Is Religion a Totalitarian System?

[Levite]

That isn't an acceptable definition of "omniscience" for most people, but let's go with the claim of willful ignorance on God's part. You are saying that God threw the dice, could have known the outcome, but chose to blind himself to that knowledge. You may think that this somehow allows for free will, but it doesn't. Potential omniscience is just as bad as actual omniscience for free will, because the outcome has to be predetermined for God to have potential knowledge. The dice can still only come up one way.

I suppose we will have to agree to disagree. I think that God refraining from actively knowing a thing makes all the difference: the difference between potential and actual action is entire. Much in the same vein that my having the ability to eat an apple does not, by definition, mean that I am eating an apple.

This is also a very common method for getting cooperation. Totalitarians also use the carrot-stick approach.

As do non-totalitarians. As do pretty much every society or relationship, in one form or another.

This all sounds very convoluted to me, but we're not debating the specifics of how people reconcile their relationship with their deities here. The point is that you acknowledge a desire by God--a supreme leader--for obedience to rules that pretty much cover life in totality.

I am not entirely convinced that even our vast array of rules actually cover the totality of life. But even if they did, my point is that totalitarian authorities assert their will with absolute dominance. Nobody forced the Jews to accept the covenant, with all its responsibilities. And, as far as we know, God does not force non-Jews to accept other covenants or forms of authority, and does not expect such a wide array of obligations from them. People make their own choices.

I don't know how my father-in-law fell away from the religion. He was in the fifth wave on Omaha Beach and lasted through the entire Battle of the Hedgerows, including the capture of St Lô. He told me a little bit about that. He didn't like to talk about it much, but I think he had a hard time reconciling that experience with God.

I am not surprised: one of the most difficult things in the world is to try and reconcile a God we suppose to be generally good (or, in other religions, omnibenevolent) with the horrifying reality of human evil and brutality. Such events and experiences have cause theological upheaval for many, if not all of us.

 

[Copernicus]

I suppose we will have to agree to disagree. I think that God refraining from actively knowing a thing makes all the difference: the difference between potential and actual action is entire. Much in the same vein that my having the ability to eat an apple does not, by definition, mean that I am eating an apple.

We will disagree on this, and I actually like what you are trying to accomplish here. You recognize the problem that omniscience poses for the free will argument (although I think that "free will" is a very ill-defined concept). I am not saying that knowing is the same as knowing. That would be a contradiction. I'm saying that the potential of knowing an outcome guarantees predetermination. Whether one knows the outcome or not is irrelevant.

As do non-totalitarians. As do pretty much every society or relationship, in one form or another.

Agreed, but the scope of those relationships does not extend to all aspects of behavior. I think it does with religion. God is Big Brother on steroids. He is aware of everything you do and quite judgmental about what you do.

I am not entirely convinced that even our vast array of rules actually cover the totality of life. But even if they did, my point is that totalitarian authorities assert their will with absolute dominance. Nobody forced the Jews to accept the covenant, with all its responsibilities. And, as far as we know, God does not force non-Jews to accept other covenants or forms of authority, and does not expect such a wide array of obligations from them. People make their own choices.

But the same is true in totalitarian societies. Everyone exercises free will. It's just that your existential choices are highly constrained by fear of the consequences or hope of reward. Every aspect of life depends on what the rules are that govern it. If there are no rules that you are aware of, there may still be rules. You do what you can to survive, or you disobey and face the consequences.

I am not surprised: one of the most difficult things in the world is to try and reconcile a God we suppose to be generally good (or, in other religions, omnibenevolent) with the horrifying reality of human evil and brutality. Such events and experiences have cause theological upheaval for many, if not all of us.

I have to agree with you on this. The story of Job seems to address the issue, but not in a very satisfactory way, IMHO. The fact of suffering, and the unequal way in which it hits us all, is probably one of the most powerful things to shake religious faith. My wife and I visited Normandy and took a lot of video. That included St. Lo. He told us he barely recognized most of the pictures we took, but he recognized St. Lo's "hill". That was one of the worst scenes of carnage in the war. He said it brought tears to his eyes.

 

[Quintessence]

I fail to see how religion can be remotely totalitarian when religion is mindbogglingly diverse and hardly monolithic. You need to make statements about a specific religion and/or a specific ideological tendency that may or may not be present in religions (i.e., fundamentalism, dogmatism, and exclusivism) in combination with a specific mode of governance (i.e., dictatorial theocracy) in order for this claim to have any merit at all. Saying religion on the whole is totalitarian is absurd. The claim has truth when applied to specific case examples, however. Any ideology can become totalitarian provided certain elements are in play, religious, secular, or otherwise.

 

[Copernicus]

I fail to see how religion can be remotely totalitarian when religion is mindbogglingly diverse and hardly monolithic. You need to make statements about a specific religion and/or a specific ideological tendency that may or may not be present in religions (i.e., fundamentalism, dogmatism, and exclusivism) in combination with a specific mode of governance (i.e., dictatorial theocracy) in order for this claim to have any merit at all. Saying religion on the whole is totalitarian is absurd. The claim has truth when applied to specific case examples, however. Any ideology can become totalitarian provided certain elements are in play, religious, secular, or otherwise.

I make the point that totalitarianism may not always be as oppressive as people think. For those who feel aligned with the authority, it can actually seem quite comforting, if not empowering, and not all absolute rulers are equally oppressive in their rule. The "totalitarian" part comes in when the authority extends to all aspects of one's behavior, including things like dietary habits, grooming habits, mating practices, freedom of speech--just about every aspect of interaction with other human beings. The supreme authority essentially defines "righteous behavior" in its totality.

 

[Quintessence]

I make the point that totalitarianism may not always be as oppressive as people think. For those who feel aligned with the authority, it can actually seem quite comforting, if not empowering, and not all absolute rulers are equally oppressive in their rule. The "totalitarian" part comes in when the authority extends to all aspects of one's behavior, including things like dietary habits, grooming habits, mating practices, freedom of speech--just about every aspect of interaction with other human beings. The supreme authority essentially defines "righteous behavior" in its totality.

Oh, sure, I wasn't necessarily assuming totalitarianism in the negative. The truth of it still depends largely on the specific religion and context of discussion, though. I mean, the very notion of totalitarian Neopaganism or totalitarian Unitarian Universalism just makes me laugh hysterically. It could never happen. There's no supreme authority in either of these religions, and their nature is diametrically opposed to the kind of dogmatism and authoritarianism necessary for a totalitarian system. Only religions with a strong organizational structure that imposes authority and dogma could possibly become totalitarian, and not all religions have those characteristics.

 

[Breathe]

I make the point that totalitarianism may not always be as oppressive as people think. For those who feel aligned with the authority, it can actually seem quite comforting, if not empowering, and not all absolute rulers are equally oppressive in their rule. The "totalitarian" part comes in when the authority extends to all aspects of one's behavior, including things like dietary habits, grooming habits, mating practices, freedom of speech--just about every aspect of interaction with other human beings. The supreme authority essentially defines "righteous behavior" in its totality.

What about with religions without those things?

 

[Copernicus]

I'm certainly no absolutist when it comes to the nature of word meanings. The word religion, like any other noun, associates a number of concepts, and the meaning goes beyond the "totality" of the scope of one's life. The problem with any discussion of religion is that people rationalize it from a very personal perspective. Members of the same church congregation can have radically different opinions about God's nature. (Maxim Gorky mentioned this in his autobiographical "Childhood" trilogy, where he mused over the difference between his mother's benevolent God and his father's vengeful God.) Quintessence makes a good point about the diffuse nature of some postmodernist religions. I still feel that there is a case for a "totalitarian" aspect even in that type of religious belief, but I'm more comfortable with a more traditional "core" view of religion. Typically, it does impose a sense of what counts as righteous behavior, and Communist meetings were sometimes like religious revival meetings.

As I said earlier, I visited the SU in its heyday on a Russian language study tour with a lot of other American students. We used to have long discussions about our impression of Soviet culture. Many, if not most, of my fellow travelers were religious, and we were constantly exposed to atheist propaganda (something which I had never experienced before as a young atheist). Our very first excursion on the first day was to see an atheist play called "The Divine Comedy." Our last excursion was to visit Lenin's estate outside of Moscow, where we gathered in the estate chapel to see a propaganda film and an alabaster bust of Lenin on the altar, where the cross would normally have been. The one overriding impression that we could all agree on was how strongly Communism came off as a state religion. The Party really was acting more like clergy and missionaries than public functionaries.