As I reported several months ago, American Christians are far more likely to support torture than "secular" Americans. I’m not sure what “secular” means, but it surely includes atheists and agnostics, given how the term tends to be used in surveys.
This creates the curious situation in which atheists and agnostics are less likely to support obviously evil actions than Christians who might otherwise suppose that their religion is necessary for morality and moral behavior. What would explain this? Do similar differences exist elsewhere in the world or is it unique to America?
According to a survey posted on the National Catholic Reporter, here are the percentages of people who say that torture is never justified:
26% Catholics
31% White Protestant
31% White evangelical
41% Secular
32% Overall Population
Here are the numbers who think that torture is often justified:
21% Catholics
15% White Protestant
13% White evangelical
10% Secular
15% Overall Population
It would appear, then, that we atheists are far more likely than Christians, or even the whole population, to say that torture is never justified. We atheists are far less likely than Christians, or even the whole population, to think that torture is often justified (same is true for “sometimes justified”).
In America, then, Christians are far more likely to support moral evil than atheists or agnostics. No wonder Christian citizens and Christian politicians have been so supportive of Christian President Bush's efforts to authorize torture and abuse of suspects detained in the War on Terror. Why?
Atheism and agnosticism are not ideologies, religions, or belief systems and as such cannot be credited with necessarily making a person more moral. Atheism doesn't teach a person to be good or bad, kind or cruel. Perhaps the answer lies in Christianity — and specifically American Christianity — rather than atheism or agnosticism. Perhaps there is something about American Christianity which dulls people's ability to treat others decently, especially when the "others" are unlike them and living in another country.
This obviously isn't true about all Christians in America, but those for whom it isn't true need to address this issue.
Read More:
“By their fruits, you shall them.”
–Jesus Christ
“by their fruits, you shall know them.”
–Jesus Christ
Their own leader’s words condemn them! But, I don’t think they’ve noticed this slight discrepency. This “oblivious” aspect is the part of their nature that is really scary about them.
What about situations where torture is the only way to get information that could save other people’s lives?
1. This assumes that torture works. Can you support that assumption?
2. This assumes that torture works more effectively than other methods. Can you support that assumption?
3. Has there ever been such a situation? If not, then why bring it up — if not to prepare the way for torture in other circumstances?
Austin:
We know that torture *can* work in some instances. This is not an assumption.
There are indeed methods known to be more effective than torture. These generally take a good bit of time. In the hypothetical “ticking bomb” scenarios, time is lacking.
Whether there has ever been such a situation is impossible to determine, and irrelevant. A survey question asking if torture is ever or never justified is, of course, asking with regard to *any* possible hypothetical situation.
Then you can cite your evidence.
Fortunately we live in a real world rather than a hypothetical one.
Only if reality is irrelevant to how one approaches such questions. Personally, I prefer to be part of the reality-based community.
No, it’s asking with respect to reality and realistic, plausible situations. If we were to include any random hypothetical, we’d include hypothetical situations where aliens visit and alter our minds to make torture pleasurable. Oh, wait, that would be silly, wouldn’t it?
Maybe that’s why we should stick to realistic situations. Realistically, a “ticking time bomb” scenario only exacerbates the problems with torture. When time is lacking, you don’t have time to follow up the sorts of false leads and answers that torture can provide. When time is lacking, you don’t have time to waste with a person who really doesn’t know anything. When time is lacking, the suspect knows that they only have to hold out for a known, limited amount of time. When time is lacking, an intelligent professional uses the methods that have proven most effective.
Everything about a “ticking time bomb” scenario which makes torture attractive only makes it attractive to lazy people who seem to lack a moral compass.
According to the stories Jesus was most cruelly tortured. According to the stories his “Father” allowed and wanted this to occur in order to settle a score this “Father” arranged to happen in the first place: the fall from grace. Therefore the “Father” thinks this is an appropriate, therapeutic approach to problem solving. So why shouldn’t his flock of believers naturally believe in torture? Torquemada did. In fact all believers must sanction the torture, (and death), because that is what gets them to Heaven. Since atheists don’t have this as a foundation myth they can more clearly see the problems extant with this approach.