quote:Originally posted by Euripides: What are they?
Do you find fault with The God Delusion (preferably the book rather than the documentary), or with his arguments?
Is he doing a service to atheism and rationalism?
My opinion, for what it's worth here (probably not much): He's an admirable man and I respect him hugely. He's intelligent and makes clear support for all his arguments. He's genuinely concerned about supporting atheists, and we need support because we are a minority that is absolutely pooped upon in this country (and in other countries, of course). In short, he's an inspiration.
Personally, I find no faults with his book. Some ideas in it at first struck me as too harsh, but once I read his arguments for them and thought about it, I came around to his way of thinking.
He is doing a huge service to atheism and rationalism, in my opinion.
Posts: 1006 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Deuteronomy is quite clear on the issue of heresy, once again advocating the death sentence. If you reject this chunk of the old testament (the law vs grace debate over mosaic law), what grounds do you have for doing so? Even if mosaic law was only intended to apply in Israel, they were still imperatives laid down by god for the faithful of the day, were they not?
The Bible endorses the Inquisition only if you ignore entire swaths of the New Testament, Euripedes. That is what I mean. The Bible endorses the Inquisition no more than US law prohibits interracial marriage, or buying alcohol on Sundays.
The bible is a contradictory book, I know. Why did you choose to follow the new testament rather than the old? Was Moses not speaking the will of god when he gave the Israelites those laws?
quote:
quote:Militant Marxists don't believe in theism. Therefore they are atheists. I don't believe in theism. Therefore I am an atheist. That's about all we have in common.
I have little to nothing in common with the kinds of Christians who would execute the Inquisition, or murder someone because "God says so". On paper, we worship the same God to some extent...but that's all.
It's all about the degree of "some" in that case. They are deriving their ideology from the same holy book and doctrine.
Mainstream Christianity though has adjusted itself to the times. I have to ask, why, and on what grounds?
quote:
quote:Ghandi was first and foremost the leader of the Indian independence movement, while Martin Luther King Jr was first and foremost a political campaigner (before a minister).
Like dkw, I wonder about this statement.
Even with Ghandi? Are you sure?
quote:
quote:You asserted that the movement "wouldn't have happened without religion." Please substantiate that, because while many leaders of the movement were religious, that correlation doesn't equate to religion being the cause. In a world where atheism is taboo and unpopular, people who are particularly interested in morality are encouraged to drift towards religious institutions.
If I made it a statement of fact, then I misspoke. I do not believe that is a fact. I do, however, believe it is the truth. And like I've said, in this discussion, so many of the things we're claiming can't be substantiated. You certainly cannot offer incontrovertible evidence that the entire world would be better off without religion, just as I cannot do the same about atheism (although to be fair, I've never advocated that). All either of us can do is point to a few examples, and then fall back on our beliefs.
In an online discussion forum, that probably is what we have to do. But given time and resources, it would be possible to mount a case based on evidence of the good and the harm religion has done, and what the likely consequences of atheism becoming widespread are today. Recent atheist literature mounts a pretty good case actually.
And as I've made clear, I really can't accept unsubstantiated beliefs or feelings; so often they are reliant on the bias of one's subculture (applies to me to, if I can't back up a statement with evidence).
quote:
quote:And yes, the movement does conflict with religion; Christian doctrine advocates many punishments contrary to its principles, and the Christian god is a Class-A war criminal responsible for a lengthy repertoire of human rights abuses. Once again, I'm glad that most Christians today have rejected the more unsavoury parts of Christian doctrine. I have to ask, if those parts are no longer valid, why are the others still absolute?
That's not a question I can answer on behalf of Christianity.
That's ok. Can you just give your own reasons, speaking purely for yourself?
quote:
quote:Then may I ask another question? Why are you a Christian and not a Muslim? Why do you believe Christianity is the right path?
Well, at least that's a simple question with a simple answer for this discussion I am not a Muslim because when I when I prayed as Muslims prayed, to Allah, I did not receieve any answers. This was not true, over a lengthy period (and remains true), of Mormonism. And after reviewing its precepts and beliefs and reading much of its Scripture, I also found some answers.
If you don't mind, can you be more specific about the latter?
I don't mean to be snarky, but isn't that trial and error? Have you tried the other religions to see if they provide better answers?
quote:
quote:Yes, social evolution dictates that civilization is not possible in the absence of a rudimentary moral code.
Even now. I am an intelligent, careful, man capable of making plans. In many cases, it goes against an evolutionary impulse and self-interest for me to be a moral person, and be a law-abiding citizen.
Certainly, the impulses of the individual often conflict with what is acceptable or legal. But for whatever reason (and as I've said, religion has performed a function in the past to imbue a moral code with authority), we resist those impulses. Often, it's in the interest of being a part of a successful community. That is the domain of social evolution and our ability to reason must be taken into account. Your intelligence and ability to make plans are just as much in the domain of evolution as your sensations of hunger. If my tribe had not developed some kind of code to order itself by, it would have been run over by other more organised neighbours.
quote:
quote:There is plenty of evidence (which admittedly doesn't amount to watertight proof) for social evolution towards a rudimentary system of morality, such as in Dawkins' book. Chimpanzees for example (I think it was chimpanzees) form groups in which the leader will arbitrate disputes and break up fights before one chimp gets hurt or perhaps is killed.
I would be very interested to hear such evidence with regards to humans of such a social evolution, without the bedrock of religion somewhere in the mix.
Like I said, in the absence of a developed moral philosophy, religion can provide a punishment and reward system which, if believed, lets its practitioners immediately and obviously see that it is in his/her own self-interest to abide by the code. If that code is just, there are secular long-term reasons to follow it. For example, it leads to a stable and productive society where life is not longer nasty, brutish, and short.
quote:
quote:I think it's important to ask, what criteria are they using to select them?
I can only speak for myself.
That's okay. Can I ask which criteria you use?
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:His crowning achievement was kick-starting the fledgling racial equality movement of the day, primarily grounding its rationale in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. As religious as the man himself was, his arguments were largely based on appeals to the secular notions of equality and freedom espoused in America's foundation. Wouldn't you agree, as I said, that he was a political activist more so than a minister?
Wouldn't you say that religion was a big part of America's foundation?
As has been indicated, a resounding no. For the reasons Tom and Lisa have indicated, and because there is plenty of evidence to show that the founding fathers were deists with a sceptical bent; Jefferson very much included. If anything the foundation of America was about shedding the traditions and inequalities of Europe; about equal opportunity and not having one's labour exploited by a hereditary king.
quote:Originally posted by dkw:
quote:Originally posted by Euripides: His crowning achievement was kick-starting the fledgling racial equality movement of the day, primarily grounding its rationale in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. As religious as the man himself was, his arguments were largely based on appeals to the secular notions of equality and freedom espoused in America's foundation. Wouldn't you agree, as I said, that he was a political activist more so than a minister?
No, I would not agree. I say that having read many of his speeches, writings, and his "rules" for non-violent activism.
Religion in his key speeches tend to take a backseat. Despite the rhetorical structure remeniscient of a Baptist sermon and the biblical allusions, 'I Have a Dream' (to use an obvious example) appeals primarily to the secular notions of equality implicit in America's foundation. When I said that he was first and foremost a political activist, that is with respect to his role in the public; his role in the civil rights movement. I have no doubts that he was a devout Baptist himself.
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: He was on the record as being a Deist. That's not a religion. It's a vague conception that the world didn't just happen. That there's a purpose.
As backup to these assertions, I submit his actual quotes. quotes
It can be read that he was indeed a Deist, that while having a great respect for Jesus, believed that he was just an extraordinary man with no divine origins (to the extent of editing a version of the Bible to remove those divine elements), that he believed that Christianity was corrupted and perverted over the ages, both by the original Church and by Protestantism, and he was exceedingly hostile towards priests. He also believed that theology had no place in academia.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Religion in his key speeches tend to take a backseat.
Only if you define religion to exclude the things that took the front seat in his speeches. Of course, if you did that you'd also have to throw out the Biblical books of Amos, Hosea . . . well, most of the prophets, actually. And a good chunk of Jesus' sermon on the mount/plain.
The decision to appeal primarily to the constitution and declaration of independence was a deliberate one, to intentionally redefine "American Values" to exclude racism. It doesn't mean he wasn't acting as a minister at the time.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:The bible is a contradictory book, I know. Why did you choose to follow the new testament rather than the old? Was Moses not speaking the will of god when he gave the Israelites those laws?
I have to ask: have you read the New Testament, any of it? That sounds pretty darn snarky, I know, but the question you're asking really does beg mine.
And anyway, I follow the New Testament and a few other scriptures, and the Old Testament-or I try to, anyway. This does not mean that I follow all parts of the Old Testament. In fact, I challenge you to find me a Christian sect which believes in and preaches total obedience to the OT.
quote:Mainstream Christianity though has adjusted itself to the times. I have to ask, why, and on what grounds?
Probably because it's an endeavor which involves human beings. Such systems tend to change in almost every case.
quote:Even with Ghandi? Are you sure?
Well, if you clarify yourself to say, "He was acting primarily as a secularist," or somesuch in his work, then it becomes a much more subjective argument. I'm still sure, though, and very sure about Dr. King.
quote:But given time and resources, it would be possible to mount a case based on evidence of the good and the harm religion has done, and what the likely consequences of atheism becoming widespread are today. Recent atheist literature mounts a pretty good case actually.
You're hardly a good judge of whether or not it makes a good case, Euripedes. I mean no offense when I say that-but you do already buy into the premise.
quote:That's ok. Can you just give your own reasons, speaking purely for yourself?
Speaking strictly for myself, it's because I am a Christian of a sect which a living Prophet, for one thing, and has had one for all my life. Also, among our beliefs is a belief that the Bible is accurate insofar as it has been accurately translated.
There are other reasons, but that becomes a much longer and different discussion the further we delve into it. I believe those two answers should suffice for your question. If not, you can either ask here in more detail, or email me.
quote:If you don't mind, can you be more specific about the latter?
I don't mean to be snarky, but isn't that trial and error? Have you tried the other religions to see if they provide better answers?
I don't mind your asking. I'm not sure how I could be more specific, though, or in what ways you're asking for more specificity...
And yes, I did try several other religions to see if they provided better answers, before conversion. Not just Christian ones, either. For me, they did not.
----------------
People keep insisting to me that Jefferson and other Founding Fathers weren't devout, traditional Christians. It's a good thing I already knew that, and did not claim otherwise.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dkw: The decision to appeal primarily to the constitution and declaration of independence was a deliberate one, to intentionally redefine "American Values" to exclude racism. It doesn't mean he wasn't acting as a minister at the time.
Reconsidering my position, I stand corrected on my comment about Dr. King being a political activist first and foremost.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:The bible is a contradictory book, I know. Why did you choose to follow the new testament rather than the old? Was Moses not speaking the will of god when he gave the Israelites those laws?
I have to ask: have you read the New Testament, any of it? That sounds pretty darn snarky, I know, but the question you're asking really does beg mine.
Parts, yes, in its totality, no. The latter question however was referring to mosaic law in the old testament, not the new.
quote:And anyway, I follow the New Testament and a few other scriptures, and the Old Testament-or I try to, anyway. This does not mean that I follow all parts of the Old Testament. In fact, I challenge you to find me a Christian sect which believes in and preaches total obedience to the OT.
My point was that there are no such sects, and that there is necessarily some picking and choosing involved. The question I've repeated numerous times is 'according to what are they choosing their precepts?'
quote:
quote:Even with Ghandi? Are you sure?
Well, if you clarify yourself to say, "He was acting primarily as a secularist," or somesuch in his work, then it becomes a much more subjective argument. I'm still sure, though, and very sure about Dr. King.
I stand corrected on my comment about Dr. King. On the other hand I'm quite certain about Ghandi. And I didn't talk about his motivations; I merely said that he was first and foremost the leader of the Indian independence movement.
quote:You're hardly a good judge of whether or not it makes a good case, Euripedes. I mean no offense when I say that-but you do already buy into the premise.
I buy into the ideas in those books because of the evidence and logical arguments they put forth. Does my standing as an atheist make me unable to judge a poor or effective argument when I see one?
quote:Speaking strictly for myself, it's because I am a Christian of a sect which a living Prophet, for one thing, and has had one for all my life. Also, among our beliefs is a belief that the Bible is accurate insofar as it has been accurately translated.
There are other reasons, but that becomes a much longer and different discussion the further we delve into it. I believe those two answers should suffice for your question. If not, you can either ask here in more detail, or email me.
I don't think that a prophet and biblical mistranslations account for all the changes mainstream Mormons (or any moderate Christians) have made to traditional Christian doctrine, so I'd appreciate it if you could give more detail.
The original question was:
quote:And yes, the movement does conflict with religion; Christian doctrine advocates many punishments contrary to its principles, and the Christian god is a Class-A war criminal responsible for a lengthy repertoire of human rights abuses. Once again, I'm glad that most Christians today have rejected the more unsavoury parts of Christian doctrine. I have to ask, if those parts are no longer valid, why are the others still absolute?
quote:I don't mind your asking. I'm not sure how I could be more specific, though, or in what ways you're asking for more specificity...
quote:it would be possible to mount a case based on evidence of the good and the harm religion has done
How can you be certain that religion is an ultimate factor and not just a proximate factor for many of the things for which religion is blamed for or takes credit for? In other words, how do you know that certain religious traditions, ideas, or beliefs were not shaped by secular motives?
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Euripides: My point was that there are no such sects, and that there is necessarily some picking and choosing involved. The question I've repeated numerous times is 'according to what are they choosing their precepts?'
So your argument is purely against Christianity, right?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
In reading all of this, I can't help but come away with my basic assumption seeming verified: the problem isn't religion or science or politics or atheism... the problem is humanity. Nearly every action, belief, institution, etc. of ours is predicated on the idea of superiority, difference, otherness, worth versus worthlessness, and so on. I doubt seriously that any system containing human beings and created by them will be able to get beyond the horrors enumerated above...
Posts: 5663 | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:it would be possible to mount a case based on evidence of the good and the harm religion has done
How can you be certain that religion is an ultimate factor and not just a proximate factor for many of the things for which religion is blamed for or takes credit for? In other words, how do you know that certain religious traditions, ideas, or beliefs were not shaped by secular motives?
By applying to it the same careful and thorough methodology which social historians use to identify the causes of other social phenomena or historical events.
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Euripides: The bible is a contradictory book, I know.
Not so contradictory. Not unless you start adding on pieces that contradict it.
Here are a few contradictions for starters. If you want to include things like dates and historical accuracy, then the bible is positively riddled with errors and/or fabrications. Apologist responses to the contradictions such as these are often evasive and take liberties with semantics to provide explanations for contradictions. It's usually enough for the authors that they cast doubt on the claims of contradiction. That doubt can be overcome with faith.
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Euripides: My point was that there are no such sects, and that there is necessarily some picking and choosing involved. The question I've repeated numerous times is 'according to what are they choosing their precepts?'
So your argument is purely against Christianity, right?
That argument was against Christianity, yes. It would apply however to any closed religious system that is adjusted to suit the morality and information of the times. I don't know if Orthodox Judaism falls under that category.
quote:Originally posted by David Bowles: In reading all of this, I can't help but come away with my basic assumption seeming verified: the problem isn't religion or science or politics or atheism... the problem is humanity. Nearly every action, belief, institution, etc. of ours is predicated on the idea of superiority, difference, otherness, worth versus worthlessness, and so on. I doubt seriously that any system containing human beings and created by them will be able to get beyond the horrors enumerated above...
Really? I thought this thread was quite civil and fruitful considering its subject matter, not least thanks to Rakeesh.
Is there nothing beyond notions of superiority and Otherness that influence our actions and institutions?
If solid evidence for the existence of a deity is put forth, which can't be explained away using a simpler hypothesis and which brings the probability of god existing to a level higher than the probability of him not existing, I'll seek baptism right away. That seems like a lot of conditionals, but it's no more than I'd demand out of any other hypothesis explaining a phenomenon before I'm convinced of its truth. The degree of my conviction will of course depend on how heavily the evidence weighs in on one side or the other.
So far we've diverged from the central discussion a bit, which was 'what is the truth?' (or originally, 'what do you think of Dawkins?'). That essentially boiled down to whether one considered faith to be a valid determinant of what the nature of reality is. There is no reason to think it is; especially when the world is full of faithful people who believe in conflicting world views which claim exclusively to be the truth.
The discussion then moved on to the harm and good religion has done, which is less theoretical and perhaps harder to discuss in detail on a forum.
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Euripides: The bible is a contradictory book, I know.
Not so contradictory. Not unless you start adding on pieces that contradict it.
Here are a few contradictions for starters. If you want to include things like dates and historical accuracy, then the bible is positively riddled with errors and/or fabrications. Apologist responses to the contradictions such as these are often evasive and take liberties with semantics to provide explanations for contradictions. It's usually enough for the authors that they cast doubt on the claims of contradiction. That doubt can be overcome with faith.
You know how some anti-evolutionists claim that the law of entropy and the theory of evolution contradict one another? That's based on a misunderstanding of both entropy and evolution. But if someone doesn't really care what entropy and evolution really are, and prefers to look at whatever surface-level understanding they've gleaned casually, what can you do? The same thing applies to most of the "contradictions" in that link. I've seen thumpers claim that those who try and reconcile evolution and entropy are engaging in "apologetics". It's easy to dismiss arguments by characterizing them, rather than dealing with their content.
quote:Originally posted by Euripides:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Euripides: My point was that there are no such sects, and that there is necessarily some picking and choosing involved. The question I've repeated numerous times is 'according to what are they choosing their precepts?'
So your argument is purely against Christianity, right?
That argument was against Christianity, yes. It would apply however to any closed religious system that is adjusted to suit the morality and information of the times. I don't know if Orthodox Judaism falls under that category.
posted
To the extent that you claim it is "We do what God tells us", no, I suppose it doesn't. Same as the Mormons, though, what your god has actually told you to do over the centuries has changed to adapt to circumstances. For example, I seem to recall from a previous discussion that you told me the rules about cleansing sacrifices were in abeyance until your Temple should be rebuilt. Now, there's an adaptation.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: You know how some anti-evolutionists claim that the law of entropy and the theory of evolution contradict one another? That's based on a misunderstanding of both entropy and evolution. But if someone doesn't really care what entropy and evolution really are, and prefers to look at whatever surface-level understanding they've gleaned casually, what can you do? The same thing applies to most of the "contradictions" in that link. I've seen thumpers claim that those who try and reconcile evolution and entropy are engaging in "apologetics". It's easy to dismiss arguments by characterizing them, rather than dealing with their content.
Could you point out where they are wrong? How about the misalignment of names/dates/details of historical events and the varied family genealogies of Jesus?
posted
Yes, but I've been talking about the Christian bible the whole time; and Lisa's post was in response to my statement that Christian doctrine in the bible is self-contradictory.
I've avoided making statements specifically about Judaism, restricting my criticisms to what all or most religions have in common (roughly speaking, the features of what Dawkins describes as the 'god hypothesis').
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Read what she said again. Pretty sure she's not defending Christianity or any doctrine therein.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I still don't see it. I first said "The bible is a contradictory book," to Rakeesh, speaking about Christianity. Lisa began by disagreeing with that statement.
I apologise for the misunderstanding. My knowledge of Jewish holy texts is too limited for me to make specific criticisms of it, and doing so was not my intention.
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Euri— I was talking about humanity in general, not about the specific conversation on this thread. The examples that people are providing confirm to me the suspicions I voice above.
Posts: 5663 | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
When we begin first pointing fingers at religions' atrocities, and then religious folk start listing the atrocities of atheist institutions, the mental ball starts rolling and leads me to suspect it isn't religion or atheism that's causing the problem... it's human nature/society.
Posts: 5663 | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:By applying to it the same careful and thorough methodology which social historians use to identify the causes of other social phenomena or historical events. ... The discussion then moved on to the harm and good religion has done, which is less theoretical and perhaps harder to discuss in detail on a forum.
How is that not more theoretical? Can you create a control group and a test group so that you can isolate individual factors to test your social theories? Can you replicate your results on a consistent basis? Can you even know all of the factors that are involved in your social theories? I don't see how you could determine anything conclusively regarding something like this, at least not in the same way that you would for say chemistry or physics.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Euripides: I apologise for the misunderstanding. My knowledge of Jewish holy texts is too limited for me to make specific criticisms of it, and doing so was not my intention.
I don't think there's any need to apologize. I was just pointing out what I believe is your misunderstanding.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:By applying to it the same careful and thorough methodology which social historians use to identify the causes of other social phenomena or historical events. ... The discussion then moved on to the harm and good religion has done, which is less theoretical and perhaps harder to discuss in detail on a forum.
How is that not more theoretical? Can you create a control group and a test group so that you can isolate individual factors to test your social theories? Can you replicate your results on a consistent basis? Can you even know all of the factors that are involved in your social theories? I don't see how you could determine anything conclusively regarding something like this, at least not in the same way that you would for say chemistry or physics.
It's less theoretical than talking about the concept of faith.
Not in the way you could for physics, no. It's usually the case with social histories.
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: You know how some anti-evolutionists claim that the law of entropy and the theory of evolution contradict one another? That's based on a misunderstanding of both entropy and evolution. But if someone doesn't really care what entropy and evolution really are, and prefers to look at whatever surface-level understanding they've gleaned casually, what can you do? The same thing applies to most of the "contradictions" in that link. I've seen thumpers claim that those who try and reconcile evolution and entropy are engaging in "apologetics". It's easy to dismiss arguments by characterizing them, rather than dealing with their content.
Could you point out where they are wrong? How about the misalignment of names/dates/details of historical events and the varied family genealogies of Jesus?
The only ones I'm concerned with are the ones that have nothing to do with the Christian Bible. As far as I'm concerned, all of those contradictions probably really are.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:When we begin first pointing fingers at religions' atrocities, and then religious folk start listing the atrocities of atheist institutions, the mental ball starts rolling and leads me to suspect it isn't religion or atheism that's causing the problem... it's human nature/society.
I agree that humanity's atrocities aren't the fault of religion or lack thereof, but I don't like placing the blame on human nature. It's not inevitable that we create continuous atrocities. We have a pretty good idea of how to avoid them- treat other people and nations (especially those that disagree with you) with respect. I think this is something of which humans are capable. I don't think there will ever be a utopia, but I do think we could avoid repeating the worst of our atrocities.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's one of the big problems I have with Dawkins and people like him. They gloss over the real problem with their simplistic anti-religion crusade. There are causes for the bad behavior they note. There are beliefs and structures which encourage atrocities or just plain old not goodness. And these things are present in religious and in atheists and their organizations. They are also relatively absent from both.
The religious/non-religious split isn't the proper place to focus on for the seat of these issues. But they don't understand (and generally have near as much contempt for as they do religion) the fields that actually study these sorts of things.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Amanecer, I totally understand where you're coming from (hence the "society" after the backslash), but while I do believe that individuals can learn to be ethical and humane, the likelihood of 8 billion people's doing so anytime soon (and more or less simultaneously) is pretty grimly slight.
Posts: 5663 | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: That's one of the big problems I have with Dawkins and people like him. They gloss over the real problem with their simplistic anti-religion crusade. There are causes for the bad behavior they note. There are beliefs and structures which encourage atrocities or just plain old not goodness. And these things are present in religious and in atheists and their organizations. They are also relatively absent from both.
The religious/non-religious split isn't the proper place to focus on for the seat of these issues. But they don't understand (and generally have near as much contempt for as they do religion) the fields that actually study these sorts of things.
I don't see anything simplistic about Dawkins' case against religion, which is very specific and point-by-point.
If the religion/atheism split is not the proper place to focus for the seat of moral issues, does that mean that religion has no significant influence on the moral integrity of people?
Furthermore, I don't agree that the split isn't a place to focus. Religion is concerned with some of the most important facts of life and reality; about how we live our lives, and what the true nature of the cosmos is. How could that not be important in the way humanity behaves? And as Tom has taken pains to clearly point out, religion throughout history has been the direct cause of much violence and bloodshed, while Pol Pot and Hitler were acting on their understanding of their respective political ideologies, not "atheism."
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:And as Tom has taken pains to clearly point out, religion throughout history has been the direct cause of much violence and bloodshed, while Pol Pot and Hitler were acting on their understanding of their respective political ideologies, not "atheism."
It was not put forth as a claim that atheism led to that sort of violence, it was put forth as evidence that people do not need religion for horrible violence-which is a big part of what you're claiming.
If some of the worst violence in the past century has been committed by people without religious justification, in a time where people are generally more 'enlightened' than they were in the past, it should certainly not be swept under the rug as you're doing, or ignored.
It's precisely the same kind of ambiguous evidence you use to criticize religion, Euripedes.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:does that mean that religion has no significant influence on the moral integrity of people?
No, but it does mean that its influence is only one of many factors that contribute to the construction of people's ethical systems... I was the child of a pastor, but my personal ethics as a child were also molded by the books I read, the teachers I had, the shows I watch, the friends I frequented, and on and on... not to mention simply my own impulses and natural understanding of the universe.
Posts: 5663 | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:If the religion/atheism split is not the proper place to focus for the seat of moral issues, does that mean that religion has no significant influence on the moral integrity of people?
The latter does not depend on the former. This goes back to what I was trying to say earlier about religion being a proximate cause, not an ultimate or root cause. Amanecer is correct in saying that such tragedies are not inevitable and that humans can overcome and avoid them, but it would require us to try to get a better understanding of the root causes instead of just stopping half way there.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Euripides, The problem you have is that religion qua religion doesn't cause these things. There are plenty of religious that don't have anything like what you are talking about. Likewise, plenty of non-religious people do have these things.
Therefore, religion/non-religion by itself doesn't do a good job of discriminating on these characteristics. That's simple science.
That's what I was saying, not any of the things you way, way overshot to have me saying.
---
Not surprisingly, there are commonalities between the religious and non-religious groups that tend to commit atrocities. Many of these things, however, they do not share with religious and non-religious groups that do not tend to commit atrocities. Therefore, a much better discriminator would seem to be these qualities. Again, simple science.
It's the dealing with things at a superficial level or simplistic prejudices where all religion can be characterized by the bad stuff that some, but not all religions, tend towards that I have a problem with.
You are pointing your finger in the wrong place and it doesn't help anyone.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
David: I'd wager the books your read were written by people, the teachers you heard were also raised by people and read books written by people, the shows you watched were written by people who also read books written by people and were raised by people, same to your friends.
You can't just take your experiences with straight up religion and say that is your only exposure to religion. These other places where you gleaned ideas were all involve people who also were exposed to religion and it influenced their writing/views on the world.
I guess its a chicken/egg argument. But I would suggest you are influenced by religion in more ways then you realize.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: It was not put forth as a claim that atheism led to that sort of violence, it was put forth as evidence that people do not need religion for horrible violence-which is a big part of what you're claiming.
I never claimed that people need religion to do evil, and I've explicitly stated this many times.
quote:If some of the worst violence in the past century has been committed by people without religious justification, in a time where people are generally more 'enlightened' than they were in the past, it should certainly not be swept under the rug as you're doing, or ignored.
I have not swept them under the rug. I have said that atheism itself is not the cause of those atrocities.
camus and MrSquicky,
When a suicide bomber sacrifices his/her and other people's lives in honour of a set of beliefs, are those beliefs not the cause or a main cause of the act?
I do think there is some validity to your line of reasoning. In many cases, religion is just a cover or justification for say, psychotic behaviour, and psychosis in the absence of religion would have been enough cause. Definitely not all cases though, and religion (like superstition or an irrational political ideology) can certainly exacerbate tendencies which would otherwise not cause violent behaviour on their own.
If you want to be particularly esoteric and technical, you could also say that religion is never the root cause; the root cause is the psychological tendency which allows religion to survive. I'm with Dawkins when he says that religion is most likely a by-product of evolutionary psychology. For example (and this is just one example), it is evolutionarily favourable for children to believe their elders and parents. If they tried out all the berries in the forest first hand, they most likely wouldn't survive to pass on their genes. The sacrifice there is the child's gullibility; irrational ideas are easily passed on in that way, and often form the basis of the child's religious ideas in adulthood. Hence the Jesuit saying.
quote:Not surprisingly, there are commonalities between the religious and non-religious groups that tend to commit atrocities.
There is truth to that. Unfortunately, it doesn't vindicate religion. Religion has been the direct cause of violence and hurt (of course you're free to refute the above).
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I never claimed that people need religion to do evil, and I've explicitly stated this many times.
I know, and that's why I used the qualifier "a big part". You are claiming that religion does more harm than atheism, that people are more violent under religion than they would be under atheism.
quote:I have not swept them under the rug. I have said that atheism itself is not the cause of those atrocities.
Given that violence is explicitly condemned in all but cases of self-defense by Christianity, the case can be made that the same is true of Christianity as well.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:When a suicide bomber sacrifices his/her and other people's lives in honour of a set of beliefs, are those beliefs not the cause or a main cause of the act?
I think one could argue that a person's moral and ethical values influence the beliefs that he accepts rather than the beliefs dictating the morals. Of course, I don't know enough about that to argue one way or the other, but I suspect it is a combination of both.
quote:If you want to be particularly esoteric and technical, you could also say that religion is never the root cause; the root cause is the psychological tendency which allows religion to survive.
I think it's more complex than that. In addition to pychological tendencies, I think there are social and political factors that help shape and influence religious ideas. Thus, those social and political factors would be further up the causality chain and would be the more important factors to address.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Euripides: There is truth to that. Unfortunately, it doesn't vindicate religion. Religion has been the direct cause of violence and hurt (of course you're free to refute the above).
Any ideology that separates people into "us" and "them" is guilty of that. Religion is just one very big one. Or rather, one very big set of them.
Of course, it's like the old joke: There are two types of people in the world; those who think there are two types of people in the world, and those who know better. Because talking about religion (or any other group) as "them" does the same thing.
At my gut level, I'm anti-religion. I'm anti-group of any kind, really. I know there are people who are attracted to religion because it provides a community, but as you might guess, the fact that I'm gay actually makes being part of the Jewish community a major hassle for me. Not to mention the irritation of not being able to eat what I want or do what I want.
If I wasn't convinced that it was true, I wouldn't have anything to do with it (except for whatever I might do to please my parents, which wouldn't be much, since they aren't religious themselves). At times, I wish I'd never learned anything about it. Ignorance really is bliss, sometimes.
The only justification for religion, in my opinion, is if it is true. Literally true. Otherwise, it's just one more division between people, and one more cause of grief and suffering.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Religion has been the direct cause of violence and hurt
No, it hasn't. Some forms of religion have been so (as you point out in the suicide bomber example). Others have not. It is not "Religion" that is the culprit here, but rather forms and structures of thought that constitute certain religions and mythologies. These forms and structures of thought are not specific to religion, however, and are in evidence in non-religious and atheistic thought structures that have also led to the people holding them to do bad things.
There are also religions and religious people who have done very good things. They tend not to display the aspects I'm talking about above.
Classic psychology here. When first looking religious people and prejudice, researchers found that, on average, religious people in the U.S. displayed significantly more prejudice than non-religious ones. Two very important words there: "on average". If you break the groups down by various characteristics (say sincerity and devotion or presence of the sort of things I'm alluding to above) you get a very different picture. Certain groups of religious people display high levels of prejudice. Certain other groups display low (in some cases lower than that of the non-religious people) levels. You get the average you do because the former group far outnumbers the latter.
From a superficial view, you can say "Religion" causes (or at least correlates with) prejudice, but that's not actually true. The real story is, as usual, more complex than that.
quote:If solid evidence for the existence of a deity is put forth, which can't be explained away using a simpler hypothesis and which brings the probability of god existing to a level higher than the probability of him not existing, I'll seek baptism right away.
The truth is, the world doesn't work like this. It would be helpful if we could have solid, absolute evidence of things, but reason alone simply cannot give it to us. We could argue for days over whether this pen in my hand exists and you would never be able to solidly prove to me that it does. There are many people who claim they have solid proof for the things they believe (people like Dawkins, religious leaders, politicians, Hatrackers on this board, etc.) but the truth is that in almost all of these cases what they are calling "solid" is actually not.
The real flaw in Dawkins' thinking and the thinking of many who are looking for solid proof is an overestimation of the power of reason. Reason allows us to come to wiser beliefs about the world - that is reason's proper role. But reason is NOT capable of eliminating the uncertainty from our beliefs. It is NOT capable of preventing us from ever being wrong. And reason definitely can't eliminate the existence disputes over differing beliefs.
Faith, or trust in unproven beliefs if you prefer to call it that, is a necessity for us. It is the glue that allows us to construct firm conclusions upon incomplete evidence. Yet because it allows conflicting yet equally firm conclusions to be drawn from the same incomplete evidence, it will always divide us into conflicting groups.
This is not a problem we can solve one day. This is a dilemma that will always face humanity. We will never be able to absolutely prove the beliefs we hold, so we will always end up having faith in conflicting beliefs, which will always eventually lead to some kind of conflict, violent or not. Our best hope is that through reason, we can at least come to an increasing degree of agreement on the issues that reason is most capable of shedding light upon.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: The only justification for religion, in my opinion, is if it is true. Literally true. Otherwise, it's just one more division between people, and one more cause of grief and suffering.
My view on this is that that religion probably was justified at one point simply from a pragmatic POV. In the early days of civilization, the first leader was probably just a guy with the most strength or the pointiest stick. However, as leaders got tired of fighting off challengers they developed the simplest justification, that the leader was justified by some higher power. This would have developed into a religion.
Religion would have acted as a unifying force for small tribes, or in the modern equivalent, communities. In a way, this is almost a necessary step. One would hardly expect cavemen to jump directly to representative government.
The only problem is that today with pluralistic societies, religion no longer acts as a unifying force because society is too large to force everyone into the same belief.
Thus it is my view that while religion was justified in the past, it is time to move past it and recognize it as a harmful anachronism .
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:The truth is, the world doesn't work like this. It would be helpful if we could have solid, absolute evidence of things, but reason alone simply cannot give it to us. We could argue for days over whether this pen in my hand exists and you would never be able to solidly prove to me that it does. There are many people who claim they have solid proof for the things they believe (people like Dawkins, religious leaders, politicians, Hatrackers on this board, etc.) but the truth is that in almost all of these cases what they are calling "solid" is actually not.
To which I answer: Sywak's Third Law
quote:RULE 3: Once your opponent starts using observation and logic in his foolish attempt to refute what everybody already knows to be true, you can deny that both observation and logic are valid approaches to understanding. Typical responses are, "How can we ever really know anything," and "God does not operate under the rules of logic and rationality--He is beyond them." Never, under any circumstances, attempt to explain just what the hell any of that means, because it really doesn't mean anything (that's the beauty of it). More importantly, do not try and understand it yourself, as your head may actually explode. Your opponent may respond to your first statement by asking, "then how do you know if anything is true?" To which you simply respond, "I just know."
And there is faith, and then there is FAITH. My faith that the pencil is a solid enough object in my hand, and that the sun will rise tomorrow are simple beliefs, simple matters of faith.
But to ask a person to believe that there is some all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving, time-transcendent invisible all-father somewhere out "there"...well, that's a unicorn of a different color.
Since, as you point out, religion is inextricably tied up to everything around us through the people that create or cause the things, then it is impossible to tease out religion as the cause of anything either... you can't have a control group of human society totally untouched by any religion, because it will at very least have been established by people reacting against religion and at worst be peopled largely with individuals who are reacting against religion.
In a nutshell, I think it's a pointless, unprovable argument. You make dislike religion, you may believe people would be better off without it, but you haven't anything other than your own anecdotal evidence to support that claim... and you never will.
Better, I think, for atheists and agnostics is for us to come to grips with the fact that religion isn't going anywhere, and to try to work to improve its tolerance of us and other "outside" groups... perhaps even, through our own tolerance of religion, help it to evolve and grow so that the negative aspects of it are gradually purged.Posts: 5663 | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by David Bowles: Blackblade,
Since, as you point out, religion is inextricably tied up to everything around us through the people that create or cause the things, then it is impossible to tease out religion as the cause of anything either... you can't have a control group of human society totally untouched by any religion, because it will at very least have been established by people reacting against religion and at worst be peopled largely with individuals who are reacting against religion.
In a nutshell, I think it's a pointless, unprovable argument. You make dislike religion, you may believe people would be better off without it, but you haven't anything other than your own anecdotal evidence to support that claim... and you never will.
Indeed! And were we to somehow humanely eradicate all religious thought, all concepts of God, as well as any evidence they ever existed, I am completely confident that SOMEBODY would be contacted by God, and the whole cycle would start all over again. The initial movement would encounter persecution from our atheistic society, we'd probably say it was for their own good. It would survive, people would form offshoot groups, and even people within the original religion would stray from the original doctrines and attempt to make the religion better with their own intelects without consulting God. Heinous acts would be committed against other human beings in the name of that God who never approved such actions and people would say that is reason enough to discard all religion.
quote: Better, I think, for atheists and agnostics is for us to come to grips with the fact that religion isn't going anywhere, and to try to work to improve its tolerance of us and other "outside" groups... perhaps even, through our own tolerance of religion, help it to evolve and grow so that the negative aspects of it are gradually purged. [/QB]
I heartily agree, mutual understanding can only improve our situation as it stands if you ask me.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So say we all... which is why Dawkins and Dennett, though I respect them quite a bit and love their work, have really annoyed me over the last two years...
Posts: 5663 | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: The only justification for religion, in my opinion, is if it is true. Literally true. Otherwise, it's just one more division between people, and one more cause of grief and suffering.
My view on this is that that religion probably was justified at one point simply from a pragmatic POV. In the early days of civilization, the first leader was probably just a guy with the most strength or the pointiest stick. However, as leaders got tired of fighting off challengers they developed the simplest justification, that the leader was justified by some higher power. This would have developed into a religion.
Religion would have acted as a unifying force for small tribes, or in the modern equivalent, communities. In a way, this is almost a necessary step. One would hardly expect cavemen to jump directly to representative government.
The only problem is that today with pluralistic societies, religion no longer acts as a unifying force because society is too large to force everyone into the same belief.
Thus it is my view that while religion was justified in the past, it is time to move past it and recognize it as a harmful anachronism .
quote:I have not swept them under the rug. I have said that atheism itself is not the cause of those atrocities.
Given that violence is explicitly condemned in all but cases of self-defense by Christianity, the case can be made that the same is true of Christianity as well.
There are many other exceptions to the no violence rule other than self-defense.
quote:Originally posted by camus:
quote:If you want to be particularly esoteric and technical, you could also say that religion is never the root cause; the root cause is the psychological tendency which allows religion to survive.
I think it's more complex than that. In addition to pychological tendencies, I think there are social and political factors that help shape and influence religious ideas. Thus, those social and political factors would be further up the causality chain and would be the more important factors to address.
In the example of the suicide bomber, US (cultural or more direct) imperialism and the poverty of the average citizen of many Middle Eastern countries would be a key factor. Without the belief in martyrdom and the virtue of their understanding of jihad however, most suicide bombings would not be possible.
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: The only justification for religion, in my opinion, is if it is true. Literally true. Otherwise, it's just one more division between people, and one more cause of grief and suffering.
I agree.
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:Religion has been the direct cause of violence and hurt
No, it hasn't. Some forms of religion have been so (as you point out in the suicide bomber example). Others have not. It is not "Religion" that is the culprit here, but rather forms and structures of thought that constitute certain religions and mythologies. These forms and structures of thought are not specific to religion, however, and are in evidence in non-religious and atheistic thought structures that have also led to the people holding them to do bad things.
Where do you want to stop along the causality chain?
You could also say that nerve firings which directly cause violent behaviour are the real culprit.
What are "forms and structures of thought"? Would the suicide bomber's belief that his jihad is the will of god be a structure of thought?
Tresopax,
When you feel the need to deny the validity of reason to defend your theory, you're in sorry shape indeed.
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:There are many other exceptions to the no violence rule other than self-defense.
Please, find me some that aren't frequently prohibited by the New Testament. I won't say all examples will be, but most certainly will.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
