Commentary on Atheism vs Anarchism

[The Dude]

Denny Crane put a new link up in his signature to this article. I couldn't help but disagree with most of its content. So I decided to create a new thread and have a go, and see if this will be an interesting discussion.

I'm just gonna quote a few specific bits and comment on those.

Anarchism is a position about society and undesirable structures within it (that is to say, the belief that hierarchies are unjustified). Atheism, on the other hand, is an ontological position (about the existence of gods). But if you ask atheists why they see the need to label themselves and discuss atheism, they will almost invariably answer you that Christian dogma infiltrating itself in the schools and politics is the main issue. Therefore atheism does reduce itself to a social issue to some extent.

I don't think there's any basis for this assumption at all. Atheism is an ontological position, correct, so why does the author not allow it to manifest itself as one? Instead he decides to characterize atheism as being opposed to ideology. Ideologies, be they political or religious, exist on a different tier from atheism. All that an atheist claims and can claim is that he doesn't think there is a god. This disbelief in god make may room for non-theistic political ideologies, but it doesn't necessarily make an atheist commit to one. Any political stance with an atheist aspect to it is always political + atheist, and not solely atheist in nature. And the link between these two is always entirely voluntary.

I think the issue that links them both, therefore, is the concept of authority. Atheists reject both concepts of authority in Christianity: the authority of God over man, and the authority of organized religion against their believers and society as a whole. Anarchists merely reject other forms of authority which any individual atheist may or may not reject.

Atheists reject authority insofar as they remove the basis for this authority in god and thereby in religion. But the rejection of authority is not the aim of atheism, its the logical consequence of disbelief in god. It is the aim of anarchism. Again, this is logical because as I pointed out, these two exist on different tiers. Anarchism is political ideology, atheism is not. So an anarchist may be atheist for obvious reasons, and the author correctly asserts at the start of the article that atheists are not necessarily anarchists, but then proceeds to create an entirely arbitrary link between the two anyway.

Atheists argue that a supposedly good god is incompatible with the existence of evil in the world; Anarchists argue that a supposedly good State/economy/etc is incompatible with all the evils that it creates in the world.

This is faulty reasoning. The concept of good here vastly differs. Atheist objection to the notion of a good god has been rebuked by theists again and again. It is perfect for a god to exist and to be good, while evil in this world still thrives. There does exist a logical construction against this claim that theists often apply to their idea of god, and it works. Secondly, the concept of good is not applied to the state like it is to god.

The state is good insofar as it suits our needs, it is not good insofar it is a state. This should be obvious. The opposite is true for god. According to a theist, god is good insofar he is god since he is the prime mover and the perfect form, to use Aristotelian and Platonic terms. This makes the concept of evil, in relation, take on different meanings. In theistic debate, evil is commonly understood as the absense of good (ie god). In political debate, evil is commonly understood as deliberate action. So while there may seem a surface level similarity between atheism and anarchism here, the author fails to dig deeper and uncover the nature of both.

Atheists and Anarchists believe that, whatever the question, positing intervention from some higher power is not a proper answer, and only leaves other things unexplained. They believe that, if an explanation is to be found, it must be found in reality, not in dogmas.

Atheists don't believe this for the same reason that anarchists do. First off, the author once again mistakes the nature of atheism by putting it contrary to dogma. This is wrong. That's still the position of the anarchist. Atheists believe that (or rather, this atheist does but I will assume many others with me) that god is a premature conclusion. There is no sufficient evidence and thus we should keep looking for a better answer rather than settle for this. There is, perhaps, an implied mission here. A mission that would explain the tendency of atheists to adopt political ideologies contrary to religious positions that they feel impedes their mission.

Atheists however are not opposed to the notion of a higher power per se. An atheist would, theoretically, have no problems accepting the notion of a higher power were this power to be absolutely proven in physical and metaphysical ways. An anarchist has an inherent resentment towards any form of authority, often from a moral standpoint. Atheism, being an ontological position, cannot include any moral notion in its core rejection of god.

If atheism and Anarchism are both mainly concerned with authority, then atheism must be a subset of Anarchism, but not vice-versa. Atheism deals specifically with the two forms of authority relevant to religion, while Anarchism deals with all forms of authority.

So, in conclusion:

1) Atheism is not mainly concerned with authority
2) Therefore atheism is not a subset of anarchism. This is the world upside down, the author completely fails to understand that the theist or atheist position is the very first position in a long line of stances to take on a variety of matters.
3) Atheism therefore does not deal with "two forms of authority". It's easy to argue that it deals with both no authority at all but with the concept of god, and therefore implicitly and unintentionally with all authority one could possibly derive from that. Anarchism limits itself to humans exercising their authority over other humans, which is a miniscule triviality in comparison to the concept of divine truth and justice.

[Biggreenfellow]

I wish I had something to add to this, but you've pretty much voiced my opinions for 100%

Good post.

[iudas]

I think the difference is only apparent to someone who isn't an atheist an anarchist at the same time. Both of these groups of people tend to judge strictly logically, without bias. Most people believe in God without evidence. Atheists ignore them and choose not to believe. Most people think order would be impossible without a tyrannical and intrusive state entity, despite evidence and common sense pointing to the contrary. Anarchists do promote the contrary. Someone who is an anarchist but isn't an atheist - or vice-versa - is still using a double-standard, probably.

[skeuophoros]

[Sorry - I deleted this post myself, because 1. it was more or less off topic anyway and 2. I want to pull out of this discussion altogether - skeuophoros, dez 29.]

[The Dude]

I don't think it's actually necessary to point out the differencies between atheism and anarchism, which should be obvious to everyone. The author of the mentioned article seems to simply want to discredit atheism and between the lines even push it towards radical nihilism - full stop. But nice of you to give such a detailed explanation that can be helpful to people who otherwise don't show much interest in topics as this. (+rep... if I could, which I can't at the moment)

I absolutely agree with you on this and most of the time I feel like I'm kicking in open doors but I decided to go for it nonetheless since I think it's important to draw a clear line between what atheism is and what politically motivated people want atheism to be. And thanks

[skeuophoros]

[see my above post]

[Khassaki]

I think the issue that links them both, therefore, is the concept of authority. Atheists reject both concepts of authority in Christianity: the authority of God over man, and the authority of organized religion against their believers and society as a whole.

The author is trying to denigrate atheists by claiming that they don't stand for anything, but just against christianity.

As an atheist i expect any premise to be based on observable criteria, and so reject christianity - along with the tooth fairy and the easter bunny - as being purely the product of someone's imagination. This is not to say imagination is a bad thing, just that people should not expect others to take their imaginary friends seriously.

[Monarchist]

It's always good to clarify things. Conflating atheism and anarchism is like doing the same to socialism and various "third way"s. Naturally all ideas are related to each other somehow, but some... are not related enough to be discussed as if they were.

[Basil II the B.S]

His analysis of atheism is strongly both personal and Anglocentric based, it's not objective and therefore flawed.

[chriscase]

I'm not sure I buy the correlation in the abstract at all. Historically, Anarchists are "cousins" of Socialists and Communists, who (certainly in the Marxist context) are doctrinal atheists.

I don't see any particular reason you can't have - in theory - theist anarchists and atheist minions of the State. A theist anarchist or two might make the whole theism bit more interesting, actually.

Isn't the political arena where the freedom to think what we want about religion was won? I'm not a historian, but I suspect we atheists might owe some our current liberty to disbelieve to anti-authoritarian political movements (like the Anarchists) in the past. Maybe that's the author's point.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

Atheism, Anarchism, Communism, Libertarianism. All of them are exactly the same thing: the idea that man lives better and is more fulfilled in a completely desacralized society devouted entirely to purely animalistic pursuits of survival and pleasure, which has been refuted a thousand times by facts.

"Modern Man" is a pitiable slave. Whereas the ancient slave had only an external chain, modern man has mental chains which are worse than any others.

[Biggreenfellow]

Atheism, Anarchism, Communism, Libertarianism. All of them are exactly the same thing: the idea that man lives better and is more fulfilled in a completely desacralized society devouted entirely to purely animalistic pursuits of survival and pleasure, which has been refuted a thousand times by facts.

"Modern Man" is a pitiable slave. Whereas the ancient slave had only an external chain, modern man has mental chains which are worse than any others.

Riiiiight Atheism is exactly the same as communism, which is the same as anarchism... It's funny that you mention facts in your post, though, because what you just said is about the dumbest, least-factual statement I've read today!

[The Dude]

Atheism [...]: the idea that man lives better and is more fulfilled in a completely desacralized society devouted entirely to purely animalistic pursuits of survival and pleasure, which has been refuted a thousand times by facts.

Please explain to me how Atheism implies this.

Denny, I'll get working on a response to your post when I get home from work

[chriscase]

Atheism, Anarchism, Communism, Libertarianism. All of them are exactly the same thing: the idea that man lives better and is more fulfilled in a completely desacralized society devouted entirely to purely animalistic pursuits of survival and pleasure, which has been refuted a thousand times by facts.

"Modern Man" is a pitiable slave. Whereas the ancient slave had only an external chain, modern man has mental chains which are worse than any others.

I see your Romantic view of the past is still alive and kicking. Where does your standard of liberty come from, I wonder?

You remind me a bit of Henry Adams, except for two things:

1) Adams managed not to completely demonize the contemporary industrial age. He saw the "dynamo" as its avatar, in contrast the the Virgin (particularly as represented at Chartres), which he saw as a contrasting avatar for the Medieval era.
2) Adams was an accomplished historian who actually knew quite a lot about the subject. You don't seem to be quite there yet.

I think these two points are related.

BTW if you haven't read it, Adams' Mont Saint Michel and Chartres is a beautiful read, and, I expect, right up your alley. Make sure to read it in tandem with a good pictorial on Chartres cathedral, or (ideally) while at the cathedral itself.