Bligbi alerts us to the fact that some Christians still blame atheism for the Nazis, and a recent post on Proud Atheists concerning Hitler’s religious position has spawned a comment thread of truly awesome proportions (and blown Godwin’s Law right out of the water). Arguments are flying back and forth regarding Hitler’s professed Catholicism, whether this can be considered Christianity, whether the evidence points to Hitler’s rejection or acceptance of Catholic doctrine, whether he was secretly a Jew, whether he could be regarded as Christian in spite of all the bad things he did, whether someone who murders six million people can be considered anything other than an atheist and so on and so on… Meaning no disrespect to Mark, whose original post was a nice, concise rebuttal of the “Hitler was an atheist” argument, I’m sorry to say that it’s all bollocks.
The “Hitler/Stalin/Pol Pot/Mao Tse Tung/insert preferred secular despot here was an atheist” argument is intended to demonstrate that atheism leads to genocide, war and forced labour camps. This argument is in itself a counter-claim to the “religion creates evil” argument (backed up by: the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the Conquistadors, 9/11 etc.). A common response is therefore to claim that whilst Hitler and pals were indeed jolly bad eggs, and did kill a lot of people, the Crusaders/Conquistadors/Muslim terrorists were actually motivated by religion, whilst the Hitler faction’s atheism was incidental to their nastiness. Again I say: bollocks.
The thing is, it matters not one whit whether the Fuhrer was a Christian, an atheist or a worshipper of Barney the fucking Dinosaur. It also makes no difference whatsoever whether he slaughtered people because of his religious beliefs, his lack of same or his Freudian issues with circumcision. The argument over whether Hitler was or wasn’t a Christian will probably rage unabated forever, since both sides have statements of his which, taken out of context, appear to prove their case, but if it is ever resolved the answer will be meaningless. It has no bearing one way or the other on which worldview – theist or atheist – is true, and has become a futile endeavour, much like arguing how many angels can fit on the head of a pin (752, if they squeeze together and leave their harps at home. But who gives a shit?). Scoring points by claiming the Nazis would have sided with the other guy is a weak, insipid attempt at debate, and whilst it can be a valid historical exercise to decide where Hitler would have stood on religion, as an argument for or against atheism I’m afraid the Fuhrer is right out of the picture.
19 comments
Comments feed for this article
April 16, 2009 at 8:43 am
Gregory
Thank you.
I feel like hugging you, I really do.
April 16, 2009 at 11:58 am
isnessie
Finally, a voice of reason. Thank you. And Barney is the devil in a purple suit.
April 16, 2009 at 12:10 pm
Eshu
Sounds like a total pantomime!
So… are atheists the front or back end of the pantomime horse? ;-)
April 16, 2009 at 3:10 pm
shirhashirim
There’s no reason for the Fuhrer to be out of the picture, even though he’s not exactly a lucky example (Stalin works better).
However: you need to know what it is you’re discussing if you want the discussion go go anywhere.
The question has two variables to it: what do you consider the content of ‘religion’ and how do you define the relationship between religion and behaviour?
The former can have three basic answers: ‘religion’ is what the person in question professes to believe, it’s what the group of believers claim one should do or believe or: it’s what the holy texts say you should do or believe.
The latter can have two basic answers: convictions cause behaviour or convictions cannot sufficiently prevent behaviour.
Say you put these in a matrix, e.g. three columns for the answers to ‘what is religion’ and two rows for ‘what’s the relationship with behaviour’. Then you have -at least- six cells in which the discussion may take place, and maybe even come to very different conclusions.
As I see it, most participants hop from one cell to another while the discussion rages on. Basically they keep changing their definitions and the result is utter confusion.
To add to the confusion: none of the basic answers above are a good representation of reality and the discussion is skewed. Because regardless of how you define the concept ‘content of religion’, atheism is nothing more than a negation of any imaginable answer (so atheists don’t need to make the disctinction at all). Furthermore, since atheism is a negative, it cannot cause behaviour of any kind.
April 16, 2009 at 3:27 pm
yunshui
shirhashirim:
I’m sorry, perhaps I wasn’t clear enough. Let me state this in simpler terms:
No, the question has but one variable – is there a god? The response that: “Hitler was an atheist,” or, “Hitler was a Christian,” does not answer this question or provide any evidence one way or the other. The content of a religion and the behaviour of its adherents are no guide to the truth or falsehood of that religion. Whilst the questions you’re asking are interesting ones, they don’t make any headway into the debate over whether atheism is the correct worldview or not.
April 16, 2009 at 4:04 pm
Matthew
yunshui: Exactly right. You said “It has no bearing one way or the other on which worldview – theist or atheist – is true, and has become a futile endeavour.”
I agree. God existed – or didn’t – long before Hitler was born. The bad behavior of theists or atheists is not a good argument for or against the existence of God. However, bad behavior may lead someone to rightly say, “I don’t like Christianity.” Or, “I don’t like what some atheists do.”
shirhashirim: You said “since atheism is a negative, it cannot cause behaviour of any kind.” I don’t think that’s quite right. Any kind of belief affects behavior, whether it’s negative or positive. Not believing in any deity leads to not engaging in certain behaviors (like worshiping Him, going to church). And refraining from action is in itself an action.
April 16, 2009 at 5:22 pm
Lorena
Yunshui,
Ever considered law school?
April 16, 2009 at 9:01 pm
silverseason
This is a sticky swamp in bad need of definitions, definitions on which we are unlikely to get agreement in the present world and time.
What is religion? Not just a belief that there is or is not a god. Some religions, like Buddhism, are not centered on that question.
If I believe in god, then what god? The one who commands his followers to kill the infidels? The one who turns himself into a swan so he can mate with Leda?
What is the relationship between religious belief – or any other kind of belief like social or political – to individual behavior?
Let’s take it that Hitler did bad things. Let’s also take it that he may or may not have believed certain things. Whether or not he really believed them and whether or not we actually know what he believed, he still did BAD THINGS. Which leads me to the tentative (weasel word) conclusion that we can judge someone’s actions independent of his belief.
April 16, 2009 at 9:26 pm
atimetorend
Hitler is like the last guy picked for a team after all the good players have been chosen. Nobody wants him on their team, and he’ll be the weak link if he is on the other team.
I thought Barney was a singing dinosaur, no?
April 17, 2009 at 1:44 am
the chaplain
atimetorend:
Can anyone properly call what Barney does singing?
April 17, 2009 at 2:54 am
Temaskian
Hitler is intentionally being brought up again and again by christian groups to keep their own people in fear that they will become like Hitler (who is like some sort of anti-christ because he targeted God’s people) if they do not conform to the group.
It has nothing to do with winning the debate against atheists.
April 17, 2009 at 9:27 am
shirhashirim
Matthew: “Any kind of belief affects behavior, whether it’s negative or positive. Not believing in any deity leads to not engaging in certain behaviors (like worshiping Him, going to church). And refraining from action is in itself an action.”
Good point. There’s a distiction to be made. If an atheist feels the urge to go listen to a performance of Bach’s Matthew’s Passion and then forces himself not to because it does not conform to his ideas, then that’s an action. Agreed.
But something tells me your average atheist doesn’t need to engage in any kind of refraining to keep himself from (e.g.) worship. It’s simply something that doesn’t come to mind. That’s not an action, it’s just the absence of action.
And I still wonder whether atheism should be classified as a belief. We do not call non-belief in fairies, Santa Claus or the boogey man a ‘belief’ either. It’s usually considered either common sense or ‘knowlegde’. I think most atheists would consider atheism more of a common sense-thing (maybe even knowledge) than a ‘belief’.
April 17, 2009 at 9:42 am
shirhashirim
Yunshui: “No, the question has but one variable – is there a god? The response that: “Hitler was an atheist,” or, “Hitler was a Christian,” does not answer this question or provide any evidence one way or the other.”
Agreed. In principle that is.
The question still does play a important role, since atheists started asserting that religion causes evil behaviour, and this evil behaviour would not be there if there were no religion. The counter argument to that from the believing side is that atheism causes/does not prevent evil behaviour as predicted by atheists. Foolishly Hitler is used as an example, where there are better ones around.
One might say this is a confusion of two questions: ‘Does God exist?’ and ‘Should there be religion?’ But if I understand the discussion correctly, the argument behind it is: Religion causes evil behaviour *because it is untrue*, or put it another way: if people would only believe in what is true/observable/testable, this evil behaviour would not occur. (cf. John Lennon).
It’s a bypass, but within this type of reasoning Hitler’s personal convictions and actions are somewhat relevant to the question whether there is a God, even if it doesn’t answer the question.
April 17, 2009 at 10:25 am
yunshui
silverseason:
I agree that “religious belief” does not necessitate “belief in a god”, but then I’m technically an atheist – not an areligionist. You’re right insofar as my argument only holds true for a “god/no-god” polarised debate, and doesn’t address the grey areas of Taoism, Buddhism etc., but basically I’m arguing a reversal of your closing sentence – we can judge a person’s belief independent of his or her actions.
shirhashirim:
I see what you mean, and I agree that, as an argument against religion, claiming Hitler (or Stalin etc.) as a member of the opposition could have some weight, but only if it was possible to demonstrate that his religious convictions (or lack of) were a significant driving force for his actions. Even with the passage about “doing the Lord’s work” in Mein Kampf, I don’t think that can be demonstrated either way, at least with our current historical knowledge.
The argument that religious belief can result in evil actions is way down the list of atheist ammunition, though (unless you’re Sam Harris), and in my own opinion is one of the weakest positions to lay claim to (given that religion also motivates many good and noble actions as well). Even if it could be conclusively proved that Hitler was an atheist, and therefore that atheists do bad things, there’s still a huge evidential mountain for Christianity to overcome. In a similar vein, even if it could be demonstrated that the Fuhrer’s eugenics programmes were a direct result of his belief in Darwinian evolution, that would not make the theory of evolution any less correct.
Basically, the beliefs of an individual have no bearing on any claim to truth. Only evidence and reason can support that.
April 17, 2009 at 12:40 pm
silverseason
Yunshui:
I’m speaking of belief generally. We can judge both actions and belief separately, that is, ignore one while judging the other. We can also judge them together if we believe they affect each other.
Belief is very tricky. As is religion. As is god. If I am an Athenian and I parade up to the Parthenon every four years in a great procession to honor Athena, you may conclude that I believe that a goddess Athena exists and that she protects the city and and I want to keep her interested in our welfare. On the other hand, maybe I just believe that this is a great civic occasion and I should be part of it and if it has other good effects, so much the better.
April 18, 2009 at 3:36 am
Mark
I want to say something on my behalf…..
“No, he wasn’t an atheist!!!!”
Just joking.
I presented that post as a rebuttal to the old “Hitler was an atheist” bit.
I get tired of reading articles that connect any “evil” historical figure to atheism. It’s a bullshit and loosely applied stereotype. Some people say out of ignorance.
My objective was to raise the awareness of that ignorance. Did it help us? I don’t know, but you don’t know till you try.
I do not expect my fellow atheists to agree with me on everything, but I would like respect for my attempts in evoking thought.
Your article is well stated and balanced, and I respect your opinions.
~Mark~
April 18, 2009 at 10:09 am
yunshui
Maybe “bollocks” was a bit harsh (I’m British, it’s how we talk – the less civilised among us, anyway)… actually I thought you presented a good, concise case for the Holy Hitler position. My point was (and still is) that, whilst it’s worth rebutting the “Hitler was an atheist” argument, it doesn’t score any points, as it were. But then, I just wrote an entire post about how Christianity is similar to cheese, so I’m one to talk…
April 18, 2009 at 12:35 pm
Eshu
Yes, but people enjoyed that! No one enjoys arguing about Hitler do they?
April 19, 2009 at 10:27 pm
Mark
@ Eshu
People must love arguing about Hitler. In two days, I had over 23,000 hits and 130 comments.