When religious people do bad things in the name of religion...
should we stop at "because of religion" as the explanatory level? If so, why?
As is often pointed out, religious people frequently disagree over whether a particular action is justified in the name of their religion. Christians disagree over whether loving Jesus means hating gays, Jews disagree over whether settling the occupied territories is a religious duty, Muslims disagree over violence. Ending the inquiry at "religion is to blame" for this or that incident seems too casual, too quick, because it cannot explain these differences of opinion without begging the question through declaring that one party is just "more religious" than the other party. This declaration pre-decides what truly reflects the essential nature of religion, when that is exactly what is under dispute between the two parties.
Other religious phenomena aren't treated this way. When people report seeing visions, people wishing to explain this don't stop with an explanation based purely in "because they are religious". They look into biological mechanisms and evolutionary explanations, and these explanations are non-religious in character. So is it out-of-bounds to look for the same kinds of non-religious explanations for bad religious behavior? If so, that inconsistency requires justification.
The following study is one example of non-religious explanation for religious behavior that seems promising:
Like our international study, our research on the 50 states shows that some striking similarities in why states vary in the strength of their social norms: Tight states have more threatening ecological conditions, including a higher incidence of natural disasters, poorer environmental health, greater disease prevalence, and fewer natural resources. Tight states were also found to have greater perceptions of external threat, reflected in the desire for more national defense spending and greater rates of military recruitment. This may have a historical basis, as states with a large amount of slave-owning families in 1860—those states that were “occupied” by the North and lost the backbone of their slave-based economy following the Civil War—are tighter. In all, we argue that ecological and historically based threats necessitate greater coordinated action to promote collective survival. One might use this construct to predict, for example, that states that increasingly have natural disasters, resource threats, or even terrorism threats might start to become tighter.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/tightness-and-looseness-a-new-way-to-understand-differences-across-the-50-united-states/
This suggests, though not yet conclusively, that bad religious behavior results from feeling more threatened, whether by lack of resources, ecological disaster, disease, invaders, etc.. Blaming "religion" in general or a particular religion would then miss the point.
= new reply since forum marked as read
She agrees that non-religious things can be non-verifiable:
So why is religion so unique? Because it, among all other non-veriable things, does not yield to experience:
So if everything she's saying is true, we should expect religious opinions to be unchangable, invulnerable to experience. Except that they aren't. People change religious opinions all the time, especially in response to experience. That's what gay people coming out, for example, was all about. That once religious people really knew gay people, they would rethink what God's response to them would be. And it has worked and is working. Even among "born agains":
?h=434&w=550
So Greta Christina is empirically wrong about this one. Unless, once again, one begs the question by pre-defining the essence of religion as "having no reality check".
For weeks, you've been scouting out the territory in the DU religion section; asking questions, putting out surveys. But like many surveys, yours asked after all, leading questions. Most recently you're asking in effect, “isn't it terrible that Christians persecute atheists? And wouldn't it be wonderful if Christianity offered a non-persecutorial face?" Then you offer as your reading for this Sunday, an article in part by an adamant atheist, Ms. Chris. However, this woman is a red herring, a mask: the article is actually co-authored; there is another person hiding inside of it. And? That person apparently has seen to it that this article can be read as catering to modern Christian apologetics. Thanks to his unseen hand, the article is acceptable enough to appear in a popular mag, like Scientific American.
And thanks to that unseen hand, the final, real argument in this article is roughly a standard, if new wave, liberal Christian apologetic. The argument is roughly that yes, Christians may have done countless bad things in the past: murdering millions in Crusades, in witch hunts, in heresy executions and torture. But after all, our good apologist assures us, this might be excused.
First, because 1) there is a good holy side to Christianity. Say, a pacifist, almost priestlike, arm, like the Quakers. One that is not violent; One that does not kill lots of people. And One that will leave nonbelievers alone. This, one might deduce, is “good,” “true,” and “real” Christianity. Granted, it might be hinted, 2) there might be a bad Christianity: Fundamentalism. Which starts religious wars. And is inflexible and authoritarian; a “tight”-assed stickler for rules and regulations, law and order. But? Our liberal apologist has an argument that might even excuse these authoritarian oppressors. Who after all, are only repressive killers ... because, we are told, they felt threatened. These poor fearful victims, are are said to live mainly in troubled, difficult environments. So why are these poor people, laying down so many laws, and repressing so many others? It is just because they feel they need these strong laws, to counter a hard and threatening (and “evil”?) world.
So the moral of this (essentially "Good cop/Bad cop"
sermon is that we should of course, just forgive our oppressors; because they were just poor victims. And then? Next? We should look at and revere the priestly good heroes that led them, and succeeded them: our good meek, mild, pacifistic liberal, priestlike Christians. With their “love” and passivity.
But? As it turns out, we've been addressing this kind of argument here on DU, in the margins, in responses to “Sirveau's” posts and questionnaires, for weeks. And elsewhere for years before that. Among other things: 1) when you begin to support or apologize for “Religion” in general, then you seem to after all give at least some support for everything in it. Including its hired killers. Then too 2) as it turns out, in fact allied even to your kinder and gentle group of Christians, there was always a hidden pact with a very violent and repressive action arm; that did the dirty work. A group that lovable priests might try to disavow. But which was in effect always a necessary part of their operation.
You've been doing this kind of sly move, all along. An earlier questionaire hinted this for example: wouldn't it be wonderful if behind all the bad things in Christianity, there was a wonderful soulful group of holy pacifists, whose spirituality gave us the greatest things: meaning, and value? Value which it is claimed earlier, only they can give. But we've been addressing every one of your sly apologetics, one by one. With dozens of counterarguments. And now to our earlier counterarguments? We might now add this one: the OPPRESSOR POSING AS VICTIM, hiding underneath victimization (like poor Jesus), is one of the standard tricks of oppressive religious groups.
(You know, now that I think of it: that was one of the tricks of your ideal Quaker pacifist, Richard Nixon. When exposed and defeated, Nixon suggested that after all, he was a “loving” person; who loved his dog, Checkers. And then in the final end, in Watergate? Nixon presented himself finally, as victim: “you won't have me to kick around any more.”
Poor Tricky Dick. That was always the secret trick inside Christianity: our oppressive “lord” presents himself as martyr, victim; as “suffering servant.” He just killed all those folks in Vietnam, he just subverted democracy by using the intelligence services for political ends, because he had to; in the name of love and peace.)
Thank you Quakers, and priestly apologists everywhere. How could we do without you?
