Ideologies, philosophies and beliefs that are deemed to be above critique ?

achtungbarry

Should ideologies, philosophies or beliefs that see them selves as above criticism be subject to the strongest analysis of all ?

I have noticed that there are many that feel that their chosen religion is above critique. It seems that we have a right to analyze and critisize anything but religion whether it be Christianity, Islam or Hinduism. Many feel that religion is "off limits".

Do you think that this should be the case ?

Should religion be treated with kid gloves ?

Personally I believe that history has shown us that any ideology, philosophy or belief that sees itself as above criticism has been quite dangerous.

Btw, this is the first thread I have stated on boards. I look forward to chatting and debating with all of you.

No,
no and
no.

You shouldn't pick on people just cos they are diferent.
People can believe whatever they want as long as it doesn't affect me.
No - if someone brings a particular subject up it is fair game.

condra

Wafa Sultan said:
"You can believe in a stone if you want, as long as you dont throw it at me."

I'd subscribe to that.

When other peoples religion interferes with my life, and the democracy of my country, that's when it stops being none of my business.

I think there is a growing trend towards secular people not "pussy footing" around religion anymore. This is partly fuelled of course by people like Dawkins and Hitchens.

achtungbarry

womoma wrote: »

Wafa Sultan said:
"You can believe in a stone if you want, as long as you dont throw it at me."

I'd subscribe to that.

When other peoples religion interferes with my life, and the democracy of my country, that's when it stops being none of my business.

I think there is a growing trend towards secular people not "pussy footing" around religion anymore. This is partly fuelled of course by people like Dawkins and Hitchens.

I agree with you that we should not go out of our way to criticise a particular belief but when there is cause to analyze and criticise a certain belief, it should be done despite the unwritten "religion is off limits" rule that seems to exist in society. Btw I also believe that atheism should be subject to as much analysis and criticism as religion.

PDN

Any ideology, philosophy or belief should be subjected to examination and criticism. To try to prevent or stifle such examination and criticism is IMHO a glaring sign of weakness. This applies across the board - eg medieval Catholicism, Islam in present day Iran, or atheism in the former Soviet Union.

Dades

womoma wrote: »

Wafa Sultan said:
"You can believe in a stone if you want, as long as you dont throw it at me."

I like that!

brianthebard

Its not just religions that try and put themselves above critique. In fact most if not all world views and ideologies do it. Semanalysis offers a continual cycle of self critique that is radically different to any other philosophy or system out there, but it is not something widely accepted outside of post-structuralism.

achtungbarry

PDN wrote: »

Any ideology, philosophy or belief should be subjected to examination and criticism. To try to prevent or stifle such examination and criticism is IMHO a glaring sign of weakness. This applies across the board - eg medieval Catholicism, Islam in present day Iran, or atheism in the former Soviet Union.

Agreed. I would however add modern versions of religion too. I don't the negative effects of certain aspects of religion ended in the middle ages.

The question of atheism in the Soviet Union is an interesting one. I would however assert that evil carried out by the Soviet leadership was not done in the name of atheism rather in the name of communism ( a prime example of an ideology that was deemed to be above criticism and was highly dangerous as a consequence ).

The evil acts perpetrated in Saudi Arabia/Iran/Nigeria (stonings and the like) are however done specifically in the name of religion.

The horrors of the Christian crusades and the Inquisition as well as the modern examples of Christianity distorting and supressing science in the USA are more examples.

It would be unfair of me to let atheism off the hook and I think one example where evil acts were committed in the name of atheism was in Albania under Enver Hoxha or the religious persecutions that followed the French revolution. These examples should be scrutinised every bit as much as the evil commited in the name of religion which I believe far outweighs the evil committed in the name of atheism.

ChocolateSauce

I believe that nothing should be above criticism (including the belief that nothing should be above criticism). I also believe strongly that the causing of offense is no reason to remain silent.

One thing that really gets under my skin is when people argue that freedom of speech does not mean the freedom to offend people, when that is exactly what it means.

When it comes to people's religion, I can only say it depends on the circumstances. In day to day life, while one should never capitulate their position to protect the feelings of someone, I don't think they should pursue an aggressive line of questioning.

The time to be merciless is in a structured debate, in a book about the subject, or on a television show. In these situations, which the likes of Dawkins and Hitchens are often part of, I believe no stone should be left unturned and no argument or statement shied away from.

Húrin

I agree, nothing should be above criticism. Most people would agree to this but, if you question some of our current taboos, such as saying that economic growth should stop, or that violent criminals should be forgiven, the reaction is typically vitriolic.

However, a lot of people seem to be completely tactless, impolite and downright uncivil in their efforts to "question and criticise".

achtungbarry wrote: »

The question of atheism in the Soviet Union is an interesting one. I would however assert that evil carried out by the Soviet leadership was not done in the name of atheism rather in the name of communism ( a prime example of an ideology that was deemed to be above criticism and was highly dangerous as a consequence ).

The evil acts perpetrated in Saudi Arabia/Iran/Nigeria (stonings and the like) are however done specifically in the name of religion.

It is impossible to commit an atrocity in the name of atheism because it is a negative position. You have to add on another ideology. In the USSR case it was communism, and I would say that atheism was an important pillar of their version of it.

Of course, most atheists today would not think in the same way as Stalin and Co, but the effort to make atheism's history look clean, and contrast it to that of religion is something I consider dishonest.

ChocolateSauce

Húrin wrote: »

Of course, most atheists today would not think in the same way as Stalin and Co, but the effort to make atheism's history look clean, and contrast it to that of religion is something I consider dishonest.

I think it is simply inaccurate to correlate atheism with Stalin and co. as their motive. This is why I dispute the idea atheism and evil have anything to do with each other, not because I want it to appear to be clean.

AtomicHorror

PDN wrote: »

Any ideology, philosophy or belief should be subjected to examination and criticism. To try to prevent or stifle such examination and criticism is IMHO a glaring sign of weakness. This applies across the board - eg medieval Catholicism, Islam in present day Iran, or atheism in the former Soviet Union.

Everything, without exception, must be open to questioning. As long as we're actually going to listen to the answers, of course. I'm reminded of one of the scraps of Nietzsche I actually know.

Nietzsche wrote:

Digressions, objections, delight in mockery, carefree mistrust are signs of health; everything unconditional belongs in pathology.

PDN

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

I think it is simply inaccurate to correlate atheism with Stalin and co. as their motive. This is why I dispute the idea atheism and evil have anything to do with each other, not because I want it to appear to be clean.

And I wasn't aware that anyone had asserted that atheism was their motive. However, this appears to be the standard Pavlovian response everytime someone mentions the elephant in the atheist room.

Dades

PDN wrote: »

However, this appears to be the standard Pavlovian response everytime someone mentions the elephant in the atheist room.

I guess that elephant only appear to non-atheists as I've never noticed it myself. Are you sure it's not just Ganesha in the corner by the piano?

ChocolateSauce

PDN wrote: »

And I wasn't aware that anyone had asserted that atheism was their motive. However, this appears to be the standard Pavlovian response everytime someone mentions the elephant in the atheist room.

People hostile to the atheistic and humanistic position(s) regularly assert that atheism and evil go hand in hand, and specifically use Stalin and co. as examples.

PDN

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

People hostile to the atheistic and humanistic position(s) regularly assert that atheism and evil go hand in hand, and specifically use Stalin and co. as examples.

I wasn't aware anyone had made that 'regular' assertion in this thread. Maybe it's just in your head.

So are you saying that evil and atheism didn't go hand in hand with Stalin?

So which is it? He wasn't really an atheist? Or he was really quite a nice chap?

sink

PDN wrote: »

I wasn't aware anyone had made that 'regular' assertion in this thread. Maybe it's just in your head.

So are you saying that evil and atheism didn't go hand in hand with Stalin?

So which is it? He wasn't really an atheist? Or he was really quite a nice chap?

He also had a moustache. For all the evidence we have it's just as likely to be as related to his evil deeds as his atheism.

asdasd

For all the evidence we have it's just as likely to be as related to his evil deeds as his atheism.

would you say that about Torquemada and his beard?

PDN

sink wrote: »

He also had a moustache. For all the evidence we have it's just as likely to be as related to his evil deeds as his atheism.

I believe you were allowed to shave off your mustache in Stalin's Russia.

However, you guys seem obsessed with arguing against a position that no-one here has advanced.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

However, you guys seem obsessed with arguing against a position that no-one here has advanced.

PDN you have moderated threads where people have made these assertions, and while I fully recognise you yourself disagree with them, it seems bizarre to claim you have never experienced them

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

PDN you have moderated threads where people have made these assertions, and while I fully recognise you yourself disagree with them, it seems bizarre to claim you have never experienced them

I've certainly not seen them in this thread. I made a reference to Stalin (counterbalanced by two religious examples) and it appears to have triggered some touchiness.

aidan24326

achtungbarry wrote: »

I have noticed that there are many that feel that their chosen religion is above critique. It seems that we have a right to analyze and critisize anything but religion whether it be Christianity, Islam or Hinduism. Many feel that religion is "off limits".

Do you think that this should be the case ?

Should religion be treated with kid gloves ?

No it shouldn't. Religious belief should be open to debate and scrutiny like everything else, and as much as Dawkins gets bashed (often by atheists too it must be said) the fact that people like him and Sam Harris are opening up this debate to a wider audience can only be a good thing. And I agree with them 100% that the major religions like Christianity and Islam cannot be allowed to hide behind a veil of untouchability so long as they wield the influence that they do.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

The time to be merciless is in a structured debate, in a book about the subject, or on a television show. In these situations, which the likes of Dawkins and Hitchens are often part of, I believe no stone should be left unturned and no argument or statement shied away from.

Why just in a book or tv show? Someone spouting nonsense deserves to be told so. The priest chanting gibberish from his altar deserves to be told he's a faker, and it's a pity (imo) that religion has this cloak of all-importance whereby people feel the need to pussyfoot around it.

The one time I would hold back is where a person is dying and is taking comfort from the knowledge (in their mind) that they will go to heaven and meet loved ones again. I wouldn't have the heart to say anything in that situation.

PDN wrote: »

I've certainly not seen them in this thread. I made a reference to Stalin (counterbalanced by two religious examples) and it appears to have triggered some touchiness.

The link between Stalin being a)an atheist and b)a murderous monster is very tenuous to say the least and is merely a ham-fisted attempt by theists to counteract the claim (which I'll admit is overplayed) by atheists that religion fuels war and evil. In any case whether religion does or does not fuel evildoing that is not my primary reason for rejecting it and I believe most atheist posters here would say the same.

Dades

PDN wrote: »

I've certainly not seen them in this thread.

I actually surprised you'd stoop to playing that card.

We're all aware of the 'Godwin's Law' nature of Stalin arguments when it comes to atheism. Just because that old nut isn't specifically spelt out in this thread doesn't mean we're all not aware of the implied ideas behind it. After all it's not as if we don't know every regular user's (including your own) views on it having been around that particular block many times before.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

I made a reference to Stalin ... and it appears to have triggered some touchiness.

Well no actually you didn't. You made a reference to atheism as a philosophy in the Soviet Union. Someone else mentioned "Stalin and co." and then you asked (apparently straight faced) who mentioned atheism?

Er, you did. Here

Your rush to proclaim, with faux surprise, that this subject is "touchie" would suggest that you are simply trying to wind people up.

oeb

Communism (Such as that that was present in the Soviet Union, or that is currently in existance in North Korea) is based on a personality cult. This has more in common with religion than atheism.

The 'icons' scattered everywhere should have given that away.

knoxor

oeb wrote: »

Communism (Such as that that was present in the Soviet Union, or that is currently in existance in North Korea) is based on a personality cult. This has more in common with religion than atheism.

The 'icons' scattered everywhere should have given that away.

Thats a good point. Take Mao as well, I think atheism could have been the vehicle they used to get rid of religion and its icons and replace them with Stalin/Mao/Kim Jong-Il imagery.

I've not seen anyone discuss this as a possibility before.

asdasd

oeb wrote: »

Communism (Such as that that was present in the Soviet Union, or that is currently in existance in North Korea) is based on a personality cult. This has more in common with religion than atheism.

The 'icons' scattered everywhere should have given that away.

The fact that it replaced religion with "religious" type imagery does not make it religious, only belief in a God would do that.

You are basically criticising the human condition. I dislike any new ideology which blames the old ideology rather than humanity itself for our excesses. If by religion atheists mean not just monotheism, but paganism ( which was a form of religion) for wars, killings, genocides, empires; then in effect you are blaming all of humanity, and all forms of human governance, for thousands of years for humanity's malfeasance.

Even if atheism had not been tried this would be a spurious argument, the fact that it has, and that it produced "religious like" iconography and ancestor worship ( lenin the embalmed saint) tells us something about the human condition, the need for living heroes and dead saints, the desire for a perfect society, the worship of imperfect men as perfect, the ultimate failure of planned perfection on an imperfect species.

The fault is not in the stars, or the Gods, but in ourselves.

oeb

knoxor wrote: »

Thats a good point. Take Mao as well, I think atheism could have been the vehicle they used to get rid of religion and its icons and replace them with Stalin/Mao/Kim Jong-Il imagery.

I've not seen anyone discuss this as a possibility before.

If I remember correctly there is a fair bit about it in either 'The God Delusion' or 'God is not Great'. The point that was made is they just took the god out of religion and slotted themselves in there instead.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Well no actually you didn't. You made a reference to atheism as a philosophy in the Soviet Union. Someone else mentioned "Stalin and co." and then you asked (apparently straight faced) who mentioned atheism?

Try reading the thread again. :rolleyes:

I mentioned atheism in the Soviet Union (along with medieval Catholicism and Islam in Iran) as examples of how setting a philosophy or ideology as being unquestionable is a sign of weakness. I think I was more than even-handed in that I cited 2 religious examples along with the 1 atheist example. So only a paranoid buffoon could interpret my reference as a bash against atheists.

and then you asked (apparently straight faced) who mentioned atheism?

No, I asked who had even suggested that atheism was the cause or motive of Stalin's crimes. And the answer, of course, was that nobody had.

I actually surprised you'd stoop to playing that card. We're all aware of the 'Godwin's Law' nature of Stalin arguments when it comes to atheism. Just because that old nut isn't specifically spelt out in this thread doesn't mean we're all not aware of the implied ideas behind it. After all it's not as if we don't know every regular user's (including your own) views on it having been around that particular block many times before.

Ah, and here we have the elephant in the room, don't we?

The merest mention of the Soviet Union sends certain posters into a defensive tailspin because, over the last 100 years, the vast majority of atheists in the world have been so, not by choice, but because it was forced upon them by repressive regimes.

Now, you know my views well enough by now. I do not think that historical fact infers anything about the morality or otherwise of modern day atheists in Western Europe. I am honest enough as a Christian to freely talk about the atrocities committed by religious people in the past - and I have a low tolerance level for Chrisian posters who talk as if the Crusades, Inquisition etc. never happened. However, I also have a low tolerance level for those atheists who want to point to the evils committed by religion but talk as if the history of atheism over the last 100 years is an unblemished record of enlightened altruism.

However, since it's Christmas, I will try to ignore the pachyderm and instead I will state my agreement with the OP and say "No ideology or philosophy should be treated as above criticism. Islamic fundamentalism, medieval Catholicism, and all other forms of dictatorship simply accentuate their weakness when they stifle dissent."

Is that better?

Dades

PDN wrote: »

The merest mention of the Soviet Union sends certain posters into a defensive tailspin because, over the last 100 years, the vast majority of atheists in the world have been so, not by choice, but because it was forced upon them by repressive regimes.

The merest mention of the Soviet Union sends certain posters into a tailspin because they know someone is about to suggest that the Gulags were full because of Stalin's 'atheistic ideology'. And we all know there will be no agreement there.

Insofar as an elephant in the room represents and uncomfortable but obvious truth, that would suggest this particular character is more then likely just a drunken guest with a big nose.

PDN

Don't mention the war!