though you could be forgiven for thinking so.
No the opposite of Atheism is Theism. Two different answers to the question – Do you believe in god (assuming of course their can be agreement on exactly what god is, but I digress)?
Now belief or disbelief in a god does not cause one to go out and commit acts of atrocity, or of loving kindness for that matter. No for that something extra has to be added.
Steven Weinberg, Nobel Laureate and Physicist is quoted as saying:
Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it 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.
Now I must respectfully disagree with the good Professor here and it may just be semantics but to single out religion misses the mark. No, I think we need to widen the scope a little.
Dogmatic Ideologies without a system of checks and balances that can assert political power are the problem. Systems of control which crush free speech, which put the ruling party/organisation/group of sexually repressed old men above the law, which make decisions on whim rather than reason or evidence. That allow unscrupulous individuals to exert their ideas/wants/ desires on a populace. These I believe are the problem. So yes, it takes a particular form of religion for good people to do evil, but let us not leave ourselves unguarded to certain types of non-religious ideology either.
Atheism is not responsible for the deaths of a millions of Russians or for the killing fields,for that you need an ideology, a way of thinking to manipulate a populace, to crush their objection – for that you need Communism/Stalinism or Nationalism in the case of Hitler – though I think it can be argued that Hitler was able to use both Nationalism and Christianity to his ends.
Is theism responsible for the crusades, the inquisition, 9/11, no for that you need a religious ideology that abhors free speech and secularism that seeks to ensure that their religion is the one true religion, one that seeks to invade the privacy of a persons thoughts.
So our hope, Theist or Atheist is in a system that contains checks and balances that can question those put in power, that can elect those in power – a good secular democracy. A system that is neutral in is dealing with belief and that protects fundamental human rights.
So we should criticise and examine any ideological movement that seeks to threaten democratic values, that attempts to enslave a populace, to curtail debate, to curtail others freedoms. At present the two most pressing concerns I have are Christianity (because of its political power and the populace’s apathetic response to their power plays) and Islam (which is in sore need of a reformation).
Am I splitting hairs?
I don’t know, but this way of thinking about it seems to sit better with me.
Comments?
Related posts:
- Hitler’s Christianity Click the title of this post to go through to...
- Pope Upset at EU refusal to endorse Christianity I read of the links in my news roll today....
- Atheism – Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot etc It is oft qouted in response to the claims of...
Loading ...
I agree with your title and with the main thrust of your blog. But …
So our hope, Theist or Atheist is in a system that contains checks and balances that can question those put in power, that can elect those in power – a good secular democracy.
That sounds great. But as we here in America are learning, perhaps too late, is that when the demos is controlled by religious zealots, personal freedoms sometimes fall by the wayside. Democracy doesn’t necessarily guarantee liberty. A good, solid Constitution — with checks and balances, as you point out — is needed.
For a democracy to work well, you need a reasonably competant public- people who aren’t easily swayed by tribalism and other irrational beliefs. As the 1890s showed, alot of people aren’t that rational. As long as it is below a critical mass and not aligned with a specific side, it is fine, but when this changes…
Well, look at the last 40 years in the US.
I like your reasoning, after all Christianity is just one brand of Theism.
Any ideology that tells people how they ought to think (and behave) is dangerous if it assumes, like so many do, that it is the best or the only belief system.
So many people seem to like to take that shortcut, though, rather than the chore(!) of thinking things through for themselves.
Thinking isn’t taught nor rewarded in most societies.
Ex,
Agreed a strong constitution and an appreciation of it by all sectors of society.
SS,
Yes as long as people are allowed to inculcate children with the falsity of Australia or America being founded as a Christian nation on Christian teachings then we have a problem.
Re: Ex’s remark . . .
That is why I advocate a secular liberal democracy–precisely what, on paper at least, the United States is supposed to be.
On paper.
AV:
That is why I advocate a secular liberal democracy–precisely what, on paper at least, the United States is supposed to be.
I don’t know what paper you’re referring to. The United States was set up as a secular republic, not, as mistakenly believed, a democracy. And you’re dreaming if you think “liberal,” in any of its meanings, was part of the formulation.
That’s almost as bad a rewriting of history as saying that America was founded as a Christian nation. It’s NOT true.
I don’t know what paper you’re referring to. The United States was set up as a secular republic, not, as mistakenly believed, a democracy. And you’re dreaming if you think “liberal,” in any of its meanings, was part of the formulation.
Ex: I think we’re probably on the same page ultimately, but can you elaborate?
The “paper” I refer to is the Constitution. By liberal democracy I have in mind that which is described on this page at AustralianPolitics.com. I’m not an expert on either topic, so I guess I’m wondering where you think the US model differs from the explanation offered at the aforemention website. (Or, on the other hand, does AustralianPolitics.com have ot wrong?)
AV:
Well, we’re essentially saying exactly the same thing. The U.S. Constitution is a beautiful example of “liberal” (18th-century definition only — what, today, we’d call “libertarian”) thought.
According to the definition of “Liberal Democracy” on AustralianPolitics.com, the U.S. is, indeed, a liberal democracy. Note that “liberal” is being used as an adjective related to “liberty.” But surely, you know that the word “liberal” is inappropriate to use today in the Enlightenment sense (how many idiots in America are enlightened?), just as one could no longer use “gay” as a synonym for “carefree.” It’s a loaded word with, essentially, a new and different meaning. So, unless you’re having a conversation about political history, it’s probably best to steer clear of that term.
In a cursory Google search — with the emphasis on “cursory” — I could find no reference to any of the founding fathers of the United States using that term officially. It certainly doesn’t appear in the Constitution.
Now, as far as “democracy” vs. “republic”: The framers of the U.S. Constitution were extremely suspicious of majoritarian rule and took great pains to protect against it. Remember: They, themselves were members of the elite, monied classes. More importantly, though, they were educated and cultured, which the demos wasn’t, and probably never is.
So they set up a bicameral government, in which representatives of the lower house were elected directly and “democratically” by “qualified electors” (Note: as defined by each State), but representatives of the upper house were elected by the legislatures of the States. How the State legislators are elected, and how they go about electing the U.S. Senators, is not specified. As far as electing the President, I’m sure you’ve heard of the cluster-fuck known as the Electoral College.
So, yes, the U.S. is a “democracy” in the sense that the people — at least some of them — have a voice in their government. But technically, it’s a republic. The Founding Fathers would have been horrified to place the fate of their government in the hands of NASCAR fans.
Thanks for the reminder that religion is only one type of oppressive ideology. There are plenty of other equally ideas ideologies that lovers of freedom and rationality must guard against.
Ex,
Have you thought of writing a history book. Like Ex’s guide to the Founding off America.
Chapter 5 The Electoral College Cluster Fuck.
I don’t know, American history sounds so much more palatable when I here it with your voice
Chappy,
It was something that was bothering me. There’s the old canard about atheism has killed millions and it just didn’t sit right with me. Atheism is just a position not a doctrine.
Yet we allow apologists to paint us in that corner and some fall in to the trap of defending atheism by numbers ie science and the green revolution saved many more than Stalin killed.
Apples and oranges in my view
Note that “liberal” is being used as an adjective related to “liberty.” But surely, you know that the word “liberal” is inappropriate to use today in the Enlightenment sense (how many idiots in America are enlightened?), just as one could no longer use “gay” as a synonym for “carefree.” It’s a loaded word with, essentially, a new and different meaning. So, unless you’re having a conversation about political history, it’s probably best to steer clear of that term.
It probably would be wise to do so in the context of a discussion with Americans, if only in order to avoid confusion.
In Australia, the leading conservative party (and pretty-much a carbon-copy of the GOP while it was in government Federally) calls itself the Liberal Party.
It actually once had sound reasons for doing so, aligning itself philosopically with the liberalism of Mill. There are still moderate elements within the party that pay more than lip-service to that intellectual tradition; the rest just pay lip-service.
The recent election to leadership of a relative moderate is an encouraging sign, but there are many fundies, ultra-conservative Catholics and neo-cons within the organisation that he would need to pander to. The man himself, however, has been described as less conservative than the current Prime Minister, who stands at the helm of the nominally centre-left Labor Party.
Oh well, enough of the boring Australian politics lesson. Sorry for the thread-hijack, Sean!
AV,
That my post has generated some debate that we can all learn from leaves me chuffed.
No need to apologise
I might add that the Australian Constitution is heavily modelled upon the Constitution of the United States, though obviously with many differences. We don’t have a Bill of Rights, for instance, although our disestablishment clause (Section 116) possibly goes further than its US cousin. We’re also still a constitutional monarchy, with the British monarch as our head of state, and we have a Westminster parliamentary system–although we call our houses of parliament the Senate and the House of Representatives, as is the case in the US. I’m not sure how it compares with the US Senate, but the Australian Senate was established as a “States’” house, and there are 12 for each State, regardless of population size. The Senate is intended to be a counterbalance to the more “democratic” House of Reps, as the legislature is intended to counterbalance the executive, and as the judiciary is supposed to counterbalance both.
If there is a lesson here (and, assuming you’re all still awake, that’s a big “if”), it’s that the US Constitution is regarded at least outside the US as the paradigm of secular liberal democracy, regardless of whether the term “liberal” was actually used by the founding fathers. To that extent it could be argued that the US Constitution has been as much of an influence upon Liberalism as proto-Liberals such as Locke and Montesquieu were upon the Constitution.
I guess this partly explains why Gitmo, Abu Ghraib and the rise of the fundagelicals has the rest of the (secular liberal democratic) world shaking our collective heads in bemusement. (That’s not to say that Australia hasn’t seen its small share of Gitmo-esque chicanery and fundagelical shenanigans in recent times.)
AV:
If you mentioned “the liberalism of Mill” in the U.S., most people would think you were talking about free breakfast cereal.
If you mentioned “the liberalism of Mill” in the U.S., most people would think you were talking about free breakfast cereal.
Well I hear certain Americans in the creation science movement found their PhDs on the back of a proverbial cereal box, so it wouldn’t hurt any if they were to discover Mill inside one.
In any case, it was Mill (and thereby liberalism (in the classical sense) as a whole) who was influenced–indirectly–by the US Constitution, not the other way around. Given not only his views on liberty but also his disdain for theism and his proto-secular humanism, he wouldn’t recognise Bush America, and I daresay he would have been horrified by the tent revivals that were the Democract and Republican conventions.
AV:
[Mill] wouldn’t recognise Bush America, and I daresay he would have been horrified by the tent revivals that were the Democract and Republican conventions.
One doesn’t have to be a dead philosopher to feel that way. My face is permanently frozen into “The Scream.”
I am thinking a string of about 4 blasphemous expletives EX
Sean:
I love those Aussie expletives and insults. You guys down there have a way with invective. Although I hate to generalize, I have to say: I’ve never met anyone from Australia who couldn’t produce a string of colorful language. We uncultured Americans don’t always understand every single word — you do talk funny (although not as much as native Noo Yawkuhs like me) — but we manage to get the gist.
Of course, you, yourself, would probably be a champ even here in the U.S.A.
So would you care to share your words of wisdom with the rest of us.
Ex,
It’s actually part of the high school curriculum, that along with being better than the Poms at everything but soccer and sleepy village murder mysteries.
I apparently have a fan club in the US something to do with the accent.
I generally don’t find the different American accents too hard to understand.
One of my mates is from LA, my next door neighbor is from New York, we used to have Texan’s living two doors down and another neighbour is from Vegas.
I am in the middle of Australia surrounded by Americans.
One thing that does not sound pretty is a harsh Queensland accent mixed with an American accent – damn near worst sound on the planet.
Now on my expletives I was imagining the founding fathers upon witnessing the circus American politics has become would say:
Thomas Jefferson to John Adams
“Holy Mary mother of Fuck!”
Adams “Yes I know we wrote it down”
Thomas “Do you think they lost it”
Adams”I thought it was pretty clear,”
Thomas” We even made sure that elite educated men would govern”
Admas” Oh fuck it, they say Australia’s alright if you don’t mind the criminal element – good beer too.”
My favourite Australian saying:
“I’m as dry as a nun’s cunt!”
Rhythm, assonance, alliteration and iconoclasm . . . it’s all there.
The Atheist Community of Austin holds an annual pub crawl, I believe, and if there are any members reading Sean’s blog, I couldn’t think of a better expression to kick the evening off.
With aliteration:
“Dry as a nun’s nasty”
or a favourite
“Two shakes of a Kangaroos cock” for wait a minute.
“Point Percy at the Porcelain” is another favourite.