…and this is a 
Children of the enlightenment
Category: Godlessness
Posted on: December 17, 2007 1:23 AM, by PZ Myers
Revere makes a bunch of good points in his Sunday Sermonette. One is the sheer insanity of current American politics:
Enlightenment thinking is taken for granted by modern Europeans, so it's no surprise they are aghast when the leaders of a 21st century power think Divine Guidance is a good reason for exercising overwhelming power over its own and other peoples.
And another is the importance of secularism and reason in any Democratic nation.
Democracy without rationality -- or in my terms, Enlightenment values -- is a hollow promise, or worse, mob rule.
Religious values are intrinsically autocratic and irrational, relying on ignorance for their propagation, and are therefore anti-democratic.
Comments
Posted by: Jon | December 17, 2007 3:30 AM
The 1st Amendment makes the U.S. an officially empty of religion government by law. Historically did not Stalin believe he was a god? To be worshipped like one, especially the leader(s) of North Korea? Hitler's beliefs were mystical and he thought himself to act like god and gave Christian excuses to kill all the Christ Killers - he used that as an excuse, and it swayed many, right? ...
Posted by: maxi | December 17, 2007 3:45 AM
I can only hope that there is a healthy dose of sarcasm in posts 1 & 2, and it's just too early in the morning for me to see it.
In regards to post #1... Please give an example of an atheistic government in history which held a bloody dictatorship.
And post #2... None of those governments were (are) acting from atheistic positions. We atheists do not see ourselves as gods. Hitler was Catholic, Stalin used religion to manipulate the masses, as do the Korean governments. They simply use whatever tools they can to keep control. Religion happens to be an excellent tool.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | December 17, 2007 3:49 AM
"After all, if God is eliminated, what remains is the state...the most powerful group will end up making the rules; the mob can easily be bought off."
God doesn't exist, he doesn't have to be eliminated. So looks like you're pretty much fucked anyway, Goldstein.
Posted by: Thinker | December 17, 2007 4:25 AM
Oddly enough, this leaves us Europeans open to a risk as well: because religion is largely absent from politics and debate here, and most of us take enlightenment values for granted, we may not realize that those values need active support to remain vital.
Whatever our political viewpoints, if we don't continuously stand up for rationality as the cornerstone of public decision-making, we shouldn't be surprised if other forces fill the gap: a resurgence of relying on religion is one alternative, post-modernist mumbo-jumbo another.
More than any actual policy issue, this difference between the US and Europe risks creating a deep trans-atlantic divide, but we in Europe should be careful not to get on any high horses unless we make sure our own enlightenment is secured.
Posted by: Arnaud | December 17, 2007 4:29 AM
While I'd admit that the reasoning that brings one person to disbelieve god could also arguably inform their political stance, atheism is not a political doctrine, Mr Goldstein.
The closest you can have of a atheistic state would in my opinion be the French republic, which would be more properly described as "militantly secular" especially in the first decades of the XXe century. And, while there is much to be criticized in France, I don't think somehow that the phrase "bloody dictatorship" is the right one there.
(Interestingly, it would be much more fittingly applied to the Vichy regime of 1940-1944, which was decidedly christian in his inspiration with its emphasis on "Travail, Famille, Patrie".)
Posted by: astrolieber | December 17, 2007 4:48 AM
Sorry for off-topic rant,
@PZ :
Man ! Don't you ever sleep ?
Tell me your secret plz !
Posted by: Valhar2000 | December 17, 2007 4:49 AM
#3: The usual examples of communist dictatorships were atheistic regimes. They were dogmatic in the insistence on lack of religion.
The fact that fundy kooks don't understand the reasons why this does not support their contention that once god is out all hell breaks loose (you can't expect those guys to actually know things) does not mean it is not technically correct.
Posted by: DLC | December 17, 2007 5:11 AM
Speaking of witch-doctors, has anyone here seen CNN's piece on "Christian Soldiers" subtitled something like Culture Warriors in America ? Among other things it highlighted a group calling itself "Battle Cry", an organization which holds Jesus-Rallies in cities they pick for the purpose of creating controversy. The CNN show included a view of one of these gatherings. Watching, I could only think of the nazi rallies in the 20s and 30s. Music, red flags, people standing with their hands in the air -- the image of the Nuremberg rally just jumped out at me. I'm not (necessarily) accusing these people of being nazis, but I do see some of the same methods being used, and that bothers me.
Posted by: Ichthyic | December 17, 2007 5:22 AM
umm, isn't emanuel goldstein the "Kansas Troll" who was supposedly thrown into the dungeon?
check the dungeon link.
goldstein should be disemvoweled immediately.
Posted by: jon | December 17, 2007 6:51 AM
Also there was Hoxha from Albania: "In 1967, the authorities conducted a violent campaign to extinguish religious life in Albania, claiming that religion had divided the Albanian nation and kept it mired in backwardness. Student agitators combed the countryside, forcing Albanians to quit practicing their faith. Despite complaints, even by APL members, all churches, mosques, monasteries, and other religious institutions had been closed or converted into warehouses, gymnasiums, and workshops by year's end. A special decree abrogated the charters by which the country's main religious communities had operated. The campaign culminated in an announcement that Albania had become the world's first atheistic state, a feat touted as one of Enver Hoxha's greatest achievements." from Wikipedia and elsewhere. However, Hoxha's dogma is just as bad as the religious dogmas. It has nothing to do with today's european atheism/secularism.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | December 17, 2007 6:57 AM
Valhar2000- it is NOT technically correct, since the "usual examples" (also including National Socialism) were in fact substitute religions with all the trimmings. They each had an eschaton (which happened- a trivial difference from "real" religions- to be on earth rather than upstairs: the communist society of "to each according to need, from each according to ability"; the triumph of the "superior" "race" leading to everlasting peace and prosperity). Each demanded assent, on pain of punishment, to an ideology built upon a farrago of unprovable metaphysical doctrines. Each had an army of functionaries equivalent to priests and bishops, who had the duty of propagating and enforcing the ruling ideology. As DLC notes in #9, the close family resemblance to mass religious movements is in fact painfully apparent to any rational observer.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | December 17, 2007 7:01 AM
Additional note on revolutionary France: during the Terror atheists were vigorously persecuted, and guillotined if they came to the attention of the authorities; Robespierre attempted to start a new state cult of the Supreme Being with himself as its pontifex maximus.
Posted by: Ex-drone | December 17, 2007 7:47 AM
Emanuel Goldstein writes:
The assumption behind this oversimplistic dichotomy is that morality does not exist without the existence of a sky fairy. Wrong. The situation Goldstein is really trying to assess is whether morality should be imposed by a religious hierarchy through ancient dogma or considered by reasonable people within social contexts. This makes the commenter's choice of on-line identity ironic. In 1984, the character named Emanuel Goldstein led a movement against mindless subservience to autocratic rule, while here, the commenter is advocating for blind adherence to religious authority. After all, who better fits the role of Big Brother than a jealous, wrathful god?Posted by: Tor Hershman | December 17, 2007 7:50 AM
A great many of The Old Testament's stories come from earlier tales (e.g., Gilgamesh, etc) and the style is, mostly, a direct rip-off of The Egyptian Book Of The Dead.
To learn more of TOT times, view this YouTube film
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7iQRFP_e90
The New Testament, well . . . . . to learn more than enough of TNT's creation, view this two part YouTube film.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzY2bVsZK5s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sckuqPulRGk
And, as a special Humbug surprise, the hit parody song
"The Little Bummer Boy"
http://www.soundlift.com/band/music.php?song_id=82930
AND, if that ain't enough, you may join moi's YGroup
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Tor_Hershman/
May you all have a delightful 'Someone's Been Embezzling Oil And Selling It On The Side' Eightdays, a wonderful Solstice, the happiest possible Humbug and may your Hollowdays be filled with the most joyous of pleasures.
Stay on groovin' safari,
Tor
Posted by: Jim Royal | December 17, 2007 7:52 AM
That's not quite the reason I see the mix of religion and politics as anti-democratic. The reason is this:
It's not possible to have a reasonable discussion about anything if the term of debate are grounded in things that only you can see.
Posted by: Sam the Centipede | December 17, 2007 7:54 AM
I'm atheist and a keen supporter of Enlightenment values, but I have some sympathy with the argument that the avowedly atheist communist regimes have not historically been Good Things. But that's a complaint about regimes that are anti-religious (in attempting to suppress religious organisations as competitors for the power they crave) rather than regimes which are simply secular (keeping religion separate from the state).
Interestingly, I had a friend who was an ardent Trotskyite and I was amused at how his group had the same whiff about them as the local Jehovah's Witnesses in that they were both keen to construct a detailed ideology that accorded literally with the inerrant writings of their revered authors. And they were equally enthusiastic about forecasting inevitable and imminent collapse of society, never deterred by this repeatedly failing to occur!
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | December 17, 2007 7:54 AM
I'm probably grasping at straws, but reading this story has me feeling just a tiny bit better about "Enlightenment thinking."
Posted by: Ray S. | December 17, 2007 8:01 AM
It always amuses me when theists decry attempts to banish god, as if we puny humans could banish something they consider to be omnipotent and omniscient. I'll grant that Stalin was evil and perpetrated many despicable acts. Why did their god not prevent it? How could a mere human such as Hitler defy god and kill millions of Jews, the chosen people?
From my view, most dictators will either destroy religion to eliminate a possible alternate power structure, or absorb it into their own ideology with them as the titular head of the religion. The power to do great evil exists either way.
Posted by: raven | December 17, 2007 8:12 AM
Like the USA you mean? Separation of church and state is written into the constitution (the no religious test) and in the 1st amendment as well. By products of the enlightment who saw first hand the blood spilled by Xianity.
Theocracies earned their bad rep long ago. They always fail eventually and frequently with a lot of blood spilled. The one notable attempt in America was the Puritans. After killing 26 alleged witches, they also killed some Quakers and Unitarians. Sectarian violence, it is not just for breakfast anymore.
Posted by: Geoffrey | December 17, 2007 8:53 AM
Goldstein's dichotomy boils down to dictatorship by a (hopefully) beneficent God vs. dictotorship by the State. Democracy per se is neither, but can proceed to dictatorship by the mob in the absence of rationalism.
Now, the question becomes which of the various possible cultural milieu either contribute to or detract from a rationalist culture? It becomes clear that the only hope for functional democracy is in a secular society, since a religious (authoritarian, 'supernaturalist', mystical, and irrationalist) culture will tend to impress upon the polity those tendencies towards absolutism which themselves devolve into dictatorship. A religious culture (feudal, czarist Russia, for example) would devolve into the kind of oppressive dictatorship witnessed under Stalin in anycase; and it does not help in that example's instance that an oppressive dictatorship is what the Old Butcher was going for -- and God was not Stalin's enemy, after all; God was his rival....
I've always been leery of the idea of the Philosopher King. How moreso we should fear the idela of a 'Philosopher Priest" -- dictatorship by a God of Love (so-called). It's still dictatorship; and if I read the Bible right there's some question about that 'Love' part. But the bottom line is that Democracy is not viable unless with atheism/rationalism as a component of the culture (if not the foundation). An in America now we are seeing the effects of Democracy without it, and it isn't pretty.
Posted by: Jeff Alexander | December 17, 2007 9:10 AM
Was this intended to be a definition or an empirical observation? Both Unitarian Universalist and Reform Judaism provide counter examples. There are also counter examples within some of the larger Christian sects. Adding "many" or "most" as a qualifier, however, wouldn't carry the same rhetorical force.Posted by: N.Wells | December 17, 2007 9:15 AM
Humans historically haven't done very good jobs with either religion or statecraft, together or seperately. A good society is like a well-tended public garden: it needs lots of good preparation and investment, followed by lots of careful monitoring for problems, with pest control, tweaking, weeding, and adjustment as appropriate, plus generally good behavior on the part of the public.
American fundamentalism and right-wing denial of reality, particularly when mixed with either science or government, are forces that end up replacing the Enlightenment with a new Endarkenment.
Posted by: g. | December 17, 2007 9:46 AM
quote: Democracy without rationality -- or in my terms, Enlightenment values -- is a hollow promise, or worse, mob rule.
That reminds me of the american ambassador to italy arguing (at the time) that fascism was the best form of democracy, and mussolini a great man, because it entirely catered to the will of the majority of people. here is the abstract of the nyt article.
Posted by: Sinbad | December 17, 2007 9:48 AM
"Religious values are intrinsically autocratic and irrational, relying on ignorance for their propagation, and are therefore anti-democratic."
So you didn't read about the Reformation while in school? Pity that (and the other counter-examples your dogma forces you to ignore).
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | December 17, 2007 9:56 AM
So you didn't read about Calvin's theocratic dictatorship in Geneva while in school? Pity that (and the other counter-examples your dogma forces you to ignore).
Posted by: MAJeff | December 17, 2007 10:12 AM
No, they don't. Both of them are based upon acceptance of the existence of a supernatural deity. Irrationality at the very core.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | December 17, 2007 10:12 AM
Borges had a wonderful line about Luther hating the papacy in Rome and building a new one in Germany. . . .
Incidentally, I think it's time to visit the Doonesbury weekly poll and make their wheels spin.
Posted by: Sinbad | December 17, 2007 10:18 AM
"So you didn't read about Calvin's theocratic dictatorship in Geneva while in school?"
In case you missed class that day, the key innovation of the Reformation was the idea that the Church doesn't speak monolithicly -- people can figure things out for themselves. That individuals may make poor choices in exercising that freedom is entirely and precisely irrelevant to that point.
"Pity that (and the other counter-examples your dogma forces you to ignore)."
Bzzzzzt. Counterexamples (examples of lousy choices) prove the point rather than contradict it. Thanks for playing though.
Posted by: Interrobang | December 17, 2007 10:19 AM
In what way was the Reformation of all things "democratic"? A bunch of autocrats swapping one form of autocracy for another that puts them in positions of power hardly qualifies as "democracy," although you could say the same thing about the governments of most of the G-8 countries these days.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | December 17, 2007 10:20 AM
Did Calvin allow people in Geneva to figure things out for themselves? Not hardly. But go ahead, keep digging.
Posted by: raven | December 17, 2007 10:24 AM
Theocracies always end up as hells on earth. There are a few today. Iran, Afghanistan, Sudan, Somalia. Mostly third world dumps with high levels of lethal violence and short life spans. The life span is Afghanistan is 47 years.
This is the tried and true model that the fundies want to force on the USA. They've made a lot of progress.
BTW, what does the Reformation have to do with democracy? Nothing. The autocratic regimes in Europe were still autocratic regimes afterwards. In the UK, Henry VIII just exchanged one church for another one more easily controllable.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | December 17, 2007 10:34 AM
When the common people naively thought Luther actually meant to empower them, here is the "encouragement" he offered for their democratic ideas: http://tinyurl.com/3ao68q
Posted by: Sinbad | December 17, 2007 10:44 AM
"Theocracies always end up as hells on earth."
Indeed. The only records to rival them belong to the officially atheist regimes. In each case the key problem is certainty -- the idea that "we" are right and "they" are wrong and so obviously so that people who think otherwise are inferior (evil or irrational or delusional or or or). Freedom to think and believe otherwise allows democracy (and capitalism and science and and and) to exist and to flourish.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | December 17, 2007 10:47 AM
Oh jolly, here we go again. You mean the "offically atheist" regimes that have enforced the acceptance of irrational, not-to-be-questioned ideologies which closely resemble religions?
Amazing how these idiots can do nothing but parrot the same tired canards.
Posted by: Sinbad | December 17, 2007 10:55 AM
"You mean the "offically atheist" regimes that have enforced the acceptance of irrational, not-to-be-questioned ideologies which closely resemble religions?"
So the League of the Militant Godless is now seen as actually having been religious in nature, freedom is slavery, yours don't stink and Boxer keeps on working away. Well done.
Posted by: Geoffrey | December 17, 2007 10:58 AM
@Jeff Alexander (...funny, that's actually my name too, although you aren't me, I take it.... :) -- there's a case to be made that the exceptionalism you note of UU and Reform Judaism stems from the infusion/adoption of Enlightenment rationalism rather than any implicit theological programme within their respective sects.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | December 17, 2007 11:04 AM
Under the heading of "with friends like these...," check out this story. Even if we can convince people that atheists aren't ruthless dictators by nature, how will we get past the Satanist thing? [sigh]
Posted by: MartinM | December 17, 2007 11:05 AM
Is, say, secular humanism religious in nature? How about non-theistic forms of Buddhism?
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | December 17, 2007 11:09 AM
Substituting an earth-centered mythology for a sky-centered one has nothing to do with secularism and rationalism. (But your inability to understand this surprises no one.) The problem lies with ALL mythologies which are conceived of as being unquestionable and which seek political power, regardless of whether they worship "God" or "History". I care not which one of is oppressing people in a particular country, since the only significant reality of the situation is that people are being oppressed.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | December 17, 2007 11:10 AM
"Your" in #39 refers to the Sinbad troll.
Posted by: Sinbad | December 17, 2007 11:20 AM
"The problem lies with ALL mythologies [ideologies/viewpoints] which are conceived of as being unquestionable and which seek political power...."
So you've conceded the point. Thanks.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | December 17, 2007 11:25 AM
What point was that, exactly? You haven't even managed to make one yet.
As I said, it surprises no one that a dogma-crippled mind like yours is able to conceive only of the conflict of alternative dogmas, but boggles at the concept of freedom from dogma. We don't expect you to get it. We're just laughing at you.
Posted by: Owlmirror | December 17, 2007 11:26 AM
So would you assert that a political ideology combined with a personality cult is not a religion?Posted by: Jeff Alexander | December 17, 2007 11:29 AM
Even if this were true, it wouldn't mean that the "values" are intrinsically autocratic and irrational. Some examples from various religions:1. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. (Christianity)
2. What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man. (Judaism)
3. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill. (Buddhism)
The "values" espoused by many religions are not intrinsically autocratic or irrational. The religious institutions may be, and the theology frequently is, but the values frequently aren't. This is why I asked about definitions. If it is argued that the three examples aren't religious values, that seems to be falling into a fallacy that just redefines religious values to be those that are "intrinsically autocratic and irrational". That being said, I would hate to live in any theocracy, Democratic or otherwise.
Posted by: BC | December 17, 2007 11:30 AM
Don't forget that until Pope Paul VI, the Roman Catholic Church was against democracy. They wanted a ruler they could crown.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | December 17, 2007 11:33 AM
The concept that regimes can be secular but have much on common with traditional authoritarian religions is not a new one. There is even a term used to describe such regimes, and that is Political Religion. It is a term that has been in use for many years.
Posted by: Jeff Alexander | December 17, 2007 11:34 AM
Agreed. I don't think either of these sects would exist were it not for the Enlightenment. Certainly early Reform Judaism took this approach with its emphasis on personal autonomy and ethics and its rejection of much (all?) of the ceremonial law.Posted by: Stevie_C | December 17, 2007 11:45 AM
There was nothing religious anout those values... those are common human values that are not special to the religious.
There's nothing about specifically that makes those values that can be attributed to being oriiginating from religion.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | December 17, 2007 12:01 PM
I'm struggling to understand what a "democratic theocracy" might be, since democracy means "people rule" and theocracy means "God rules." Absent some sort of Heinleinian pantheism ("Thou art God, water brother!"), it would seem these two notions are in direct contradiction.
Of course, in practice most modern democracies still harbor some theocratic vestiges in their nooks and crannies. I guess you could imagine a government in which theocratic and democratic impulses were more or less equally in evidence... but I wouldn't call such a government a "democratic theocracy"; I'd call it dangerously schizophrenic. YMMV.
Posted by: Jeff Alexander | December 17, 2007 12:15 PM
Thanks! I like the description. For a "democratic theocracy" I was thinking about a few states that are struggling with these issues:Iraq - what role will Islam have in its government?
Israel - Currently doesn't have a constitution because a "Jewish state has the Torah/Talmud".
Pakistan - Not a democracy nor a theocracy but has leanings towards both.
etc.
Yes they are dangerously schizophrenic.
Posted by: coathangrrr | December 17, 2007 12:26 PM
I'd put Iran as close to a religious theocracy as you could get. They trend one way or the other depending on the situation.(normally toward democracy when they aren't being constantly threatened with invasion.) And, while I certainly wouldn't classify them as a free country, and would classify them as quite brutal in some respects, they are certainly years and years ahead of some non-theocracy democracies in certain respects. Compare them to say, some countries in Sub-Saharan Africa.
I assume that what you really mean is theocratic Liberal democracies. Which are in fact dangerously schizophrenic.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | December 17, 2007 12:32 PM
I'm probably too ignorant about chemistry to get this metaphor right, but "fools rush in...," eh"
I'd say states such as you describe consist of democracy and theocracy in an unstable solution; my expectation is that in each and every case, the instability will resolve itself in the form of an exothermic reaction.
Posted by: Stevie_C | December 17, 2007 12:45 PM
I had a freaky racist in a chat room (not a racist chat room) tell me that there were no "fags" in Iran and he thought that Iran was better than the U.S. because of it.
Here's a twist, he was an "agnostic" and he believed in evolution, I think that's because he felt evolution gives him a leg up on people of african descent. He was nuts.
Posted by: Sinbad | December 17, 2007 12:50 PM
"So would you assert that a political ideology combined with a personality cult is not a religion?"
Unless you re-define religion to mean simply an autocratic system, then it is not a religion. The problem isn't religion per se, even though many religions and religious people are major problems and other ideologies often share those problems. The problem is certainty. The right virtue to improve the situation and act as an antidote is reverence, which needn't be religious and which has Aristotelian and Confucian roots (for those of you pathologically afraid of something with religious overtones). It's the idea that human beings shouldn't try to act like gods.
Posted by: shiftlessbum | December 17, 2007 12:50 PM
"I'd call it dangerously schizophrenic."
I hate to be the pedant here, especially since your meaning was plain, but schizophrenia is not characterized by multiple personality disorder, which is a distinct mental illness. Schizophrenics suffer from a range of symptoms including irrational detachments, disorganized thoughts, impaired perceptions (often hallucinatory) and in some cases an irrational belief that they are being persecuted (paranoid schizophrenia). Multiple personalities is not among them.
A close friend has schizophrenia, so maybe I am overly sensitive to a rhetorical mischaracterization of his illness. Common (mis)usage of the term, though, is so frequent that I know my point will seem stupid and I fully expect a barrage of insults for having the temerity to point it out.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | December 17, 2007 1:20 PM
No, NOT simply an autocratic system. An autocratic system which demands adherence to a particular set of unsupported metaphysical beliefs. As I said, it makes little difference whether the "deity" being worshiped is Sky daddy or a reification of "History"- these are very similar phenomena appealing to very similar mentalities.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | December 17, 2007 1:47 PM
"Unless you re-define religion to mean simply an autocratic system, then it is not a religion."
You have an astounding ability to erect one strawman after another. No one is claiming that autocratic systems are also religions, they are claiming that metaphysical belief systems which resemble religion in every respect except, perhaps, lacking explicitly supernatural elements are functionally equivalent to religions.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | December 17, 2007 1:48 PM
You know, I came that close to adding a note to my original post explaining that I meant the term in its colloquial, rather than strictly clinical, sense. In any case, I didn't have multiple personality disorder in mind... at least not in the classic popular Sybil/Three Faces of Eve sense: I was thinking more about the etymology of the word (split mind), the core metaphor being that a government split between theocracy and democracy is a societal "head" split against itself. As it turns out, the top-level definition of schizophrenia I found at its wikipedia entry...
"a mental illness characterized by impairments in the perception or expression of reality"
...strikes me as a not-inapt description of a government trying to be both democratic and theocratic at once.
Posted by: Spike | December 17, 2007 1:49 PM
Reverence? How the fuck does reverence act as an antidote to certainty? I can imagine it now:
A)That is why I am certain that we must destroy them all!
B)Well, I honour and respect your certainty. How do you like that, eh? Not so certain now, are you? What's that? Thank you for your support? No, that's not what I meant!
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | December 17, 2007 1:52 PM
I should have added (@58) that of course I did not intend any disrespect toward actual (rather than metaphorical) sufferers of schizophrenia, nor did I mean to diminish the seriousness of their diagnosis in any way.
Posted by: Colugo | December 17, 2007 1:59 PM
PZ Myers: "Religious values are intrinsically autocratic and irrational, relying on ignorance for their propagation, and are therefore anti-democratic."
A given value can have a variety of rationales: (purportedly) scientific , religious, intuitive, consensus and so on. The religiousness of a value says nothing about the programmatic aspect of the value, only its rationale. Hence, the multitude of sometimes mutually exclusive religious programs - Social Gospel, reconstructionism, liberation theology etc. A given religious value or set of associated values can be identical to a secular value or set of them.
It sounds paradoxical, but it is not: secularism itself can be rationalized on religious grounds, and hence in that case be a religious value. By the same token, theocracy can be rationalized on secular grounds - say, a social scientific theory that the masses need strict religious guidance - and hence be a secular value.
In addition, autocratic and irrational tendencies are not unique to religiously rationalized values; they are not unusual in secularly rationalized values. Irrationalism and autocracy are overlapping set that includes both religious and secular rationales.
Posted by: Owlmirror | December 17, 2007 2:56 PM
Hm. I think PZ has said that his problem with fuzzy liberal religion is not the religion itself, but that its fuzzy-mindedness can give support to the autocratic systems; to totalitarian theology.
You seem very certain of that...While I am being a bit facetious there, I think there are things we do have some certainty for; that is, rationality and skeptical analysis. It is precisely those virtues that PZ and other rationalist atheists try to promote.
I am not sure that it makes sense to promote reverence as a virtue unless you state clearly what is being revered.
Hm. Although, speaking of reverence, is it not the case that PZ's "The proper reverence due those who have gone before" is an essay that promotes the virtue of reverence (in this case for the struggles of humanity's ancestors)?
I'm not sure that that is quite what reverence means, though. You seem to be confusing the concept with humility, which since it is directed inward needs no stated object. Since reverence can be directed anywhere, you need to specify what is to be revered (everyone? everything?).Posted by: Sinbad | December 17, 2007 3:32 PM
"No one is claiming that autocratic systems are also religions, they are claiming that metaphysical belief systems which resemble religion in every respect except, perhaps, lacking explicitly supernatural elements are functionally equivalent to religions."
Virtually every really important matter in life -- if/who to marry, what political approach to take, what economic system is best, what moral and ethical values to hold -- rests upon unclear matters in dispute and unevidenced assumptions. I believe wholeheartedly that all persons are indeed created equal, but I can't prove it.
"Reverence? How the fuck does reverence act as an antidote to certainty? I can imagine...."
Obviously you need to brush up on your Aristotle.
"Irrationalism and autocracy are overlapping set that includes both religious and secular rationales."
Exactly so.
"While I am being a bit facetious there, I think there are things we do have some certainty for; that is, rationality and skeptical analysis. It is precisely those virtues that PZ and other rationalist atheists try to promote."
But they are certain of far more than just the process. They're certain of a whole set of conclusions they claim spring from their analysis. Middle age has taught me that people of goodwill as well as thoughtful, intelligent and reasonable people can and will disagree on a whole host of important subjects. That some people think otherwise may make them wrong, but it doesn't make them inferior (or irrational or delusional or evil or or or).
Posted by: Sinbad | December 17, 2007 3:36 PM
"I'm not sure that that is quite what reverence means, though."
Here is a great book on the subject:
http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Philosophy/EthicsMoralPhilosophy/?view=usa&ci=9780195157956
Posted by: Lena | December 17, 2007 3:39 PM
The right virtue to improve the situation and act as an antidote is reverence, which needn't be religious and which has Aristotelian and Confucian roots (for those of you pathologically afraid of something with religious overtones). It's the idea that human beings shouldn't try to act like gods.
Aristotle was a relativist and put no stock in a fixed truth, meaning the 'right virtue to improve the situation' depends and differs from one person to the next, from one culture to the next. And I don't know if Westerners can fully understnad Eastern philosophy, but since you brought up Confucious anyway, his teachings are very interpretive since they are told in story form. Aristotle would say that people would find different virtues being reflected in Confucious's teachings, especially if from different cultures.
So the idea of reverence is really your own solution then, if you drag these philosophies into the mix, and not neccisarily the same for everyone.
I also agree with Owlmirror on reverence being outward and needing specification. Which would, once again, be relative in your argument.
Posted by: Ichthyic | December 17, 2007 4:02 PM
That some people think otherwise may make them wrong, but it doesn't make them inferior (or irrational or delusional or evil or or or).
hmm, so if I insist that the sky is actually chartreuse green, because a sky fairy told me so, that wouldn't make me delusional, eh?
what about if I'm so sure that if you don't believe that the sky is chartreuse that the world will disintegrate, and thus I must implore you through all channels to believe?
what if I decide that it's so important, we must not teach that "sky is blue" THEORY anymore; in deference to what my sky fairy told me is the absolute truth: that the sky is chartreuse?
no, there IS a place to draw the line, sinny, and those that believe an invisible sky daddy modifies reality ARE deluded. ...and delusions, ask you can ask of any psychologist, can be dangerous.
so yes, you're both delusional and irrational.
if you take those as insults personally, you can always do something about it to fix it.
If someone is an alcoholic, they can do something about that, too, but that doesn't stop us from calling them drunks, and pointing out the irrational defense mechanisms they utilize to maintain their addictive behaviors.
Posted by: Ichthyic | December 17, 2007 4:04 PM
I believe wholeheartedly that all persons are indeed created equal, but I can't prove it.
and yet we can easily prove that not all IDEAS are equal.
so stop trying to equate the two, moron.
Posted by: coathangrrr | December 17, 2007 4:15 PM
Confucian reverence is not very non-religious. It is based around ancestor worship. Of course Westerners love to read all their beliefs into eastern philosophy. Maybe the practices of some of the Neo-Confucians, perhaps the Lu-Wang school, are closer to the reverence that you are talking about. But the metaphysics which undergird those practices are explicitly religious.
Posted by: Sinbad | December 17, 2007 4:16 PM
"so yes, you're both delusional and irrational."
That's a lot of fallacies for one post, Icky, but I don't need to go beyond one: your claim here is unsupported and unevidenced. Actually, I should improve my response a touch: your claim here is unsupported and unevidenced, moron. If you want to go beyond your hand-waving screed above and actually make an argument we can talk. Otherwise, you can continue your masturbatory efforts unimpeded.
Posted by: spurge | December 17, 2007 4:31 PM
Sinbad.
Quit projecting.
Posted by: Sinbad | December 17, 2007 4:36 PM
"Quit projecting.
You might want to quit the dime store psychology and actually produce a bit of evidence (or prod Icky to produce some) in support of his claim.
Just a suggestion.
Posted by: Owlmirror | December 17, 2007 4:37 PM
Hm. Without a more explicit example, I don't see what's wrong with that. The principle of induction is very strong, and if the premises and reasoning are correct, then the conclusions are almost certainly correct — unless you have some way of explicitly showing the falsity of the premises or reasoning?
This is what happens when induction is rejected:
http://www.ditext.com/carroll/tortoise.html
While Ichthyic's tone is rather rude, I think the point made is correct: While some things can be reasonably disagreed on because their truth value is complex or undecidable, in other cases the truth value is so clearly wrong that to hold it is indeed at the very least delusional.
To bring the discussion around to Stalin again, biographical reports agree that he did believe that Bolshevism was correct and ought to be promoted. He ordered people to be tortured and/or exiled and/or killed because he thought they were the enemies of Bolshevism, or of himself (and since he was the foremost proponent of Bolshevism, these were essentially equivalent in his mind).
So. Do you not disagree with him? And would you not call him insane, and evil, for his beliefs?
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | December 17, 2007 5:01 PM
"Virtually every really important matter in life -- if/who to marry, what political approach to take, what economic system is best, what moral and ethical values to hold -- rests upon unclear matters in dispute and unevidenced assumptions."
Depends on what you mean by "evidence". Certainly there are some beliefs that can't be empirically valiadated in the same way we validate the idea that certain elementary particles exist. That doesn't mean they exist without foundation. The problem is that in, e.g., Trotskyist and Lenninist ideologies, these beliefs are held as dogma (e.g., the inevitability of the triumph of the proletariate). That is what makes them functionally identical to religions, even if they don't harbor explicitly supernatural beliefs.
Posted by: Sinbad | December 17, 2007 5:06 PM
"...if the premises and reasoning are correct, then the conclusions are almost certainly correct -- unless you have some way of explicitly showing the falsity of the premises or reasoning?"
On most important matters, there is no way conclusively to show the truth or falsity of various premises. For example (and this example is overly simplistic but makes the point), most of us agree and value both liberty and equality. If one values liberty more, s/he is more likely to be a capitalist; if one values equality more, s/he is more likely to be a socialist. I can make a valid argument either way, even though I favor free markets for a variety of reasons. If you disagree, should I think you somehow inferior?
"While some things can be reasonably disagreed on because their truth value is complex or undecidable, in other cases the truth value is so clearly wrong that to hold it is indeed at the very least delusional.
I agree in principle, but all of us are far too prone to think our own preferences are clearly right and that those who oppose us are clearly wrong. Colloquially, I think that socialists are nuts. Their ideas make no sense to me. But I'm not prepared to say they're really delusional. Misguided? Yes. Delusional? No.
"So. Do you not disagree with him? And would you not call him insane, and evil, for his beliefs?"
I do disagree with him. Profoundly. But what made him evil was not his beliefs -- it was his actions.
Posted by: Kseniya | December 17, 2007 5:09 PM
Yeah! That's my job!
Posted by: Sinbad | December 17, 2007 5:12 PM
"Yeah! That's my job!"
Touche'.
Posted by: coathangrrr | December 17, 2007 5:25 PM
The problem is that in, e.g., Trotskyist and Lenninist ideologies, these beliefs are held as dogma (e.g., the inevitability of the triumph of the proletariate). That is what makes them functionally identical to religions, even if they don't harbor explicitly supernatural beliefs.
So then the belief that all human life has intrinsic value would have to fall under that same heading. Or perhaps that pain is inherently bad. There are a lot of things that the majority of atheist, or at least the majority of atheists on this site, take as dogma in the same exact way. Often times these are beliefs that few, if any, would question as not being true, like the above about human life, but I think we generally have established that how many people believe something has no affect on whether it is true or not. At the least we must admit that everyone here has an ideology that includes non-validatable beliefs about the nature of reality. That or they simple have no beliefs.
Posted by: