Tu quoque

Pirms mazāk kā stundas decembris ierakstīja kārtējo nepārdomāto stulbību par ateismu; kā var noprast, ieraksts viņam pašam šķita ateismu morāli kompromitējošs. Arī iepriekš Aleksis ir publicējis to, ko šajā ierakstā, for the clear purpose of ridicule, saukšu par sentimental babbling¹. Tieši tā, sentimental babbling, neko vairāk decembris joprojām paveikt nav izdevies. Tolaik nereaģēju, jo, kā redzams no ieraksta satura, atbilde nebūtu ļoti izvērsta. Precīzāk, iesaitētajā gadījumā (atkārtota norāde) reakcija varētu atbilst vienam no diviem izteikumiem: es iebilstu, es piekrītu. Atstāju to lasītāja ziņā, minēt, kurai no tām pievienojos es.

Ja apgalvojums nesatur nevienu premisu, pat t.s. implicītās jeb noklusētās premisas, vai vienkāršāk—iemeslus par labu pārliecībai, arī iebildumi nevar būt ar skaidru pamatu. Ja neapskatām empīrisku jautājumu, apšaubīt var tikai secinājumu gaitu; nevar iebilst, ka viņa izteikumi nav genuine². Citas personas sajūtas nav iespējams apšaubīt, tās jāpieņem kā autentiskas. Apšaubīt var argumentus. Ar nožēlu jāsaka, ka, par spīti agrākajām filozofijas studijām, Aleksis tā arī nav iemācījies domāt abstrakti (= argumentēt).

Tagad būtu jādod saite uz ierakstu, kuru vēlos aplūkot. Tomēr šādas norādes nebūs, jo Aleksis to pavisam drīz idzēsa. Patiesībā, viņš to izdzēsa laikā, kad rakstīju šo atbildi. Nekas cits neatliek, pārstāstīšu ierakstā ietverto domu. Apsolu, ka nekas daudz nav ticis izlaists. Skanēja tas apmēram šādi: "Padomājiet, cik daudz zvērību 20. gs. pastrādātas ateisma vārdā. Nevajag [man te stāstīt par spāņu inkvizīciju]!". Izskatās, ka tādejādi Aleksis nonāk konfliktā ar kādu savu agrāko ierakstu, kurā citā starpā teikts: "Par Staljinu un vinja rezhiimu esmu intereseejies saliidzinoshi maz, bet liekas, ka var diezgan droshi teikt, ka vinjsh savos uzskatos bija vairaak kristietis, nekaa komunists". Nenorādīsim uz šādu acīmredzamu pretrunu paša Alekša uzskatos, pieņemsim, ka viņš tā vairs nedomā—arī uzskatus cilvēki mēdz mainīt.

Vismaz tik daudz tagad iespējams pateikt: līdz ar šo ierakstu, Alekša domā vērojams progress. Beidzot mums ir premisa (noklusētā, bet tomēr premisa). Beidzot iespējams atbildēt; beidzot premisu var mēģināt pierādīt—kā patiesu, nepatiesu vai vismaz problemātisku. Par iepriekš pārstāstīto ierakstu iespējamas vismaz trīs interpretācijas (jau minētās noklusētās premisas):

1. ateisms ir vainīgs pie šiem noziegumiem;
2. arī ateisti ir spējīgi pastrādāt noziegumus;
3. ateisti nespēj būt morāli.

Šeit izskatīsim pirmo interpetāciju, jo tieši tāds, manuprāt, ir bijis Alekša nodoms. Lieliski. Turpmākais teksts būs par to, kāpēc šāda doma tomēr ir kļūdaina (angļu valodā).

One popular argument against atheism is the observation that some of the worst atrocities of the 20th century, such as the purges of Stalin and Pol Pot, were carried out by atheists. Often, the list of atrocities includes Hitler's holocaust. While there is good reason to believe that Hitler was a theist, this does not affect the argument or its rebuttal.

Since atheism per se has no dogma, it is difficult to find a causal link between atheism and immoral behavior or the commission of atrocities. It is often much easier to find a cause rooted in some other belief held by the perpertrator. For example, the statement "Stalin ordered thousands of people executed because he was an atheist" is, on its face, a non sequitur. On the other hand, "Stalin ordered thousands of people executed because he thought they represented a threat to the establishment of communism", while irrational and abhorrent, at least enjoys a certain internal consistency.

The idea that gulags and death camps are the end game of reason and skeptical inquiry is wrong; no atrocities are the result of being too skeptical, too reasonable, too rational, questioning the prevailing dogma or wanting evidence for claims. This argument only serves to keep the pressure away from questioning religion. In short, while being a clear–cut case of tu quoque, it also serves as a red herring.

Not a single person in the whole of human history has ever been killed because of theism or atheism. Theism is a proposition on the existence of a divine being, and a–theism is the non–acceptence of that proposition. Nothing more, nothing less. Neither one are are even capable of being the basis of murder or torture or tyranny or repression. For that, you need religion or some other ideology.

Relgion is a great deal more than theism. The latter is a single proposition shared by Wahabbi muslims, Catholics and the Amish. But what separates them is the former, as it includes an entire system of beliefs, rituals and practices. It is one thing to believe that there is a god, but it is quite another to say that you know the mind of this being; that you know what it wants and expects, and, what awaits those who fail live up to its wants and expectations.

Nothing about being a theist necessarily involves any one particular set of religous beliefs or practices. That Amish dress as they do, does not follow necessarily from being theists. No one could be persuaded by the notion that "since I believe that there is a god, I must therefore wear only the style of clothes worn by 17th Century Europeans". Yes, they are theists, but a very good deal more than theism is required for one to assume that God prefers his followers in straw hats and bonnets.

With a–theism or non–theism one has even less to work from. Being only a negation, it gives even less of a lead to its proponents. There is no such thing as an "atheist ideology" or an "atheist regime". Atheism does not even necessarily imply anti–theism, anti–religion or being anti–clerical. It is a personal statement about ones own non–acceptence of theism.

Any regime that is anti–clerical or anti–religous is not so simply because its leaders are atheist. It does not follow that "Because I do not believe in God, I must therefore suppress and crush all relgious denominations". A very great deal more than simple non–theism is required for this strange and brutal notion to seem desirable. Atheism is the lack of belief in god(s). It contains no beliefs, dogmas, rituals, actions, belief systems, tenets, etc. There is nothing about atheism which would provide a causal link between atheism and any action.

Maoism and Stalinism were not ideologies of mere non–theism. Even if they were, no one would have died for that reason. As god–like figures demanding unquestioned obedience, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao and Hitler have far more in common with Moses, Abraham or Muhammad than with Richard Dawkins, Carl Sagan, Bertrand Russell, or Voltaire.

---

¹ — nonmeaningful sequences of consonants and vowels produced by infants
² — sincerely felt or expressed