Reagan & Non-believers: An essay by Isaac Asimov

Moderator, if I may be so bold, I think that Agnosticism and Atheism should be combined into their own board, since they are often categorized as quasi-synonymous. Perhaps the current separate boards can be combined thus.

James Randi, in his weekly commentary, posted an essay by the late Isaac Asimov on Reagan's views on non-believers, and how they pertained to his foreign policy. It's a great essay, still relevant after 23 years, and you can read it here.

Both the Atheism and Agnosticism boards have been around since before I became moderator and are pretty full. Atheism, in fact has five serial sub-boards. It would be very difficult to merge all of those older posts. Besides, there are important differences between the two philosophies that some posters might want to address, or they might have a post that applies to one philosophy but not the other.

Still, there are enough similarities that there are also many posts that apply to both, so this board is not exactly redundant, either. I've re-titled it, and if I ever get around to organizing Specific Religions by hierarchy (assuming I can ever decide where to include non-mainstream sects such as Jehovah's Witnesses and the LDS -- see my announcement on the Specific Religions main page), the other two boards will fall under this one.

Now to comment on the Professor's essay:
Let me begin by presenting this "Reagan Doctrine" (using the term with all possible respect): "No one who disbelieves in God and in an afterlife can possibly be trusted." If this is true (and it must be if the president says so), then people are just naturally dishonest and crooked and downright rotten. In order to keep them from lying and cheating every time they open their mouths, they must be bribed or scared out of doing so. They have to be told and made to believe that if they tell the truth and do the right thing and behave themselves, they will go to heaven and get to plunk a harp and wear the latest design in halos. They must also be told and made to believe that if they lie and steal and run around with the opposite sex, they are going to hell and will roast over a brimstone fire forever.

It's a little depressing, if you come to think of it. By the Reagan Doctrine, there is no such thing as a person who keeps his word just because he has a sense of honor. No one tells the truth just because he thinks that it is the decent thing to do. No one is kind because he feels sympathy for others, or treats others decently because he likes the kind of world in which decency exists.

Instead, according to the Reagan Doctrine, anytime we meet someone who pays his debts, or hands in a wallet he found in the street, or stops to help a blind man cross the road, or tells a casual truth — he's just buying himself a ticket to heaven, or else canceling out a demerit that might send him to hell. It's all a matter of good, solid business practice; a matter of turning a spiritual profit and of responding prudently to spiritual blackmail.

Personally, I don't think that I — or you — or even president Reagan — would knock down an old lady and snatch her purse the next time we're short a few bucks. If only we were sure of that heavenly choir, or if only we were certain we wouldn't get into that people-fry down in hell. But by the Reagan Doctrine, if we didn't believe in God and in an afterlife, there would be nothing to stop us, so l guess we all would.

This is something of a straw man argument.If you want to over-simplify Christian behavior to its most basic terms, the Carrot and Stick model is not the correct model. The correct model is the 12-Step Program.

Of course everyone wants to think of himself as a "good person," and in order to feel that way it is necessary to do what you believe is the right thing despite temptation. And, in general, we can overcome most of the temptations that we are aware of. Most, but not all. There are times when we are just too weak. And then there are the temptaions that we barely recognize, or miss entirely. (As an example, you have made a semi-firm commitment to help serve breakfast at the local soup kitchen every Saturday morning, but you are too tired this morning, so you just roll over and go back to sleep.)

Everyone falls short of the ideal. Some people settle: "I'm as good as the next person, and better than some people I could name." Some people rationalize: "I'm sure everyone understands. It's not like I'm the only person there to serve breakfast."

And some people form support groups to help them overcome temptation despite their weaknesses: AA, Gamblers' Anonymous, etc. And the group points them toward a "higher power.

Since much of the reductio ad absurdum relies on the wrong oversimplification, there is not much point in trying to address the rest of the essay on religious/philosphical grounds. The political viewpoints are often valid, if simplified, but since I hold the presentation of religious premises to be flawed, the religious conclusions which would indeed be absurd if the premises stated were a fair representation, are merely invalid.

It doesn't sound like Asimov was trying to explain the basics of Christianity. He was simply trying to explain Reagan's view of humanity, which may be shared by some Christians and based (they believe) on Christianity. If Christianity is being misinterpreted, it's Reagan who's responsible for that.

Agreed. Asimov is talking about Reagan, not Christians in general. That is why he refers to the ideas in question as "The Reagan Doctrine."

But Luigi you posted it here as an atheist/agnostic essay, with the implication that it was a manifesto in opposition to theistic credos. The Good Doctor is no longer around, and he might never have seen his essay here -- a link to a reprint, etc. -- even if he were still around.

Likewise Reagan is no longer around, and would be unlikely to respond here if he were.

So I had to assume that you felt it necessary to link to the essay because you felt that some posters here at NitCentral, those who believed in the God of the Bible, needed to hear the Good Doctor's arguments and repent of their ignorance.

If that was not the reason you posted, what was?