Austin's Atheism Blog

During World War II, millions of Catholics participated in Germany's war against Europe, and many were also involved with the attempt to exterminate the Jews. Neither Hitler nor any other Catholics in Germany's Nazi government were ever excommunicated and Vatican criticism of Germany's actions were weak at best; often, no criticism was issued at all. Are critics right in their own condemnation of the Vatican's failure to speak out more against the Nazis and the Holocaust?

Both critics and defenders of Pope Pius XII and the Vatican agree that they could have done more on behalf of Jews, at least in theory. Where they diverge is why more wasn't done: critics contend that the reasons were bad and this justifies moral condemnation; defenders contend that the reasons were good and this is morally exculpatory. It wasn't just the Vatican's lack of action with regards to the Jews that's the problem, however. Pope Pius XII and the Vatican were just as passive when it came to the slaughter of Catholic Poles in 1939 and of Orthodox Serbs in Croatia in 1941.

In both of these cases, Pius could have done more without challenging traditional anti-Semitism and with relatively little fear of repercussion. The fact that he didn't reveals that his failure to do more for the Jews was part of larger trends in his personality and attitudes. If he wasn't willing to speak out on behalf of Catholic and Orthodox Christians, how could he do more on behalf of Jews whom most didn't care much about anyway? So even if Pius XII was a bit anti-Semitic, that can't be the only or even primary explanation for his inaction. There had to be something else going on, but whatever it is I have trouble believing that it could be morally exculpatory.

One of the earliest arguments offered by C.S. Lewis for believing in the existence of God can be labeled the 'Argument from Desire.' According to Lewis and other apologists, every desire is necessarily a desire for something, and every natural desire must have some object that will satisfy it. Since humans desire the joy and experience of God, therefore there must be a God that will satisfy our desires.

 

Read Article: C.S. Lewis and the Argument from Desire

People who deny the truth and reality of evolution do so for exclusively religious reasons. There are no legitimate scientific arguments against or alternatives to evolution. Most people are as ignorant of this as they are of evolution itself, so while they think they might be able to base their objections on science, in the end all they have is religion — and the fact is, that's their only motive as well. Sometimes this comes through when a person makes a vague gesture towards allegedly scientific objections to evolution but then only talks about their religious objections. Read more...

Guilt is a curious human emotion. Or is it more of an attitude than an emotion? It's not even easy to say exactly what it is, but it does seem to serve an important role in the evolution of morality. Social animals without an ability to feel guilt would probably be less likely to follow the rules when not being monitored and/or when the chances of being caught are low. Guilt is thus the operation of the internalization of social rules, but knowing this doesn't tell us when feeling guilty is appropriate and when not. Read more...

Where did the Sabbath Laws come from, how have they been enforced, and what sorts of legal challenges were made against them? It has often been said that if you want to know where a law is going, then you should take a look at where it has come from. In America the earliest Sunday-closing laws date back to 1610 in the colony of Virginia. They included not simply the mandatory closing of businesses on Sundays, but also mandatory church service participation. Considering the comments made by some religious leaders, I have to wonder if they wouldn't approve of such steps again.

 

Read Article: Origins of Sabbath Laws

Conservatives — and especially religious conservatives — tend to portray themselves as the ostensible defenders of traditional religious morality and social order. As part of this, they are usually the ones most likely to insist that people take personal responsibility for their actions. rather than deflect blame on to society, childhood abuse, substance abuse, etc. They are the ones most likely to claim that modern society has undermined this sense of personal responsibility. Why, then, do some of the most extreme of them insist that they aren't responsible for their violent behavior? Read more...

One of the aspects of Christian history which gets too little attention is how Christian missionaries, Christian leaders, and regular Christians treated the religions of people living in regions being colonized. Believing themselves to be in possession of the only true, genuine, and valid religion, many Christians demonized native beliefs and used their superior power to force conversions "for their own good." Read more...

Perhaps the most hypocritical response to atheists' denunciations of anti-atheist bigotry is the excuse that "I don't really hate atheists." Typically heard from a person who just finished complaining that atheists have no reason to be moral, that atheists are responsible for prayer being taken out of school, and that atheists are responsible for persecuting Christians, this statement appears intended to convince people that all of these scurrilous attacks were made in the name of love.

 

Read Article: Anti-Atheist Bigotry: I Don't Really Hate Atheists, Honest!

Atheists' status as scapegoats means that we are accused of all manner of nonsense. The sillier the accusation, the more likely it is to appear at some point. All of these accusations say far less about atheists, though, than about the accusers. You don't accuse scapegoats of something that doesn't bother you about society generally and perhaps yourself personally. Scapegoating is an attempt to unload one's own guilt on others. So what does it tell us when someone accuses atheists of undermining the possibility of truth and making lying more likely? Read more...

Anti-abortion activism is perhaps the largest social protest movement since the 1960s anti-war demonstrations which gripped campuses and cities across the nation. Despite its size and power, however, it has failed to achieve its primary goal of making abortion once again illegal. They have certainly intimidated some abortion providers out of the profession, but otherwise the movement has become more symbolic rather than effective. Why?

 

Book of the Week: Wrath of Angels: The American Abortion War