# Why blame religion for Alan Turing's prosecution? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 21, 2008, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-blame-religion-for-alan-turings-prosecution/457223 "2008-07-21T03:29:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2008, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-blame-religion-for-alan-turings-prosecution/457223/61 "2008-07-22T20:03:39Z")
[QUOTE=JThunder] No, I was not referring you at all, though I can see how my words could be construed that way. For that, I apologize. I quite agree with you that Dawkins’ “religion causes violence” argument was by no means a minor point, given the considerable amount of verbiage that he devoted to that topic. That precisely echoes what I said earlier. [/quote] Fair enough then. > [@](#): > > Not at all. Quite the contrary; as I emphasized earlier, I **strongly disagree** with Ruse and Orr regarding their atheistic beliefs. I also disagree strongly with a number of Orr’s other claims. Nevertheless, I applaud them for their honesty in disagreeing with the logic of Dawkins, even though they agree with his atheistic conclusion. Ah, then I misunderstood your post. Apologies. I think it was the “still honest enough” part that misled me; I read it as though you were saying that although they were atheists (agreeing with Dawkins), they were still honest in other ways, suggesting Dawkin’s ideas (or atheism itself, I suppose) were dishonest. > [@](#): > > So no, no careful reader can claim that I only consider them to be honest because they agree with me. Rather, I deem them to be honest because they are willing to criticize a book for using erroneous facts and sloppy logic, even though it promotes their cause. I would argue that my conclusion was the result of careful reading; of course now that you’ve explained, no careful reader could claim otherwise now. > [@](#): > > Merely wrong, and I never claimed otherwise. It wasn’t an accusation, just a question, and something of a tongue-in-cheek one at that. ---
**Author:** ![Sitnam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Sitnam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sitnam)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2008, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-blame-religion-for-alan-turings-prosecution/457223/62 "2008-07-25T03:32:39Z")
[QUOTE=Voyager] The statement “I don’t believe that any gods exist” is far different from the statement “I assert that no gods exist.” Dawkins is very careful to say the former but not the latter. [/QUOTE] I think the first position is uncomfortable for many athiest to take for the simple reason that saying ‘I believe’ implies to a Thiest the Athiest postion is based on faith, not the thiests faith to be sure, but as faith goes equally nonprovable. For a Thiest I think any Athiest claim that falls short of ‘fully knowing’ is just conjecture and as such is simply a world view like political party afiliation. Of course like you said very very few Athiests are so far out they will say categorically ‘there IS no god’, but I don’t think a Thiest really understands, or wants to understand, any other type of argument. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2008, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-blame-religion-for-alan-turings-prosecution/457223/63 "2008-07-25T03:44:09Z")
I hate to be a spelling cop, but please, it’s ath **ei** st and th **ei** st. ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Borgia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/larry_borgia/32/156_2.png) [@Larry\_Borgia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Borgia)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2008, 4:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-blame-religion-for-alan-turings-prosecution/457223/64 "2008-07-25T04:01:28Z")
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic] I hate to be a spelling cop, but please, it’s ath **ei** st and th **ei** st. [/QUOTE] He’s athier than you. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2008, 7:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-blame-religion-for-alan-turings-prosecution/457223/65 "2008-07-25T07:39:15Z")
[QUOTE=Sitnam] I think the first position is uncomfortable for many athiest to take for the simple reason that saying ‘I believe’ implies to a Thiest the Athiest postion is based on faith, not the thiests faith to be sure, but as faith goes equally nonprovable. For a Thiest I think any Athiest claim that falls short of ‘fully knowing’ is just conjecture and as such is simply a world view like political party afiliation. Of course like you said very very few Athiests are so far out they will say categorically ‘there IS no god’, but I don’t think a Thiest really understands, or wants to understand, any other type of argument. [/QUOTE] First it is hard for us to not have some beliefs about things we think of. The difference between belief and faith is that someone with a belief is willing to admit he might be wrong. “I believe the Yankees will win the pennant this year” for instance. I believe that there are aliens somewhere out there, but it is far weaker than faith. The second thing is that the theist, believing in the existence of something, has the burden of proof. I can say that I believe in no gods, never having seen one, but can be easily be convinced otherwise if I’m shown very good evidence of one. I can’t show the evidence of the nonexistence of all gods, only evidence of the nonexistence of very closely defined ones. So the “you can’t prove there is no god” argument is among the most bogus. We don’t see it much around here. ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2008, 10:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-blame-religion-for-alan-turings-prosecution/457223/66 "2008-07-25T10:05:18Z")
> [@](#): > > **ITR champion** : Concerning secularity, it is true that the relevant boards of authorities in the medical and psychiatric fields considered homosexuality to be a mental illness up until the late 1960’s and early 70’s in both Britain and America. In America this had specific legal consequences, and when the APA ceased to list homosexuality as a mental disorder the decision influenced many court cases. Form what I read, it seems that the same was not true in Britain. As we can reasonably describe those groups of authorities as being quite secular, it gives us a picture of where the non-religious side of society stood on the issue. It’s easy to start thinking of the scientific as being the “non-religious,” but that assumes a bias that isn’t in keeping with reality. At least here in the States a good number of scientists – including those in psychiatric and other medical fields – belong to religious organizations or have religious beliefs. > [@](#): > > **Voyager** : Clearly Communism has no God belief. However it does have inerrant holy books, icons, and saints. It also must be believed in with a perfect faith in the face of facts and evidence against it. The books are not “holy” in the traditional meaning of the word. And “saints” and “icons” are also used figuratively here. Maybe in the Soviet Union one was required to claim belief in certain principals whether they actually believed them or not. But these principals were not religious principals. They were not about the soul, the mystical, the spiritual. They were supposed to be about economic practicality and justice. Well, we all know how that worked out. But in some other countries religion has not been forbidden by the Communist government. And members of the Communist Party are not required to subscribe to one entire set of principles. There really are people who believe in “From each according to his ability; to each according to his need.” And they believe that living that lifestyle should be done on a volutary basis. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2008, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-blame-religion-for-alan-turings-prosecution/457223/67 "2008-07-25T18:52:14Z")
[QUOTE=Zoe] The books are not “holy” in the traditional meaning of the word. And “saints” and “icons” are also used figuratively here. Maybe in the Soviet Union one was required to claim belief in certain principals whether they actually believed them or not. But these principals were not religious principals. They were not about the soul, the mystical, the spiritual. They were supposed to be about economic practicality and justice. Well, we all know how that worked out. But in some other countries religion has not been forbidden by the Communist government. And members of the Communist Party are not required to subscribe to one entire set of principles. There really are people who believe in “From each according to his ability; to each according to his need.” And they believe that living that lifestyle should be done on a voluntary basis. [/QUOTE] I hope it is obvious that I’m reasoning by analogy. What is bad about some religions has nothing to do with spirituality, and everything to do with dogma, absolute conviction of ones correctness, and the desire for conversion of others. Do you think that someone trying to publish a book on the errors of Das Kapital in Russia in the '40s would have had any better luck than someone trying to publish a book on errors in the Koran in Saudi Arabia today? Both Communism and religion describe the utopian future and heaven on earth, whether by the withering away of the state or the return of Jesus. Religion often serves as solace for those downtrodden - thus the opiate of the masses, with slave religion as an example. Communists don’t like that because it tends to discourage the revolution they seek. Once that revolution happens, they do their doping through propaganda. I think China today is a good example of how Communist states deal with religion. The government allows the Catholic Church, but only if the church authorities report in to the government, not the Vatican. You can’t really blame them. Religious leaders have a natural audience, have respect, and are expected to lead and talk to that audience. That’s been powerful in the South for the Civil Rights movement and in Poland. I don’t think the Communists give a crap about purely spiritual teaching, but do worry when the spiritual merges into the political, which it will, especially in places of oppression. If everyone prayed in closets, I doubt there would be much conflict. ---
**Author:** ![sqweels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f19dbf/32.png) [@sqweels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sqweels)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2008, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-blame-religion-for-alan-turings-prosecution/457223/68 "2008-07-29T16:24:37Z")
[QUOTE=ITR champion] Communism has no religious nature. In its most common form it had the most stringently atheistic nature of any movement the world has ever seen. [/QUOTE] The stringency is what makes it religious in the sense of an ideological belief system that deigns to control the way people live their lives. Atheism is a kind of religion. And Communism and Naziism emphasized conformity and didn’t tolerate deviance, while homosexuality could be considered the ultimate in devient behavior. I think not enough emphasis is being placed on the distiction between Communism and Naziism on the one hand and today’s secular liberalism on the other. Being “secular” doesn’t mean they should be lumped together as opposed to Christianity. Liberalism is freedom from ideology. Christians and Commienazis both embrace and an anti-gay ideology along with many other things they have in common. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2008, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-blame-religion-for-alan-turings-prosecution/457223/69 "2008-07-29T17:16:32Z")
Atheism is not a “kind of religion.” ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2008, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-blame-religion-for-alan-turings-prosecution/457223/70 "2008-07-29T17:31:44Z")
[QUOTE=sqweels] Liberalism is freedom from ideology. [/QUOTE] Liberalism is itself an ideology. An ideology is just a coherent set of ideals and values that frame the way we react to events and how we interpret facts. It’s not a bad thing in itself, and everybody has one. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2008, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-blame-religion-for-alan-turings-prosecution/457223/71 "2008-07-29T18:06:48Z")
[QUOTE=sqweels] The stringency is what makes it religious in the sense of an ideological belief system that deigns to control the way people live their lives. Atheism is a kind of religion. And Communism and Naziism emphasized conformity and didn’t tolerate deviance, while homosexuality could be considered the ultimate in devient behavior. I think not enough emphasis is being placed on the distiction between Communism and Naziism on the one hand and today’s secular liberalism on the other. Being “secular” doesn’t mean they should be lumped together as opposed to Christianity. Liberalism is freedom from ideology. Christians and Commienazis both embrace and an anti-gay ideology along with many other things they have in common. [/QUOTE] No atheism isn’t. Atheism is a purely descriptive term for someone’s lack of belief. Atheism does not prescribe anything. An atheist can go to church and sing hymns so long as he doesn’t believe what they say. It doesn’t even prescribe lack of belief - once someone believes, he is no longer an atheist by definition, not by fiat. And the statement that liberalism is lack of ideology is too silly to even comment on. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-blame-religion-for-alan-turings-prosecution/457223.md?page=3)