Ep. 102: How can we not sin?

[yjoeyh]

No, he was trying to do it for some humans at the cost of others who were humans as well. This is self-contradicting. if you are a humanist, all humans are your concern. When you pit some humans against others in order to empower one group over others, you're no longer a humanist by definition. You're just an asshole.

The problem for the humanist position though is that Hitler was also a human(technically.) So if humanists are concerned for "all humans," then they have to be concerned about him too. That means, they cannot "pit" themselves against other humans (like Hitler) based on their own self-imposed moral superiority, and "empower" their "one group over others"(like the Nazis.) If they do, then like you say, they are no longer humanists by definition. The self-contradicting trap they fall into is that they cannot fault other groups for claiming moral superiority without claiming their own version of it.

[Keep The Reason]

No, he was trying to do it for some humans at the cost of others who were humans as well. This is self-contradicting. if you are a humanist, all humans are your concern. When you pit some humans against others in order to empower one group over others, you're no longer a humanist by definition. You're just an asshole.

The problem for the humanist position though is that Hitler was also a human(technically.) So if humanists are concerned for "all humans," then they have to be concerned about him too. That means, they cannot "pit" themselves against other humans (like Hitler) based on their own self-imposed moral superiority, and "empower" their "one group over others"(like the Nazis.) If they do, then like you say, they are no longer humanists by definition. The self-contradicting trap they fall into is that they cannot fault other groups for claiming moral superiority without claiming their own version of it.

Nope. Humanists recognize that as humans we are evolved beings. Evolution works only based on a balance of competition and cooperation. Too far on either side, and the imbalance creates an unsustainable dynamic that will seek to level out. For a purposely simplistic example, lets say a lion decides to eat every gazelle in site, all at once. It is stronger than gazelles, and thus succeeds. Now there are no gazelles. The lion starves and dies.

The lion has evolved to have only a desire to kill a gazelle when hungry. Otherwise, it leaves them be. Eating them is competition, leaving them be is cooperation.

Hitler represents a "lion" that is out of whack. Such a creature may be briefly successful, like a Hitler, or even for a long time, like a Castro, but eventually any entity that far out of whack is going to be neutralized.

In fact, look at how we dealt with other such humans. In terms of the European theater, we brought them to trial and applied justice to them -- not because we were hungry for power, but because we needed to bring the balance back into play. Concern for humans doesn't mean ignoring injustice. Now, I suppose you'll counter by saying Hitler was doing the same by eradicating humans HE felt were needing neutralization, but there is no way to make such a comparative case. Hitler ordering the murder of millions is an out of whack balance. Condemning him for advocating the murder of countless Jewish children, or people who have done nothing except be born is not out of any balance. Those murdered did nothing but be born. I'm hoping you can see how the "concern for humans" isn't some kind of bind coat of paint to be rolled over ever circumstance equally (yet you theists do that often-- why is that?)

[NH Baritone]

No, he was trying to do it for some humans at the cost of others who were humans as well. This is self-contradicting. if you are a humanist, all humans are your concern. When you pit some humans against others in order to empower one group over others, you're no longer a humanist by definition. You're just an asshole.

The problem for the humanist position though is that Hitler was also a human(technically.) So if humanists are concerned for "all humans," then they have to be concerned about him too. That means, they cannot "pit" themselves against other humans (like Hitler) based on their own self-imposed moral superiority, and "empower" their "one group over others"(like the Nazis.) If they do, then like you say, they are no longer humanists by definition. The self-contradicting trap they fall into is that they cannot fault other groups for claiming moral superiority without claiming their own version of it.

Well, bless your post-modernistic, grease-dripping, Godwin's-law-fulfilling heart!

Having no real argument of your own to put forward, have you decided your best bet is to construct a strawman to poke and prod in the fantasy that you are actually making hay? Rest assured, you are living in your own delusional Berchtesgaden.

One can oppose all sorts of policies because they ... THE POLICIES ... are immoral. It is for humanists to convince others that their ethical judgments have greater merit than those scraped from the tombs of dead Israelites. Quite frankly, I think we've done a bang-up job on issues such as women's rights, slavery, and scientific medicine.

Simultaneously, it is ridiculous to oppose a person simply for being a person. But when someone is clearly violating the rights of humans for self-evidently stupid reasons (for example, based on nothing more than disliking their lineage and having an unjustifiably aggrandized opinion of one's own), then there is every reason to oppose that person securing the power to exterminate the out-group. There are moments when taking up arms is, sadly, the best alternative.

Many humanists opposed Hitlerian ideas from the outset, but opposed the Nazis because they achieved power sufficient to carry out their heinous aims. I suggest you learn to separate ethical judgment from ethical action, because in the first instance it is important to show others why you reached your conclusions. In the second, you are called upon to demonstrate how strongly you believe those conclusions.

[Dr Mundo]

Well, bless your post-modernistic, grease-dripping, Godwin's-law-fulfilling heart!

Having no real argument of your own to put forward, have you decided your best bet is to construct a strawman to poke and prod in the fantasy that you are actually making hay? Rest assured, you are living in your own delusional Berchtesgaden.

One can oppose all sorts of policies because they ... THE POLICIES ... are immoral. It is for humanists to convince others that their ethical judgments have greater merit than those scraped from the tombs of dead Israelites. Quite frankly, I think we've done a bang-up job on issues such as women's rights, slavery, and scientific medicine.

Simultaneously, it is ridiculous to oppose a person simply for being a person. But when someone is clearly violating the rights of humans for self-evidently stupid reasons (for example, based on nothing more than disliking their lineage and having an unjustifiably aggrandized opinion of one's own), then there is every reason to oppose that person securing the power to exterminate the out-group. There are moments when taking up arms is, sadly, the best alternative.

Many humanists opposed Hitlerian ideas from the outset, but opposed the Nazis because they achieved power sufficient to carry out their heinous aims. I suggest you learn to separate ethical judgment from ethical action, because in the first instance it is important to show others why you reached your conclusions. In the second, you are called upon to demonstrate how strongly you believe those conclusions.

Until Now I have had no reason to find a label myself or my worldview. I don't know, perhaps I felt cool, not conforming to labels and I didn't want to put myself out there open for criticism. The more I talk to you guys though the more understanding I get not just about what others think but what I think as well. This is the problem I have with Joey, I don't think he has a good enough understanding of what Humanism even is. I don't think he has a good understanding of any moral system or world view outside of his own, and that is a criticism I have already shared with him. He is just reenforcing my belief that he is clueless about what it really is about. I didn't have the answers to that myself though, and I never knew if Humanism would fit me as a pretty good approximation of my belief system. But I found a video discussing Secular Humanism, And I found that I vastly agree with all the main points it has.

KTR if you could inform me more about Reasonism I would like to read some more about it too. I think Reasonism would include these major points too, but also extend it to other conscious life if we were ever to encounter it, but then again I think Secular Humanism would do the same. If it didn't I would drop that label anyway.

Here is what the video was talking about. If you believe these Points your views line up rather well with Secular Humanism:

You try to live an ethical and fulfilling life without religious belief.
You think science and reason lead to more reliable knowledge then faith.
You support secular government and an open society that guarentees human rights for all.
You make sense of the world using reason, experience and shared human values.
You see no convincing evidence for Gods, the supernatural, or life after death.
You believe that moral values are properly founded in human empathy, and scientific understanding.
And Finally you must live this life on the basis that it is the only life we'll have, that therefore we must make the most of it for ourselves, eachother and our world.

[BigIdeaSeeker]

The problem for the humanist position though is that Hitler was also a human(technically.) So if humanists are concerned for "all humans," then they have to be concerned about him too... If they [aren't], then like you say, they are no longer humanists by definition. The self-contradicting trap they fall into is that they cannot fault other groups for claiming moral superiority without claiming their own version of it.

*NOTE: one of the members of a Christian apologetics group I attend (yes, I'm the token atheist) is the author of several books on evolution and Hitler (as in the one leads to the other). Thus, I found Joey's response offensive as well as ridiculous. So long as there are Christians who actually believe such naive thoughts this conversation will go nowhere. Same goes for the other side (atheists saying Hitler was motivated by religion). [Note: Joey, if you are not familiar with Martin Luther's pamphlet 'On the Jews and their Lies' please look it up.]

No, Joey, it isn't "the problem for the humanist position," but it would certainly be simpler for you if it was. After listening to this episode I was hopeful that you would actually listen to the other side a bit. So you posed the idea that atheism, a mere statement of disbelief in god, was divided into denominations- that could be cleared up. I thought it interesting that you specialize in the moral argument because that is what got me to leave Christianity after 25 years to become an atheist. I was interested to hear what you'd have to say about morality (I was thinking it'd be more than 'atheists have no grounds for morals and borrow them from theism' or 'on atheism everything is permissible.' Maybe you'd even offer an explanation for god's immoral actions regarding children- stone 'em, burn 'em, sell 'em, enslave and rape 'em, maul 'em with wild animals [and no, I'm not bitter at god].)

However, after listening to your first three podcasts (thinkbetweenthelines), I'm not surprised to find this "humanism necessitates the be-nice-to-Hitler-club" business you've dished out. And you offer this tripe after all of your talk about atheists strawmanning you guys? Oh, the double irony!: 1) You have put forth a most ridiculous and shameful (yet you know not to feel shame) strawman of humanism here. 2) You spend so much time in your first podcasts explaining that there are so many views, interpretations, hermaneutical methods and so on in Christendom that it is clear that an atheist can say virtually anything and still accurately represent some Christian belief somewhere. And to all the befuddled diversity of Christian thought you clarify only by effectively saying, "whatever you believe, there's one interpretation or another out there to ease your doubt." it's difficult to strawman so nebulous a thing(s) as Christianity.

Nevertheless, I must say most of the serious atheists I know care enough about getting at truth that they take care to determine which kind of Christian they are talking to ("Let's see, are you the Ken Ham crazy literalist, the I-can't-tell-what-you-really-believe-philosophical-type-who-really-might-as-well-just-call-himself-a-deist, and so on). Honestly, after your podcast, I can't tell what you guys are about. One of you is an inerrantist, yet you claim to be rational/philosophical, non-literalist regarding genesis, yet still making the gross funny error of saying, "humanists MUST love Hitler." And yet as frustrated as I am (it's been a loooong time and I even attend monthly Reasonable Faith chapter meetings) I will most likely listen to the rest of your podcasts to better understand you lot. Incidentally, the Christians I interact with regularly would look at you guys as heretics.

How about hypocrisy? 1) In your podcast (thinking...) concerning which scriptures should be taken literally, you make the point that it takes some wrestling and methodology (some work). 2) Yet concerning humanist thinking (and I assume morality for an atheist), you simply state, "Humanists are bound to being nice to Hitler." GOOD GRIEF.

Look, simply stated, humanism in practice and the defining of morals without divine prescriptions takes work. For you guys to just say, "Humanism/atheist morals has to be..." shows an incredible lack of imagination and a hard-closed ear to the atheists you are rubbing shoulders with. My recommendation is that you stop reading Christian authors for awhile. Summer of 2010 I did just that. I read Strobel, Craig, Turek, etc. Then I read atheist and secularist counter-arguments. Then christian counter-counter-arguments. Back and forth, back and forth, like that (I'm a teacher with summers off, so I had a lot of time to devote to this). Gradually I saw how the Christian perspective was so narrow (necessarily to maintain cohesion) and misrepresentational of the other side (sure, misrepresentation happens on both sides, but I assure you [and I was a Moody Bible Institute theology student, so I know what I'm talking about] it's far more severe on the Christian side). I finally realized everything I believed and had been told about the nihilistic world of the atheist was not true. It's quite sunny and bright over here, though admittedly I have fewer friends since I don't know any atheists where I live and some Christians would no longer have me as a friend.

Did I want to lose my faith? No, I wanted answers to questions. I was interested in truth. Now there may be some god out there (agnostic toward deism), but I have no reason to believe in Bible-god and many reasons not to. Family, friends, and church-centered social construct is difficult to overcome, but if truth is more important try to look for honest perspectives of the other side. Otherwise, you're wasting everyone's time.

Joey, it takes a little work to sort it out. Please rise above the level of podcasters like evidence4faith (look 'em up on iTunes and listen for a good example of how NOT to do a Christian podcast- I gave up on them after i called in once, but I actually still have hope for you).

I'm hoping you can see how the "concern for humans" isn't some kind of bind coat of paint to be rolled over ever circumstance equally (yet you theists do that often-- why is that?)

I don't want to build a strawman for these guys, but regarding the Christians I know, it's because it's easier. Very little thinking is required. If everything can be stated in absolute blanket terms it's very simple and safe. Romans 1 says that we atheists abandoned [pursuit of] the truth for immorality and many of my Christian friends believe it. Yet I spend more time in pursuit of truth daily than I ever have and, being bound by no dogmatic constraints, I can look for it wherever the path leads me. What a marvelous ride it's turned out to be.

[Keep The Reason]

This is the problem I have with Joey, I don't think he has a good enough understanding of what Humanism even is. I don't think he has a good understanding of any moral system or world view outside of his own, and that is a criticism I have already shared with him. He is just reenforcing my belief that he is clueless about what it really is about.

Oh. I don't think it's that. I think they know exactly what humanism / atheism / reason and faith are all about-- these are clearly intelligent, well read, and articulate people. But I think they are in league with their belief systems and will not move an inch from them or be persuaded. I think they do what they do in order to retain their god beliefs, which they feel compelled to do at any and all costs. It's precisely these moments when one of us happens to be lucky enough to pull the curtain back and expose their true feelings. It takes time, and luck, but it is a consistent pattern.

There's agenda here. I readily admit mine, but theists are less so inclined (at least here, where they'd be taken to task for simply preaching, which is the underlying agenda for many, if not most, devoted Christians.)

DM, I'll put together some links for you after the holiday weekend.

Oh, and happy 2012 peeps.

[Brad]

Drone,
Absolutely great queries and post - welcome and please post more!
I'll not try to answer for Emery, although I think I have a sense of what he was getting at in the podcast. I agree that his remarks were odd and confusing.

HEY EMERY! I hope you don't miss "new recruit" Drone's excellent queries. Definitely worth a response - in your copious spare time, of course.

KTR,
IMHO, your definition of humanism on the previous thread page was quite good.

A quick scan of the discussion above made me think of this book review of Less Than Human, Why We Demean, Enslave, and Exterminate Others, which not coincidentally, was in The Humanist magazine.

May 2012 bring good things to all.
For those of you expecting to be raptured in the coming year, may I have your cars?

[yjoeyh]

Evolution works only based on a balance of competition and cooperation. Too far on either side, and the imbalance creates an unsustainable dynamic that will seek to level out. For a purposely simplistic example, lets say a lion decides to eat every gazelle in site, all at once. It is stronger than gazelles, and thus succeeds. Now there are no gazelles. The lion starves and dies.

But you have to consider from Hitler's point of view, he was in the balanced middle, and people like you and me were too far to one side or the other. To borrow from your excellent analogy (which actually shows a very good point for humanism - I'm granting you that) Hitler saw himself much like a lion, stronger, and more evolved, and saw these other groups, not even really like gazelles, which would have been a valuable resource to him to be managed, but a pestilence (like AIDS perhaps) that needed to be eradicated. And just like you said earlier, that's how you and I view him. So for a humanist to say that he wasn't really being a humanist, even though he does exactly what is in line with humanism... it becomes nothing more than a no-true-scottsman argument.

In fact, look at how we dealt with other such humans. In terms of the European theater, we brought them to trial and applied justice to them -- not because we were hungry for power, but because we needed to bring the balance back into play.

I disagree. It's very much about a hunger for power, as much as it was based on our opinion that we "needed to bring the balance back into play." We were desperate to enforce our own propaganda against an ideology that naturally resulted in so much depravity. We were hungry for the power over such ways of thinking. I know we don't like to characterize it that way, but that's exactly what it is. There's no difference in the motivations, the determination, or the actions. The ONLY difference is that we are right and they were wrong.

Concern for humans doesn't mean ignoring injustice.

I totally agree. Sounds like a pretty good theodicy to me.

Hitler ordering the murder of millions is an out of whack balance. Condemning him for advocating the murder of countless Jewish children, or people who have done nothing except be born is not out of any balance. Those murdered did nothing but be born. I'm hoping you can see how the "concern for humans" isn't some kind of bind coat of paint to be rolled over ever circumstance equally

I agree. You and I are clearly morally superior to him. We see that and we understand that, but he didn't.

(yet you theists do that often-- why is that?)

When have I done that?

[Brad]

P.S.

Joey,
Regarding Hitler, yes, he was indeed a human being, although obviously a very sick and vicious and delusional human being. Isn't the important question "how did Hitler become so vicious and how did he persuade so many other people to follow him?" Also, "how can we best reduce the chances of similar tragedies occurring in the future? Those are certainly the questions humanists ask, and we want serious, productive, evidence based answers, too.

Needless to say, we all realize immediately that a complete answer to those questions have many facets. Christians and religious Jews like to tell each other that "dat ol' debbil" Satan was at work. But there's no evidence for that other than insistent beliefs that it were so. On the other hand, a good deal of actual, verifiable evidence explaining how Hitler and the Nazis came to be the way they were points to belief in another supernatural being, both by Hitler and his minions and by the people who taught them their values. Here's a little hint:

[Drone]

Brad, I'm interested in the intersection between Humanism, Secularism and Rationalism.

You try to live an ethical and fulfilling life without religious belief.
You think science and reason lead to more reliable knowledge then faith.
You support secular government and an open society that guarentees human rights for all.
You make sense of the world using reason, experience and shared human values.
You see no convincing evidence for Gods, the supernatural, or life after death.
You believe that moral values are properly founded in human empathy, and scientific understanding.
And Finally you must live this life on the basis that it is the only life we'll have, that therefore we must make the most of it for ourselves, eachother and our world.

The definitions that I'm familiar with would break those statements up between the three categories like this:
RATIONALISM:
You think science and reason lead to more reliable knowledge then faith.
You make sense of the world using reason, experience and shared human values.
You see no convincing evidence for gods, the supernatural, or life after death.

SECULARISM:
You support secular government and an open society that guarentees human rights for all.

HUMANISM:
You believe that moral values are properly founded in human empathy, and scientific understanding.
You try to live an ethical and fulfilling life without religious belief.
And finally you must live this life on the basis that it is the only life we'll have, that therefore we must make the most of it for ourselves, each other and our world.

Is my way of looking at this out of date? Has Humanism come to encompass the other categories by default? It might be that you believe that Rationalism leads quite naturally to Humanism and Secularism?

And what is Reasonism, by the way? I can't quite figure out how it's not just Rationalism for the 21st century.

[mitchellmckain]

The definitions that I'm familiar with would break those statements up between the three categories like this:
RATIONALISM:
You think science and reason lead to more reliable knowledge then faith.
You make sense of the world using reason, experience and shared human values.
You see no convincing evidence for gods, the supernatural, or life after death.

SECULARISM:
You support secular government and an open society that guarentees human rights for all.

HUMANISM:
You believe that moral values are properly founded in human empathy, and scientific understanding.
You try to live an ethical and fulfilling life without religious belief.
And finally you must live this life on the basis that it is the only life we'll have, that therefore we must make the most of it for ourselves, each other and our world.

Is my way of looking at this out of date? Has Humanism come to encompass the other categories by default? It might be that you believe that Rationalism leads quite naturally to Humanism and Secularism?

And what is Reasonism, by the way? I can't quite figure out how it's not just Rationalism for the 21st century.

The problem is your definiton of "rationalism", which really comes out of left field and has nothing to do with any definition I have ever heard. Maybe you can try to substantiate this definition and explain where you come by it. I think it highly likely that those who are using this term "reasonism" are doing so because they are more informed than you are and thus they seek to invent a word for what you have been incorrectly using the word "rationalism" for, more or less.

The usage I am familiar with is the epistemological one which refers to seeking the truth by the means of reason - and since that is so broad as to be practically useless - it typically is used to refer to seeking the truth by means of reason alone, the classic example of which was Descarte's "I think therefore I am". Many such as myself begin their philosophical endeavors from such an approach but then find that it fails so badly that they realize that the whole idea is completely misguided. Reason is ultimately only a mathematical equation that takes from premises to conclusions, and as we start examining where our premises come from we realize that the largest part of our use of reason is rationalization, which goes in the opposite direction to look for the more general premises from which our conclusions can be derived. Some people adopt the fallacious argument that this is an illegitimate use of reason and thus use the word "rationalization" pejoratively, which fails to understand why this is in fact the principle thing we use reason for in the first place. The reason why we look for the more general premises from which our conclusions can be derived is because this weaves our beliefs into a logically consistent picture and allows us to see further by means of reason to new conclusions.


As for where I stand in the spectrum you seek to describe, I am a secularist, though I would expand the definiton somewhat to say that it means that the rule of government in a free society must seek limit itself, as far as possible, to what can be established objectively (which is to say scientifically), and leaving the rest to our freedom to make our own choices individually as long as they do not interfere in those of others. As for what you incorrectly use the word "rationalism" for, I think it is seriously flawed and in practice cannot amount to anything more than delusionally fabricating excuses for superiority of ones own subjective opinions and choices over those of others and thus it is not very compatable with the ideals of secularism the whole point of which is tolerance. As for humanism the problem is as I have previously addressed a matter of defining what the word "human" refers to, and if you simply presume a genetic definition then I see little difference from the "humanism" of Hitler, whose main art was the deception of politics and rhetoric, by which he used many ideas not because he believed in them but because they gave him power over others.

[Keep The Reason]

But you have to consider from Hitler's point of view, he was in the balanced middle, and people like you and me were too far to one side or the other. To borrow from your excellent analogy (which actually shows a very good point for humanism - I'm granting you that) Hitler saw himself much like a lion, stronger, and more evolved, and saw these other groups, not even really like gazelles, which would have been a valuable resource to him to be managed, but a pestilence (like AIDS perhaps) that needed to be eradicated. And just like you said earlier, that's how you and I view him. So for a humanist to say that he wasn't really being a humanist, even though he does exactly what is in line with humanism... it becomes nothing more than a no-true-scottsman argument.

In response to Hitler's throwing down that gauntlet of no true scotsman against the Jews and others.

Hitter applied that argument first by insisting the people he didn't like we're no-true-humans. And so he murdered them. In response, the rest of the pride/herd/tribe were forced to stop the renegade. Remember, that lion eating all the gazelles creates starvation for any and all other gazelles. We don't have to kill a Hitler, but we do have to stop one if others have to survive. It's very simple, and obvious actually.

Oh, snd a claim to theism doesn't change it either. Plenty of "lion" Christians, like Richard The Lion, who believed quite a bit in looking at Muslims as gazelles.

I disagree. It's very much about a hunger for power, as much as it was based on our opinion that we "needed to bring the balance back into play." We were desperate to enforce our own propaganda against an ideology that naturally resulted in so much depravity. We were hungry for the power over such ways of thinking. I know we don't like to characterize it that way, but that's exactly what it is. There's no difference in the motivations, the determination, or the actions. The ONLY difference is that we are right and they were wrong.

Pretty big deciding factor, no?

Of course humans can and often will be corrupt. I see that as part of our maturation process. You see it as an eternal flaw that needs some outside influence to correct it. Yours is a nihilists viewpoint. At its core, humans are helpless evil engines, who can only overcome their weaknesses by a magical process. And yes, i know you dont see it as "magical" but in the end, thats what it is. I think that's a self-defeating and nihilist worldview. I have a better opinion of humanity than do you.

By the way, Emery missed this point when Glen argued that overcoming ones weaknesses changes us out of our humanity. Poppycock. Humanity matures just like individuals mature. I was a human when I was a helpless infant and couldn't control my biological functions, and I'm a human now that I have grown up and can control them. Maturing isn't changing into something completely other, it's learning and gaining different degrees of skills as to ones interactions with existence.

I agree. You and I are clearly morally superior to him. We see that and we understand that, but he didn't.

So it's our duty to sop him. Not kill him necessarily, but merely stop him.

When have I done that?

Right here, in this threa. I'll address it later-- gotta go.

[BigIdeaSeeker]

Joey,

Needless to say, we all realize immediately that a complete answer to those questions have many facets... On the other hand, a good deal of actual, verifiable evidence explaining how Hitler and the Nazis came to be the way they were points to belief in another supernatural being, both by Hitler and his minions and by the people who taught them their values.

I'll add to the verifiable evidence in this case:

Section XI of the treatise advises Christians to carry out seven remedial actions. These are
(1) for Jewish synagogues and schools to be burned to the ground, and the remnants buried out of sight;
(2) for houses owned by Jews to be likewise razed, and the owners made to live in agricultural outbuildings;
(3) for their religious writings to be taken away;
(4) for rabbis to be forbidden to preach, and to be executed if they do;
(5) for safe conduct on the roads to be abolished for Jews;
(6) for usury to be prohibited, and for all silver and gold to be removed and "put aside for safekeeping"; and
(7) for the Jewish population to be put to work as agricultural slave labor.

You will note how closely these suggestions outline Hitler's course of action. But is there a connection between Luther and Hitler really? Bishop Martin Sasse, a Protestant churchman, shortly after Kristallnacht connected this document with that horrific night in a compendium of Luther's writings.

Sasse "applauded the burning of the synagogues and the coincidence of the day, writing in the introduction, "On November 10, 1938, on Luther's birthday, the synagogues are burning in Germany." The German people, he urged, ought to heed these words "of the greatest antisemite of his time, the warner of his people against the Jews."

Thus, Hitler believed in a biblical god and used his and Martin Luther's interpretations of biblical prescripts to not only justify, but motivate his actions. Again and again god has made it clear that some groups of people are not as valuable as others. Where does an actual (not a misinformed Christian concept of) humanist philosophy suggest the same actions that Numbers 31 does?

To take it one step further, Martin Luther called for Deuteronomy 13-like consequences (stoning for enticing a believer to follow a different god) for Jews who did not convert to Christianity. Note that the same Deut 13 execution would apply to atheists as well.

Could such Hitleresque actions take place again by religious justification? All you have to do is look at some popularly-followed conservative Christian groups with HUGE followings (many examples can be found on YouTube) and see how readily they suggest bringing back laws against blasphemy (American Family Association, perhaps?). And all the while the atheists/homosexuals/muslims are made to be the bad guys, thus justifying such actions. Now can you find some humanist prescriptions for the death of other human beings?

Now honestly, is this how we want to play this game? I truly don't hold to these points I've made except inasmuch as you keep sticking to your toy guns. The conversation has not been helped at all through this ridiculous Hitler talk. Let's not stoke the flames of contention. I suggest both sides admit Hitler arguments help neither side except In getting us to ask, as Brad suggested,

"how did Hitler become so vicious and how did he persuade so many other people to follow him?" Also, "how can we best reduce the chances of similar tragedies occurring in the future?

The more we understand and, yes, tolerate one another, the closer we are to answering the second question.

[yjoeyh]

Hey BIS! Thanks for the post. I'm trying to keep up so I apologize if my response is somewhat brief.

And you offer this tripe after all of your talk about atheists strawmanning you guys? Oh, the double irony!

Actually if you reread my posts on this topic, you will see that I have been very careful to make my point without making any strawmen arguments. As much as I would like to give some people a taste of their own medicine, it would be even worse for me to do it to them because I see the problem with it, and they apparently don't see it yet. I'm glad you seem to have picked up on my point anyway which was that if I were to use these kinds of 'logical conclusions' as an argument against humanism, then I would very much have been making a straw man argument. I'm also glad you make the comparisons to the arguments against Christianity, and spotted the irony. (by the way, you cross the exact line of making a straw man when you say that I said that "Humanists are bound to being nice to Hitler.")

My recommendation is that you stop reading Christian authors for awhile.

Ironically, Bible aside, I probably do spend more time reading Atheist authors these days than Christian ones. Bart Ehrman is still one of my favorites.

I finally realized everything I believed and had been told about the nihilistic world of the atheist was not true.

Yeah I get that, and I agree with your sentiment. I came to a similar realization several years back (about the time I discovered this podcast.) Not only do I no longer think of Atheists as evil and foolish, but as delightful people and an integrally important part of my life as a Christian.

It's quite sunny and bright over here, though admittedly I have fewer friends since I don't know any atheists where I live and some Christians would no longer have me as a friend.

That's very unfortunate. Sorry you had that experience. Ironically, I would love to have more Atheist friends, but they are difficult to find in this area for some reason.

Joey, it takes a little work to sort it out. Please rise above the level of podcasters like evidence4faith (look 'em up on iTunes and listen for a good example of how NOT to do a Christian podcast- I gave up on them after i called in once, but I actually still have hope for you).

Not familiar with them, but I will check it out for context. Thanks for holding out some hope for us!


How long have you been doing the Reasonable Faith chapter? We don't have one of them yet here in Nashville and we've actually looked into starting one. What's your experience with the quality of the material (content aside of course?)

[yjoeyh]

I have a better opinion of humanity than do you.

Well, I will say that you have an opinion of a better humanity than I do. That's for sure. But a better opinion is a more accurate one, not a more idealized one. I don't see a good reason to embrace yours.

Sorry to quote and run.. but I gotta take off too. I'll follow up more later.


Happy New Year!