflate atheism with political philosophy. Atheism is only an answer to one philosophical question: Do you believe in a deity? It is not a moral or political system. Just because people may incorporate their atheism into their political beliefs does not mean that those philosophies follow from atheism. This is the fallacy that theists like to throw into debate to try to demoralize atheism: Stalin was an atheist. Explain that! I know you werent attempting that yourself but i think it is necessary to make this point.

 

Atheism is just a disbelief in a god or gods, or a disbelief in a deity or deities. Though atheism can be incorporated into all sorts of ideologies, and though they may have an influence on what ideology is preferable, atheism by itself doesn't entail a specific system of political or moral/ethical beliefs.

For example, an atheist may be a Libertarian, or a Capitalist, or a Totalitariantist, or a Communist, etc. None of these ideologies have anything to do with atheism; any of these ideologies could be believed when you're an atheist. I don't think it's atheism that has concise political leanings, I think that's what religion has more than atheism (e.g. theocracy, and religion can decide pro-life, etc.). But since atheism is a disbelief, the lack of something, in this case a god, it wouldn't really affect a political ideology beyond the fact that since that something, or in this case a god, is lacking it (god) is thus irrelevant to the formation of a political ideology.

 

I'd say this fallacy is used towards Christians and other theists more. The crusaders were Christians, Hitler was a "Christian", the inquisitors were christians to "prove" that if christian, therefore a monster.

I will use the Stalin (or other dictator) fallacy in an attempt to point out their fallacy, but it is often lost.

I understand what Okie is getting at. In its purest form, Communism as Mar visualized was an atheistic society and a national (even international atheism) is necessary. Ditto for the French Revolution. Theism is occasionally seen as an impediment to "progress". So I agree in a way, but there are exceptions, notably liberation theology which is highly Marxist but also highly Catholic in most cases (or pseudoCatholic depending on your stance).

 

I suffer from lackadaisical semanticism. But I guess you would just call that Nihilism.

 

People conflate politics and religion all the time, so why not atheism? Most religious/atheistic beliefs do have trends - often very strong trends - in the political ideologies of their followers. We don't see many left-wing Christian fundamentalists, for example.

In truth, I was only attempting to draw an analogy. But I'd say that morality and politics are largely only asking/answering one philosophical question each: "how do you think people should behave?" and "how do you think people should be governed?" respectively.

As for "explaining" Stalin's atheism: I'd say that Stalin probably didn't believe in God, but I'd imagine his belief in atheism as something that should be encouraged on a national scale had more to do with seeing God as competition.

 

Here is the problem. There is a huge difference between these scenarios. Stalin did not kill anyone because of his atheism, he killed them because they threatened his authority and his totalitarian ideology which in no way follows from atheism. The Inquisition, Crusades, Taiping rebellion, etc. were brought about as a direct result of beliefs inherent in Christian doctrine such as the beliefs that God is the source of morality and that the bible is the word of that god. It logically follows from these premises that what is commanded in the bible is the ultimate morality and thus should be obeyed. There are some pretty abhorrent commandments in the bible in case you forgot. Most modern moderate christians are hypocrites, however and simply pick and choose the morals which coincide with their own societal prejudices. This is certainly a good thing though, because if they were not, Christianity would be just as damaging if not more so to the world as Islam. Morality exists in spite of religion, not because of it.

 

[/quote]I think there may be some denial and historical revisionism going on here. Whatever was going on in Stalin's mind is a matter of speculation, but
early on, Stalin declared that the Party could not be neutral toward religion and must struggle against it. Between 1917 and 1926, the Metropolitan of Petrograd, 78 Orthodox bishops, 2,700 priests, 2,000 monks, and 3,400 nuns were killed under Stalin. Thousands of priests were added later. Some 22,000 Baptists died in the gulags. Over 1/3 of the Catholic priests in Lithuania were killed. The League of the Militant Godless, with Party approval, vandalized churches and desecrated cemetaries. As for the Inquistion and the Crusades, they happened awhile back, didn't they? Were there any Methodists or Quakers invloved? Seems like one particular Christian church was behind it, so is it really fair to tar all the others for something done centuries ago. Has anything like this happened since? Surely not the Taipei Rebellion, a peasant uprising against the Manchu Dynasty led by a visionary who was influenced by some elements of Christianity, but who attracted a following by virtue of dissatisfaction with the Manchu rulers. The point here is elusive.

You call me and my fellow Progressive Christians hypocrites, but I think we're just real Christians, following the teachings of a good hippie who preached peace love and understanding, especially for the rejects of society. Why do you think the fundies who take the Bible literally are the true Christians?

 

So, in response I'd like to just reference 1) What Okie posted about Stalin.

and 2) The argument can be made that even the Inquisition and Crusades, some of the darkest events in Christian, specifically Catholic, history was not caused by religion, but desire for power. Yeah, religion may not have helped, but for example, the 4th Crusade was Christian v Christian. East v West. The West wanted more influence over the Eastern Empire and so went to war with the Byzantine establishment. It wasn't becase of theological differences (albeit they may have been used to justify it) but it wasn't specifically over theological arguments.

3) The dark shit in the bible, yeah it is pretty crappy. Yeah it is in Canon and therefore is Divinly inspired. One rationalization is that God did not write the books, but men did. They did for an occasion (hence the term occasioanl text) at a specific time for a specific purpose. Second, I'd argue that in terms of Christians "picking and choosing", what exactly do you mean by that. Do you mean the shellfish and pork laws et cetera? There is a little known group of Laws called the Noahide Laws that all gentiles are bound to (some argue that this includes Christians). I might even argue that because there is evidence that Christians thought of themselves as another ethnic group (neither jew nor greek)...

Again, you have to remember the time. Roman Catholic Magisterium states that the death penalty is to not be used, unless it is the only way you can protect innocent people from harm. In antiquity, this was often the only way of doing things. (I guess your counter argument could be that there are pretty severe penelties for weird things such as a woman grabing another man's genetals to get her husband out of a fight gets her hands cut off). That stuff is honestly weird, and I've got no response.

 

This has all been good, high quality discussion, and most of you make valid points. Yes, atheism is just disbelief in God, and it's possible for an atheist to be a vegetarian, bird watcher, corporate lawyer, CEO, computer programmer,medical technician, refrigerator repair people, etc. I was exploring impressions I've formed from atheists I know or know of, who seem to be coming at their atheism from different perspectives and justifying it in different terms. Scientism is one I've been encountering a lot in another thread by an atheist who seems to exemplify it but denies it (and in fact accuses me of being one!). In Oklahoma, there are also a lot of Objectivists, so if you go to an atheist meeting, you're likely to get Ayn Rand as an appetizer. I've seen the others around, too. So this is just an analytical exercise reflecting my desire to understand you better by pinning you down, analyzing you, dissecting you, classifying you, and putting you away in the proper boxes--and yet you resist. (Maybe that guy was right about my scientism).

 

So do you and your cut out your left eye when you look lustfully on a woman? Thats one thing the good hippie supposedly said to do. If you can pick and choose from the bible to your own satisfaction, why believe any of it is true? Why believe in the virgin birth or the resurrection literally? For the most part i agree with the moral philosophies of Jesus, but why should I believe the supernatural claims?
Anyway I was not defending Stalin nor saying that he didn't oppress the church, I was merely addressing the common theist argument that implies that Stalin did these things because of his atheism and not because of his other unrelated totalitarian ideologies. None of his ideologies follow from atheism however. Atheism does not lead to Stalinism. I detest Stalinism for the same reasons i detest religion. They are both totalitarian ideologies which require one to have faith in an almighty leader. That being said, there is a difference in religious totalitarianism in that many of their oppressive actions are justified and condoned in the bible and other holy books. The Inquisitors for example faithfully believed they were acting on God's orders and when someone believes that, no amount of reason or compassion can stop them from committing abhorrent acts. The Taiping rebellion was not a little peasant revolt, either. It was led by a man who believed he was the second coming of Christ and his aim was to "purify" China. 30 Million Chinese were killed over the course of the revolt. The problem is not necessarily any one specific ideology, it is the prevalence of faith and the absence of reason.

 

If, for the most part, you agree with the moral philosophy of Jesus but don't believe the supernatural claims, you're about the same kind of Christian I am (although I'm guessing you don't call yourself that). I've been heavily influenced by Marcus Borg and the rest of the Jesus seminar. I don't believe Jesus said four-fifths of the things the Bible says he said, but they make a pretty good case for the other fifth, and I follow a similar methodology--not pick and choose. I don't believe in the virgin birth or the resurrection literally, but I believe in them metaphorically, which is what's important. I share Hume's views on miracles. I think there probably was an historical Jesus, but it's not a major factor in my faith. The difference between us may be I'm really gung ho about the moral philosophy part and somewhat mystical and metaphorical in my general outlook on life.

I agree that atheism doesn't necessarily lead to Stalin (or even to Mao or Pol Pot), but I don't think Christianity necessarily leads to the Crusades, the Inquisition or the Taiping rebellion. Most Christian sects are non-violent. Some, like the Quakers, are pacifists to an extreme. And if you say that Stalin persecuted religion for reasons unrelated to atheism, I think the same point could be made about the Crusades and the Inquistion. (In fact, I think Ukr-Cdn already made that point.) On any history exam question dealing with the causes of the Crusades, the prof would surely expect the students to include the outlet they provided for landless nobles to plunder and pillage, the desire of the Italian merchant states to expand Mediterranean trade blocked by Saracins, the colonial aspirations of the Normans against the Christian Byzantine Empire, etc. Likewise, with the Inquistion. The 13th century (Papal) Inquisition can't be understood without appreciating the threat that the Cathars (Albegensians) posed to the civil order of feudal Europe by challenging such things as oaths, or the concern on the part of the Church that Emperor Frederick II was using heresy-hunting as a pretext for rubbing out his political enemies (the Inquisition transferred the job from him to an ecclesiastically controlled arena.) The later Spanish Inquisition, set up by Ferdinand and Isabella, was used to eliminate and confiscate the wealth of Jewish and Muslim converts who were distrusted by the monarchy as possible subversives.

I'm not sure that that's "the" problem. As we've seen, politics and self-interest were present in all of these phenomena, and they were quite "rational" for the actors involved. The problem is the misuse of faith, whether the religious faith of the Crusaders or secular faiths like Marxism-Leninism. To the believers, they were rational. Catholics were under the spell of state of the art rationalism in the form of Aristotelian-Thomism, and Stalinists claimed to be guided by "scientific socialism' and "dialectical materialism". I think they all could benefit from a healthy dose of skepticism, though.

 

As OP of this thread, I gotta say that, based on recent experience, my original post gives new meaning to the phrase "dumb Okie". Since then, I've come to know personally about forty more atheists. Nice folks, and not an ideologue in the bunch! I just need to get out more.

 

In my creationism class I regularily encounter atheists. Even this past week we had an "angry atheist" come and speak with us. Even though there was some shouting, him and my evangelical proff are still great friends. He was an awesome guy.

Not to say that it is rare or anything, but that jackasses usually get handed the microphone more than normal moderate and reserved people.

 

I suppose that there is nothing wrong with attempting to hoist up a series of straw men. After all It can makes life easier in this game.