This is what happens ‘if there is no God’
very good article! I love how he quoted so many early Americans.
very good article! I love how he quoted so many early Americans.
This is what happens if there is no God.
- Thread starter Devonmcknight68
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I have a couple of issues with this article. The author reveals himself to believe that Machiavelli is the epitome of an immoral political mind -- which, if we take the Prince as a genuine representation of Machiavelli's beliefs, not as a satirization of theocracy, I'd tend to agree with. The writer also seems to think that this immorality stems directly from Machiavelli's lack of belief in God. That's a pretty huge logical jump to make and it's one the writer fails to substantiate in any way. He quotes the forefathers and reaches out to the Christian patriot in the audience but that's hardly proof of a premise.
In fact, the writer goes on to make a noose for his premises by the examples he uses to defend them. The story goes that Machiavelli, in witnessing the infighting and battling factions in Italy, most notably the Borgias, found a possible solution in the unification of Italy under one leader -- that's what the author takes from The Prince. It's an interpretation, and it isn't the only one, but for the sake of argument let's roll with it. The writer goes on to say that Machiavelli believed this unification could only be realized by utilizing the group of political strategems that we now term "Machiavellianism", which actually rather closely represent Hitlerist fascism in the methods they employ to bring a populace under a leader's thumb, if you know anything about Nazi Germany.
The problem with trying to use this position as a defense of a religious theocracy or at the very least as a defense of a religious-political society as opposed to an atheist one, which is essentially what the author is doing, is that the Borgias were a religious family (Catholics) who in fact used almost all of the Machievallian political stratagems to bring the Papal States under their control, whether or not they learned these from Machiavelli's works or not. Talk about irony! And they aren't the only example of this, nor are such religiously inspired theocracies only found in the past.
In fact, it's quite clear now in the mountain of commentaries and historical investigations surrounding Bush's presidency -- a presidency in which he frequently used God as justification for immoral behaviour and the violation of international treaties and wartime codes of conduct -- that Machievallianism is not a political strategy utilized solely by those who don't believe in God, at all.
But it's important for me to point out that what I am writing is not to be seen as an attack on religious societies, at least not solely. Atheist leaders are also guilty of using these same political tactics and of exerting a similar brand of brutality. Thereby it seems quite clear to me that the common denominator in oppressive and immoral regimes or societies is neither necissarily religion nor atheism, it is in fact the measure of force that a leader or group of leaders uses and the extent to which the populace engage in immoral acts respectively, which of course each society -- religious or not -- define differently. Oppression by its definition requires undue force, from the top down. One need be neither atheist nor religious in order to suffer or inflict such force and, in and of itself, considering oneself either atheist or religious does not necessarily predispose one to engaging in socially unacceptable behaviors.
But there is a fundamental difference between atheism and religion in terms of their social manifestations, that the author fails to explore. Whereas religion makes a direct contribution to the oppression within many historical religious theocracies by virtue of religion being an intrinsically top-down way of thinking, atheism in and of itself does not. By definition it cannot. Religion is defined most exhaustively as belief in or acknowledgement of a superhuman power or powers, which typically manifests in obedience, reverence and worship; such a belief as part of a system defining a code of living, especially as a means of attaining material or spiritual improvement. While atheism is defined as simply as disbelief or lack of belief in any God or gods. Therefore, atheism contains no specific codified rules by which one must live, nor does it demand or precede what one must or can do. The common moral counterargument to this is that an atheist's way of viewing the world is of total moral subjectivity, since atheism contains no codified or written moral obligations, thus atheism is intrinsically immoral since it by itself fails to actually define what morality is. However, numerous contemporary studies show that atheists, and particularly their children, are in fact on average considerably more empathetic and more compassionate than the religious. And what is social morality if not the outward manifestation of inner empathy; the product of a need for social cohesion; social conventions on the distinctions between right and wrong behaviours, stemming from a need for symbiosis, as a tool for survival? Communal necessities are why we demand moral protocols in the first place.
As for the central notion in the article -- religious societies are better off, morally, than atheistic ones -- that depends on the yardstick you use. If you define what's moral and what isn't by your specific doctrinal interpretation then certainly a society which covets the flavour of Christianity that you propagate is going to be by your own definition, more moral than one that doesn't, but such is a shaky basis on which to mount an argument. It's very close to being outright circular reasoning -- my beliefs are moral because they're the ones I believe to be moral. But I suppose it's only human to place the most value in the things you value the most. What's really interesting, though, is that if you take any free society on this planet -- America, the UK, Iceland, Finland -- the more people who identify as religious in that society, the higher the rate of violent crime, corruption, wealth inequality, poverty and social injustice. Very broadly speaking, I would define "immorality" as any act carried out under one of those five umbrella terms. Out of every democratic, free society, the one which has the least religious people per capita -- Iceland -- is actually the safest, the least corrupt, the least unequal, the least impoverished and the least socially unjust.
I find that very interesting, don't you?
In fact, the writer goes on to make a noose for his premises by the examples he uses to defend them. The story goes that Machiavelli, in witnessing the infighting and battling factions in Italy, most notably the Borgias, found a possible solution in the unification of Italy under one leader -- that's what the author takes from The Prince. It's an interpretation, and it isn't the only one, but for the sake of argument let's roll with it. The writer goes on to say that Machiavelli believed this unification could only be realized by utilizing the group of political strategems that we now term "Machiavellianism", which actually rather closely represent Hitlerist fascism in the methods they employ to bring a populace under a leader's thumb, if you know anything about Nazi Germany.
The problem with trying to use this position as a defense of a religious theocracy or at the very least as a defense of a religious-political society as opposed to an atheist one, which is essentially what the author is doing, is that the Borgias were a religious family (Catholics) who in fact used almost all of the Machievallian political stratagems to bring the Papal States under their control, whether or not they learned these from Machiavelli's works or not. Talk about irony! And they aren't the only example of this, nor are such religiously inspired theocracies only found in the past.
In fact, it's quite clear now in the mountain of commentaries and historical investigations surrounding Bush's presidency -- a presidency in which he frequently used God as justification for immoral behaviour and the violation of international treaties and wartime codes of conduct -- that Machievallianism is not a political strategy utilized solely by those who don't believe in God, at all.
But it's important for me to point out that what I am writing is not to be seen as an attack on religious societies, at least not solely. Atheist leaders are also guilty of using these same political tactics and of exerting a similar brand of brutality. Thereby it seems quite clear to me that the common denominator in oppressive and immoral regimes or societies is neither necissarily religion nor atheism, it is in fact the measure of force that a leader or group of leaders uses and the extent to which the populace engage in immoral acts respectively, which of course each society -- religious or not -- define differently. Oppression by its definition requires undue force, from the top down. One need be neither atheist nor religious in order to suffer or inflict such force and, in and of itself, considering oneself either atheist or religious does not necessarily predispose one to engaging in socially unacceptable behaviors.
But there is a fundamental difference between atheism and religion in terms of their social manifestations, that the author fails to explore. Whereas religion makes a direct contribution to the oppression within many historical religious theocracies by virtue of religion being an intrinsically top-down way of thinking, atheism in and of itself does not. By definition it cannot. Religion is defined most exhaustively as belief in or acknowledgement of a superhuman power or powers, which typically manifests in obedience, reverence and worship; such a belief as part of a system defining a code of living, especially as a means of attaining material or spiritual improvement. While atheism is defined as simply as disbelief or lack of belief in any God or gods. Therefore, atheism contains no specific codified rules by which one must live, nor does it demand or precede what one must or can do. The common moral counterargument to this is that an atheist's way of viewing the world is of total moral subjectivity, since atheism contains no codified or written moral obligations, thus atheism is intrinsically immoral since it by itself fails to actually define what morality is. However, numerous contemporary studies show that atheists, and particularly their children, are in fact on average considerably more empathetic and more compassionate than the religious. And what is social morality if not the outward manifestation of inner empathy; the product of a need for social cohesion; social conventions on the distinctions between right and wrong behaviours, stemming from a need for symbiosis, as a tool for survival? Communal necessities are why we demand moral protocols in the first place.
As for the central notion in the article -- religious societies are better off, morally, than atheistic ones -- that depends on the yardstick you use. If you define what's moral and what isn't by your specific doctrinal interpretation then certainly a society which covets the flavour of Christianity that you propagate is going to be by your own definition, more moral than one that doesn't, but such is a shaky basis on which to mount an argument. It's very close to being outright circular reasoning -- my beliefs are moral because they're the ones I believe to be moral. But I suppose it's only human to place the most value in the things you value the most. What's really interesting, though, is that if you take any free society on this planet -- America, the UK, Iceland, Finland -- the more people who identify as religious in that society, the higher the rate of violent crime, corruption, wealth inequality, poverty and social injustice. Very broadly speaking, I would define "immorality" as any act carried out under one of those five umbrella terms. Out of every democratic, free society, the one which has the least religious people per capita -- Iceland -- is actually the safest, the least corrupt, the least unequal, the least impoverished and the least socially unjust.
I find that very interesting, don't you?
It is interesting, but if there is a "religious" state, then there is humans governing it. Right there is the downfall, it doesn't have to do with morals or atheist or believers. Just the fact that a greedy, prideful, and self seeking human is in charge. We all fall short and so do our leaders. So down goes the society. If you were to imagine a place that acted on the biblical laws and every one obeyed them. (Lol I know it's way out there) then yes it will out run and be a much much more greater place to live then one governed by worldly atheistic views. But this will never be the case. But I would much rather live some where that has leaders who fear and follow Christ the lord.