Reply #73: "tends toward" is not the same thing as "by definition" [View All]

You are treading dangerously close to the classic definition of the logically fallacious illicit appeal to authority. I don't consider the people you quote as illicit authorities, however by the very nature of philosophy their opinion, however highly thought of they may be, is not objectively quantifiable. So in the end, what happens if you find a quote from some historical figure that actually matter-of-fatly says "theism is inseparable from authoritarianism, one cannot be a theist without subscribing to authoritarian attitudes? Does that mean you have "proven" the point of view true, because some other human being held the same opinion? You don't have to answer that, because in this case none of the quotes help the case.

Erich Fromm conceptualizes one picture of God and argues against it. However the definition of "theism" says does not specifically include that criterion that belief in god must be a belief in a god that:

1 controls fate and does not permit free will;
2 is not accountable; and
3 The people are powerless and insignificant yet their obedience is demanded

To use an example, I don't believe in a God that controls fate and does not permit free will, not one that is not accountable, nor one that demands obedience through sanction. Yet, I do believe in the existence of a god or gods, therefore I am rightly called a theist, while at the same time all of Fromm's analysis is totally inapplicable to my theism, though I assume it is probably extremely accurate as a critique of an authoritarian conception of God.

The quote from Dorothee Solle speaks of "Orthodox theology, often associated with a fundamentalist understanding of the Bible." No one is denying that orthodox theology is often associated with a fundamentalist understanding of the bible, and no one is denying that a fundamentalist understanding of the Bible is authoritarian in composition. However theism is not synonymous with either orthodox theology or fundamentalist Christianity, or Christianity on the whole. All of our arguments are against the "god of orthodoxy" which she claims (and I agree) is authoritarian in nature. But this doesn't further you argument at all - it doesn't help make the case authoritarianism is "by definition" connected to theism.

The person who gets up on morning, looks at the big blue sky and says, "you know I have to think there's a god behind all of that" then moves on to other thoughts in his head and goes about his day is a theist by definition. He simply has a belief in the existence of a god or gods. That's all the definition of theism is - the institutionalization, concression and systemization of a simple theistic belief into an organization with hierarchy, rules and pronouncements is certainly a very common current in which many people with a theistic belief drift.

But it is not a universal absolute guarantee that this drift will occur. And there are many examples of those who profess a belief in a god or gods who actively reject all authoritarian theologies and institutions. Whether they are the exception to the rule (as I'm sure they are) or not is irrelevant to the issue. The fact is that they stand as direct counter-example to the claim that by very fact of saying "I believe in a god or gods" a person is necessarily authoritarian. That is an impossible to justify claim, and few if any of the folks you have proof-texted would make that claim. Yet you do.

In Christopher Hitchens' quote, he makes it clear he is discussing "religious absolutism" which is certainly one form theism can take, but not the only form. So his comments, while interesting have nothing to do with the claim that some how the mere belief in the existence of a god or gods necessarily forces one to authoritarianism. This is so easy to refute just by practical example:

Again, the definition of authoritarian is: "Characterized by or favoring absolute obedience to authority, as against individual freedom: an authoritarian regime." So a person believes in the existence of god. But he does not believe that god demands his absolute obedience, nor affects individual freedom, nor does he have any interest in participating in or establishing a regime based on his belief. He has no desire to share his belief with others or convince anyone else to feel the same.

That person is, by definition of theism, rightly called a theist. And that person, by definition of authoritarianism, is wrongly called authoritarian. Therefore, theism and authoritarianism are not connected "by definition."

Note that the second Hitchens' quote only further makes my point:

Religion, however, is not the recognition of this private and dutiful attitude. It is its organized eruption from the private into the public realm. It is the elevation and collectivization of credulity and solipsism, and the arrangement of these into institutional dogma and creed.

Organized religion is not the same thing as theism. It is based on a theistic belief, but it is not the same thing by definition of both terms. I partially agree with Hitchens - I certainly agree with his criticism of organized religion. However I feel that religion is an extremely ambiguous word. Some people say "religion" and all they mean is organized religious traditions. Some people say "religion" and they mean a personal piety, or a personal private attitude. Hitchens' says, "no that's not religion" when I think he ought to say "no thats not what I'm referring to when I use the term religion"

Note that the dictionary makes such a distinction with the definition of religion:


a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.


Hitchens' excellently critiques the institutional definition of religion, but if he tries to simply dismiss that the personal definition of religion is an appropriate definition, I think he missteps. Obviously Tillich disagrees with Hitchens. So do numerous outstanding thinkers throughout history. But that is precisely why I have not yet been willing to bombard you with proof-text quotations: because it is so ludicrously irrelevant. For every person you quote it is possible to quote and equal number of historically significant, respected, gifted intellectual philosophers who will say the very opposite.


If you have a theist God or gods, you have the doctrinal follow-up, and its form tends toward authoritarianism.

What do you mean by a "doctrinal follow-up?" I need that term to be defined. And I must point out here, that assuming the term doctrinal follow up is define, I assume that I am in total agreement with you - that its form tends toward authoritarianism. But that is not at all the same thing as saying that theism by definition necessarily and inescapably implies authoritarianism - i.e. you cannot be a theist without being authoritarian. Now those are my words - that's my interpretation of what "by definition" means. If I have mis-characterized your argument you'll have to point that out. But I take saying that "Theism by definition requires authoritarian response." I believe that by the dictionary definition of theism, I am have to be labeled a theist. And yet, I yet to make any kind of authoritarian response based on that theism. It is not "coming" any time soon unless its coming is due to me rejection of my specific beliefs in the existence of a god - because those believe are anti-authoritarian in nature.

Many historical authors refer to "classical theism" by which they mean not the basic root definition of the word "theism," but rather the historical western structures which have risen up out of theistic belief and their particular shared dogma, doctrine and theology. It is certainly true that theism has classically been interpreted in largely authoritarian ways. Several of the categories of classical theistic dogma about what god is - omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, etc. - are rigid and absolute.

But this is the thing, I both believe in god, and reject those dogmas. Meaning that while I do not fit into the historical trend of classical interpretations of theism, I apparently still am a theist, at least by the dictionary definition of the term as simply "belief in the existence of a god or gods." There is nothing in the term that gives any evidence as to what kind of god must be believed in - just that there is that belief. That is why trying to make the case that authoritarianism must be necessarily equated with theism is wrongheaded, because it does not remain consistent with the very simple definition of theism.

But we can both talk in agreement about the long history of classical interpretations of the theistic foundation and their moves toward intense authoritarianism. Of course that's true. But it is not a necessarily absolute that if a person has a belief in the existence of god that person must a) believe in an authoritarian god and b) adopt authoritarian attitudes himself or herself. It is not only impossible to defend that assertion, it is easily refutable through direct counter example of those who both do no believe in an authoritarian god and to not hold authoritarian attitudes themselves when it comes to their theistic beliefs. It's as simple as that.

Sel