But do you accept that religion, specially your religion, has gone out of its way to censor and limit debate for centuries? I'm not saying that you personally have, but the religion as a whole.
Another flat-footed argument from a fellow impervious to facts.
What you are trying to imply is two-fold: (A) that religion necessarily causes censorship, and (B) that no religion implies no censorship.
Both of those claims are false, as can be easily verified. And your argument itself is flawed.
You point to a censorship throughout past human history, and you correctly point out that Religion was involved. But censorship is simply a feature of human intolerance, conservatism, and political power struggles – with or without religion. Any 3-year-old can shout "Shut up!" without God. So can any 60-year-old who fears change or fears a rival.
100% of people throughout those past centuries were religious. So it must be true that all their crimes and flaws were caused by religion, right? Not only their censorship but their wars and their bad hygiene. Without religion, all those societies would have celebrated dissidents, lived in harmony without armed conflict, and washed their hands with soap before meals.
Atheism only became possible within the past 100 - 200 years, roughly. It doesn't take a genius to see that your argument is based on an unfair comparison between modern times (no Religion) and the distant past (Religion). Given the history of human progress, most comparisons between modernity and the past will be unflattering to the past. Your insinuation is that Religion caused the vices of the Past:
religion, has gone out of its way to censor and limit debate for centuries
But anybody in the past who wanted to censor ideas would necessarily have been religious because 100% of people were religious. You cannot infer from this that atheists are exonerated from censorship. They didn't exist, and they didn't exercise power during that period. If there had been atheistic societies in medieval times, it's reasonable to expect that they would also have engaged in censorship, war, slavery, and torture. They also would have failed to use soap.
Any scientist would discard your argument in a heartbeat. You cannot compare a primitive or medieval or pre-enlightenment era that was religious with a post-enlightenment modern era that is less religious and expect to have isolated the variable of Religion itself.
No, no, no. In order to make any legitimate inference, you must try to isolate one variable and keep the other factors similar. So a more accurate comparison would be between religious and non-religious societies where both exist alongside one another in the modern era.
Non-religious people only became numerous enough to constitute a non-religious society a century ago, with the Soviet Union:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_Soviet_Union
As we all know, Soviet Russia – being an officially anti-religious, secular state – was completely free from censorship, repression, intolerance, and war. As Solzhenitsyn documented, the Soviet Union was a utopia; and the gulags paradisiacal vacation resorts.
In case the sarcasm isn't palpable enough, that's a refutation of the 2nd prong of your argument:
(B) that no religion implies no censorship.
So is modern China, where censorship under a non-religious government is severe. We could go on and on. Your attempted gotcha was this:
religion, has gone out of its way to censor and limit debate for centuries
But in the century since non-religious societies have emerged, there has ALSO been severe censorship and repression by the non-religious. Observably, the presence or absence of religion in a society does not determine how much censorship will exist.
Religious people have engaged in censorship, definitely. But remember that 100% of people during that era were religious. So the victims of that censorship were ALSO religious people. So the crime cannot be ascribed to Religion itself. That would make no sense.
A religious person censors another religious person and cites Religion as the justification. Clearly that proves that Religion causes censorship. Right?
OK. Let me give you another instance of that logical argument: A homeless person murders another homeless person to steal his shoes and cites Homelessness as the the justification. Clearly that proves that Homelessness causes murder. Right? Never mind that people with homes also murder. Never mind that the victim was also homeless.
Or to put it another way: Religion causes censorship because religious people have censored other religious people and because they claim Religion made them do it. Never mind that non-religious people also censor their opponents. Never mind that the victims are also religious.
The first prong of your argument is also false:
(A) that religion necessarily causes censorship
Freedom of speech and of the press emerged hand in hand with freedom of religion. In other words, protections against censorship emerged in religious societies because of the importance of religion itself. If religion itself causes censorship, then that would have been impossible.
It's a piece of cake to find religious countries like Iran or Saudi Arabia where censorship exists. But that doesn't imply that Religion necessarily causes censorship nor that non-religious societies don't also engage in the same degree of censorship. What those countries have in common – aside from religion – is tyrannical government. Perhaps it is tyranny, rather than religion, that causes censorship.
Censorship and repression are basic human impulses, exercised by those in power, if that power is not checked, with or without religion. Stalin did not need Religion to justify censorship, concentration camps, torture, or the deaths of millions. Since we see the likes of Stalin in secular modern societies, it is hardly surprising that we find censorship and repression in less modern times where the people happened to be religious.
Yes, of course, religion was invoked to justify censorship. But that's also to be expected. People in any era will use whatever morality or worldview happens to hold sway in order to justify the censorship they want. In a Christian era, they would use Christianity In a Marxist era, they would use the Marxist ideology. In a Muslim country, they would use Islam. In ancient Greece, they would say Socrates "corrupted the youth". In "woke" progressive USA circa 2019, they will use the consensus worldview of "woke" progressives to ban "hate speech" or de-platform the opposition. Or in conservative christian USA circa 2019, they will use the Bible to exclude evolution, sex education, or progressive ideas about LGBTQ people from the public classroom. That's more or less how Bertrand Russell was prevented from teaching mathematical logic in the USA many decades ago – due to his progressive views about marriage. In a Dawkins-esque "post-religious" society, teaching that religion has benefitted mankind and resulted in great achievements impossible without religion might be censored from the public-school curriculum.
Any dominant worldview will be used to justify censorship. But it doesn't imply that the worldview itself causes censorship.
Religion hasn't been the only ideology that has led to repression. Marxism, of course, has. But so has Evolution and Science itself. Distorted views of Evolution have led to a predatory capitalism based on "survival of the fittest" and also to the ideology of racial superiority that peaked with genocide in Nazi Germany. Much earlier (1904-1908), Germany committed genocide in Africa that included horrendous medical experiments and was justified based on eugenics, which was a moral theory deriving from Evolution:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herero_and_Namaqua_genocide#Medical_experiments_and_scientific_racism
The only societies that can resist censorship and repression are pluralistic societies, which are not ideologically pure but contain a mixture of incompatible world views, including religion. Such societies evolved thanks to the conflicts between religions. Freedom of speech and of the press were justified – in spite of the instability caused by dissident opinions – because of the moral imperative to pursue the truth. Ultimately, governments could not dispute that moral imperative because the truth was a religious truth; and the imperative came from a power higher than human governments. That notion is fundamentally religious in origin. In societies where the pursuit of truth is not recognized as a divine imperative, it is much easier to justify censorship for the sake of homogeneity and stability. That was the case in Soviet Russia and in modern China.
You have already been confronted by most of these facts. And, of course, you ran away from them because they threaten your dogmatism. Indeed, there are no facts and no arguments that will change your faith-based hatred of religion. But I will continue to challenge your bad arguments so that everybody can see you running away.
. And it happened on NamePros of all places!
