An Atheist Responds Insufficiently to a Christian Apologist

So I stumbled upon an argument from Christian apologist Ravi Zacharias that I find very strange.  The claim was brought to my attention on an atheist social media group with a link to this soundbite.  The toughest question for an atheist to answer, he says at about 17:00, is where does our concept of good come from if not from God.  I could answer that quite simply.  Evolution of course.  Good and evil both result from higher reasoning abilities afforded us by our neo-cortex.  This part of the brain gives us the ability to think abstractly, which was an evolutionary adaptation, possibly passed down because it gave us better hunting ability, i.e.: we could see patterns and predict what our prey would do next.

Then I came across a post in the Atheist Experience blog (that $hit'$ trademarked $$$$$ btw) where the author was attempting to answer some of Zacharias' suggestions of what to ask an atheist.  His answers were wholly insufficient.

First there's this disgusting piece of anti-communist slander:

3. If people don’t believe in God, the historical results are horrific, so how do we deal with the regimes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot who saw religion as the problem and worked to eradicate it? Countless millions lost their lives under these godless regimes, regimes more influenced by Nietzsche’s concept of the ubermensch (superman) than they were by transcendent morality.

Once again, we have an implied argument that has nothing to do with the actual existence of god but rather on the purported benefits of believing that a god exists; if people stop believing in gods, bad things will happen, so don’t stop believing.

The assertion that atheism leads to horrifying atrocities is simply not true. It’s a vile, slanderous charge, rooted in ignorance and deception that isn’t the slightest bit softened by Zacharias’ stylish, questioning form.

In the case of the examples given, atheism is neither necessary nor sufficient to be identified as the cause of the actions taken. In truth, the atrocities were the result of belief systems which, while consistent with atheism, are not caused by atheism. You simply cannot draw a causal chain from “I do not believe a god exists” to “I’m going to destroy religious organizations and religious people” without an additional belief — and it is that belief that would be the cause of the atrocities.

To claim otherwise is to claim that atheism necessarily leads to horrifying acts (which is what he’s trying to do) and there are millions of secular people who testify to the false nature of that assertion every single day.

Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot took actions based on beliefs that are akin to religions. They were powerful zealots of socio-political ideologies and a belief that the opposition must be eliminated. To claim that those beliefs were caused by atheism is as much a non sequitur as claiming that they were caused by a stomach ache.

Hitler, on the other hand, gave conflicting reports about his beliefs. He publicly and privately identified as a Catholic, yet there’s also testimony that he was anti-religious or anti-Christian at times. If he had done great work, I suspect that the Christians would claim that he was opposed to organized religion, but a devoted, personal believer. Because of the atrocities he committed, they take a different tact, labeling him an atheist.

We can no more know Hitler’s true beliefs about the existence of gods than we can know the mind of any other. What we can know, though, is that even if he was an atheist, that wasn’t the cause of the actions he took. As Zacharias points out, it was the ideology of the Übermensch (among other beliefs) that encouraged those actions.

While that ideology is consistent with atheism (everything except for a belief in a god is consistent with atheism) it is not caused by atheism nor is it necessarily connected with atheism. It is not, though, consistent with modern secular humanism.

So he responds to "Why do atheists do bad things?" by saying that communism is like a religion and Hiter actually was religious, so ya know (also, I should mention that Pol Pot was not a communist, but that's a different discussion).  Of course, other than the remark about Hitler's religiosity, he makes no mention of all the atrocities that religious people have committed and ignores the strongest counter-argument, that atrocities are committed by religious and non-religious people.  He does allude to the concept that atrocious acts are the result of ruthless ideologies and the varying, subjective interpretations of those ideologies by those with power, but does not state it explicitly.

His next response is worse still.

4. If there is no God, the problems of evil and suffering are in no way solved, so where is the hope of redemption, or meaning for those who suffer? Suffering is just as tragic, if not more so, without God because there is no hope of it being rendered meaningful or transcendent, redemptive or redeemable, since no interventions in this life or reparations in an afterlife are possible. It might be true that there is no God to blame now, but neither is there a God to reach out to for strength, transcendent meaning, or comfort. There is only madness and confusion in the face of suffering and evil.

His claim is that suffering is just as tragic, if not more so, if there is no God. This is another roundabout way of saying, “Hey, you might as well believe, you’ll be no worse off” — another argument for belief with no ties to the truth of the proposition one is being asked to believe. It reminds me a bit of the people who try to claim that atheism is “just another religion” without realizing the implication of what they’ve just said.

I disagree with his assessment, though, that suffering is just as or more tragic if there is no god.

If there isn’t a god, then suffering isn’t the result of original sin or impious thoughts and it isn’t a test from God or a torment from demons and devils. If there is no god, then suffering is a natural part of reality and that means that we can equip ourselves to alleviate unnecessary suffering by learning more about reality. We can also take comfort in knowing that the unavoidable is actually unavoidable and not punishment.

If there is no god, then those who blame natural disasters on immodest women, abortionists, homosexuals and atheists are simply arrogant bigots and not the voice of a deity. That’s no small comfort and, since we’re talking about the impact of suffering, that’s a valid point.

We do not require a god for comfort, we can reach out to other people and we can reach within, to the confidence and security that is bolstered by the understanding that one is not simply a plaything of a transcendent being.

There is a big elephant in the room here.  In the soundbite posted in the first paragraph of this post Zacharias himself admits that evil and suffering are problems for theists, not atheists.  Why does a loving God allow suffering and evil?!?!?!  Suffering is certainly more tragic if you believe in a god, because that means God does not care about your suffering, or God is inflicting your suffering, or God is powerless to do anything about your suffering, in which case He may as well not exist anyway.  

I do like this part of the response: 

 If there is no god, then suffering is a natural part of reality and that means that we can equip ourselves to alleviate unnecessary suffering by learning more about reality.

...but again, it is an allusion to the strongest argument, and not an explicitly stated argument.  The reason Marxists (who adhere to the atheist philosophy of dialectical materialism) oppose religion is because it offers a supernatural reward in place of an earthly, material reward for good works.  We will insist that suffering would be more tragic if there was a God because that would mean we would have an all-powerful enemy: an omnipotent, omniscient creator who refuses to do anything to alleviate the atrocities of inequality, domination and war.  If God existed, it would be necessary to fight Him.  Luckily, He doesn't, and neither does the devil.  That leaves us to fend for ourselves, so if we want to abolish classes and poverty and mass incarceration and police brutality ad nauseum we'd better get to work.  We can't just pray and hope something will happen.

Democratic centralism (not libertarianism) will bring liberation

Those anarchists who call themselves communists (and I am among
them) are communist not because they want to impose their specific
way of seeing or believe that it is the only means of salvation, but
because they are convinced, and will remain so unless there is
evidence to the contrary, that the more men and women, united in
comradeship, and the closer their cooperation on behalf of all, the
greater will be the well-being and the freedom that everybody will
enjoy. They believe that even where people are freed from human
oppression they remain exposed to the hostile forces of nature, which
they cannot overcome on their own, but that with the cooperation of
others, they can control and transform into the means of their
well-being. The individual who wished to supply his own material
needs by working alone would be the slave of his labours. A peasant,
for instance, who wanted to cultivate a piece of ground all alone,
would be renouncing all the advantages of cooperation and
condemning himself to a wretched life : no rest, no travel, no study, no
contacts with the outside world .. . and he would not always be able
to appease his hunger. 
- Errico Malatesta The Anarchist Revolution

But how you build such a society without imposing your own vision onto others? How would revolutionary anarchists address problems with counterrevolutionaries? Marxists (and I among them) think that a transitional periodm whereby workers' states would establish socialism and eradicate classes is necessary before the state can be abolished.

Anarchists insist upon horizontalism in organizing.  They would invoke the misattributed Ghandi quote, "Be the change you want to see in the world."  Unfortuantely, spontaneous, horizontal organization has never resulted in a successful revolution.  This lesson was hard learned by the Spanish anarchists in 1939. 

A movement that self consciously avoids taking power is masochistic. Franco took over Spain because of such masochism. Education for class consciousness is all well and good, but I'm not convinced that spontaneous, horizontal organization will arise without a vanguard party.

Meanwhile, there have been examples of revolutionary workers' states (even though most have failed to hold up against imperialist capitalism).  Often anarchists blame authoritarianism for the failures of these states to achieve even the first stages of socialism.  The question becomes, how would a vanguard party keep on track with the project of progressively establishing socialism and also preparing for the state to wither away once that eventuality is achieved?

MLs often answer this question by invoking democratic centralism: a cadre leadership that is responsible for addressing the needs and concerns of the proletariat. 

Since the fall of the USSR there have been no shortage of theories on what went wrong. Revisionists and trots blame Stalin, Stalinists blame Khrushchev blah blah. What is apparent is that the USSR was curving rightward long before 1991. 

Another more concise example of a capitalist communist party is, of course, modern day China. I do think that dialectical materialist analysis is useful here. Both China and USSR had socialist revolutions prior to modernization. The neo-feudal systems in both pre-revolution Russia and China presented favorable material conditions for proletarian uprising. The socialist governments were able to modernize those countries very rapidly due to economic planning. They were then elevated to superpower status. From there, it would appear that nationalism overrode socialism and the allure of neoliberalism and a piece of the global capital pie resulted in the downfall of socialism in those nations.

 Those who insist on formal, liberal democracy are those who refuse to distinguish formal freedom from actual freedom.   A one party system has the potential to be more democratic than a multiple party parliament, so long as an active civil society is encouraged. Cuba is a good example of this: one ruling party, but participation in civics and the airing of grievances is encouraged. Mariela Castro, the president's daughter, is currently a leader of a protest movement in favor of LGBT rights. 

Contrast that with USA where we have formal democracy, but the protests of civil society are largely ignored. Additionally, we are told in school that checks and balances on governmental power are what keep us free, but they're really just what keep us from change. Those checks and balances are part of the way the system perpetuates itself. 

A one party system, on the other hand, must adapt to changes in public opinion if they are to stay in power, as there is no protest vote placebo as in a two party system.