Ingsoc, Atheism and Religion

[ragdish]

Ingsoc, the ideology of Oceania, is no doubt a satirical comment on communist and fascist doctrines. Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia were atheist. The Khmer Rouge were atheist. Therefore, is Ingsoc atheist? Is Oceania an atheist's utopia? I am an atheist, and I'd rather die than live in such a horrible society. That said, I see more similarities between Ingsoc and mainstream religious fundamentalism (eg. Islamic, Christian, etc). Taken to the absolute extreme, a totalitarian religious society would in my opinion appear no different than Ingsoc. Ingsoc is completely the opposite of atheism, skepticism and rationalism. O'Brien told Winston the supernatural nature of Ingsoc, that if the Party says he can float in mid-air, then that is reality. Only religious fundamentalism comes close to this irrationalism. Am I preaching to choir on this?

[David40]

Ingsoc, the ideology of Oceania, is no doubt a satirical comment on communist and fascist doctrines. Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia were atheist. The Khmer Rouge were atheist. Therefore, is Ingsoc atheist? Is Oceania an atheist's utopia? I am an atheist, and I'd rather die than live in such a horrible society. That said, I see more similarities between Ingsoc and mainstream religious fundamentalism (eg. Islamic, Christian, etc). Taken to the absolute extreme, a totalitarian religious society would in my opinion appear no different than Ingsoc. Ingsoc is completely the opposite of atheism, skepticism and rationalism. O'Brien told Winston the supernatural nature of Ingsoc, that if the Party says he can float in mid-air, then that is reality. Only religious fundamentalism comes close to this irrationalism. Am I preaching to choir on this?

Actually, I agree. Ingsoc reminds me more of the Inquisition than it does of any atheist totalitarian regime. It is mainly because of the torture scenes that I think that. It is not that totalitarian regimes don't practice brutal torture--they most certainly do. But Winston seems to be a pretty unimportant guy. O'Brien appears to be a pretty senior party person--I doubt someone as senior as O'Brien would waste as much time on one-and-one torture with an unimportant figure like Winston. In a real totalitarian regime, I think it more likely that someone like Winston would be roughed up a bit and then sent off to be worked to death in a forced labor camp. The conditions would be brutal, but collectively meted out to a large group of inmates. The one-on-one torture ironically suggests that O'Brien views Winston as a more important figure than he actually is.

But in an Inquisition scenario, where the "Inquisitor" may actually believe that they are going to save the soul of the victim by torturing them, anything is possible including the scenes described in this novel. There is something almost evangelical about O'Brien's scenes brainwashing Winston that are indeed reminiscent of what I'd expect from an Inquisition, not a totalitarian atheist.

[The Atheist]

Ingsoc, the ideology of Oceania, is no doubt a satirical comment on communist and fascist doctrines. Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia were atheist. The Khmer Rouge were atheist. Therefore, is Ingsoc atheist?

Yes, but you're making a serious mistake in trying to tie the style of the regimes to anything to do with atheism. The reasonm those regimes were/are/would be atheistic is all about having no alternative power structure to the one which exists in the regime. Remember, most regimes in history have been non-democratic and religiously-based. The theology, or lack thereof, of any regime is irrelevant to its ends. Note that being an atheist in Stalin's Russia was no help in obtaining special treatment.


Is Oceania an atheist's utopia? I am an atheist, and I'd rather die than live in such a horrible society.

It may not surprise you, but I'm an atheist as well. I think an "atheist utopia" would be only possible if it were organised on totally humanistic grounds. You've fallen into the trap of taking atheism as an ideology, and it isn't. It's a trite comment, but true, that non-collecting of stamps isn't a hobby. Lacking eveidence of gods isn't a philosophy, in exactly the same manner. Philosophies have philosophers and structures, atheism cannot have that because it isn't a belief, it's a lack of belief. Humanism is a philosophy and has guidelines as clear as any religion. Oceania would be equally hell for the religious and atheists alike.


That said, I see more similarities between Ingsoc and mainstream religious fundamentalism (eg. Islamic, Christian, etc). Taken to the absolute extreme, a totalitarian religious society would in my opinion appear no different than Ingsoc. Ingsoc is completely the opposite of atheism, skepticism and rationalism. O'Brien told Winston the supernatural nature of Ingsoc, that if the Party says he can float in mid-air, then that is reality. Only religious fundamentalism comes close to this irrationalism. Am I preaching to choir on this?

I agree with the last bit, at least, right down to doublethink - a Young Earth Creationist can concurrently accept that the earth is 6011 years old, while knowing for a fact that it's actually billions of years old.

[bazarov]

Taken to the absolute extreme, a totalitarian religious society would in my opinion appear no different than Ingsoc.

It's impossible because every religion in it's essence doesn't have anything against any other humans, no matter of different religions or opinions. Totalitarian religious regime would be acting against things you teach and it can't happen, no matter is it Budisam, Islam, etc.

[waxy89]

O'Brien told Winston the supernatural nature of Ingsoc, that if the Party says he can float in mid-air, then that is reality. Only religious fundamentalism comes close to this irrationalism.

i think that you are missing the point here, that this stems from the belief of the nonexistence of objective truth- an argument in favour of atheism. the fact that they follow a certain "protocol" which mimics those of a certain religion is not indicative of anything. once the existence of objective truth comes under question so does the existence of objective moral truth (therefore, the method of torture and brainwashing is not indicative of anything.)


just as a side note - i am an atheist, however, i believe in the need for religion to set moral boundaries to prevent the belief in existentialism becoming obsolete, is spite of the fact that a lot of religious fundamental beliefs conflict with existentialism, today it is the only way by which existentialism and liberalism can remain stably in existence.

[The Atheist]

just as a side note - i am an atheist, however, i believe in the need for religion to set moral boundaries to prevent the belief in existentialism becoming obsolete, is spite of the fact that a lot of religious fundamental beliefs conflict with existentialism, today it is the only way by which existentialism and liberalism can remain stably in existence.

I think you need to do some work on that.

How can a religion set moral boundaries? Either the morality is obtained from god - and if you're an atheist, I doubt you'd accept that premise - or it's derived from long-dead religious fanatics. How could you ever separate religious morality from bigotry? Which religious morals will you use? Leviticus? Joseph Smith? L Ron Hubbard? Gautama Buddha?

[JCamilo]

Actually, Nazism was not atheist, but inspired by religious fanatism and lead by a religious fanatic.

The truth is separation between state and church, also means that a state should not negate faith (a state have no right to have faith, no right at all) and let other institutions do it.

[The Atheist]

Actually, Nazism was not atheist, but inspired by religious fanatism and lead by a religious fanatic.

Completely wrong.

Nazism was inspired by extreme nationalism and led by a xenophobic racist fanatic. Religion, or the lack thereof, played an infinitesimally small - if any - part in the rise of National Socialism in Germany, post-WWI.

[waxy89]

I think you need to do some work on that.

How can a religion set moral boundaries? Either the morality is obtained from god - and if you're an atheist, I doubt you'd accept that premise - or it's derived from long-dead religious fanatics. How could you ever separate religious morality from bigotry? Which religious morals will you use? Leviticus? Joseph Smith? L Ron Hubbard? Gautama Buddha?

i was referring to the basic code of ethics, such as "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor," a quote of Hillel based on the content of the old testament. and although it may be "derived from [a] long-dead religious fanatic," religious Jews still do (and have an obligation to) follow his teachings.
i believe that existentialism is based on such philosophies which are based on religious scriptures and beliefs. atheism, on the other hand, remains totally unstable due to the impossibility of maintaining a constant code of ethics, for such can only be done when there is a belief in a higher force. this belief is controversially hinted at in Maimonides' "guide for the perplexed".

[JCamilo]

Completely wrong.

Nazism was inspired by extreme nationalism and led by a xenophobic racist fanatic. Religion, or the lack thereof, played an infinitesimally small - if any - part in the rise of National Socialism in Germany, post-WWI.

Completely wrong.

Thomas Carlyle ideas was behind the notion of the superior race/individual already present (Nationalism is a religious feeling by the way) and Thomas Carlyle ideas are born from his notion of individuals "Heroes" that would change story, totally basead on religious views of Carlyle.
Hitler xenophoby was born from his fanatical religous view (he is a christian) and the appealing against the jews born from it (his discuss if filled with religious bigotony).
Nazism is deeply fanatical, with roots in religious - wihtout doubt - and there is no lack of religion in the formation of that society.

[bazarov]

Nazism was inspired by extreme nationalism and led by a xenophobic racist fanatic. Religion, or the lack thereof, played an infinitesimally small - if any - part in the rise of National Socialism in Germany, post-WWI.

In some way; yes. Hitler was a Christian, but a lunatic. He thought he is the new chosen one, a new leader. He used religion to became closer with German civilians who were also Christians, but he never let Church to mess with his leading or have some influence on political issues. He was aware of Church's strength and influence and tried to take advantages of that. If someone would came on his way, he would easily and brutally remove it. Luteranism also had influence on Hitler; especially Luther's book On The Jews where he wrote many many terrible things about them and it had a great influence on German radical views on Jews which ended up with holocaust. Idea was that Jews are not good; they are pure evil and they can be saved only if they convert to Christianity. They didn't want to do that( nobody probably asked them that in Dachau, Treblinka, etc.) and tragedy happened.

[JCamilo]

There is even a myth that Hitler was atheist and that his hatred of jews had roots only in scientific development of XIX century. That is just a myth, if anything Hitler went against and twisted all positive development he had in fanatism. It sounds more like how , shamefully, the world pretended they didn't saw what he was doing for while, included important religious leaderships of Europe and so far they keep washing their hands (as most moderm nations) from the responsability of what happened there as if Hitler wasn't just a human, a lunatic, but those people keep getting in power somehow.

[The Atheist]

Completely wrong.

Thomas Carlyle ideas was behind the notion of the superior race/individual already present (Nationalism is a religious feeling by the way) and Thomas Carlyle ideas are born from his notion of individuals "Heroes" that would change story, totally basead on religious views of Carlyle.
Hitler xenophoby was born from his fanatical religous view (he is a christian) and the appealing against the jews born from it (his discuss if filled with religious bigotony).
Nazism is deeply fanatical, with roots in religious - wihtout doubt - and there is no lack of religion in the formation of that society.

Sory, but nowhere near the mark - Bazarov has it right, it played against a background of religion, but so did pretty much everything up to that time. Hitler was reserving demigod status for himself - he wasn't about to share it with YHWH.

You may as well claim that music was partly responsible for Hitler's attitude because he liked Wagner.

And please do explain how nationalism is a religious feeling. It's certainly like a religious feeling, but equally certainly, it has no basis in religion. When it comes to WWII and Hitler's rise to power, the subject has been well enough documented that revisionism in the 21st century is rather pointless.

[JCamilo]

Sory, but nowhere near the mark - Bazarov has it right, it played against a background of religion, but so did pretty much everything up to that time. Hitler was reserving demigod status for himself - he wasn't about to share it with YHWH.

Bazarov does not suggest anything in contrary to what I said. Hitler in no momment claims he is a new god, rather that he is the leader of the chosens of god.


You may as well claim that music was partly responsible for Hitler's attitude because he liked Wagner.

Wagner did not caused Hitler - as Bazarov pointed - to be a fanatical religious, to promote the religious persecution of jews, or to promote the notion that his race was superior to others - all this, very important traits of Nazism, had religious background.
The best Wagner did was to perhaps to give a soundtrack to some of the Nazi's shows. That is why I can not claim music is behind it and religion is.


And please do explain how nationalism is a religious feeling. It's certainly like a religious feeling, but equally certainly, it has no basis in religion.


Perhaps that is why I only said it is a religious feeling and not that was created by a Religious Pratice?


When it comes to WWII and Hitler's rise to power, the subject has been well enough documented that revisionism in the 21st century is rather pointless.

Then You could please not introduce Hitler claiming that he wanted to be god and not erase the parts where he says that he is acting in name of god of Hitler Discuss?

[The Atheist]

Then You could please not introduce Hitler claiming that he wanted to be god and not erase the parts where he says that he is acting in name of god of Hitler Discuss?

Nothing to discuss - you just need to look up "demigod".

[JCamilo]

Yeah, Nothing to discuss. You just need to look up to where Hitler said it. You can not. Such is life.

[bazarov]

Sory, but nowhere near the mark - Bazarov has it right, it played against a background of religion, but so did pretty much everything up to that time. Hitler was reserving demigod status for himself - he wasn't about to share it with YHWH.


Exactly.


And please do explain how nationalism is a religious feeling.

Were talking about nationalism, not about ultramontanism; and therefore I don't see a connection.



Wagner did not caused Hitler - as Bazarov pointed - to be a fanatical religious, to promote the religious persecution of jews, or to promote the notion that his race was superior to others - all this, very important traits of Nazism, had religious background.


I was talking only about religious aspects of Nazism, never even mentioned Wagner.

Jews are maybe irrelevant.They were the rich strangers in extremely poor Germany after Wall Street crash, and they were the reason of Germans misery, according to Hitler. It could be Dutches, Albanians, Maors...irrelevant to Hitler, he just needed someone. He could easily find strong base for his theories for everyone. And religion is definitely the strongest base one leader can take. Lutheran views, maybe adding ''Jews killed Jesus'' from some incredibly incorrect views and Jews had to suffer.

[JCamilo]

I did not meant that you talked about Wagner, but that you said he was a fanatical. Anyways, Jews are not irrelevant. It would be, certainly everyone that isn't inside the "german superior race" pattern (as it was).
But it is fact that Hitler since young have been affected by the anti-jewish feelings, not only after he noticed he needed cash to support the development of industry to help out his plan. He also pointed out that the difference between Jews and europeans (due the longtime inbreeding) was only the religion and we know he is influencied by a religous leader-thinker.

So we can not argue, like the initial poster that Nazism was Atheist. German society was not atheist, the ideology of Nazism had influences of Religion (too strong and relevant, as the anti-semist went) and they organized themselves after this. Hitler was in many ways a conservative christian, closing himself to any short of mysticism.

(I would point that the argument that he wanted to be demigod is also an evidence of someone proposing a teocratic nation (The leader is the religious leader) and not a atheist state and here the religion would be even more important. So, Atheist (our fellow poster in this debate) is giving evidence against his claim of low importance of religion in Nazism, not otherwise. - However his claim have no basis, it is like calling Hitler a monster. We do not find Hitler claiming to build a teocratic state, neither aspiring to immortality - the best we can consider is seeing him as some short of prophet. We find Hitler only claiming to understand a visiion of Jesus as an anti-semithic warrior, etc)

So, as in my first point - Nazism is not atheist, but build with influence of religion. Their leader and developer was a fanatical religious man, not a cold atheist like Stalin was.

It is not caused, it is not fault of Religion if you are worried that was the direction of my argument, just that the nazi-society was religious and not atheist.

[ghada s]

Actually, Nazism was not atheist, but inspired by religious fanatism and lead by a religious fanatic.

The truth is separation between state and church, also means that a state should not negate faith (a state have no right to have faith, no right at all) and let other institutions do it.
I totally agree with you .Leaders have misunderstood the Machiavellan dogma. Anyways, what could lead any leader to frenziness and dictatorship than the fact of believing in something NO MATTER WHAT THIS THING IS. So i don't think that Nazis or Fascis were atheist.

[Evellynn]

O'Brien told Winston the supernatural nature of Ingsoc, that if the Party says he can float in mid-air, then that is reality. Only religious fundamentalism comes close to this irrationalism.

But Religious Fundamentalism isn't the only one who comes close to that irrationalism. As an athiest you believe that there is no God (correct me if I'm wrong), when in fact the evidence is all around you proving that there is a God.

(Yes, Mine is a little off topic from what is currently being debated, which I now notice after I finished reading the thread.)

[The Atheist]

But Religious Fundamentalism isn't the only one who comes close to that irrationalism. As an athiest you believe that there is no God (correct me if I'm wrong), when in fact the evidence is all around you proving that there is a God.

(Yes, Mine is a little off topic from what is currently being debated, which I now notice after I finished reading the thread.)

Well, I'm probably a very good person to answer that and correct your mistake.

Atheists generally believe there is no evidence to suggest any gods exist. Slightly different to believing there is no god.

As to the evidence all around, proving there's a god - excuse me while I have a chuckle, but in almost half a century, I have yet to see one piece of evidence that any god exists. Far from your claim that evidence everywhere "proves" it.

Most atheists, myself included, are rationalists.

I think you're having great trouble with the definition of "rational".

[Evellynn]

Well, I'm probably a very good person to answer that and correct your mistake.

Atheists generally believe there is no evidence to suggest any gods exist. Slightly different to believing there is no god.

As to the evidence all around, proving there's a god - excuse me while I have a chuckle, but in almost half a century, I have yet to see one piece of evidence that any god exists. Far from your claim that evidence everywhere "proves" it.

Most atheists, myself included, are rationalists.

I think you're having great trouble with the definition of "rational".

Well, Apparently I wasn't wrong about what I said with Atheists believe there is no God. Websters dictoionary even defines it as the belief in the non existance of God. Also, I don't see how you can believe there is no eveidence to suggest that God exists and therefore believe there is no God. It doesn't make sence.

As for the not believe in proof, how can you look around at nature and believe that there is a Creator behind it all. Wouldn't you have to believe that there is some greater power behind keeping the earth in balance? There is too much intellegence behind creation and the organisms in the world to not have been Created by someone. Is nature, human beings and creation as a whole not enough to prove that there is a God?

[The Atheist]

Well, Apparently I wasn't wrong about what I said with Atheists believe there is no God. Websters dictoionary even defines it as the belief in the non existance of God. Also, I don't see how you can believe there is no eveidence to suggest that God exists and therefore believe there is no God. It doesn't make sence.

Nope, sorry.

Just because a dictionary says so does not make it so.

I use atheist forums where literally thousands of atheists post and very, very few of them will state "There is no god". Check out the writing of some of the great atheists - Dawkins, Dennett, Russell, et al - not one will ever state "There is no god", they all just point out that the physical evidence and human history means that gods' existence is extremely unlikely.

The certainty of statement is reserved for religious people, who will always state with 100% certainty that their particular god - YHWH, Vishnu, Allah, whichever - is the one true god and that he or she exists.

You're welcome to your religious beliefs, but you should certainly learn that dictionaries record the langauge's uses, not prescribe the meaning of words.


As for the not believe in proof, how can you look around at nature and believe that there is a Creator behind it all. Wouldn't you have to believe that there is some greater power behind keeping the earth in balance? There is too much intellegence behind creation and the organisms in the world to not have been Created by someone. Is nature, human beings and creation as a whole not enough to prove that there is a God?

I'm not going to bother to get into a religious debate, but if you actually study a few parts of science, you'd be well aware that there has been nothing found to date for which there is no physical explanation. The entirety of the history universe and evolution of the species has been extremely well documented over the past half-century. It's over to you whether or not you choose to accept it. I am, and always have been, open to evidence of any supernatural phenomenon, but have nothing yet to suggest that such a thing is possible. When it comes to looking around me, I do it more than most and I see the beauty and fascination of billions of years forming the universe we occupy today.

Atheists are generally rationalists. A rationalist is a person who seeing two options, one containing evidence and the other a fairytale, opts for the evidence.

Just one thing you may like to check out - the "balance" on earth. It took 4 1/2 billion years for life to reach a balance and it's taken humans about 250 years to mess it up. No power has yet been noticed "taking care" of: global warming, famine, disease, war, drought, species extinction, genocide ...

[KurtDunn]

I like Christianity, alot.

It's got great morals, and many great parables to guide your life by.

But one thing that bugs me about Christianity is it's obsessive need to impress the belief of god on others.

For me, I came to a crossroads where I questioned God's existence after I read the Book of Job, front to back, a few years after I graduated highschool.

Thing is that he Book of Job is roughly three major plotpoints. Man has alot of fortune and happiness, and believes in God. He loses fortune and happiness, and questions god. He finally decides that he does believe in God, and is left basically as is. If ever a biblical installment needed a sequel, it's this one.

I saw this as a lesson of 'you have to question your faith.' I further reasoned that if I did not scrutinize my faith rigorously, then how would I know that I actually believe it? Because someone told me it's true? I need to see for myself.

So I did, and concluded that I do believe in God, but the Bible probably isn't accurate (wretched things happen to good people, an omnipotent being could clear that up in a jiffy).

Well I guess I put all that blasphemy up there for this point: everyone's spiritual status lies with themselves. If you fervently attempt to imbue someone with the belief of whatever you believe, how do you know they're not just impressionable instead of truly believing?

And IMO only a just Heaven would have atheists in it anyhow, so what's the damage?

[Teacher]

Bazarov is right as are you Atheist. Thank you for your insight on Hitler. It is the perfect example of how religion can be manipulated.

There is clear evidence, however that Orwell was critical of organized religion.

[bazarov]

What?