Does it Matter that Hitler was a Theist?

[LuisDantas]

Yes, it does in fact matter, because while belief itself is legitimate, it is not automatically safe or respectable, yet there are many who give it exception as if it were.

Belief in God comes in many varieties, and some of them are very unhealthy indeed. It turned out that Hitler had ****-poor defenses against the pitfalls of his own belief, and so did the society he lived in.

The most scary thing about Hitler is how unexceptional a person he was. He was the very personification of mediocrity, of foolishness even; his only remarkable traits were his difficulty in dealing with frustration and the unyielding way he had with his speechs. In every other known aspect he seems to have been average at best. "Mein Kampf" is one of the most boring, vitriolistic and naive books that I ever saw - definitely not the work of an Evil Genius, but rather of an Evil Fool.

Generally speaking, we have pretty much forgotten every valuable lesson that we could have learned from WW2, in no small part due to having convinced ourselves that its main cause was the wickedness of a few. That is distressing, because Hitler was hardly the last of the Evil Fools with political intentions, and we keep giving his successors ever more of an ear. Political freedoms are ever more often presented as something of a necessary sacrifice, and political responsibility has been decreasing pretty much constantly ever since 1980 at least. The very factors that allowed Hitler to be a dangerous leader instead of the harmless crackpot that he had a true vocation to be are mounting themselves all over again.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Yes, it does in fact matter, because while belief itself is legitimate, it is not automatically safe or respectable, yet there are many who give it exception as if it were.

"Safe" and "respectable" are completely defined by belief. The horrors the Nazi party committed can only be considered such through beliefs.

Generally speaking, we have pretty much forgotten every valuable lesson that we could have learned from WW2, in no small part due to having convinced ourselves that its main cause was the wickedness of a few.

How do you reconcile the above claim given experiments like Milgram's and others specifically designed to explain what was behind the actions of Germany and the Nazi party?

 

[LuisDantas]

"Safe" and "respectable" are completely defined by belief. The horrors the Nazi party committed can only be considered such through beliefs.

I'm not sure what you mean here. Safety is at least partially an objective concern, because the integrity of people and even of institutions is not defined solely by belief.

Respectability, by its turn, is a fairly complex concept, but I don't think it is quite accurate to say that it is completely defined by belief. Would you like to elaborate or illustrate your thoughts?

How do you reconcile the above claim given experiments like Milgram's and others specifically designed to explain what was behind the actions of Germany and the Nazi party?

I don't think they do contradict what I just said in any way. Milgram taught us much about how the influence of authority works. I said that we have failed to assimilate the important lessons of the dangers that WW2 brought to fore.

If there is a contradiction there, it sure is escaping me.

 

[Î Î¿Î»Ï Ï€Î­ÏÏ‡Ï‰Î½ Γʹ]

Does it matter that Trotsky was an atheist and that he was born Lev Bronstein?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7LxEowtDGs

 

[Alceste]

Now and then one or another person on this board has raised Hitler's religious beliefs as evidence for...what? Does it matter that Hitler seems to have believed in a god? Was his belief in deity at all significant to what he did? Do you think it would have changed anything if he had been less religious -- perhaps even an atheist? Why or why not?

I imagine it mattered a great deal, to him.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I really don't know how you can say a persons beliefs are irrelevant to their actions. Beliefs inform actions. Hitler's actions were the inevitable result of his beliefs.

That being said, to blame Hitler's actions on "theism" is obviously absurd. Hitler's actions were not informed by his theism - they were informed by his hyper-conservative Roman Catholic upbringing, the notion of "God's chosen people", eugenics, a post world-war Germany that was desperately looking for a scapegoat, the practices and beliefs of Martin Luther, and the backing of a Catholic church too terrified to stand up to him until it was far too late.

So no, Hitler didn't do what he did because he was a theist. But yes, he did do what he did because of his beliefs - combined with the inaction of those that would otherwise have stopped him.

 

[sandandfoam]

Now and then one or another person on this board has raised Hitler's religious beliefs as evidence for...what? Does it matter that Hitler seems to have believed in a god? Was his belief in deity at all significant to what he did? Do you think it would have changed anything if he had been less religious -- perhaps even an atheist? Why or why not?

No, I do not believe it does.
The crimes of Nazi Germany involved the majority of its population. Hitler may have been the head but there were millions behind him.
The crimes of the Nazis were bigger than any individual, even one as awful as Hitler.

 

[savagewind]

I think it might have made a difference that he believed in God. The things he and his people did are mostly unforgivable. So how does a person keep committing the unforgivable? I think they can do it because they either believe in the forgiveness of God Almighty or they don't believe in anything, especially hell. So he might have been the same if he was an atheist with no belief in an afterlife. But if he had known the True God it would not have been possible for him to do the things he did imo.

 

[LuisDantas]

Lack of belief in hell isn't really a big deal.

 

[savagewind]

For many people lack of belief in hell isn't a big deal but there are people whose religion is founded on the no hell concept. So for some people it's a big deal.

Lack of belief in hell isn't really a big deal.

It's not a really big deal for me either.

 

[LuisDantas]

I guess I have a hard time imagining it. Hell seems so superfluous a concept.

 

[9Westy9]

It depends on Hitler's reasoning for what he did. If his theism or religion played a big role in his motivation then yes.

 

[savagewind]

I think Hitler was not motivated by his theism but his actions might have been intensified because of it.

 

[LuisDantas]

It depends on Hitler's reasoning for what he did. If his theism or religion played a big role in his motivation then yes.

At several points in "Mein Kampf" he states or implies a belief in a sacred mission of some sort.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Does it matter that Hitler seems to have believed in a god?

No.

Was his belief in deity at all significant to what he did?

Not to my knowledge.

Do you think it would have changed anything if he had been less religious --

Being religious and being a theist are not at all the same.

-- perhaps even an atheist?

Stalin ... Mao ... Pol Pot ...

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I'm not sure what you mean here. Safety is at least partially an objective concern, because the integrity of people and even of institutions is not defined solely by belief.

Throughout history, however, "the integrity of people" didn't correspond to "integrity of humans" as the former has been as cultural concept, and the latter a biological one. In other words, for most of recorded human history, the "other" consisted of humans who weren't really "people."

Respectability, by its turn, is a fairly complex concept, but I don't think it is quite accurate to say that it is completely defined by belief. Would you like to elaborate or illustrate your thoughts?

Basically, the fact that it is a concept, and one which has no direct relation to physical reality (the way that, say, "speed" or "dog" or "city" do), and has been variously defined throughout history, suggests to me that there is not way in which it can be defined apart from a belief system.

I don't think they do contradict what I just said in any way. Milgram taught us much about how the influence of authority works. I said that we have failed to assimilate the important lessons of the dangers that WW2 brought to fore.

If there is a contradiction there, it sure is escaping me.

Here's what you said:

Generally speaking, we have pretty much forgotten every valuable lesson that we could have learned from WW2

To me, the fact that Milgram and others have continually studied what factors (in terms of human psychology and the ways in which it is shaped by culture, groupthink, authority, media, etc.) could make so many complicit or active in the holocaust means that we haven't forgotten the lessons. Instead, we've spent years researching what could make large numbers of people behave like most of the Germans during under the Nazi regime (not to mention what was going on outside of Germany).

 

[LuisDantas]

The mechanisms are far better understood, true. But we have still forgotten what we learned from WW2.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The mechanisms are far better understood, true. But we have still forgotten what we learned from WW2.

I could be wrong (it's been known to happen, although estimates vary; my estimate is about once or twice in my life, and those who know my well posit something more like dozens of times per hour).

How (or based on what) would you say we have forgotten? And for that matter, could you clarify who the "we" is?

 

[LuisDantas]

Humankind.

We have kept only a faint and largely ineffective memory of why WW2 was such an abomination and what made it possible and how hard and how painful it was to contain it.

There is no other explanation for the heightened tolerance for repeating those same mistakes in the last few decades, or for the accomodation into believing that "the fault was all of that madman Hitler".

 

[1robin]

Now and then one or another person on this board has raised Hitler's religious beliefs as evidence for...what? Does it matter that Hitler seems to have believed in a god? Was his belief in deity at all significant to what he did? Do you think it would have changed anything if he had been less religious -- perhaps even an atheist? Why or why not?

Hello Sunstone. I have had to deal with this rediculous claim many times.

1. Hitler only pursued the Catholic faith because he desired the influence the Church had with the people he needed for cannon fodder.
2. If his actions are diametrically opposed to the religion then neither the religion nor God have anything what so ever to do with his actions.
3. If you evaluate a teacher, then you would naturally select the best and most obedient students. It is meaningless to select the ones who do not show up, do not study the lessons, and do not put into practice the teachings they receive.
4. Hitler actually said that evolution justified his actions. I am not saying evolution is why he did them but rather what he used to make them appear legitimate. It can be shown that indeed his actions are consistent with many evolutionary principles. That has no bearing on whether evolution is true of false but what its truth implies.

Hitler's pretenses at faith are less than meaningful to evaluate his actions, the Bible, or God. It is a desperate and obnoxious concept. Without God the sanctity of life, the equality of man, or even actual morality have insufficient foundations for society’s needs.