Hitler and Christianity

56. Sartre, the atheist, argued that life was meaningless and absurd. Does it follow that Sartre himself, his books, his ideas, his life, and his influence were also meaningless and absurd? To put it another way, was Sartre a hopeless fool whose books are a complete waste of time?

57. Sartre, the atheist, was a long time defender of the Soviet Union. Many other secularists and atheists defended the Soviet Union as well, admired it, supported it, whitewashed its crimes, and shared its ideals, and even saw it as the hope of humanity. Does this mean that the philosophical (dare I say spiritual?) affinity between atheism and Communism is deeper and more substantial than some defenders of atheism would have us believe?

58. Do you atheists believe that you have found the true meaning of life, while countless millions of Buddhists, Hindus, Moslems, Christians, and Jews are in error? If so, how do you account for your superior insight?

59. If you had been born in a Moslem culture, would you now be a believing Moslem? Does this mean that your ideas also are culturally relative to the society you were brought up in, and not solely the product of detached and rational observation?

60. Ernst Haeckel, 19th-century Germany’s leading public advocate of Darwinism, held many views identical to those of the so-called “new atheists.” He ridiculed the bible and revealed religion; claimed that scientific knowledge was the only way to further progress; and asserted the truth of Darwin’s theory of evolution, which he considered to be scientific fact.

Yet, this paragon of secular rationality had a number of disturbing ideas. He claimed that blond, blue-eyed northern Europeans stood at the apex of human development, and ridiculed blacks as culturally inferior. He felt that “survival of the fittest” justified Germany attacking other countries and seizing their territory, that European imperialist domination of the world was natural, the outcome of the law of evolution. He advocated using the death penalty freely, including on the sick and the defective, as well as on criminals. He was an enthusiastic German nationalist, and hoped a German victory in WWI would be followed by the annexation of much new territory, allowing for the German domination of Europe.

Other secularists, Darwinists, and atheists such as H.G. Wells, Lenin, Trotsky, and Friedrich Nietzsche have held morally reprehensible, even disgusting views – reprehensible and disgusting even today’s general secular standards. Does this mean, then, that the image of atheists as calm, rational, dispassionate advocates of fact is something less than the whole truth? If atheists focus on religious extremists and ignore secular extremists, is this a failure to objectively consider all of the evidence?

61. Can you prove scientifically that it’s wrong to make people of a certain skin color sit at the back of the bus? You “feel” it is wrong, but what if someone “feels” differently? Are not clever philosophical schemes totally impotent in the face of our baser passions, nothing but word games that have nothing to do with life as it is lived?

62. Christians inhabit the same physical universe as atheists. We have the same solar system, the same vast reaches of space, galaxies, stars, mountains, flowers, marvels of nature, the same splendors of sunrise and sunset – how is it then that saying “These things were created by God” makes the creation less wonderful? Doesn’t it rather add another element and dimension? Does saying “It all happened by accident and has no higher purpose” really lead to a greater sense of appreciation? If someone answers “Yes,” is that a purely subjective evaluation which might be mistaken and can later be changed? Is a universe that is cold, empty, and lifeless more of a cause for awe and reverence than a universe that has personality, mind, and love at its foundation?

63. Where do you think that Joseph Goebbels would feel more comfortable: at a religious service where it was maintained that the Bible in the Old and New Testaments was the word of God; that there would be a day of judgment followed by heaven and hell; that the Jews were the people God used to reveal himself through the prophets, Christ, and the Apostles; that we should follow the teachings of Christ; that God was love, and those who did not have love would not go to heaven; that liars and murderers would go to hell? Or at an event where the speaker said the Bible was outdated and unscientific myths; that life on earth came from evolution; that people were in essence only animals; that survival of the fittest was the underlying law of life on earth as we know it; that there was no after life; that the main thing was to find our own fulfillment in our own way?

64. Does the enthusiasm of fans at a football game remind you of the enthusiasm at a Nazi party rally, or can you see that the two enthusiasms have different objects and different results? Aren’t attempts to link Christianity and Naziism similarly wide of the mark?

65. Hitler claimed to be a Christian once publicly, in a speech given in 1922. If you believe this because he said so, do you also believe that the Aryans are the master race? That Germany attacked Poland in self defense? That Hitler wanted peace but the Jews who controlled England were to blame for the war? Is “Hitler said so himself” a valid argument?

42. Richard Wurmbrand, who was imprisoned and tortured in Communist Romania for his Christian faith, wrote “The Communist torturers often said, ‘There is no God, no hereafter, no punishment for evil. We can do what we wish.’ ” [William Lane Craig, On Guard: Defending Your Faith With Reason and Precision, (Colorado Springs 2010), p. 34, quoting Wurmbrand’s book Tortured for Christ]. He also stated in this context that the absence of rewards and punishments in the afterlife removed all restraint from the depths of evil – which would explain why officially Communist states have all been so brutal and bloodthirsty. Wurmbrand quoted one atheist torturer as saying “I thank God, in whom I don’t believe, that I have lived to this hour when I can express all the evil in my heart.” Wurmbrand then added “He expressed it in unbelievable brutality and torture inflicted on prisoners.”

So, the question for atheists is: How do you respond to these quotes? (a) By dismissing them as fraudulent; (b) by just not thinking about them; (c) by saying those were not calm rational atheists, but religious atheists (meaning not all atheists are calm and rational); or (d) by admitting that the removal of divine restraint unleashes and even sanctifies the worst human passions?

43. If people can reject God, believe in human reason and science alone, attack religious belief as harmful and dangerous, make many statements identical or closely related to those made by atheists today, yet then proceed to imitate elements of religion as a means of solidifying their power, does this mean that the religious tendency is so deep as to be ineradicable?

44. Do you endorse this line of reasoning: “Animals do something, so it is natural, and people can do it too, as we are only animals.” If not, why not? How or why has mankind risen above its original animal state?

45. According to Robert Service’s biography of Stalin [Stalin: A Biography (London 2010)], the future atheist monster was admitted to a Christian school (the Gori Spiritual School) at the age of ten, in obedience to his mother’s wishes. Stalin did well in the school, and on completion of his studies there entered the Tiflis Spiritual Seminary. He did well there also, at first, but became a discipline problem, and was also increasingly attracted to secular literature, including Marx, Darwin, and Lenin (according to a friend of that period). After being disciplined and reprimanded for rudeness and violation of seminary rules, he left the seminary without taking his final examinations and devoted himself increasingly to  Marxist and revolutionary studies and activities.

So, the question for atheists is: if Stalin had sincerely believed in his seminary studies and devoted himself to them, and entered an ecclesiastical career, wouldn’t he (and many other people) have been much better off?

46. If Christians make angry, hostile, and bitter comments they violate biblical teachings (“The servant of God must not strive; but be gentle unto all men . . . In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth” I Timothy 3:24-25). If, however, an atheist gets hostile and abusive, which moral standard inherent in atheism are they violating?

47. I read recently where an atheist was complaining about a sign in front of a church proclaiming April 1^st “Atheists’ Day.” Given the constant stream of sarcasm, ridicule, and attacks coming from atheists, isn’t this a good example of being able to dish it out but not being able to take it? Also, wouldn’t many atheists really like to stifle opposing viewpoints if they had the power, as atheists have done in the past, and are still doing (in China, for example)?

48. In the past, when America had a much more traditionally religious culture, what atheists were ever hindered from propagating their views?

49. Some atheists (all atheists?) seem to be very proud of their intellects, and feel that they are able to determine the boundaries of what is and is not real. Is this a wise attitude, given there is so much we do not know about the origins of life and the cosmos?

50. God did many great miracles in the New Testament era, including raising someone from the dead more than once, healing a man blind from birth, and walking on water. Is God obligated to provide yet further miracles for those who find what he has done already unsatisfactory, or is it reasonable for him in later times to provide only private miracles for the benefit of his children, but not for those who ridicule and despise him? To put it another way, do atheists have the right to determine how God should manifest himself?

51. Consider all of the shameful, wrong, or humiliating things you have ever done, things that you would be ashamed to have your friends know about. How would you feel if your entire life, including all of your secrets, were to be laid open before the fundamental power underlying the universe, who made you and to whom you are responsible?

52. To what extent might atheism be the result not of knowledge, facts, reason, and evidence, but of fear of the unknown?

53. To what extent might atheism be the result of rebellion against a higher power and his wise and beneficial laws and rules?

54. Why is it that the art and music of more theistically influenced earlier Western culture are so superior to that produced today?

55. How can personality arise out of an impersonal universe? Is it that (a) personality is only a mirage, really only chemical and physical responses? Or that (b) personality is a cosmic fluke, out of harmony with the deepest “That-which-is” and hence thoroughly pointless? Or (c) the theory of an impersonal universe is an inadequate explanation for life as we experience it daily?

Interrupting my serious of questions for atheists (3 down, 4 to go), I thought I would digress for a week and reflect on conversations I have had with colleagues recently.

As an English teacher living overseas, I generally run across people who are fairly educated and articulate. In the past year or so, I have had extended conversations two of my fellow teachers who have since left for greener pastures. Reflecting on those conversations, I find them illustrative of current dilemmas.

The first colleague was an American. He was undoubtedly a very nice guy – sociable, outgoing, and hospitable. Politically, he was typical of the American left.

First, he had a deep admiration for Barak Obama. He considered Obama to be highly qualified, even brilliant intellectually. He claimed that Obama’s stimulus program had saved the economy from depression, and stated that watching Obama’s State of the Union Address was deeply inspiring, and almost brought tears to his eyes. He thought Obama’s health care plan was excellent, and would save a lot of money by eliminating inefficiencies. I suggested as gently as possible that the program would not save money, but would cost far more than anticipated, and received a surprised expression.

He got most of his news from the New York Times – when he used the computer in the teacher’s office (which was often) that was the first and only news site I saw him access. It seemed that if it wasn’t in the New York Times it wasn’t true, or it wasn’t important. Any comments critical of Obama were greeted with a high degree of skepticism – “Who said that, what is the source, what’s their agenda?” – but news showing Obama in a favorable light was self evidently true.

He had a very hazy understanding of the Israeli-Arab conflict, and seemed not to know the most elementary historical facts about it. There was also a deep hostility to big business, an adversarial stance that made it seem as if the businessmen were to blame for corrupting the political system – never mind about their contributions in the way of goods and services, not to mention jobs.

Religiously, he was interested in Taoism, and said Lao Tzu’s Tao Te Ching (I lent him my copy) most closely represented his own views. To my surprise, he was open to at least discussing Christianity, and was not hostile as many on his end of the political structure are.

His attitude toward pornography was quiet casual – he mentioned reading Playboy in an offhand way as if it were an ordinary magazine like any other.

There was a curious irrationality in his approach to politics. For example, he was angry with Bush for the Patriot Act, but was not angry with Obama for doing nothing to dismantle it, continuing to carry it out, and even for carrying out further encroachments on American liberties.

He to me represented the basic world view of America’s media, academic, and political elites. It is the dominance of his outlook that has helped so much to bring us where we are today.

The second colleague was British – also a very nice guy, personable, articulate, and capable of giving one a most enjoyable conversation over dinner. He too represented a world view that is dominant in the West, and promises to be so for some time.

One point was his hostility to religion. When I first brought it up he said angrily that religion was to blame for all of the problems of the world. I put religion on the back burner with him for a long time, but when I began to press questions about God and the ultimate meaning of life more forcefully, it contributed to the end of our pleasant chats.

A second point was a deep irrationality in dealing with religious questions, covered by a desire to just avoid them altogether. For example, he did not believe in Buddhist reincarnation; he did not believe in Islam, that Mohammed was a prophet of God, that the Koran was a holy book; he did not believe in Catholicism, or Protestantism – yet neither could he admit that all of those views were wrong, and he thought understanding was better. This would put him in the uncomfortable position of claiming to know what it was all about when so many others were in error.

I tried to press this point home – “You say there cannot be one right way, yet you believe all of the believers in those religions are in error and you have the right way” – and got nothing but a totally irrational inability to face the dilemma. The problem was solved, for him at any rate, by just refusing to think about the issue altogether and enjoying the ordinary things of life with no concern for larger questions.

Also, there was an obsession with the evils of America. He referred me to some American atrocities committed in the Philippines over a century ago, but was totally indifferent to atrocities committed by leftist governments. He had real admiration and respect for Castro, and seemed to think Cuba was a paradise of friendly people and free medical care. Any mention of Castro’s crimes, abuses, secret police, prisons, and overall dictatorship was met with a blank refusal to face well known facts. He was still offended years later by the abuses of Abu Ghraib in Iraq, but seemed totally indifferent to all of the other much worse atrocities routinely committed in prisons all over the world – except for those done by right-wing South American dictators.

He even stated that living in Mussolini’s Italy would not have been so bad. Of course, people lacked liberty, but they could still have a good life, and liberty was secondary.

Not insignificantly, he had a strong commitment to gay rights, though he didn’t seem to be gay himself, and was hostile to any suggestion that homosexuality was morally wrong.

Finally, he also supported Obama’s health care plan because it provided free medical care for the poor, and anyone who was against it was “against care for the poor.”

The views of these two men are quite common, and have deeper spiritual origins that need to be explored. With them, the deeper values of moral, political, and economic conservatism are alien and foreign, the problem rather than the solution.