Can atheists prevent the emergence of totalitarianism?
Offline Imagine the atheist dream of a freethinking society based on reason and rationalism. All forms of supernatural belief are gone and scientific evidence is held in the highest regard. All aspects of society including politics, arts and entertainment, literature, education, all media, etc...are based on reason. All prohibitions imposed by religion have gone. But what if a minority of individuals cling to irrational behaviors among which is supernatural beliefs? What should such a society do about them given that they would have equal rights as the atheist majority? Should unbelief and rational thinking be imposed on them and they be re-educated? If so, then the society I described is indeed totalitarian.
I have no illusion that religion will self-destruct in liberal democratic societies. In free societies, there will always be individuals who uphold irrational ideas and refuse to acknowledge scientific evidence. A rational secular society (regardless of ideology ie. socialism, liberalism, libertarian, etc.) will always have people who are free to be stupid.
The lone atheist will forever be in a sea of conflicting ideologies (including the irrational and religious). And maybe that's a good thing? What I like most about many atheists is their individualism and resistance to any notion of a goose stepping collectivist society which is exactly what ends up in a theocracy. I therefore can never forsee a group of atheists engineer a "perfect" society.
- Login to post comments
In such a society, do the individuals control their own level of pleasure and pain? Does the collective control what one recieves as reward and punishment for various behaviors? Is all suffering eliminated?
There would be no need for religion if suffering and want are eliminated. Religion is an irrational response to suffering, stress and anxiety. So creating such an atheist society is really a function of elimination of human suffering.
If the pleasure levels were high enough everyone would go along with this "perfect" society. Humans gravitate toward pleasure and avoid pain.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
Yes, people must have the freedom to believe whatever they want. A freethinking society that censors opposition...is not a freethinking society.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
But indeed how does one end suffering. Some forms of suffering are hardwired into the genome (eg. the unfortunate victim of Huntington's disease). I can think of a variety of sci-fi scenerios eg. virtual reality, soma (of Brave New World), transhumanism. If we could invent liquid pleasure which if ingested stimulates all the reward zones of the brain and suppresses the pain centers, then an atheistic society is possible. I would say that the society depicted in Star Trek comes close to an atheist utopia. But in the here and now, atheists do not have a concrete plan to end human suffering.
Drugs?
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
Humans will never apply logic and reason to every facet of existence, especially entertainment. That alone will prevent and/or hinder a totalitarian government of science. How much fun would movies and books be without a bit of fantasy?
The critical component is emotion. In order to achieve such a state, we would need to have removed emotion from humanity. And if humans were to have no emotion, there wouldn't be much problem with totalitarian authority. It would occur naturally and without dissent.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
But drugs have side effects which cause suffering. How about continuous morphine infusion. That would be great but the end result would be coma and then death. We do not have the ideal pleasure drug yet.
Exactly. But, emotions are also what drives certain forms of totalitarian societies eg. the two minutes hate in Orwell's 1984
That was one part of the book that didn't make much sense to me. There was no purpose for it beyond driving individual anger into a direction away from big brother (and towards everything else), but hatred towards big brother was irrelevant, and ultimately futile. The only reason it even worked was because of the thought police taking care of anyone who looked like they weren't really into it, as well as pre-existing conditions. I'm not sure where that was going. I know it wouldn't have worked on someone like me, though obviously the thought police would clue in to it sooner or later.
Still, in the long run, big brothers strategies, and one must assume the same of the other two powers, were self destructive. The overall assault on trust, education, language, and family guaranteed that the power only would have a short time before collapse. Once you stop 'evolving', it's only a matter of time before something changes that society can not do anything but adapt to, but there's no longer that capacity to adapt.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
I ran out of space, but have to mention that I said 'evolving' for lack of a better term.
I don't mind if someone wants to merge the posts.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Hi I am eddie, new to the site and this is my first post .
Imagine the atheist dream of a freethinking society based on reason and rationalism. All forms of supernatural belief are gone and scientific evidence is held in the highest regard. All aspects of society including politics, arts and entertainment, literature, education, all media, etc...are based on reason. All prohibitions imposed by religion have gone. But what if a minority of individuals cling to irrational behaviors among which is supernatural beliefs? What should such a society do about them given that they would have equal rights as the atheist majority? Should unbelief and rational thinking be imposed on them and they be re-educated? If so, then the society I described is indeed totalitarian.
looking a your second paragraph you have all ready given up on the First , which seems entirely logical to me. your first proposition is contradictory in itself as it imposes something and therefor cannot be free.
a little note though. As an atheist myself, I absolutely do not dream of rational art , literature, entertainment, and certain types of media. I like fantasy, just not enough to believe in it
)
I have no illusion that religion will self-destruct in liberal democratic societies. In free societies, there will always be individuals who uphold irrational ideas and refuse to acknowledge scientific evidence. A rational secular society (regardless of ideology ie. socialism, liberalism, libertarian, etc.) will always have people who are free to be stupid.
first part I completely agree, but in the second you make the dangerous assertion that either of these contradicting political convictions are rational or even free(if they are contradicting can they all be rational?). either of these can be a dogma and steer clear of any rationalism whatsoever. It's not even a given that a secular society is rational because outside the stupidity of religion there is a whole lot of stupidity and ignorance to go around (political, philosophical,racial, etc,etc)
I think it is very dangerous to assert that. At least some of these convictions have the tendency to be dogmatic themselves, making them just as dangerous and irrational as any religious one, claiming one way as the ultimate truth.
The lone atheist will forever be in a sea of conflicting ideologies (including the irrational and religious). And maybe that's a good thing? What I like most about many atheists is their individualism and resistance to any notion of a goose stepping collectivist society which is exactly what ends up in a theocracy. I therefore can never foresee a group of atheists engineer a "perfect" society.
yes we will because that's what humanity pretty much is, with the number of religious, political, economical, social differences existing in mankind , the only way to be free is to allow each and everyone of these opinions to be vented, however low you think of them and however absurd they are or seem to be. The true answer to religion is the educational system, in learning our kids to be critical thinkers.( which will all ways face the repression of dogmatic thinkers of course)
And I, Like you, do not see any atheist come up with the perfect formula for society, simply because there might not be one. As man is flawed how could it ever take part in such a thing? you can't build a perfect car with an imperfect engine.
So as to you initial question Yes, they can, just as they can be the cause of that totalitarianism itself, depending on what road they travel to get their political agendas accomplished. For the lack of religious Dogma does not constitute the absence of political dogma, or even a wish for a free thinking(and accepting of different "Irrational" convictions) society. Thinking every atheist wants the same free society might not be completely in check with reality.
I should hope not! Yeah, that would be Marxism, and NOBODY wants that. Some people think they do, but they're not thinking straight.
PS - welcome, eddie!
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
It is a common fallacy to imply that atheists only herd themselves towards socialism or Marxism. A group of atheists could also lean to the far right and engineer a fascist society as well.
Well the perfect society would be an anarchy because if people didn't try to abuse or control others we wouldn't need a government. But you can't really blame religion for that being impossible. Many atheists are as eager to control others as religous nuts. If everyone too lazy to worry about controlling their neighbors like I am we could have a perfect society. Then again, if everyone was as lazy as me we wouldn't have much in the way of technology because I am way to lazy to make anything like a computer.
Just a little correction ragdish, Fascism is not the "far right" it is actually an attempt to cross corporatism with socialism and attempts to reach the same ideals espoused by Marx. Fascism is when a government owns or has significant influence over a private corporation and uses that influence to provide goods and services to the population. Basically communism with a middleman. Interestingly enough that seems to be the direction America is headed minus the violence that Hitler caused Fascism to be linked to. The far right tend to be more of the go hide in the mountains with your guns and kill anyone you see from the government. Or the not quite so far right are free market libertarians like me who just want to government to keep order and otherwise leave us to fend for ourselves. A remarkably unfascist, unsocialist and unmarxist idea.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
"Well the perfect society would be an anarchy because if people didn't try to abuse or control others we wouldn't need a government."
But we do, so the perfect adaptation to that weakness in our species is democratic socialism.
We're going to have some fun conversations I think.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Can atheists prevent totalitarian.........(etc.) Part of what makes Totalitarian dictators succeed is their various personality cults they run and operate like a religion. Atheists by definition don't take to real life "gods"any more then they take to the imaginary gods.
Try to imagin what effect Mugabe, Hitler or Jung Il would have on their countrys without their personality cults. Atheists just can't be fooled for as long as theists can.
"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."
VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"
If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?
People great at suckering lemmings to follow them off a cliff are as varied in their beliefs as the suckers that follow them. So when theists want to point the finger at people they think are atheists, fail to realize that humanity is a sucker for a sugar pill, and if someone offers it to them, we are all too quick to jump, and far to quick to be lazy in questioning.
Only by universal standards beyond label can humanity find solutions. What believers don't want to face, is that it is NOT favoring them.
Being an atheist is no more absolutely moral than being a believer(of any faith). But, for those who would advocate using ancient comic book stories in place of telescopes or microscopes, might as well still believe that the earth is flat.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Oh sure, I just like picking on Marxists. It would be equally discomfiting if we all got together to form a libertarian system. Especially considering my personal opinion that libertarianism would lead to feudalism. (Take a look at factory towns in the US for examples of de facto feudalism.)
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence