I'm kind of ranting here, but I hope it can start a dialogue between theists and atheists on a large number of scientific and ethical questions that are sidelined by re-defining atheism to exclude communism. (skip to the last paragraph if you want as it sums it up nicely)
Believers often raise questions regarding the implications of Atheism on Morality. Typically this means associating atheism with totalitarian regiemes in the "atheist atrocity fallacy". Any attempt to equate Atheism with Hitler and Nazism is factually inaccurate and historically false: Hitler was a catholic and Nazi's were anti-christian in so far as egalitarianism conflicted with their racial ideology. It is wrong for Atheists to be equated with Nazis.
However, it has become common practice (including on this forum) to say that when Theists equate atheism with communism, communism is dismissed as 'not real atheism' for reasons
other than the lack of belief in god. This mainly is because atheism is implicitly associated with liberal political values of free thought, reason, individual liberty. In otherwords, to avoid the association with communism, the very definition of atheism has been changed to exclude the possibility of recognising communism as a 'legitimate' expression of atheism. This position is pretty much unanimious amongst the New Atheists, including Christopher Hitchens who was in his youth a Marxist.
Sam Harris:
Christopher Hitchens:
Richard Dawkins:
The following video develops the argument, although actually is somewhat more honest in trying to deal with the fact that communists professed a militant atheist and anti-religious ideology, and the implications of the association between atheism and communism in the Cold War. Again, they are implicitly arguing that only liberals and secular societies are 'real atheists'.
This point has become one in which theists and atheists simply don't communicate on and it is important in discussing the relationship between religion , atheism and ethics; theists use communism is tar all forms of atheism as a nihilistic rejection of "gods law" and morals, whereas atheists don't touch the issue and say it is "not our problem" as only liberals are can be "true" atheists and ethics are the result of individual choice.
I thin the issue with this is that it dramatically reduces the scope of the discussion which can be had between atheists and theists on ethics, as atheists evade some of the biggest and most fundamental questions because they stick to 'individual choice'. This is infact counter-productive to atheism as organised religion creates an anti-intellectual climate in which anti-scientific prejudices abound so that faith based cliams are readily accepted; whilst atheists profess individusl choice, theists use the mass media to promote conformity.
Importantly, this has implications on the role of science- as by dismissing communism, it also means dismissing the role of science in forumlating ethical and political concepts which may (or not be) in opposition to religious belief. Theists can use the Soviet Union as an example in which science became a political tool for the suppression of religion and therefore argue that their 'freedom of religion' means they have the right to reject the scientific consensus on evolution. [This may also apply to climate change.] Evolution can be demonised by equating it with "social darwinism" of Nazi and Communist systems, and consequently that the truth- when it conflicts with exisiting ethical beliefs is unethical. Whilst the former was a much more explicit in its support of biological social darwinism, communists had an atheist view of social change and that ethics were entirely man-made with natural causes.
The inability of atheists to respond to the questions raised by social darwinism- difficult as they are- as an attempt to apply scientific thinking to politics, society and ethics, surrenders those areas to religion because they actually
agree with them that science can't tell us very much about ethics. Overall, both theists and atheists agree that "scientific materialism" is a dogma and this consequently closes off large areas of our understanding to natural and secular explanations, as well as leading to theological interpretations in research in natural science (e.g. does the big bang, quantum mechanics etc support belief in god?). By refusing to engage in this question, atheists are shooting themselves in the foot by letting religious people use free experession as a justification for the defence of unsubstainated cliams- often which are partially or entirely false. attempts to counter this are considered attacks on individual rights even as ignorance has damaging and widespread consequences. This has led to a reversal of the progress of reason, where issues whose moral concerns stem from religion such as abortion, gay marriage, contraception have entered the political sphere in the culture wars because religion- not reason or evidence- has become accepted as a legitimate basis for morality and therefore law. That is not to say there aren't reasons for these issues to be discussed, but that we should try to do so based on evidence rather than scripture.
It is also bad practice for atheists to call for evidence on a range of questions by theists to substanciate their views, only to turn round and deny evidence when it is presented to them because they redefine thier position on the basis of political bias. As a commie, I personally find it deeply insulting and cowardly since it demonstrates atheists unwillingness to deal with uncomfortable truths.
I hope I've made some good points with which to start a wider discussion between theists and atheists, as this isn't just about communism, but as to whether there are limits on what science and reason can tell us about society, and how far we can progress as a species if we accept that somethings can only be answered by religion. atheists are pretty much surrendering the goals of the enlightenment by accepting that the failures of communism mean that science cannot be applied to ethical and political questions. the inability of atheists to do so also makes religion more compelling choice as a belief system because it provides answers to some of the most important questions, no matter how many books people like Harris and Dawkins sell saying how irrational or implausible religion is.
