Reply #91: So there is no answer then, therefore we must conclude that [View All]

an experience of belief in god devoid of authoritarianism is possible. Therefore authoritarianism, however likely to result from the grounds of theism - and it is likely - is not a necessary component of the base definition of basic theism, i.e. the belief in the existence of a god or gods.

Incidentally I believe the key to understanding hitchens entirely centers around the definition of one word: religion. Note, not "theism" but "religion."

By the way, I should ask - what is your desired intent with your appeals to authority? Are you suggesting that because an intelligent, thoughful, respected person says something - that stands as logical defense of a certain point of view? I'm assuming not, since we both know that would be a clear logical fallacy. Clearly there are times where we - possibly rightfully - disagree with a respective, even "authoritative" source, as in the exmaple you mention with the issue of Iraq.

So, while I do find it enjoyable and interesting to ponder the insights of great thinkers, it does not stand in the place of sound logical argumentation. What's more, in virtually every example quoted, there has been a persistent fact that none of them justify the assertion that authoritarianism is by definition liked to the basic starting belief in the existense of a god or gods. Many of the proof-texts provided (it's interesting that this is precisely the way Christian fundamentalists seek to defend their own dogma - by proof texting sources they consider to be "authoritative" rather than logical argumentation) hinge on definitions of terms that are not readily apparent in a single snippet.

One of the biggest "elephants in the room" in so much thought about these subjects is the definition of "religion." Until the terms are really qualified and nailed down, its difficult to move foward. Is religion properly defined as solely the personal act of belief, soley the institutionalization of belief, or both or neither? Arguments for any of those points of view are made by great thinkers. And how we think about even questions of authoritarianism in religion will depend greatly on how we define terms like religion, theism and the like (as well as making sure we properly understan how the people we quote as an authority define the terms.)

Incidentally, would justifying an agrument by appeals to authority be considered authoritarian? It in affect says, you should give your unqualifed assent to my position, becuase you should accept the authority of these people. Does that qualify as authoritarian?

Sel