Two things only . . .

A discussion at Atheist Revolution in response to Why Focus On Christianity? reminded me of a line in The American President.

I'm referring to the movie and not to the ignoramus who is currently making a hash of international relations, the environment, the economy, and education, to name a few.

The movie was written by Aaron Sorkin, who also created "The West Wing". I'm referring to the TV drama, the passing of which is missed, and not the current administration, whose imminent passing will not be missed.

Back to the line in question: Michael Douglas, as Democratic President, Andy Sheppard, is summarizing the dirt-smearing antics of the Republican presidential hopeful, and says something like:

"I've known Bob Rumson for years. And I've been operating under the assumption that the reason Bob devotes so much time and energy to shouting at the rain was that he simply didn't get it. Well, I was wrong. Bob's problem isn't that he doesn't get it. Bob's problem is that he can't sell it!

We have serious problems to solve, and we need serious people to solve them. And whatever your particular problem is, I promise you Bob Rumson is not the least bit interested in solving it. He is interested in two things, and two things only: making you afraid of it, and telling you who's to blame for it. That, ladies and gentlemen, is how you win elections."

That, ladies and gentlemen, is also how fundamentalists and televangelists control fellow religious bigots. These are not the people who display, respond to, or appeal to admirable virtues, including rationality. These are the people whose worldviews are fear-filled and narrow. These are the people with simplistic moralistic attitudes that have arrested at an early, childish stage of development – black and white, reward and punishment, good and bad, 'God loves me and you are going to burn in hell'.

The mantra used to be that God was punishing America for various sins, including homosexuality and abortion, but this has changed. The new mantra, and it is no more justified than the old, is that God is punishing America because moral relativity and secularism tolerate homosexuality and abortion clinics. It's easy to see that this is a more inclusive category – now one does not need to be homosexual or to get an abortion (the two being mutually exclusive), all one needs to do is support separation of church and state, or to be tolerant of other humans, and the fundies' God-mascot will punish you.

Coming from the religion that reveres a probably-never-born preacher who is held allegorically responsible for preaching tolerance, these attitudes are hypocritical in the extreme. Yet again, they are hardly surprising because fundamentalists don't really care about Jesus' loving messages, they only care that someone who never lived supposedly died to ensure that fundamentalist sinners are guaranteed pre-arranged forgiveness and a ticket on the Rapture Express.














These people comprise a segment of the blue pie in the chart at right (I would have colored the pie brown!).

Thanks to ylooshi for the chart on the recent Harris poll (Harris Poll Interactive).

For a group that probably constitutes less than 21% of the American population, these people make up for numbers in volubility, obnoxiousness, and donations to political coffers.

Considering that the remaining 79% of the population ranges from "somewhat religious" to "not at all religious", the power of the browns ought to be comparatively easy to overcome. The anti-atheist strategy, though, is aimed at manipulating the 67% who range from "somewhat religious" to "not very religious" into viewing secularism, humanism, modernity, and atheism as the fearsome devil that is to blame for every ill – imaginary, anticipated, or real – that has befallen these idiots (who were largely responsible for the non-election of the worst president in American history).

Politicians either pander to these neurotic interest groups or, in the case of authoritarian dictators, use the credulity of the masses to establish and maintain autocratic power.

Dictators such as Hitler and Stalin were not acting out of atheism, per se, if they were atheists at all. They were acting out of desire to make themselves gods.

Hitler used Bob Rumson's fear-and-blame technique to scapegoat minority religious and social groups. Stalin outlawed a competing authority when he eliminated Russia's churches. Hitler, Stalin, Kim Il-sung, Enver Hoxha, etc – promoted in statues, busts, posters, portraits, newsreels, rallies, and parades – all attempted to secure and maintain absolute power by placing themselves in the position formerly occupied by supreme religious authorites. They attempted to turn themselves into the state god. This is not secularism, this is not atheism, these 'cults of personality' are merely religion in vicious disguise.




I'm happy to think that Hitler would not have approved of the following rap version:



The synchronization makes it hilarious.

And, in the same irreverent spirit, no doubt inspired by his haircut:





atheism, audiovisual, bigotry, Christianity, fundamentalism, politics, Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin.

Keeping Bad Company

A number of recent arguments have hinged upon association fallacies – the contention or implication that bad company (or a bad hypothesis) reflects upon the validity of a position.

History is replete with examples of blood spilled, freedom destroyed, hatred aroused, or fear evoked specifically to promote religious ends. As Christopher Hitchens points out, religiously motivated crimes continue to this day. It's understandable that moderate theists who have not participated in such activities wish to distance themselves and their worldview from any blame. Nevertheless, the delusional beliefs that they support, however moderate their personal beliefs, do provide the soil in which illogic and hatred grows.

The flip side of accusations of religious poison and theistic delusions take two forms: claims of converts to theism and claims of atheism-inspired atrocities.

It is a fallacy to argue that deism, theism, or atheism has philosophical truth value according to its popularity or the qualifications of its adherents. The truth of any proposition can only be based upon the evidence or logic that supports it. Although skeptics are typically not fooled by tu quoque accusations, these do appeal to the emotions of believers.

Let's take a look at the 'action' issues. If any worldview is consistently directly associated with negative actions, then, regardless of any philosophical validity, that worldview is potentially dangerous. There are two components to this issue: belief system and directness of association with actions.

"Worldview" is a 'loan translation' from the German philosophical term Weltanschauung, and refers to the framework of ideas and beliefs according to which an individual interprets and interacts with the world. Thus, the term worldview incorporates both ideology (belief system) and action. If a particularly mentally-disturbed individual commits crimes against humanity, the belief system of that individual is irrelevant unless he or she is motivated only by worldview-prescriptions.

“Good people will do good things, and bad people will do bad things. But for good people to do bad things – that takes religion." ¬ Steven Weinberg.

Religions involve not merely prescribed beliefs about the existence of supernatural entities (deism or theism) they also prescribe and proscribe specific behaviors directly associated with the religious worldview. Adherents of religion are expected to participate in particular activities that are laid out within religious dogma – ranging from attendance at prayer right up to jihad.

If a religiously-affiliated individual commits a crime that is not specifically associated with religious prescriptions, then religion per se cannot be held responsible. However, even if an individual acts out of personally disturbed psychology while consciously allowing religious prescriptions to direct his actions, then religion is complicit in the crime.

On the other hand, atheism is nonbelief in the supernatural entities postulated within religions and is not a worldview because lack of belief is not specifically associated with prescribed behaviors. Obviously, atheists are unlikely to attend church services, but such attendance is not prohibited within the atheistic belief set. Atheism is often, though not invariably, associated with worldviews such as secular humanism.

Let's return to the accusations against bad company. The antisocial actions of psychologically disturbed individuals, whether theists or atheists, have no bearing on the truth value of their belief system. Those dictators who have ordered atrocities out of personal megalomania or power-mongering are acting in accord with their personal worldview or political aims, and not directly out of belief or nonbelief in the supernatural.

It is irrelevant whether Catholic Adolf Hitler or seminary boy Joseph Stalin had shifted to atheism at the time of their crimes, or whether dictators such as Pol Pot were raised outside Christianity – because they acted out of megalomania, paranoia, or political ambition and not specifically according to any dictates of nonbelief. (Even if they had acted out of atheistic motivations, this would say nothing about the truth value of atheistic beliefs.) Dictators have historically demonstrated a predilection for claiming divinity for themselves or for setting their regime up as the state religion against any competing religion. Such actions have nothing to do with atheism and everything to do with self-aggrandizement and power consolidaton.

Similarly, so-called Social Darwinism has nothing to do with Charles Darwin or biological evolution beyond the fact that Darwin was inspired to decipher the mechanism of natural selection by Thomas Malthus' study of competition for limited resources. The sociological philosophy could just as appropriately have been termed Social Competitionism or Social Malthusianism as Social Darwinism. However, like so much else that frightens religionists, the label has afforded a convenient target for fallacious arguments.

atheism, deism, theism, religion, Anthony Flew, Christopher Hitchens, Jeffrey Dahmer, Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin,

Stupid Arguments

This post is not about the credulity straining myths of various religious creed or about apologetic inventions, instead it is about arguments that are irrelevant to the issue, and hence stupid.

1. "Atheists committed atrocities too" – this is a Guilt by Association fallacy. Those accused of these atheistic crimes include Catholic anti-semite Adolf Hitler, Bolshevik Joseph Stalin, Chinese communist Mao Zedong, and North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il. The atrocities in question were not committed in popular antireligious wars but in thrall to megalomaniacal econopolitical struggles. Even if these self-serving dictators were atheists, this is irrelevant to the argument that religious extremism continues to be personally cited as the motivator for individual acts of violence.

atheism