joshuaI think it is important to keep in mind here that if Hitler didn't cater his tactics to accommodate Christianity during his rise to power, he wouldn't have been able to garner much support, as the vast majority of people were religious then. I don't have a source on hand, but I've done a little bit of reading into this subject. From what I understand, there is some debate among historians over the role of christianity/atheism in Nazi Germany, and its not quite so clear as defining it as a "christian" or "atheist" movement. For example, Mein Kempf references a rather anti-semitic piece written by Martin Luther late in his life. Slogans from the piece were also popularized during the late 1930's during the burning of Jewish synagogues. Now the question is, did the writings of Luther create a clear line of anti-semitism leading up to the events in Germany, or were they simply quote mined by Nazis in order to mobilize the German public? Keep in mind, Hitler was a master at this sort of thing. Furthermore, it seems that in general, Nazi higher ups had a disdain for religion, and some historians think that if Germany had won the war, Hitler would've begun stamping out Christianity.
Basically, its hard to determine exactly what influenced the Nazis. Just because Hitler mentioned Christianity in his writings and speeches doesn't mean that he was Christian, he may have just been using it as a tactic to influence the German public. He would've been shooting himself in the foot if he didn't cater to Christianity, at least at a surface level. It seems that in the long run, Hitler wanted to eradicate the influence of the Church.
I have to disagree with you on your point about crimes committed in the name of atheism. I understand that atheism is merely the rejection of any belief in a deity, god, etc., and does not provide motivation for killing. I agree, however these sorts of beliefs come with an attached worldview, and dangerous philosophies can be derived from pretty much any worldview. So yes, while leaders such as Stalin or Mao may not have explicitly killed "in the name of atheism", they were still carrying out actions that were motivated by certain philosophies, which were conceived under a worldview of atheism.
Very good post.
I think my first observation on it is that while you're right to say that there's some subtlety in the religious or other motivations of the Nazis, to the extent that religion was not a motivating factor in the final solution (that is, if we assume Hitler lied in Mein Kampf and in numerous speeches), religious preachings were at least conscripted into the Nazis' creed and used as a tool to get everyone on board with what they were attempting to accomplish. I think you'll agree that exterminating the Jews was a much easier pill to get people to swallow in a social context steeped in two thousand years of anti-semitism, largely sourced in religious dogma (Christianity especially), and the fact that the Vicar of Christ on Earth said without any subtlety at the time, "the Jews killed your Lord and Savior". And not the Jews of two thousand years ago, either: the Vatican's position was that this sin laid upon the shoulders of all Jews everywhere and at all times. There's no way to conduct an experiment in an alternate universe to be sure, but I have difficulty believing that the Final Solution is something that could have been sold to people without this religiously-foisted context of bigotry - without, that is, a majority of people believing that it was plausible that their God enjoined this sort of behaviour.
In any event, though, while that's an interesting discussion I think it's moot. I think my more important point stands that surely atheism didn't motivate the Nazis to behave as they did. If Hitler had said, "I do not believe in religion or a God, and hence I wish to lead the German people on a crusade of skepticism to eradicate the believers", this would be a useful analogy. Obviously this isn't the case.
Second, I'm not sure I agree with what you're suggesting regarding atheism's connection to the world views of these other dictatorships. In the case of regimes where we criticize them as committing atrocious acts on behalf of religion (say, Hamas or Khomeini's Iran or the Spanish Inquisition) you can more or less draw a direct line from either the source text of the religion itself or the preachings of religious leaders and the action. There's something different about Stalin there - there's no Atheist doctrine you can point to that would lead a person to conclude that the best thing to do is effect Stalinist policy, precisely because there is no Atheist doctrine. So I think the connection between the Stalinist world view and atheism is tenuous. Atheism is incidental to a regime like that rather than a driving force, I'd argue. I suppose if Stalin was a devout follower of Catholicism or something, there may have been differences in his regime but I wouldn't expect it would be much better. Can only speculate, of course.
It's also been noted that dictatorial and totalitarian regimes of this sort bear an eerie similarity to religions - the cult of the leader, and so forth. They seem to prey on the same basic human tendencies to effect the subjugation they require to operate. North Korea is frequently cited as a good example. But that's a whole other conversation.
But I want to re-focus on my central thesis for this topic that the allegation that Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia is an example of atheism running a country is apples and oranges because atheism, properly understood, isn't a belief system. I think this will become clearer when atheism is properly cast as what it is, which is a demand for evidence and logic in support of any proposition. In other words, I think if you asked any reasonable atheist if they'd change their views if presented with convincing empirical proof of God that isn't susceptible to a better explanation, they would agree that they would do so. Sam Harris is fond of saying that this is the best way to understand what he believes, and I agree with him - I can't think of a country or a society that was worse off because it was burdened with an excess of skepticism, logical reasoning and a demand for empirical evidence in support of claims. If there was, then there might be a case that atheism creates bad political results.
Just as a postscript: if the topic of discussion is still whether or not to believe in God, this entire line of argument can only justify such belief on a utilitarian basis (i.e. does it lead to a better political landscape in our world) rather than a rational basis. I'll be honest and say that I'm not much interested in the latter discussion, though.
