philosophy, violence, pacifismBefore you answer, I’d like you to read this:
http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/ProblemWithPacifism.HTM
There are at least three societies when it comes to studying the treatment of atheists:
Sweden. People generally don’t care whether you are one or not.
US. Atheism is growing (at least measured indirectly) but atheists are treated scornfully, and since the fundagelism is gaining at the same time (less theists, but the ones that exist, are increasingly more virulent), politicians either distance themselves with a token acknowledgment or condemn it, but never really support it in the slightest. Society prefers atheists to remain rather closeted.
Saudi Arabia. Atheism is a crime. Atheist are dealt with violently, and society prefers that they do not exist.
Given that under 3., your only option is to remain closeted and die the only life you have, as a lie, why shouldn’t violence be considered? The worst that happens to you is that you die. After physical torture. But if you fight, generations down the road may benefit just like blacks do in the US after the Civil war violence over slavery.
No war has been won by one side offering non-violence in response to violence.
But what if trends reverse? Fundagelicals get to dictate how atheists should live, incrementally. The moderate majority goes with it, and soon you find yourself empathizing with the Saudi atheist. An atheist car is vandalized, another’s home set on fire, a couple beaten up, etc. with increasing frequency. Is there some point you’d resort to violence? What if you cannot move to Sweden?
Ask yourself if the Jews that survived the Holocaust would have survived if Hitler’s violence was met with pacifism (or anything other than violence)? Ask yourself if the death toll would have been different if there was more violent resistance, early on?
Note:
I did not advocate violence (here), nor did I specify how much or how little violence is justified. I asked for your considered view point. Admittedly, I did lean towards one answer more than the other in my presentation.
Violence does not always succeed. Yes, I know this. So unless you are making the case that violence always fails, please save yourself the trouble.
If you are unclear about what a word means, please feel free to assume that it is the primary or secondary meaning listed in Merriam Webster’s
I am assuming that this is the only life you have.
I think violence is always justified in defense of self, in defense of others, and in defense of liberty. Defending lives is obvious, freedom from oppression only slightly less so.
The caveat is that violence comes with heavy consequences, so you had better be prepared to bear them.
To answer the more specific question, “Would I fight and die for atheism?” the answer is “No.” It’s a negative belief. I’m not going to die because I don’t believe in god. Let the theists die for god. I don’t see this huge trend of anti-atheist sentiment in the US, but should such a thing occur, I wouldn’t fight because I’m an atheist, I’d fight because I’m not going to be enslaved for any reason.
Edit:
I’d certainly be leery of grabbing my guns and running to the rescue of a bunch of evangelical atheists. My first duty is obviously to myself and my family, and spreads out from there to friends, countrymen, other humans, fuzzy animals*, etc.
However given a concerted effort to round up people and put them in camps because of their beliefs**, I’d definitely do what I could, up to and including violence, and I’d start doing it at the early “Here wear this on your clothes” stage.
*Yea, PETAphiles, people before animals.
**As long as their beliefs weren’t crazy. i.e. If a bunch of atheists wanted to kill all religious people, and got rounded into camps, I’d be okay with that.
This is big issue. Response penned quickly, and I will modify as needed/requested/challenged:
Clearly any group that can articulate a right to exist, can also articulate a right to self-defense/violence in pursuit of that right. It is essentially the question, “Am I OK with being intolerant of the intolerant… and if so, why should I have to wait and only defend myself from them?” (As I re-read this, I want to TOTALLY separate myself from any suggestion that this is the same idea as “The Bush Doctrine” of pre-emptive attacks against anyone we think might be a danger to us. I despise that policy/philosophy.)
If my only choice is to die or be closeted at the hands of the intolerant, then standing up and fighting back is essential. Should violence be the first choice? Ideally, no. In every movement there are those who stand in the face of oppression and are killed. Harvey Milk (Gay rights in America) MLK (Civil Rights in America) The guy in Tiananmen Square facing the tank, in 1989. (Democratic rights in China) These movements had different outcomes, but I would argue were driven by the willingness of someone to stand and fight, even if it meant being killed. Change can only be achieved by standing up..
From there, the ability to garner a sufficient “mass” of people to fight back with you (verbally, or violently) seems to be essential to ending suppression. The old joke goes, “What’s the difference between a cult and a religion? – About a million members.” Look at Mormonism and/or Scientology… build a big enough following, or hire enough lawyers, and you can eventually beat back the people attacking you.
Bullies will trample down a minority until they feel there is a risk to themselves because the minority has grown.
In my opinion, the only way to avoid violence here is to cultivate a MAJORITY belief in the simple idea that a society MUST protect its minorities from discrimination. Absent that, the minority has no hope of gaining survival other than growing big enough and mean enough to fight off the inevitable attacks from the majority. If the society doesn’t have critical mass in support of minority protection, then violence from the minority seems like a viable/effective/necessary option.
Yes, for non-pacifist atheists.
Atheism and pacifism/violence are not mutually exclusive and neither necessarily implies the other. There are pacifist atheists and violent atheists just like there are pacifist and violent theists. It is important to realise that atheism doesn’t require any philosophical or moral viewpoint other than the lack of belief in any deities.
Personally I am a pacifist, but that has very little to do with me being an atheist.
Regarding your question about jews in WWII - are you unaware of the non-violent response to Hitler in Denmark, Bulgaria, Hungary, south France, Switzerland? Many jews were saved there, and Hitler was slowed down via non-violent resistance.
Pacifism does not always succeed. Yes, I know this. So unless you are making the case that pacifism always fails, please save yourself the trouble.
Talk about being unclear what a word means… The link you posted does not understand the meaning of the word “violence” as proved by the bizarre pronouncements “there is no such thing as non-violent crime” and “certainly nobody who uses drugs can claim to be non-violent”. Fine, if you are going to completely strip words of their usual meaning, you can say whatever you like.
Have you ever considered that stepping on a cock roach is actually quite violent? Unless you put real effort into the initial ‘stomp’, it is going to suffer a bit as every organ in its body explodes, similar to you or I being put in a hydraulic press.
Would I kill one in my home? Perhaps, if I could not find a way to simply escort it outside.
Would I attack someone who invaded my home? Perhaps, if I could not find a way to simply escort them outside.
Something very interesting just happened in the last two sentences. In the first one, I objectified something because yes, I’m quite sure that I would win in an encounter. In the second sentence, I’m not so sure. I think that people are more inclined to commit violent acts that offer a high probability of ‘success’.
I don’t think religion (or lack thereof) is a guiding force when fight or flight syndrome sets in, at least for most people that are taken by surprise when it happens. I think what counts is simply intelligence.
Atheists are quite often critical thinkers. You would be hard pressed to find a critical thinker who asserts that resisting a robbery is a good idea. When knowledge and experience fail you, however, your reaction is quite surely going to be undefined.
Besides, as I stated initially, most of us commit very violent acts on a rather frequent basis without thinking much about it.
Given that atheists are not guided by their non-beliefs, then there is no fixed atheist related set of values. So the answer to your question is: non-violent atheists reject violence as an alternative, other atheists have different opinions.
Note that this doesn’t say anything about atheists: you can also say that theists are equally not guided by their beliefs and, although there is a theologically fixed set of values, individuals only respond to their own morals (e.g. there are gay christians, etc.)
All content is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.