TurnRightThenLeft,

Yes, you are probably correct. But the argument comes down to what constitutes good and bad people. The instances of atrocity in the 20th Century had many of their starting positions from cultures guided by religious principles. I think the corollary of this is that if people are primed to accept on faith simplistic ideas, then there is always the danger that someone will manipulate those ideas for their own ends. This appears to be the case with Hitler and Stalin and their rise to dictatorial power. I know it was a lot more complex than this, but if we look at a hypothetical case in Australia for example, it becomes a little clearer.

Just imagine for a moment, that fundamentalist Christianity is actually dominant in numbers and therefore power. Some respected individual in their ranks comes along and blames the ills of the country on homosexual people. God’s punishment etc. Now most of these people would not be intrinsically bad people but an agreement would not be hard to reach that, yes, it is god’s punishment that we are in such a mess. (Pick your own mess)

It is easy to see how undemocratic laws could be passed to accommodate this purposed fervour. Once a nation takes that first vital step, tyranny and its old mate genocide is not far away.

It is extremely difficult to imagine that Atheists would behave in the same way. Atheists are Atheists because they see no evidence for supernatural phenomena. They are hardly likely, especially without proper evidence, to take any kind of political action, which leads to dictatorship. Vilifying certain groups would not work as a precursor.

Is the so named extremist, fundamentalist, militant Richard Dawkins chaffing at the bit to ostracise or kill Christians for any reason one can think of? Would David Nicholls or any of the Western educated Atheists known about be a part of such a system? Does anyone really believe that we would create gulags and death camps and throw people out of jobs and country? If so, where is the evidence?

David

<< But on further consideration, I couldn't help but acknowledge many political movements that based their arguments on faith in a set of principles, which ultimately ended up doing evil. >>

I would argue, TRTL, that humans always want to take the easy path of giving in to aggression and prejudice rather than dealing with the frustration of exercising tolerance and restraint.

But in order to do that with a clear conscience, we need the permission of a higher authority, such as god, the Socialist ideal, or patriotism. That way we can be aggressive, exclusive and violent while telling ourselves that it's justified and for the greater good.

Comparing atheist vs theist bodycounts is pointless, because if you file the serial numbers off, all genocides share the same features.

As you say, "it's uncritical, unquestioning 'faith' that leads good men to do evil things."

However, I don't see that any solution can be found in a continual politics of suspicion re: objective norms for morality and for society either. If you jettison the teachings of the Catholic Faith, (which actually and in reality began the system of having, and invented the DEVIL'S ADVOCATE), you are left witht eh tyrnanny of relativism. That is what we have today- relativism and its child- political correctness whcih even non-religious people get annoyed with.

William of Young,

Absolutism or relativism is a false dichotomy. Normative ethics contains within its framework of Natural Rights theories (One proponent being Thomas Aquinas), Utilitarianism and Consequentialism etc. Too detailed for here but look them up.

What they really are saying is a compilation of: that all actions have consequences to which we must take heed, limit suffering and incorporate the Golden Rule.

One does not need a university education to understand that these result from evolutionary propensities anyway. They evolved in thought, as Moral Absolutism of religion (Not only or necessarily Catholic) depended on Biblical injunction. (Supporting slavery – in opposition to homosexual acts – second class status of women etc)

But the main point is, is it better for a population to adhere to words in ancient writings and that depends on which writings and their interpretation, or is it better for society to think through problems using the best current advice possible.

David

Hmmmm seems that the air here is getting a bit thick :)

*Time to clear it*

TRTL..you said: <<The key point here, is that it's uncritical, unquestioning 'faith' that leads good men to do evil things.>>

Rather than do my usual 'setting my self up as a teacher' thingy :) which you love to hate.... let me raise a question about that statement of yours.

If.....the set of ideas in which the person has that uncritical faith includes just 2 maxims

1/ "Love your neighbour as yourself"
2/ "Love all animals and care for them"

Of course it's a hypothetical...but can you honestly see anyone becoming a Pol Pot or a Stalin if those 2 points were the sum total of their belief system?

But if a beliefs system includes such things as "Fight those who don't believe our way" :) errr then surely you see where this is going right?

THEN....are you not able to extrapolate from that... into an examination of particular faith/belief systems and evaluate them along these lines?

My obvious choices would be say Islam and Christianity, but you could try Buddhism or Sikhism or Zoroastrianism or Bahaim, or Mormonism, Jehovah's witnesses.

I mean...they are not all the same.. and the differences do have significance no?

Shouldn't your assertion be better put "Uncritical faith in obviously dangerous ideas leads good men to do evil" ?

David
Absolutism or relativism is a not a false dichotomy. You either are a person who accepts or rejects the fact that there is an objective moral order that can be found both in terms of our very nature as human beings eg thou shalt not steal and thou shalt not kill and all of the others that constitute the ten commandments. Further, Divine Revelation has revealed them to all of us. Christ expanded there meaning for example He said "for you ahve heard it said..." in relation to each of the commandments and in the case of lust/adultery expands the commandment on not coveting another man's wife by saying" if you look at a woman lustfully you have committed adultery with her in your heart".

No one has ever said that you need a university degree to understand these things. David, you have falsely juxtoposed slavery with homosexual acts and the treatment of women. The failings of Christians in the ares of say slavery or treatment fo women are related to local customs NOT to Catholic beleifs. This is where your argument falls down due to your prejudice against Christ and His Church.
Slavery and ill treatment towards women still exist and it is NOT the Church that promotes these evils. Look at economic slavery today by you pagans. And look at the worldwide slavery of women who are are prostituted. Once again by you pagans.