Quote:
Originally Posted by modest
I’ll say that it bothers me because I can occasionally sound like a blithering idiot trying to support my own position on the topic. Following my own logic to its conclusion I’m essentially left saying “I sometimes support killing in the name of my belief system (atheistic Humanism), and I’ve decided that other people’s belief systems don’t merit the same right”.
|
A very authentic, sincere, and thought-provoking post, my friend, and I appreciate your openness tremendously.
It's a tough line to find... this cognitive space of whether or not killing is okay or if military action is justifiable, and whether one ideology can be the basis of those actions. I, too, find a terrible and distasteful overlap in the actions of Stalin and those advocating war in Iraq (even if for Humanistic reasons). You raise a very fair concern, and the issue (to me at least) is really more about outcome... more about the results of implementing that ideology... and how those results are judged beyond the ideology itself.
I may be parsing this too much and showing my own biases here, but my thoughts keep returning to the idea of outcome, and how we measure the "goodness" of that outcome. The individual who holds/accepts the ideology will tend to see the outcome resulting from the implementation of their ideology as a good thing. The Stalinist will tend to judge the results to be good if they are consistent with their stalinistic ideology. The Humanist will tend to judge the results to be good if they are consistent with their humanistic ideology. However, the question for me becomes... How then do third parties judge those same results... third parties who do not share those specific ideologies/worldviews? Will they see the outcome of those militant actions as a net positive or a net negative?
My general point (for which I'm admittedly struggling to find voice) is that it's justified if the militancy is judged to be for a net good across ideologies... If it can be judged as a good thing to do and is not dependent on localized ideology, then it is, in fact, a good thing to do. My example about using the military to remove a dictator who is killing his people and preventing them from receiving food and medicine seems to meet this "across ideologies it's regarded as objectively good" criteria. However, if the action can only be judged as good by those who cling to the ideology, and other third party observers find that action inherently wrong, then it's much less likely to be a "good" thing. For example, killing of all Jews is good to the ideology of the Nazi or the fundamentalist Muslim, but not to others who do not accept/live by those worldviews.
This is why I personally tend to (readily) dismiss the idea of militant atheism. I'm just not familiar with large groups atheists out there declaring that we should kill folks with a high degree of religiosity or belief in deity based on nothing more than faith. Admittedly, maybe once or twice in a moment of weakness and exasperation I may have made such a declaration myself about our need to just "shoot all religious people in the face," but that comment from me was not demonstrative of my true feelings on the matter, nor was it informed by any "ideology," just a temporary moment of frustration on which I would never act nor advocate action. Adding to that, since atheism itself is neither an ideology nor a worldview, it's rather difficult and specious to suggest that this "label" of atheism (which people use to describe those who lack belief in god)
could even possibly inform a decision to advocate or engage in militancy. I think this is partially why you keep switching to the topic of Humanism... which actually IS an ideology.
Either way, if the outcome of the warring action can only be deemed a net "good" by those following/accepting that ideology informing it, then it probably is much more deserving of critique and possibly rejection by the global community. However, if the outcome of the warring action can be deemed a net "good" by the larger global community, and is not contingent on some localized worldview, then chances are much better it truly is a collective net good.
What I dislike about my argument above is how it seems to rely on "truth by popularity," but that's not an accurate description of what I'm suggesting. The issue is more this... If the goodness of the action is not contingent on some localized ideology, and is more objectively seen as a net positive across many ideologies, then chances are higher that it truly is a good action. I think that's about as close as I'm going to get with your question.
To close, though, atheism is not an ideology... it does not inform actions... and to call it militant seems ridiculous. The atheism being hit with that label is the atheism you see in online chats and forums such as this... in YouTube videos and news articles... in coffee shops and libraries. It's not given the label of "militant" because these people are advocating war or trying to kill people who are religious. That's simply not happening. Those who argue in favor of atheism are not attempting to cause a critical existence failure in others... They are just not showing the deference and respect of religion which it has enjoyed for so many years in the past... simply dismissing religious claims for lack of proof... encouraging others to do the same (just as they do with nearly all other aspects of their lives)... and, for this, they are called loud mouthed and militant, and it's an incorrect usage of the label "militant" in nearly all instances where it's being applied.
It's greatly similar to what we do in science and with scientific claims... we critique them... we challenge assertions... we demand empirical evidence which can be replicated by others... So, why aren't these same people calling scientific journals "militant" for holding their article submissions to a harsh peer review? I'll tell you why... because that would be stupid beyond all measure. The difference is not in the approach people are using, nor in what people are advocating. The difference resides entirely in the topic being criticized, and many of us are simply tired of the double standard.
