HFQ Official Snippet #20

Peter2 wrote:

Randomiser wrote:
That kind of anti-religious allegation is often bandied around these days. Then I think of Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot and even Mao, the devastation they caused and the millions of deaths they were responsible for, and wonder which religious 'governments' were so overwhelmingly worse than them. Have you any suggestions? Or are you willing to apologise for that piece of anti-religious prejudice?

You either did not read what I wrote, or read things into it that are not there. I used the phrase "ultimate power" – please note the word ultimate. I neither said nor implied – and nor do I believe – that religions should be powerless. On the contrary, I consider most of them (certainly the ones I know well) to be considerable and significant forces for good. But I maintain, as I said, that "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely," and when that absolute (i.e. "ultimate") power rests with people who feel justified in shifting responsibility for their actions on to the shoulders of their God(s), there is a greater probability for it to be exercised with less restraint. I stand by what I wrote.

For that matter, if you substitute things like "the General Will", "racial imperative", "the dialectic of history", or even "freedom and our way of life" for "God" in the same dynamic, you get the same results.

JeffEngel wrote:For that matter, if you substitute things like "the General Will", "racial imperative", "the dialectic of history", or even "freedom and our way of life" for "God" in the same dynamic, you get the same results.

Bravo, Jeff, for that last sentence! The thing that I find hardest to teach is that our dynamic, the God and country dynamic, can be just as evil as any of the isms when it turns into an our bunch better than the rest mentality.

The only thing that can prevent that is a solid commitment to servanthood.

Don

Randomiser wrote:

Peter2 wrote:
There have been all sorts of governments, but From what I can see, those where ultimate power has been in the hands of the priesthood were far and away the worst. The ability to shift accountability for their actions on to the shoulders of their God(s) seemed to relieve their consciences of any burden of responsibility for the most heinous crimes. They could put their hands on their hearts and say "God wills it" to justify the vilest actions.

That kind of anti-religious allegation is often bandied around these days. Then I think of Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot and even Mao, the devastation they caused and the millions of deaths they were responsible for, and wonder which religious 'governments' were so overwhelmingly worse than them. Have you any suggestions? Or are you willing to apologise for that piece of anti-religious prejudice?

Are you saying Hitler wasn't religious? He was a Christian and justified what he did to the Jewish as "doing the Lord's work"

Peter2 wrote:You either did not read what I wrote, or read things into it that are not there. I used the phrase "ultimate power" – please note the word ultimate. I neither said nor implied – and nor do I believe – that religions should be powerless. On the contrary, I consider most of them (certainly the ones I know well) to be considerable and significant forces for good. But I maintain, as I said, that "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely," and when that absolute (i.e. "ultimate") power rests with people who feel justified in shifting responsibility for their actions on to the shoulders of their God(s), there is a greater probability for it to be exercised with less restraint. I stand by what I wrote.

Despite any good that a religion can do, concepts of morality are not the sole preserve of the religious.
However beneficent the "founding fathers" may be the organisation will, by the very nature of the human beings within it, become corrupt.
The members, especially when the structure becomes hierarchical, will come to see the religious structure as their personal power base to order others around.
Do you not remember the polemical writings of Lord Acton when the doctrine of "Papal Infallibilty" was posed?
"All power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely"

jeremyr wrote:
Are you saying Hitler wasn't religious? He was a Christian and justified what he did to the Jewish as "doing the Lord's work"

Hitler was raised and died a Catholic, certainly. But did he allow the Catholic faith to shape his life and actions? Hardly. What Hitler said in public and what he thought privately don't necessarily connect well. I believe he actually says in Mein Kampf that his speeches are propaganda. Look at what he actually did. The Nazis stopped celebrating Christmas, persecuted Christian churches and imprisoned many pastors among other things. Lots of bad things happened to any churches that did not support the Nazis. Google 'Hitler's Table Talk' for a selection of his private opinions recorded by his secretary Martin Bormann. (Himself strongly anti-Christian which in itself speaks volumes.)

Germany in the 20's and 30's was a strongly Christian place, using Christian rhetoric was a good way of commending his ideas to his audience. He regarded the churches as a useful instrument of social control rather than Christianity being something he believed in.

Peter2 wrote:
You either did not read what I wrote, or read things into it that are not there. I used the phrase "ultimate power" – please note the word ultimate. I neither said nor implied – and nor do I believe – that religions should be powerless. On the contrary, I consider most of them (certainly the ones I know well) to be considerable and significant forces for good. But I maintain, as I said, that "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely," and when that absolute (i.e. "ultimate") power rests with people who feel justified in shifting responsibility for their actions on to the shoulders of their God(s), there is a greater probability for it to be exercised with less restraint. I stand by what I wrote.

Peter, I'm glad to hear that you consider some religions to be considerable forces for good.

But what you wrote that I took exception to was

Peter2 wrote:There have been all sorts of governments, but From what I can see, those where ultimate power has been in the hands of the priesthood were far and away the worst.

(My Bold)

I was just asking you to tell us who you were thinking of that were a good deal worse than non-religious examples I gave. I note that you have not done so.

AS JeffEngels points out people have been great at finding all sorts of ways of evading personal responsibility for their actions many of which are totally non-religious. It is unreasonable and unhistorical to suggest that religions are particularly to blame for the worst governments ever.

chrisd wrote:

Despite any good that a religion can do, concepts of morality are not the sole preserve of the religious.

If that's true then I can see only two logical possibilities. Either every man's morality is equal to every other man's morality--in which case your morality is no better than Hitler's. Or morality is a matter of voting--in which case it was evil for people to transport blacks across the border from the Southern United States into the Northern United States.

Actually, I can see one other possibility--that there's an elite man on the Earth whose morality is equal or better than everyone else. Something like the Pope.

~Tonto

Tonto Silerheels wrote:chrisd wrote:

Despite any good that a religion can do, concepts of morality are not the sole preserve of the religious.

If that's true then I can see only two logical possibilities. Either every man's morality is equal to every other man's morality--in which case your morality is no better than Hitler's. Or morality is a matter of voting--in which case it was evil for people to transport blacks across the border from the Southern United States into the Northern United States.

Actually, I can see one other possibility--that there's an elite man on the Earth whose morality is equal or better than everyone else. Something like the Pope.

~Tonto

You need to open your mind up to other possibilities, like nearly every moral theory ever worked up. To scout a handful of the big contenders, there's the notion that morality is about maximizing some inherently good thing, like happiness; that it's about action in accordance with one or more virtues; or that it's acting in accord with various fundamental rules or from certain motivations.

That it's about acting according to the will of some supreme being tends to get pretty short shrift among philosophers. Even the ones who favor some role for religion in morality tend to try to avoid divine command theory.

JeffEngel wrote:

You need to open your mind up to other possibilities,

Thank you. I phrased my response as I did, that I could only see three possibilities, in hopes that someone would make me aware of others.

the notion that morality is about maximizing some inherently good thing, like happiness;

I discounted that because maximizing a good thing, and even choosing what the good things are, is a moral decision. Hitler said that it was good for the strong to overcome the week. Conan said that what's best in life is to crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women. So, which is it? And how do you choose without already having a system of morality to compare against?

that it's about action in accordance with one or more virtues;

How can one act in accordance with some virtue if one doesn't know what the virtues are? If I act in accordance with one virtue and Conan with another, then which of us is virtuous?

or that it's acting in accord with various fundamental rules

How is this different from having a Pope?

or from certain motivations.

If most people vote for a certain motivation, does that make it moral?

That it's about acting according to the will of some supreme being tends to get pretty short shrift among philosophers. Even the ones who favor some role for religion in morality tend to try to avoid divine command theory.

I'm sure you're right if you were polling the a-religious philosophers. I feel certain, though, that a supreme being is far more popular amongst religious philosophers.

~Tonto

Randomiser wrote:

jeremyr wrote:
Are you saying Hitler wasn't religious? He was a Christian and justified what he did to the Jewish as "doing the Lord's work"

Hitler was raised and died a Catholic, certainly. But did he allow the Catholic faith to shape his life and actions? Hardly. What Hitler said in public and what he thought privately don't necessarily connect well. I believe he actually says in Mein Kampf that his speeches are propaganda. Look at what he actually did. The Nazis stopped celebrating Christmas, persecuted Christian churches and imprisoned many pastors among other things. Lots of bad things happened to any churches that did not support the Nazis. Google 'Hitler's Table Talk' for a selection of his private opinions recorded by his secretary Martin Bormann. (Himself strongly anti-Christian which in itself speaks volumes.)

Germany in the 20's and 30's was a strongly Christian place, using Christian rhetoric was a good way of commending his ideas to his audience. He regarded the churches as a useful instrument of social control rather than Christianity being something he believed in.

Interesting question there.

That said, the Catholic Church, like many other organized religions, doesn't exactly "hold the bar" on the morality practiced by both it's hierarchy and/or it's followers.

EG: The Crusades, destruction of the Knight's Templar to relieve the then current king of France from his financial debt (talk about "cannibalizing" one's own...), the Spanish Inquistion, and the burning of *suspected* witches. Not to mention the treatment of Protestants during the beginnings of the Protestant Revolution.

Just to make things clear, however, that this isn't just a one-sided (or one targeted) post, one can also take exception to the Hebrews slaughtering the Canaanites because "God gave this land to us"; or even today's treatment of the Palestinians (and no, I'm not some apologist for those of them that keep stirring the pot, either). Also, the Islamic Jihads and fundamentalist group's actions from the Middle Ages to the current day.

As one poster noted, if one has the notion that "God is on our side"; one can excuse almost *anything*, unless some sort of "divine intervention" makes it plain that things have gone a bit too far.