A Correlation between Secularism and Tyrany

[PRmerger]

Originally Posted by Sample

Secular humanist values says burning people for thought crimes is always wrong and slavery is always wrong.

And that's because secular humanists have been influenced by Christian values.

[tonyrey]

Originally Posted by NonServiam

Make that none. Atheism, defined as the lack of belief in gods, isn't an -ism, isn't a worldview with dogmatic tenets...or any tenets at all. It's a position on a single question.

Lack of belief in God or gods implies belief in a Godless universe - which implies that morality has no rational basis.

Secularism, however, can arguably be considered a worldview or a system of organizing society. As such, it's conceivable that someone could kill "in the name of secularism," but in the case of the secularism we now see in the West, which is intertwined with humanism, a worldview that repudiates genocide and puts a great deal of value on human life, it would be almost impossible for anyone to kill in the name of that form of secularism (and still be logically consistent).

There is no rational basis for humanism in a Godless universe because it amounts to no more than prejudice for one's own species.

Hitler killed in the name of a nutty racist philosophy, and Stalin killed in the name of a nutty Communist ideology. Both of those nutty positions are consistent with atheism and arguably consistent with some form of secularism, but the atrocities that resulted from those positions cannot be argued to be caused by atheism or secularism (and certainly not caused by the humanist secularism currently practiced in Western countries).

The atrocities are more subtle now because the massacre of unborn children continues unabated due to subjective nature of morality in a secular society.

[abucs]

Pope Gregory 1839.

“We have judged that it belonged to Our pastoral solicitude to exert Ourselves to turn away the Faithful from the inhuman slave trade in Negroes and all other men…….By the same Authority We prohibit and strictly forbid any Ecclesiastic or lay person from presuming to defend as permissible this traffic in Blacks under no matter what pretext or excuse, or from publishing or teaching in any manner whatsoever, in public or privately”.

This was of course more than 20 years before Lincoln was elected President.

Of course other Popes hundreds of years earlier condemned human slavery as a great crime including Pius II, Paul III and Eugene IV.

This was not any retrospective enlightenment leading the way. The French Revolution killed hundreds of thousands in cold blood and well into the 20th century progressives saw life as 'survival of the fittest' which routinely meant getting rid of bad genes (Hitler etc).

Christianity is a block on bad ideas such as the French Terror and the Nazi Holocaust. both had to get rid of Christianity before they could proceed with their enlighhtened ideologies.

[In Spiration]

Originally Posted by NonServiam

Atheism, defined as the lack of belief in gods, isn't an -ism, isn't a worldview with dogmatic tenets...or any tenets at all. It's a position on a single question.

While not your main point, I'll still note that that's not a satisfactory definition, because, for one, it's not narrow enough, as the apparent genus is incorrectly identified. A dog lacks a belief in theism, but a sane man would never call any given dog an atheist. On the other hand, I doubt you meant "lack" in the proper sense in order to specify only rational agents capable of forming beliefs, since that would indicate privation of a due belief and you likely don't ever find anyone to be at all lacking in that particular area.

How would atheism be "a position on a single question" if it were simply a lack of something (namely belief) and not instead a proposition or theory of one assertoric variety or another? Atheism, presumably that abstract sort of thing to which atheists affirmatively assent their minds, is fundamentally some claim to truth. In other words, at the end of the day, under its intuitive, common usage, atheism is either true or false; it's not a mere personal descriptor, not just some character trait to be determined by one's possession or non-possession of a potential belief. Here's the right definition:

atheism is the assertion that there do not exist any deities; or
atheism is the assertion that theism is false.

Meanwhile

theism is the assertion that at least one deity exists; or
theism is the assertion that God (as conceived in Judaism, Christianity, Islam) exists.

Thus theism and atheism are two mutually inconsistent, contradictory propositions that may be assigned their own respective truth-values based on an objective fact about the reality in question.

Secularism, however, can arguably be considered a worldview or a system of organizing society. As such, it's conceivable that someone could kill "in the name of secularism," but in the case of the secularism we now see in the West, which is intertwined with humanism, a worldview that repudiates genocide and puts a great deal of value on human life, it would be almost impossible for anyone to kill in the name of that form of secularism (and still be logically consistent).

Replace 'secularism' with 'religion'/'Christianity' and 'humanism' with 'Catholicism'.

Christianity, however, can arguably be considered a worldview or a system of organizing society. As such, it's conceivable that someone could kill "in the name of Christianity," but in the case of the Christianity we now see in the West, which is intertwined with Catholicism, a worldview that repudiates genocide and puts a great deal of value on human life, it would be almost impossible for anyone to kill in the name of that form of Christianity (and still be logically consistent).

Unless you're simply attempting to exonerate humanist secularism while likewise maintaining the innocence of Catholic Christianity (which may of course be the case), you've either proved too much or too little here.

Hitler killed in the name of a nutty racist philosophy, and Stalin killed in the name of a nutty Communist ideology. Both of those nutty positions are consistent with atheism and arguably consistent with some form of secularism, but the atrocities that resulted from those positions cannot be argued to be caused by atheism or secularism (and certainly not caused by the humanist secularism currently practiced in Western countries).

Like I mentioned before, according to Lenin himself, to name only one, Marxist revolution demanded atheism, anti-clericalism, and secularism in theory and in historical practice. There does seem to be a correlation between the theoretical atheism of Marx, Lenin, et al., and the documented tyranny of Marxist-Leninist revolutions. If a revolutionary insists that atheism/secularization is a necessary element within his ideology and enforces it as such, there would seem to be at least partial sine qua non causality. That's relevant, because the OP's opposition portrayed atheistic ideologies as if they just happened to be atheist, as if the atheism is always entirely incidental.

Anyway, I did outline a case for the correlation you seek in my earlier posts -- in the huge chunk you failed to address. See: "immanentizing the eschaton". I mostly allowed a prominent political philosopher to make a case for me. Lazy, I only plagiarized, offering but a couple broad suggestions; however, the logical connection is there to fill in with details, and you didn't even broadly suggest why the proposed link might have no basis in fact. This connection would make a lot more sense if mankind has a basic religious instinct written into his DNA or otherwise inherent to his socio-political behavior (for instance, if tribal/civilizational success largely is propelled by or requires shared "religious" belief/custom).

[In Spiration]

Originally Posted by NonServiam

Please observe the difference between an action being consistent with X and an action being caused by X.

To say that tyranny (or mass murder, or the "enlightened secularization" of a religious society for liberty and equality, or a Reign of Terror) is merely consistent with State atheism or "the Cult of Reason" would be an understatement.

Hébert's and Chaumette's atheist movement initiated a religious campaign in order to dechristianise society. The program of dechristianisation waged against Catholicism, and eventually against all forms of Christianity, included the deportation or execution of clergy; the closing of churches; the rise of cults and the institution of a civic religion; the large scale destruction of religious monuments; the outlawing of public and private worship and religious education; the forced abjurement of priests of their vows and forced marriages of the clergy; the word "saint" being removed from street names; and the War in the Vendée. The enactment of a law on 21 October 1793 made all suspected priests and all persons who harbored them liable to death on sight. The climax was reached with the celebration of the goddess "Reason" in Notre Dame Cathedral

State promotion of atheism as a public norm was first practised during a brief period in Revolutionary France. Since then, such a policy was repeated only in Revolutionary Mexico and some communist states. The Soviet Union had a long history of state atheism, in which social success largely required individuals to profess atheism, stay away from churches and even vandalize them; this attitude was especially militant during the middle Stalinist era from 1929-1939.

The Cult of Reason was explicitly humanocentric. Its goal was the perfection of mankind through the attainment of Truth and Liberty, and its guiding principle to this goal was the exercise of the human faculty of Reason.

Ahhh, utopian schemes. That eschaton always seems so damned imminent, like just outside our grasp. If only certain folks with certain antiquated notions weren't holding us back from the glorious new age of progress. Whatever, though. I'll just wait it out 'til Transhumanism.

Originally Posted by NonServiam

One could argue that modern-day Western Secular Humanism -- which places an extremely high value on human life and opposes genocide -- is an example of a non-religious ideology that is also anti-genocide.

Eh . . . I wouldn't grant that yet, so one would indeed need to argue as much. Millions of killings by abortion loom large over this point. No, I know, that causality hasn't been established. Yes, that causality is debatable. There's plenty reason to doubt the intentions of radical progressives, though, even when they do offer us reassurances that they're pro-human (as opposed, obviously, to anti-human). As can be seen above, secular humanist ideals frequently aren't free. "Equality" in particular tends to require a lot of tight enforcement, as it happens, especially among citizens sharing a nature that doesn't include it on the individual level and also makes one instinctively strive against it. Truth and freedom (of speech especially) would appear to be enemies of equality; hence, political correctness and corporate regulation, etc. But I digress.

Your thinking on this subject needs more nuance. A lot of it. Or, like, any at all. Totally, dude.

Well that's just rude. And, if I may be so frank, uncalled-for.

[tonyrey]

Originally Posted by NonServiam

What's more likely is that Enlightenment values dragged Christianity, kicking and screaming, out of the Dark Ages.

"Enlightenment values" are derived from the teaching of Jesus that we are all children of the same Father rather than being freaks of nature related merely by an accident of birth. The fruits of the "Enlightenment" are evident in the subsequent history of the human race which has witnessed two World Wars and is now witnessing the horrific plight of one third of the people on this planet enduring needless poverty and misery.

[Sair]

Originally Posted by tonyrey

"Enlightenment values" are derived from the teaching of Jesus that we are all children of the same Father rather than being freaks of nature related merely by an accident of birth. The fruits of the "Enlightenment" are evident in the subsequent history of the human race which has witnessed two World Wars and is now witnessing the horrific plight of one third of the people on this planet enduring needless poverty and misery.

The better parts of Christian doctrine may well teach that we are all children of the same father - but for all that, it still insists that we are tainted and benighted children, born in need of divine grace, created evil and commanded to be good.

Your assertion here is rather similar to the claim made on my thread about belief and sacrifice - basically, that your God is responsible for everything good, no matter what it may be, no matter in what circumstances it occurred, so there, and that it's only unbelief that leads to acts of cruelty and inhumanity. Next you'll be telling us it wasn't Christianity that inspired the Crusades and the Inquisition, that it wasn't the innate anti-Semitism of Christianity that allowed the Catholic church to turn a rather willing blind eye to the activities of Hitler's regime, that it's not the Protestant (Christian) work ethic that led to modern capitalism (with its absurd notion that it takes nothing but the will to succeed financially in order to do so) and that it wasn't the strictures of the Catholic church organisation that led to the abuse of (possibly hundreds of) thousands of children in Catholic institutions.

[Sair]

A question for all here - is it conceivable that any religion, given authority, would allow secularism?

I have occasionally wondered about this. It seems to me that secularism is at least a tacit acknowledgement that we really cannot know which religious claims, if any, are true - therefore no religion ought to be allowed to dictate - certainly not through force or coercion - the beliefs and practices of the members of any society.

The United States was founded on this principle, largely because its founders were themselves fleeing from religious persecution. Secularism seems much less to have been inspired by any willingness on the part of organised religions to step back and leave people to their own devices, recognising that we all are, after all, the flawed offspring of a supposedly perfect god; than on the experience of religiously-motivated violence on the part of those who sought a better, safer way to live, unmolested by those who assumed their beliefs were superior to all others.

The history of established religion seems to speak to the strong likelihood that any organised faith, given the opportunity, would seek to bring all people within its reach to conformity with its doctrines - if not through intellectual persuasion (and let's face it - the advancement of science has made that extremely unlikely), then through coercion and violence.

Secularism has been a long time coming, relative to human history - even relative to the establishment of the three great monotheisms. It's hard to credit the notion that it was really the work of Christian "brotherhood" to establish a society in which all religions - and indeed, lack of religious faith - are afforded equal acceptance.

[tonyrey]

Originally Posted by Sair

The better parts of Christian doctrine may well teach that we are all children of the same father - but for all that, it still insists that we are tainted and benighted children, born in need of divine grace, created evil and commanded to be good.

CCC 405 Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants.

The bloodstained history of humanity is undeniable evidence that we are all victims of the moral decadence of our ancestors.

Your assertion here is rather similar to the claim made on my thread about belief and sacrifice - basically, that your God is responsible for everything good, no matter what it may be, no matter in what circumstances it occurred, so there, and that it's only unbelief that leads to acts of cruelty and inhumanity.

Unbelief in the need for moral integrity and love for everyone - which stem from the fact that we are all children of one loving Father..

Next you'll be telling us it wasn't Christianity that inspired the Crusades and the Inquisition, that it wasn't the innate anti-Semitism of Christianity that allowed the Catholic church to turn a rather willing blind eye to the activities of Hitler's regime, that it's not the Protestant (Christian) work ethic that led to modern capitalism (with its absurd notion that it takes nothing but the will to succeed financially in order to do so) and that it wasn't the strictures of the Catholic church organisation that led to the abuse of (possibly hundreds of) thousands of children in Catholic institutions.

The unChristian activity of Christians does not falsify the teaching of Christ.

[tonyrey]

Originally Posted by Sair

A question for all here - is it conceivable that any religion, given authority, would allow secularism?

All Catholics have a moral obligation to respect the beliefs of others because the Church teaches that our ultimate authority is our conscience.

I have occasionally wondered about this. It seems to me that secularism is at least a tacit acknowledgement that we really cannot know which religious claims, if any, are true - therefore no religion ought to be allowed to dictate - certainly not through force or coercion - the beliefs and practices of the members of any society.

In practice secularism does not tolerate the expression of religious beliefs which conflict with the beliefs of the majority and it often discriminates against minorities.

The United States was founded on this principle, largely because its founders were themselves fleeing from religious persecution. Secularism seems much less to have been inspired by any willingness on the part of organised religions to step back and leave people to their own devices, recognising that we all are, after all, the flawed offspring of a supposedly perfect god; than on the experience of religiously-motivated violence on the part of those who sought a better, safer way to live, unmolested by those who assumed their beliefs were superior to all others.

That statement is further evidence that secularists believe their rejection of religion is superior to belief "in a supposedly perfect god". Indeed that belief has often motivated violence on the part of those who sought a better, safer way to live without the curse of "superstition".

The history of established religion seems to speak to the strong likelihood that any organised faith, given the opportunity, would seek to bring all people within its reach to conformity with its doctrines - if not through intellectual persuasion (and let's face it - the advancement of science has made that extremely unlikely), then through coercion and violence.

There is overwhelming evidence that any organised ideology - such as secularism - has done, is doing and will continue to do so.

Secularism has been a long time coming, relative to human history - even relative to the establishment of the three great monotheisms. It's hard to credit the notion that it was really the work of Christian "brotherhood" to establish a society in which all religions - and indeed, lack of religious faith - are afforded equal acceptance.

Longevity is not an adequate reason for the attribution of moral superiority.

[Sair]

Originally Posted by tonyrey

The bloodstained history of humanity is undeniable evidence that we are all victims of the moral decadence of our ancestors.

From whom we inherited the propensity for irrational beliefs in supernatural entities.

Unbelief in the need for moral integrity and love for everyone - which stem from the fact that we are all children of one loving Father..

Because organised religions are such beacons of moral integrity...

The unChristian activity of Christians does not falsify the teaching of Christ.

That's just reiterating - predictably - the unfalsifiable claim I pointed out previously. If people can believe in Christianity and still commit atrocities, that's hardly evidence of the efficacy or legitimacy of Christian faith, is it? Of course, you will almost certainly respond that "belief" in atheism leads to atrocities on much greater scales, but in doing so you will also ignore all the pertinent beliefs held by the likes of Hitler and Stalin and their sociopolitical adherents - in the absolute power and infallibility of the leader, in the perfectibility of humanity through complete obedience, in the destruction of those who rejected these "ideals" - all the natural successors of the more traditional religious beliefs whose place they supplanted.

Christopher Hitchens, on a number of occasions, averred that the chief point of difference between North Korea and the heaven in which Christians believe is that one can, at least, die and thus escape from North Korea.

[abucs]

Sair, your version of history and mine are so far apart that it is difficult to have any meaningful dialogue.

Regarding Hitler and the Church:

http://www.leics.gov.uk/the_nazi_master_plan.pdf (from the Nuremburg trials).

http://www.ptwf.org/Projects/Educati...Pius%20XII.htm (from the Jewish researcher Gary Krupp).

Crusades - self defence after 2/3rds of Christendom was conquered and missionaries failed in the south (they succeeded in the Viking north).

Spanish Inquisition - the black legend. Initial requests by the secular rulers of Spain were turned down by the papacy. After threats from Spain the Vatican agreed to an inquisition with the proviso it was just for Christians and there was to be no torture. After the Spanish crown instigated torture, letters of protest were sent from the Pope. All in all from Spain to the New World an average of 1 execution per month was carried out. 99% of the accused went free and many of the rules of the inquisition were in favour of the defendant compared to civil cases.

When you talk about Christian inspired 'this' and Christian inspired 'that' we cannot properly come to an understanding. I believe this is so because of the purposeful misinformation in our universities of last century. Such thinking though I believe is on the way out in an age of more information where secular predjuces of the past are being challenged and cannot stand up to scrutiny.

[tonyrey]

Originally Posted by Sair

From whom we inherited the propensity for irrational beliefs in supernatural entities.

That statement is further evidence for the intolerant mentality of secularists who have faith in subnatural entities.

Because organised religions are such beacons of moral integrity...

Further evidence for the intolerant mentality of secularists who believe secular regimes are beacons of moral integrity.

That's just reiterating - predictably - the unfalsifiable claim I pointed out previously. If people can believe in Christianity and still commit atrocities, that's hardly evidence of the efficacy or legitimacy of Christian faith, is it?

The truth is not discerned from human defects. What people profess does not always correspond to their behaviour.

Of course, you will almost certainly respond that "belief" in atheism leads to atrocities on much greater scales, but in doing so you will also ignore all the pertinent beliefs held by Hitler and Stalin and their sociopolitical adherents - in the absolute power and infallibility of the leader, in the perfectibility of humanity through complete obedience, in the destruction of those who rejected these "ideals" - all the natural successors of the more traditional religious beliefs whose place they supplanted.

The fallacy of Post hoc ergo propter hoc - which also overlooks the fact that traditional religious beliefs have not been supplanted but have outlasted secular ideologies...

[ThinkingSapien]

Originally Posted by In Spiration

While not your main point, I'll still note that that's not a satisfactory definition, because, for one, it's not narrow enough, as the apparent genus is incorrectly identified. A dog lacks a belief in theism, but a sane man would never call any given dog an atheist

You know the "ist" suffix in "Atheist" implies that the word is being applied to a person (or a thinking agent in general, though we don't have much examples of these beyond people). Dogs, rocks, and other entities thought to not be capable of forming such beliefs shouldn't need to be explicitly excluded as being entities to which this word is applied.

Originally Posted by In Spiration

On the other hand, I doubt you meant "lack" in the proper sense in order to specify only rational agents capable of forming beliefs, since that would indicate privation of a due belief and you likely don't ever find anyone to be at all lacking in that particular area.

lack - "A particular deficiency or absence" - American Heritage Dictionary. The word can be used to communicate privation but isn't limited to this.

Originally Posted by In Spiration

atheism is the assertion that there do not exist any deities; or
atheism is the assertion that theism is false.

More specifically that is "Strong Atheism" or "Positive Atheism." There's also "Weak Atheism" or "Agnostic Atheism", Apatheism, Ignosticism, and many other non-theistic positions.

I tried consulting some dictionaries about this some time ago, and I found them to be in disagreement on what the word means. Some dictionaries provide a definition that seems to be centered on the rejection of one of the monotheistic god concepts. Others provide a definition in which a person doesn't hold a positive belief for a deity.

[Sair]

Originally Posted by tonyrey

All Catholics have a moral obligation to respect the beliefs of others because the Church teaches that our ultimate authority is our conscience.

Then it seems like this directive was inadequately conveyed, given the history of the Catholic church.

In practice secularism does not tolerate the expression of religious beliefs which conflict with the beliefs of the majority and it often discriminates against minorities.

Human societies in general discriminate against minorities. Christianity did nothing to help this. Secularism is at least a step in the right direction - we don't tend to burn people for heresy anymore, at least in the West.

That statement is further evidence that secularists believe their rejection of religion is superior to belief "in a supposedly perfect god".

I'll go out on a limb here and say that the belief that we might be wrong actually is superior, from a moral and social perspective, than dogged insistence that we are right, despite all evidence to the contrary.

Indeed that belief has often motivated violence on the part of those who sought a better, safer way to live without the curse of "superstition".

Such as? Can you name a nonreligious society that has persecuted people for belief in unprovable entities, as opposed to any unlawful actions committed in the name of said entities?

There is overwhelming evidence that any organised ideology - such as secularism - has done, is doing and will continue to do so.

If you consider the questioning of religious faith as abuse, then you are right.

Longevity is not an adequate reason for the attribution of moral superiority.

I think you'll find that I agree here - of all the sociopolitical and/or religious notions mentioned in my post, secularism would be the youngest. And I was not citing longevity as a measure of respect - only pointing out that the large amount of time between the establishment of Christianity and the wide recognition of Enlightentment values tends to speak against a strong connection between the two.