|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
 Posted - 03/22/2007 : 17:19:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ejdalise
My view is that anyone defending religion by virtue of the good, must come to grip with the darker side of it. The two are not separable, and concentrating only on the good is a disservice to the discourse, and an affront to all that have died, and are dying, as a demonstrably direct result of religious belief and doctrines.
I agree to an extent, but we must also take into account what I'll call "the human constant" that says that humans do bad things for selfish reasons in the name of whatever is convenient, be it Yahweh, the Flag, cheap oil, or whatever. So when you talk about the "darker side" of religion, is that really religion's darker side, or that of humanity?
It's often hard to distinguish the two since religion has been so intertwined with humanity for so long. |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/22/2007 : 17:34:08 [Permalink]
|
| That's a decent point, Cune (and one I believe marf brought up earlier), but let me ask this: should we assume without evidence that some bad act done in the name of some god or other was actually committed due to just the darker nature of people? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 03/22/2007 : 18:00:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
That's a decent point, Cune (and one I believe marf brought up earlier), but let me ask this: should we assume without evidence that some bad act done in the name of some god or other was actually committed due to just the darker nature of people?
Well, that's the question. It's hard to say, and off the top of my head, I'd speculate that the further back in history we go, the more difficult it is to distinguish the two, as religion (and the supernatural) becomes more and more entrenched the further back we go. The curve might not be linear-- perhaps it's logrithmic or something, since I don't know if (for example) Rome was more supersticious in AD 800 as it was in 4 BC. But it certainly was in AD 800 when compared to AS 1800 or AS 1940. |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 03/22/2007 : 18:11:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
beskeptigal said:
quote:
None of them are polite? Are you serious?
I tell people they are wrong everyday. If I wasn't polite about it I wouldn't have had my successful business for 16 years.
Telling a person they are wrong is a confrontational act....[snip]
I replied to this post here where it belongs.
|
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 03/22/2007 18:14:51 |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 03/22/2007 : 18:13:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
quote:
It's already been hashed out openly. Anything more would be redundancy - not fair to others.
What isn't fair is your shifting standards of evidence, logic, and critical thinking... depending on who is speaking and what is being said.
In your opinion which you are welcome to but everyone else doesn't share.
|
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 03/22/2007 18:14:02 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/22/2007 : 20:04:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Well, that's the question. It's hard to say, and off the top of my head, I'd speculate that the further back in history we go, the more difficult it is to distinguish the two, as religion (and the supernatural) becomes more and more entrenched the further back we go. The curve might not be linear-- perhaps it's logrithmic or something, since I don't know if (for example) Rome was more supersticious in AD 800 as it was in 4 BC. But it certainly was in AD 800 when compared to AS 1800 or AS 1940.
I'm not sure we have need of going through such an analysis to answer the question I asked. In some cases, it's pretty obvious that what's being attributed to faith should instead be attributed to greed, ego gratification and/or pure insanity.
For example, I think it's pretty clear that even though Hitler was a Christian, and claimed to be doing God's work, he was also obviously and knowingly using his religion and his religiousness to manipulate his citizenry. I'd be very much inclined, therefore, to attribute the Holocaust not to faith, but to the "darker side" of humanity.
But with other atrocities, things aren't so clearly spelled out. If we can find one bad deed in the name of some religion that cannot be positively identified as being due to human rottenness, then we've got a candidate "bad act caused by faith," and then cannot assume that any particular horrific behaviour is due to human nature.
You know, they say that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. Given that I haven't done much in-depth research into these guys, I really can't say if Jim Jones, David Koresh, Marshall Apple-whatever or even Fred Phelps were more likely to have done what they did due to some personal and "evil" reason, or were they due to their sincerely-held religious beliefs. marf said that we've got no evidence of bad acts attributable to faith alone, but I really don't have much evidence pointing to any particular reason for those bits of nastiness, so why is it that I should not take those actors at their word? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/22/2007 : 20:35:50 [Permalink]
|
Dude wrote: quote:
What isn't fair is your shifting standards of evidence, logic, and critical thinking... depending on who is speaking and what is being said.
I have done no such thing. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/22/2007 : 20:52:13 [Permalink]
|
Cune wrote: quote:
Fine, fine, fine. My point is that part of Christian doctrine is to spread the word of Jesus. Some peopel do it, others don't. But it is impossible to dispute. There is no atheist doctrine, let alone one that compells atheists to spread 'the word' of atheism.
On one hand I see your point and another hand I still think it isn't all that significant because not only do not all Christians even attempt to spread the word of Jesus, but the “word of Jesus” and how it should be properly spread varies so extremely.
quote:
Great. But does it change anything fundamental about the point at hand?
I think it is relevant to the idea that there is a single Christian Gospel. However, I also see your point in that scripture is different from atheist manifestos. Scriptures are always taken to be somehow divinely inspired, while atheist writings are always taken to be purely human. There is a difference. I just question how profound the difference in actual every day practice by most educated people in the first world.
quote:
Ugh. First off, I'd disagree about your assessment of Christians and the Bible.
I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I officiated an atheist wedding that had a small quote from the Bible read at it. Knowing a few stories and phrases here and there, often in the context of literature, is hardly an argument that those Christians are living their lives by scripture. I don't think the average Christian in America lives their life by scripture any more than I do. I could be wrong about this, but I think the surveys taken on how much most people read the Bible and how infrequently people are actively participating in religious rituals speaks volumes.
quote:
So while it is true that not all Christians practice this, it is nevertheless an undeniable fact of the religion.
I totally agree. But you said that atheists don't try to spread atheism. But many do, and many do so in a very deliberate and organized fashion.
quote:
Yikes. I was using the word manifesto in its most general sense-- a public declaration or justification of policy issued by a government, political party, or other leader. You saw "manifesto" and immediately thought of some article listing the thoughts of a popular atheist. Again, Sam Harris isn't some atheist leader. Neither is Dawkins nor Randi
Organized atheism certainly does have its leaders. The most obvious and plain example would be the people who govern organizations such as the Atheist Alliance and American Atheists. The difference of course is that atheism is not dogmatic and none of the leaders are thought to have any special link to some force greater than mankind. They are fully acknowledged to be regular people like any of us. But they are leaders. I'm drawing comparison to counter your original statements that I thought overemphasized differences. I am not at all trying to say that atheism perfectly parrallels Christianity as an organized worldview. There are many fundamental differences. But so |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
ejdalise
Skeptic Friend
USA
50 Posts |
Posted - 03/22/2007 : 22:18:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
marf said that we've got no evidence of bad acts attributable to faith alone, but I really don't have much evidence pointing to any particular reason for those bits of nastiness, so why is it that I should not take those actors at their word?
In recent times, right here in the US I would point to Paul Hill and Michael Griffin as perpetrators of "bad acts attributable to faith alone".
They killed, they admitted it freely, and they do not regret. Hill said God led him to shoot John Britton and James Berret. I kind of see this as an example.
But lest we argue these are merely crazed individuals, there was no widespread outcry from religious leaders regarding these killing. In fact, it was worried that the execution of Hill would make him a martyr. A cold blooded murderer a martyr to the Christian community. How nice. Nor is there outspoken condemnation from religious communities of many acts purposed to be committed in the name of God. Even when those acts result in loss of life.
And no wonder; both the Koran and the New Testament have specific passages saying essentially the same thing . . . kill the infidels.
Some Christians say they do not take the Bible literally, but those were Jesus' own words. Do they not take the kid's words seriously? Won't that piss off dad? AND the wispy thingy?
And to those who pick and choose what to accept from the bible, I say onto them . . . see? you can figure out what is moral and what is not all on your own. Why even hold on to the bible at all if you are going to edit the message? That is prima facia evidence of morality coming from somewhere other than the bible.
And to the majority of Christians who (apparently) have not read the bible, but live by it, I say onto them . . . Huh?!?! . . . you lend monetary, political, and social support to something you are not even familiar with? Can I buy into that? I'll write a pretty sonnet of culturally and personally interpreted snippets, stand on a box, and read them back to you . . . you then give me money and power, and turn a blind eye when I start affecting policies detrimental to the health of millions.
Sorry, I don't view ignorance of one's own professed religion as mitigating responsibility of the action of other, perhaps better informed, members of the same religion. If these Christians don't know both the positive and negative aspects of the groups the profess membership to, then I am not under any obligation to hold them in anything but contempt.
The Koran is scarier not only for its clear message to kill all non-believers, but also because it instructs adherents to lie about it, to deceive the believers. And while Christians apparently are to be considered ignorant dupes, there is no choice but to consider Muslims as duplicitous deadly dudes (sorry, I like alliterations).
All kidding aside, regardless how many have read the bible, this is pretty sobering:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_comp.htm
More so when you realize there is a trend for those numbers to be going toward more fundamentalism.
|
--- Disperser ---
Winning enemies and aggravating friends since 1953 |
|
|
|
ejdalise
Skeptic Friend
USA
50 Posts |
Posted - 03/22/2007 : 22:27:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
I agree to an extent, but we must also take into account what I'll call "the human constant" that says that humans do bad things for selfish reasons in the name of whatever is convenient, be it Yahweh, the Flag, cheap oil, or whatever. So when you talk about the "darker side" of religion, is that really religion's darker side, or that of humanity?
It's often hard to distinguish the two since religion has been so intertwined with humanity for so long.
Aren't you answering your own question? If the two are, as you say, intertwined, how is one exempted from blame? Neither one is an excuse for the other, and I argue that removing religion from the equation eliminates a convenient cover for the opportunistic bastards. They may find something else to hide behind, but hey, we'll take it one thing at the time.
ejd |
--- Disperser ---
Winning enemies and aggravating friends since 1953 |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 03/23/2007 : 03:51:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ejdalise
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
I agree to an extent, but we must also take into account what I'll call "the human constant" that says that humans do bad things for selfish reasons in the name of whatever is convenient, be it Yahweh, the Flag, cheap oil, or whatever. So when you talk about the "darker side" of religion, is that really religion's darker side, or that of humanity?
It's often hard to distinguish the two since religion has been so intertwined with humanity for so long.
Aren't you answering your own question? If the two are, as you say, intertwined, how is one exempted from blame? Neither one is an excuse for the other, and I argue that removing religion from the equation eliminates a convenient cover for the opportunistic bastards. They may find something else to hide behind, but hey, we'll take it one thing at the time.
ejd
I don't know if I understand the debate anymore, then. You suggested that in addition to considering the "good" aspects of religion, we should also consider the "bad" ones. I posited that the "bad" aspects of religion tend not to be unique to religion, but part of human nature in general.
The real question is if the "good" part of religion is something that's unique to religion, or if can happen on a general scale as part of human nature. |
|
|
|
ejdalise
Skeptic Friend
USA
50 Posts |
Posted - 03/23/2007 : 06:43:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
I don't know if I understand the debate anymore, then. You suggested that in addition to considering the "good" aspects of religion, we should also consider the "bad" ones. I posited that the "bad" aspects of religion tend not to be unique to religion, but part of human nature in general.
The real question is if the "good" part of religion is something that's unique to religion, or if can happen on a general scale as part of human nature.
Sorry, it was late and I shortened my answer assuming people could read my mind . . .
What I mean is that "bad" people are able to use religion as a vehicle for their nefarious purposes because there are aspects of religions that are easily adapted to doing those same bad things. If you consider that religion is a human invention, then it stands to reason it has both the flaws and good things we find in the human experience. But this should not be an excuse for its need, but rather an argument to its superfluesness.
In answer to your second question, I don't see any good that is unique to religion. By that I speak of tangible "good", and not the euphoric feeling one may get by believing they are special in the eyes of some mythical creator.
To think otherwise would imply people without religion have a limit to their capacity for good. There is plenty of evidence to the contrary, as there is for religion not limiting the bad that can done under its name.
Then the argument gets down to this: religion being a human invention, what exactly is the necessity of it? Taking it one step further, I believe religion often facilitates the bad by having its doctrine offer the illusion of moral justification. It absolves the believer from having to make a personal moral judgment. All they have to do is point to a book and say "I hate you. But that does not make me bad. It's written here that it's OK, see?".
Hopefully this is a sufficiently long answer, as I have to get to work.
ejd
|
--- Disperser ---
Winning enemies and aggravating friends since 1953 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/23/2007 : 06:52:45 [Permalink]
|
edjalise wrote: quote:
In recent times, right here in the US I would point to Paul Hill and Michael Griffin as perpetrators of "bad acts attributable to faith alone".
I disagree. There are tons of other factors with them and all similar cases. There are all the psychological factors, their genes and upbringing, every environmental influence that brought them to the point where they committed an act of violence.
Horrific acts are committed in all places of the world where resources are more scarce, leaders are more corrupt, and there is a great deal of desperation among the poor and rich alike. Take North Korea. Take most of Africa. We can point to the Middle East and radical Islam, and blame the violence in the Koran for terrorism, but then how do we explain the majority of Muslims who are not violent at all? How do we explain the fact that such violence has increased due to certain social changes, including much imperialism in recent history and the fact that they are still mostly stuck as an agrarian society that has not yet industrialized. Most of the radical stuff is coming out of tribalism. And Africa - what the hell does most of the violence in Africa have to do with religion?
Fanaticism is the real problem, the real "root" of all these mentioned horrors, not faith, and fanaticism, while often about religion, can also be about secular matters, such as politics. Fanaticism always leads to crazy thoughts and often harmful actions. But faith does not. Faith might come along too for the ride, but it is not necessary. Fanaticism is necessary.
quote:
More so when you realize there is a trend for those numbers to be going toward more fundamentalism.
Actually, there are stats also showing a clear trend toward more agnosticism and atheism. Plenty of people who study religion and history, such as Karen Armstrong, argue that the rise of fundamentalism is directly related to the trouble a lot of uneducated and impoverished people are having with social change, and that it is the sign of a dying gasp of an old way of life. Modern fundamentalism, as horrible as it can be, is probably a good sign that the opposite side is actually winning the culture war. They are getting desperate as their old way of life falls away, so they take those old traditions to unprecedented extremes. They become fanatics. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
ejdalise
Skeptic Friend
USA
50 Posts |
Posted - 03/23/2007 : 07:42:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
I disagree. There are tons of other factors with them and all similar cases. There are all the psychological factors, their genes and upbringing, every environmental influence that brought them to the point where they committed an act of violence.
We can postulate that, but why the reluctance to take them at their word? In all respects, other than their faith, they are cognizant, articulate individuals. You almost paint a picture of no personal volition for their action. That comes pretty close to viewing them as bad-guy-is-victim-of-circumstances.
But even if it were so, their faith - and again I go by what they say - played a major role in their action. More troubling is that people of the same faith find it easy to justify those actions.
Finally, if what you say is true, that they are a product of their environment, genes, upbringing, and psychological factors, does that remove responsibility not only for their actions, but any action by any individual? Are we just machines responding to our programming, incapable of exercising our own moral and ethical judgment?
And even if that is the case, especially if that is the case, I would still argue that removing divisive, exclusionary, and violence-inducing dogma from society is a good thing.
ejd |
--- Disperser ---
Winning enemies and aggravating friends since 1953 |
|
|
|
ejdalise
Skeptic Friend
USA
50 Posts |
Posted - 03/23/2007 : 10:03:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
Plenty of people who study religion and history, such as Karen Armstrong, argue that the rise of fundamentalism is directly related to the trouble a lot of uneducated and impoverished people are having with social change, and that it is the sign of a dying gasp of an old way of life. Modern fundamentalism, as horrible as it can be, is probably a good sign that the opposite side is actually winning the culture war. They are getting desperate as their old way of life falls away, so they take those old traditions to unprecedented extremes. They become fanatics.
I'm not sure it's restricted to poor and impoverished people, although that segment has always been attracted to religion. I would not consider the population cross-section in the area where I reside (the I-25 corridor in middle-Colorado) to be either poor or uneducated. Quite the contrary. Nor were my experiences in Michigan confined to lower income or education brackets. My experience would point to fundamentalism growing across a diverse segment of the population. And while I knew this to be a "religious area", I am still surprised at the number, loudness, and pervasiveness of religious influence and messages that surround me.
Of course, I realize I cannot postulate overall population trends from just my limited exposure, and I will bow to any hard data out there.. . but by your own statement the response of believers to gains (real or perceived) in rational, atheistic, humanistic thought, is toward fanaticism.
Even if their numbers are holding or decreasing, it is not a good sign. There is nothing I read or see that results in me having any optimism for the future . . . at least not any future I'm likely to be a part of. I'm guessing the struggle toward a more rational and enlightened society will continue long after I am reduced to disassociated particles, with my great hope that it will not take a violent turn while I am still a viable organism.
ejd |
--- Disperser ---
Winning enemies and aggravating friends since 1953 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Something to chew on....
