jump to navigation

Comparing Apples to Fanaticism November 22, 2006

Posted by ocmpoma in : atheism , trackback

Jake Young over at Pure Pedantry has a post up adressing the old argument about atheistic tyrants (you know, the unholy trio), which was made in another article by Dinesh D’Souza.

Mr Young’s basic point is that “[t]he problem with religion and atheism isn’t that they exist or that they naturally push one towards violence. The world is much more complicated than that. The problem is fanaticism: the exultation of one creed to such a degree that every other creed becomes not only fundamentally wrong but a desecration. (emphasis in the original)”

But he’s missed a major point.

A big problem with the original argument, which leaks over into the refutation, is that it’s comparing two things that are in different categories. Saying that atheism is a major source of genocidal mayhem and carnage because of the actions of, say, Marixist-Leninists, is the same as saying that belief in god is a major source of suicide because of the events at Masada.

Firstly, both the actions of Marxist-Leninists in the Soviet Union and those of the defenders of Masada were hardly committed in a cultural, historical, and societal vacuum; and secondly, the belief system was not necessarily the main factor motivating them.

However, the real problem with the argument is that it’s comparing atheism, which is not a belief system or a philosophy of life, with religion, which is. One cannot make accusations or draw conclusions about atheism based on the actions of the Soviets any more than one can make accusations or draw conclusions about theism based on the actions of the defenders of Masada. One can make accusations and draw conclusions about Marxism-Leninism and Judaism from those groups. But not about theism or atheism. It’s a grave error that is made all too often. Usually, I refer to it as comparing Mustangs to Chrevrolet, and complaining that Chevrolet doesn’t have a spare tire in its trunk (even though it’s a corporation, not a car, and doesn’t have tires at all).

I must note, however, that Mr Young did astutely catch D’Souza’s trick of trying to equate the number of casualties caused in earlier times with those of more modern times, whilst ignoring technological advancements in the arena of mass destruction.

Tags for this article:

[?]

Comments»

no comments yet - be the first?