| | Regarding Pete's idea being in conflict with mine, you are correct. I've been in disagreement with the notion that atheism is empty, leading to nothing, for a very long time, but that's not the issue. I'm not Pete, and Pete isn't me. I could certainly make it an issue, but I wouldn't be interested in discussing it with you. I would be interested in discussing it with Pete.
Amazingly, and obviously, atheists disagree. We disagree all over the place, so I'm not sure why you're confusing us, unless it's an attempt to confuse the issue. Is it?
Of course atheists disagree: communists disagree with national socialists, do they not? They’re both atheists.
But this is the first I’ve heard of disagreement on so fundamental an issue within the ranks of “indestructible” Objectivism! That’s the problem. As faithful Objectivists, you and Pete ought to be in complete accord on this issue…especially this issue. That you are not in accord can only mean one thing: one of you is a heretic.
Atheism CAN and SHOULD lead to a live and let live view. Is that better? It even sounds better to me.
The problem for your argument is history. In fact – according to historical fact, that is – there has never been such a thing as a successful, productive, creative, tolerant, live and let live, society based on atheism. The successful, productive, creative, tolerant, live and let live societies in history have all been religious. (And no, I’m not denying that intolerant societies can’t also be religious. I’m citing fact: the successful, tolerant ones have, in fact, been religious.)
Given the fact that atheism itself has been around a long time…I mentioned one of the earliest full enunciations of it by Lucretius in his atheist/materialist poem “On the Nature of Things” (De Rerum Natura) . . . we would expect to see at least one successful, benevolent, live and let live society, at some point in history, or at least western history. But nothing.
Let’s look at your argument more closely. “Atheism CAN and SHOULD lead to a live and let live view.”
In other words, atheism OUGHT to lead to a benevolent, tolerant society, but it need not do so automatically…some other value or values must accompany it. What values would those be, I wonder?
Hmmmm. Seems to me, the values that must accompany atheism in order for it lead to benevolence and tolerance are precisely these: benevolence and tolerance. Clearly, then these values cannot be generated BY atheism itself…they come from someplace else. They have a different source from either a mere negation of a Creator of value, or a man-centered creation of value.
This doesn’t leave you with too many choices as to where those values originate.
As for Sweden, it has become an extremely violent country, with a very high rate of gang rape, rampant street crime, and anti-Semitism. (Just a few years ago, the Simon Wiesenthal Foundation, which hunts Nazis, but also keeps tabs on anti-Semitism in different countries, ranked Stockholm the second most anti-Semitic city in Europe next to Brussels. At that time, Paris was third and Athens was fourth. Don’t buy into the lefty propaganda of “The Swedish Model”. Sweden has a very checkered history. It was socialist during WWII and decided it would do better if it “sat this one out”, so it declared neutrality and didn’t take sides. Stockholm during that period became a very big recruiting point for the SS, and many young Swedish men were greatly attracted by it. Can’t think of his name right now, but the Swedish entrepreneur who started “Ikea” had joined the SS in his youth.). The Swedes, having lost their religion, also lost the rest of their values which previously included “love of country and love of Swedish culture.” The country is now a big cultural vacuum with a huge, top-heavy social welfare program, attracting wave after wave of Muslim immigrants from North Africa, Albania, etc.
The only people lining up to get into Sweden are Muslims. Swedes aren’t leaving because they’d rather “switch to Allah” (even nominally) than give up their free dentures.
Native Swedes have a below-replacement-level birth rate (which is defined as 2.1 children per fertile female), and Muslim immigrants have an above replacement level birth rate. Guess what this will lead to in a few more decades?
Sweden has legally institutionalized political correctness, so it is sometimes impossible merely to complain or mention the crime problem or immigration problem (or their connection) without suffering litigation. One blogger, “Fjordman,” who runs a conservative politics site about Sweden and other Scandinavian countries, claims that Sweden has only slightly more free speech than North Korea. I believe it.
Swedish atheism created a cultural and moral vacuum that is now being filled by Islam.
|
|
