Religion
Related: About this forumWhen 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 1860those states that were occupied by the North and lost the backbone of their slave-based economy following the Civil Warare 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.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)Why should you get a pass because of what I think is a belief in superstitution? I don't give a shit what you think you believe in, it isn't provable anymore than a belief in superstitution is.
rug
(82,333 posts)It's about the misattribution of religious causes to events.
Science.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)upaloopa
(11,417 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)of mumbo jumbo.
My fridge works. Prayers do not. One of these things is not-like-the-o-ther.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)You need to define "works" don't you?
If I pray for a result and that result occurs did my prayer work?
On edit:
I don't think we can explain all reality by our senses.
We are limited in sight, hearing, smell, touch and taste. There could be an alternate reality that we are incapable of perceiving. Of course there could also not be one. We can't be sure of anything. We pick our belief in reality don't we?
You will never know if what you believe is real is real!
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)The results were... not encouraging.
Yes, our sense are limited, but we have proven very adept, as a species, at devising machines/sensors that will gather that data that lay beyond the limits of our organic senses.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)It "works" for me. It has been working for me for over 30 years. Many things I cannot chalk up to coincidence. Now most people would say I am full of shit. I don't care what they think because I don't base my reality on what people think. I can't prove what I say, meaning power of attraction, but it works for me. No machine can document it
edhopper
(33,467 posts)it doesn't exist. You have attributed a series of coincidences to some fabricated law that is pure bunk.
Of course when the coincidence isn't there, you don't think it shows your law is a mirage, it just didn't work for you that time.
Sorry, I'm not buying it.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)see the world through. You can't know reality any more than I can. You know what you think reality is.
And I am not selling you anything. It doesn't matter to me what your opinion is.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)upaloopa
(11,417 posts)It. Read "The Secret" if you are really interested. There are many other sources too. I am not trying to promote the idea.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)edhopper
(33,467 posts)Bullshit. Useless new age drivel.
I would suggest spending time watching the Real Housewives is more constructive use of time than reading "The Secret".
If people here think Depak Chopra spouts meaningless garbage, well he is Aristotelian compared to this.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)No need to support your opinion by tearing down mine.
edhopper
(33,467 posts)When I hear someone blathering about this type of idocy, it behooves me to state clearly what tripe it is.
A big steaming pile of foolishness.
Sorry, but beliefs don't go unchallenged here. Especially ones that are so inane.
Maybe you should just wish my total rejection of this offal would fly away and you could attract nice, warm, fuzy people.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)think about it. I don't live my life caring about what other people think.
edhopper
(33,467 posts)though I was actually letting the people reading this know what utter hogwash you were spewing.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)It is my job to do my research and my experimentation and find those people who I can learn from to make choices for my life. I take responsibility and accept the consequences of my actions and choices. I reserve the right to change my mind when I find a better way. It isn't my job to do that for anyone else and it isn't anyone else's job to do that for me.
I don't find anyone, myself included, on this board who is particularly enlightened. Though I suspect there are those who consider themselves enlightened. You seem to think you are I guess. You feel you have what it takes to critique others and tell the world what you have found out.
Again I don't give a shit about your opinion of me or any other thing. You are no more enlightened than the rest of us.
edhopper
(33,467 posts)maybe not on this board. But I am more enlightened than creationist, fundamental Bible literalists, Right wing supply siders, believers in Ghosts, Alien UFOs and Lake Monsters, and people who follow the "Secret".
I absolutely reject the notion that nobody knows more than anybody else.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)edhopper
(33,467 posts)did not attract a "like" person.
Who'd a thunk it?
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)and still that is not important to me.
My life is going pretty good right now. What other people think or do with their life has no effect on that.
So again, I don't give a shit what you or anyone on this board thinks I am not trying to win converts.
edhopper
(33,467 posts)I just felt the need to state what utter rubbish I think you law of attraction is.
So we can leave it at that.
I am sure you are nice person who happens to believe some new age voodoo.
Response to edhopper (Reply #84)
Post removed
edhopper
(33,467 posts)Last words, huh?
I wonder if that's true? Let's see.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service
Mail Message
On Tue Jul 29, 2014, 06:44 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
I don't think you are a nice person
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=143688
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
Disagreement is one thing, but this is flat-out name calling.
JURY RESULTS
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Jul 29, 2014, 06:56 PM, and the Jury voted 6-1 to HIDE IT.
Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: It's borderline, but in the end still an insult with no good qualities. Try making an argument that could gain you supporters or convince 3rd parties of your views.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: The poster said "You are" not "I think you are"
Too personal. Sorry poster.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Fucking magnets, how do they work?
The Secret knows
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: While both posters could use a little maturing, the alerter is correct.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Agree with alerter.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
edhopper
(33,467 posts)I did not alert.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I appreciate others letting me know it's a waste of time.
I only get about a million hours on this planet. I'd like to use them wisely.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)I don't intend to tell people how to spend their time. You do as you please I really don't care.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)One that I would spend time consuming for information?
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)In reply for an answer I gave the title of a book that explains what I meant. If you look it up or not is your choice I could not care less.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)What I would like to see is a complete and fair assessment of the ROLE of religion. And the willingness to yes, at least SOMETIMES, acknowledge that it is responsible.
Htom Sirveaux
(1,242 posts)Maybe sketch out what a complete and fair assessment of the role of religion would look like, in general outline?
-
And with regard to your second wish, if religion is sometimes to blame for bad behavior, is it sometimes deserving of credit for good behavior? I'm not sure you can have one without the other in a fair assessment, but if not, can you explain how it is possible without begging the question of the essential nature of religion?
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Let's allow for the possibility that yes, religion is sometimes responsible for bad behavior, and that without the religious excuse, the behavior might not have happened. It shouldn't be dismissed simply because someone insists "Well that's not what *I* think the religion should be."
For the second part, you'd need to demonstrate that the good behavior could not have happened without religion. I'm applying the same standard to both.
Htom Sirveaux
(1,242 posts)In the first, you assume the possibility that religion is causal of bad behavior. In the second, you require demonstration that religion must be causal of good behavior. Either assuming the possibility of both, or requiring demonstration of definite causality in both would be consistent.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)And then demonstrate whether it would have happened without religion.
For instance, without religion, no one could be charged with blasphemy. Religion brings that unique aspect to the table.
Correspondingly, without religion, would people volunteer at soup kitchens and homeless shelters? (Hint: they already do.)
Htom Sirveaux
(1,242 posts)So if your first question is, "without religion, would people still be charged with blasphemy" the next one needs to be something like "without religion, would people still worship their god by feeding the poor and sheltering the homeless"
But if your first question is "without religion, would people volunteer at soup kitchens and homeless shelters", the next comparable one is "without religion, would majorities still persecute minorities?" Or "without religion, would there still be people who use fanaticism as proof of virtue?"
trotsky
(49,533 posts)To go from a specific example of volunteering at soup kitchens, to an overarching historical theme of "majorities persecuting minorities"??
Here, this might help identify what I think is unique about religion:
http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2009/11/armor-of-god.html
It's this:
Religion is ultimately dependent on belief in invisible beings, inaudible voices, intangible entities, undetectable forces, and events and judgments that happen after we die.
It therefore has no reality check.
Htom Sirveaux
(1,242 posts)Less specific, but it still fits with the rest of what I say.
-
So the claim of harm is that "religion has no reality check"? That assumes that there is something that qualifies as a "reality check" and whatever is called "religion" doesn't do this. I suspect (and correct me if I'm wrong) that you would identify science and reason as reality checks, yes? If so, something is now "religion" to the extent that it ignores science and reason.
I agree that if we define the essence of religion as "ignoring science and reason" (a bad thing), we'll discover that religion is responsible for bad and not for good. But it's still question-begging.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)It will answer your questions.
Htom Sirveaux
(1,242 posts)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".
trotsky
(49,533 posts)She's not saying that a religious opinion can never change.
In fact, your graph seems to support her point. Why are the born-again numbers so much higher than those of non-born-agains? Why has the opposition to same-sex marriage decreased by more than 50% in non-born-agains, but only 30% in born-agains? Remind me again, which group is generally higher in religiosity?
So read it again and see if you can address her argument instead of your straw man version of it.
Htom Sirveaux
(1,242 posts)and
If religion is stubborn but not completely unyielding to experience, the distinction she wants to make between political ideology and religion falls apart. So when she said "uniquely stubborn" in the part you quoted, she was either being incoherent (if she meant what you think she meant), or using it to mean "completely unyielding" (which is indeed falsified by the graph I gave).
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Because of religion's reliance on "invisible beings, inaudible voices, intangible entities, undetectable forces, and events and judgments that happen after we die."
Take another look at your graph and answer the questions I asked you. Why are the numbers between the groups different, and why has one changed more than the other?
Htom Sirveaux
(1,242 posts)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Born_again_%28Christianity%29
That means that 1/3rd Evangelical/Black/Latino Protestants, 2/3rds mainline protestants, and 5/6ths of all Catholics are in the group (non-born-agains) that changed quicker. That further means that there are religious people on both sides of that graph, with a particular kind of religious people changing slower than others, yet still changing. The idea that religion as a whole is uniquely stubborn is still empirically falsified, and as I've been saying, it would be question-begging to privilege one group over the other as the "real" form of religion.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Nope, you haven't accomplished that. You've tried, but you haven't shown it. And in fact, the most encompassing empirical data we have (looking at overall populations around the globe) show that the least religious populations are the most liberal, most happy, most stable, and most productive. Why do you suppose that is?
it would be question-begging to privilege one group over the other as the "real" form of religion.
Of course it would, which is why we're not talking about "real" religion. I'm not interested in that red herring.
Let me ask you something: do you think that yes, perhaps, maybe, SOMETIMES, religion and/or religious teaching is either solely or primarily to blame for bad behavior?
Htom Sirveaux
(1,242 posts)Greta Christina's article through that graph, or by showing that religion by itself can't account for the different rates of change in acceptance of gay marriage, then it would appear that "religion as uniquely stubborn" no longer has an identified, non-question-begging empirical definition. It's just more of a vague negative label, not a reasonable argument.
Source?
That depends, is religion and/or religious teaching sometimes solely or primarily worthy of credit for good behavior? The two questions go together, as I suggested in Post #3.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)What makes religion uniquely stubborn is what I've pointed out to you - belief in "invisible beings, inaudible voices, intangible entities, undetectable forces, and events and judgments that happen after we die."
Let's look at the two extremes - Imagine two systems, one of which limits the factors of our judgment to those things that are directly observable or rationally deducible. And the other, which is based on what a person thinks an invisible (to others), inaudible (to others), undetectable (to others) entity wants us to do.
Which one do you suppose is going to be more open to correction? Or better yet - which one would you rather base a society's laws upon?
Source?
Here's just one: http://www.utne.com/mind-and-body/the-worlds-happiest-countries-are-the-least-religious.aspx
That depends, is religion and/or religious teaching sometimes solely or primarily worthy of credit for good behavior? The two questions go together, as I suggested in Post #3.
I don't necessarily think they go together, especially since you are using it as a shield to avoid answering my question.
But let's consider the "good" side of the equation: do you think there is any single uniquely religion-inspired "good" action that could only be done by a believer, and not by an atheist?
Htom Sirveaux
(1,242 posts)Last edited Mon Jul 28, 2014, 07:44 PM - Edit history (4)
My point was two-fold: first, religion does not create unconquerable resistance to reality. You agreed with that, contrary to the article you gave me. Then you implied that religion caused "born agains" to have a much slower rate of acceptance of gay marriage. I pointed out that there were also many religious people on the side where the rate of acceptance of gay marriage was much quicker. Therefore, as I said, religion as a totality cannot explain the difference. Being religious didn't prevent born agains from changing, and it didn't prevent non-born-agains from changing much faster.
-
Your link is based on a study which actually has more in common with the study I posted in the OP:
On the opposite end of the spectrum, the 10 least religious countries studied include several with the world's highest living standards, including Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Hong Kong, and Japan. (Several other countries on this list are former Soviet republics, places where the state suppressed religious expression for decades.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/114211/Alabamians-Iranians-Common.aspx
I cited the original study or propose that different social expressions of religion could be based on underlying experiences/fears of threat. In your study, religiosity is at least correlated with living standards. Living standards would be another way to express the idea that social religious expression is based on deeper factors.
-
I would agree either that religion is primarily/solely to blame both in cases of good and bad, or that religion doesn't have its own causal power, and is the expression of deeper factors in both good and bad cases. That's where I stand. You appear to want to blame religion for all the bad, and deprive if of any credit for any good. And your justification is "it's based on non-verifiable things" but you haven't really explained how that leads to bad more than, for example, other non-verifiable ideologies in light of the evidence I've shown that people don't need to see or examine these inaccessible religious things to change their opinions about them.
I was ready to agree to either crediting religion equally with both good and bad, or deny credit for both good and bad, from the start, and I still am. For a moment you seemed to agree with the need for fair assessment and equal standards, then that disappeared.
An atheist couldn't worship a deity by giving charity to the poor. They could give charity to the poor, but they could also be part of a majority discriminating against minority, just as a believer could oppress others on the basis of non-belief. This goes back, as you can see, to my discussion of specificity in post #13.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)If not, then what is the difference between "born agains" and "not born agains"?
first, religion does not create unconquerable resistance to reality. You agreed with that, contrary to the article you gave me.
Actually, as I pointed out to you, the article didn't claim that either. So good job dispatching that straw man that no one stated, I guess?
The happiest, most liberal, most tolerant, most democratic societies are also the least religious.
It is my opinion that when it comes to the positive side of humanity, religion isn't necessary. You seem to agree with this, since your lone example adds on the baggage of "worship(ing) a deity" when that isn't in itself a "good" or a "bad' action. The action is giving to the poor, and as you admitted, believers and non-believers can do this equally.
Do you have any other example of an action that only a believer could do?
Htom Sirveaux
(1,242 posts)"Born-agains" are Christians who self-identify as such or report having had a "born again experience" -a specific turning point in their life where they committed themselves to Christ. It's a specific subset of religious people. Your idea that being "born again" equals being somehow more religious than "non-born-agains" is begging the question of what counts as truly religious, which you've agreed you have no interest in.
-
And I pointed out that your interpretation undermined the original point the author was making, and you didn't rebut that, you just restated your interpretation without any further reference to the article.
-
I'm arguing for fair and consistent standards in judging religion v. non-religion. You seem to want a "heads I win, tails you lose" standard where religion gets all the blame for the bad, none of the credit for the good. I don't agree to that inconsistent standard, because your attempts to defend it as fair have not been convincing.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)The latter is the one I have no interest in discussing, since "true religion" is whatever anyone who claims to follow a religion says it is. None of you can point to any evidence making your case stronger than the other guy's.
Now religiosity - the intensity of religious belief, the dedication or fervor with which one believes - is definitely interesting and important. And being "born again" as you describe it would definitely correlate with a higher level of religiosity. And there's data to back that up - it's not just my assertion:
https://www.barna.org/barna-update/21-transformation/252-barna-survey-examines-changes-in-worldview-among-christians-over-the-past-13-years
So therefore the data seems to agree with Ms. Christina - the more religious, the more resistant one is to reality checks. As your graph demonstrates.
If you don't want a "heads I win, tails you lose," them simply respond to my request. Identify one good action that could only be performed by a believer, and never a non-believer.
Htom Sirveaux
(1,242 posts)https://www.barna.org/barna-update/21-transformation/252-barna-survey-examines-changes-in-worldview-among-christians-over-the-past-13-years
If you are adopting this as your standard of religiosity, a person will be more religious the more conservative they are, and fundamentalists will be the ideal, the most religion a person can have. So, no, you can't claim that religion makes you more uniquely stubborn without presupposing a fundamentalist view of what "real religion" is.
I cannot. Your turn: one bad action that could only be performed by a believer, and never by a non-believer?
trotsky
(49,533 posts)None of those items are necessarily fundamentalist/conservative - it doesn't even say the bible must be taken be taken literally, only that it is "totally accurate in all of the PRINCIPLES it teaches." Perhaps you can tell me which of those items you DON'T personally believe in?
one bad action that could only be performed by a believer, and never by a non-believer?
Judging someone guilty of blasphemy.
Htom Sirveaux
(1,242 posts)and I reject, at the least, the second and third one. Also, I've never had a "born again experience". The idea of being able to name the exact date and time when you "came to Christ" is most definitely an evangelical/fundamentalist thing. That's where it originated, and as far as I know, it hasn't spread to mainliners or Catholics. It wouldn't even make sense for Catholics because they don't emphasize "decision for Christ" as the definitive in/out symbol.
You mean a specifically religious variant of the "fighting words exception" to the First Amendment?
Your example is unsuccessful.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Which is fine, but not really indicative of anything other than your own preferences and prejudices about what other Christians think. Curious - what principles do you think the bible is incorrect about? And why do you reject Satan as a real entity? I think your answers to those questions might help clarify the difference between what you consider the religiosity level of "born agains" and everyone else.
And no, "fighting words" aren't the same as blasphemy. Blasphemy deals strictly with religious offenses, so your attempt to negate my example is what's unsuccessful. Want to try again?
Htom Sirveaux
(1,242 posts)is irrelevant, the issue is "what is the paradigmatic example of religion" (the verbiage "real" or "true" may have been confusing things) and my point has been all along that you are using fundamentalism as your paradigmatic example, and judging things as more or less "religious" by how closely they align with fundamentalism. The idea that having a "born again experience" makes you more religious is fundamentalist. The idea that you must have all the listed requirements in order to have something called a "Biblical worldview" is fundamentalist. The idea that the more religious you are, the more you resist gay marriage is fundamentalist (and in this case, also conservative Catholic). So if that's how you judge religion, of course you will end up concluding that religion is inherently bad. Because you defined it that way from the start.
Quickly, I don't agree with spanking children (found in proverbs), and a totally evil, irredeemable being (which is what Satan supposedly is), can't exist if you define evil as the absence of good (a definition dating back at least to St. Augustine). Total evil would in that case be total non-existence (because in medieval philosophy, "existence" and "good" are equated)
In post # 57 , you told me this when I named worshipping God by feeding the poor as something believers could do, but atheists couldn't:
You seem to agree with this, since your lone example adds on the baggage of "worship(ing) a deity" when that isn't in itself a "good" or a "bad' action. The action is giving to the poor, and as you admitted, believers and non-believers can do this equally.
In response to my secular example of "fighting words", you clarified that blasphemy was unique to believers because it involved religious motivation. But earlier, you denied that adding religious motivation changed anything about feeding the poor. You can't come back now and say that adding religious motivation changes something about criminalizing speech, not without contradicting your earlier denial of my "feeding the poor in the name of God" example.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)does that make you a semi-fundamentalist? Where should the line be drawn? Are you now equating "born again" with "fundamentalist"? Should we disregard the parts of your belief that make you more fundamentalist, or are those the most important ones? (Namely, that a god exists and created the universe!) The more you explain, the more confusing you're making it, apparently in a desperate attempt to unlink the obvious correlation between dedication to religious doctrine and practice, and resistance to change.
Regarding the difference between our examples, you're not quite getting it. You added on a layer with your "worshiping god by feeding the poor", because the action was feeding the poor. With blasphemy, there is no additional layer. Blasphemy is a crime against religious beliefs, period. Now if I had said my example was "Executing someone for blasphemy" you'd definitely have a point, since a non-believer or a believer can execute someone. But I didn't say that - I said the act was judging someone to have committed blasphemy. A non-believer can't do that, because they have no god, no religious beliefs to offend.
Htom Sirveaux
(1,242 posts)dedication to religious doctrine/practice and change. A person who used to believe that God was opposed to gay marriage, and now believes that God supports gay marriage hasn't become less devout, less dedicated. Or if they have, how can you justify that without appealing to fundamentalism as the paradigm of religion?
What I'm saying doesn't fit into said false dichotomy, and that's the source of confusion. As to your questions:
1-2. No, because the fundamentalist part is (a) valuing something called "a biblical worldview" and (b) adhering to it by total agreement to a set of propositions that include some requirement of "literal" understanding of the Bible (in this case, at the very least in the literal reality of Satan). I agree with you that the listed propositions taken individually are not inherently fundamentalist.
3. No, I'm not equating "born again" with "fundamentalist". Fundamentalists are going to be "born again" but not all "born agains" are Fundamentalist.
4. See explanation for 1-2
-
With blasphemy, the action is "criminalizing offensive speech". Adding "about a religious topic" is just an additional layer that changes nothing.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)more committed to religious belief, religious thinking, and religious principles. (As opposed to using secular reasoning.)
You yourself clearly display less commitment to the former, and more to the latter, and someone like Fred Phelps or Pat Robertson displays the reverse. And coincidentally, you display more willingness to embrace newer, more progressive values, while they preferred older, conservative ones. So is that a coincidence or not?
Oh, and on edit: No, blasphemy isn't necessarily about criminalizing speech. It's determining whether someone's god or religious beliefs were insulted. Non-believers have neither. Thus it's something only a believer can do. Keep trying if you must but it appears I've won that point.
Htom Sirveaux
(1,242 posts)between reasoning (secular!) and belief (religious!). Let's examine that. Two people, each holding this idea, to be true: A deity exists and created the universe. "A" holds that belief on the basis of philosophical arguments made originally by Aristotle and refined by Thomas Aquinas (however, A is not Catholic). "B" holds the same belief because B learned in church that the Bible is inerrant, and that's what the Bible says.
Is the idea "A deity exists and created the universe" secular or religious?
-
That point wasn't contested. My actual point has gone unchallenged, so it appears that I might win by default on your part, whether you concede that you've been caught in a contradiction or not.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)adjective: secular
1. denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis.
Uh, dude, it's not a false dichotomy when that's how the word is defined. Do you know what "false dichotomy" means?
Htom Sirveaux
(1,242 posts)"There is no basis for reason in religion or spirituality".
trotsky
(49,533 posts)You read far more into that than intended. Here, let me rephrase the offending sentence to clarify and eliminate the point of contention you've created:
Better?
Htom Sirveaux
(1,242 posts)"religious belief/thinking/principles"? I take it that "because the Bible is inerrant and the Bible said so" would be one example, are there others?
trotsky
(49,533 posts)"Because god wants me to love others"
"Because Jesus said those who would not bow before him should be cast into the fire."
"Because all life is sacred to god, and because the bible says he knew us in the womb, that means life begins at conception and therefore abortion is murder."
"Because the Quran says to take care of my family, orphans and the needy."
"Because Mohammed wanted infidels murdered if they don't accept Islam."
Htom Sirveaux
(1,242 posts)A person's religiosity depends on their willingness to appeal to special revelation as the source and foundation of their ideas?
In this formulation, to use Christian sects as our examples, Catholics, Episcopalians, and Methodists would be less religious because they generally recognize reason as one of several sources of authority. Southern Baptists would be more religious because they hold to an inerrant Bible as the ultimate standard of authority.
If I've understood correctly, that raises this question: what do we do with a person who says: "God created me with the capacity to reason, and he expects me to use it" and the reason being referred to is what you called "secular reason". Is that person less religious that a person who says, "God gave me an inerrant Bible, and he wants me to rely on it", or are they equally religious because both are appealing to religious principle (what God did)?
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Reliance on "invisible beings, inaudible voices, intangible entities, undetectable forces, and events and judgments that happen after we die."
No reality check.
Htom Sirveaux
(1,242 posts)What do we do with a person who says: "God created me with the capacity to reason, and he expects me to use it" and the reason being referred to is what you called "secular reason"? Is that person less religious that a person who says, "God gave me an inerrant Bible, and he wants me to rely on it", or are they equally religious because both are appealing to what God did?
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Clearly the first person relies less on religious thinking - i.e., allows for more secular reasoning when it comes to moral situations.
Htom Sirveaux
(1,242 posts)Thomas Aquinas was less religious than Jerry Falwell? Martin Luther King, Jr. was less religious than Pat Robertson? For that matter, in your scheme, pretty much any mainline Protestant Bible scholar, philosopher, or theologian who has spent a lifetime dedicated to understanding, teaching and living with Jesus is less religious than the newly-ordained preacher down at the local non-denominational Fundamentalist megachurch.
The results don't make sense, so the scheme needs some work.
stone space
(6,498 posts)Without religion, it would no doubt be called something else with a more secular sounding name (like sedition or whatever), but the notion that religion is necessary to be charged with blasphemy is just plan silly.
Think about where the phrase "falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater" comes from. (HINT: There was no theater and nobody shouted "fire".)
rug
(82,333 posts)Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)Then note good and bad things, differentiations, within this overall group.
By the way though? This article oddly, almost seems to have in the back of its mind, to support the backbone idea of Liberal religion.
The main idea on which Liberal Christianity is based, seems to be that 1) there is "bad" religion; as in Fundamentalism. Which seems rule-bound and violent. But there is 2) also "good" religion; namely Liberalism. Which might have core traits like Pacifism, spirituality, etc..
Or in the case of the cited article, our attention is drawn to "bad," or defensively autocratic religion, which is found in objectively threatened regions. Vs. more relaxed religion, in friendlier environments.
This article therefore might seem promising. However, there would be a tendency to interpret this results according to the core Liberal religious bias. Reading this as verifying the essential Liberal religious ideal: that conservative fundamentalists are just fear-based people. People who live in "fear" of environments perceived as threatening.
Technically though, this article does not quite say that. It suggests that fundamentalistic, law- or rule-oriented religion, comes from environments that actually ARE more dangerous.
In this sense, the article might almost seem to excuse Fundamentalism.
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)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?
Htom Sirveaux
(1,242 posts)People (liberal apologists) who try to understand those they claim to disagree with (the fundamentalist oppressors) are actually conspiring with their supposed opponents. The purpose of these liberal apologists is to engage in propaganda to smooth the way for the triumph of the oppressors. Therefore, the liberal apologists are too sly to be trusted.
If that's the substance of what you've said, then the implication is that the people who can be trusted are those who refuse to try to understand their enemies, who consistently demonize said enemies as doing what they do because they are just intrinsically evil. This is the same logic employed by fundamentalists engaging in struggles over who is the most pure.
Another implication is that you're a hero in possession of The Truth, who bravely contends against hidden powers (and the existence of the conspiracy can mainly be seen in the clues its agents inadvertently drop in their statements). That's way more exciting than being a random internet commentator like the rest of us. It might account for the overheated rhetoric and the consistent misuse and exaggeration of selected details.
What did you honestly expect me to say to your accusations of being a secret agent for a hidden liberal/fundamentalist Christian conspiracy? Anything I say would be untrustworthy, given who and what you think I am, right? Then I dont need to be personally involved in writing this melodrama. But when you publish it, I want royalties for being used as a character.
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)And honestly? It does rather seem to me that our religious leaders are hypocritical deceivers. There Jesus was right.
stone space
(6,498 posts)...your characterization of Nixon as a pacifist, Quaker or otherwise, to be quite offensive and totally off the rails.
Did you think before posting this?
rug
(82,333 posts)Jim__
(14,058 posts)Interesting geographical breakdown.
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)Last edited Mon Jul 28, 2014, 02:56 PM - Edit history (1)
1) California is waiting for "the Big One," the great earthquake. While 2) the liberal Northeast experiences severe winters.
And? 3) Hawaii has Tsunamis ... and live volcanoes!
So all three of the very most liberal easygoing areas ... actually have the very greatest environmental threats.
Then militarily? Peal Harbor ...
Liberals love to say that Fundamentalists are rule-oriented, fascistic, because they feel threatened, because they are "fear-based."
So does this allegedly scientific study hold up? Or does it suggest Liberal Christian bias?
okasha
(11,573 posts)Last edited Mon Jul 28, 2014, 11:58 PM - Edit history (1)
1. The "tighter" states include areas marked by persistent, endemic, intergenerational poverty. These states also have large minority populations. Both conditions constitute threat to the areas' privileged population. Poverty and the uncertainty that goes with it constitute a daily threat to the poor themselves. I would suspect that these two factors have a lot more to do with the level of "tightness" than historic slaveholding patterns.
2. Many of the "looser" states are not liberal but libertarian. They place a high value on individual rights and a low value on centralized authority. The areas of tolerated "deviance" in these states are rather constricted.
The study is interesting, but possibly not terribly useful.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,262 posts)We might, instead, say that they were states that cared less about liberty, and so were happy with slavery, and that attitude has continued, and that's why they don't accept people who don't conform to the majority-imposed 'morality'.
In fact, I find the excuse-making for slave states very distasteful.
Htom Sirveaux
(1,242 posts)We could extend their discussion by saying that prior to the Civil War, those states were tighter because they feared a slave uprising, especially one in which slaves and poor whites made common cause. Hence the formalization of the cult of white superiority in the aftermath of this:
Unwilling to accept their fate, a group of black and white workers met in secret to plan a revolt. After securing weapons and a drum, they would "march from house to house" until they reached the mansion of Royal Governor Sir William Berkeley. They would demand their freedom, and resort to force if necessary.
Though the plot failed, the landowners recognized the power that the Gloucester rebels possessed when banded together. Over the next several decades, they sought to breed racial contempt between the white and black members of the underclass. On the plantation level, they gave whites nominal control in the field. On the colony level, they allowed whites to join the militia and carry firearms. As historian Edmund Morgan writes, the landowners used racism as a device for control.
Leontius
(2,270 posts)do you find them tasteful?
muriel_volestrangler
(101,262 posts)The excerpt and article just talks about "states with a large amount of slave-owning families in 1860".
aka-chmeee
(1,132 posts)mr blur
(7,753 posts)Good luck with that.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)But I am not convinced that it really addresses your questions about religion. While there appears to be some correlation between "tightness", which could also be stated as low tolerance, with religion, it is not clear which may be lead to the other.
As noted elsewhere, the map also reflects a correlation with lower socioeconomic levels and all that encompasses, which has also been correlated with religiosity.
In terms of your question, of course it is lazy and faulty to say anything is just because of religion. As you point out, the category is too board and it's members too diverse. In addition, there are way too many other variables. Having a religious affiliation or no affiliation can be correlated with just about nothing when it comes down to it.
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)Not to mention, linked to racism.
In the South; in "The Bible Belt." Where say, levels of educational attainment are at the very, very bottom of the barrel.
From the part of the country that tried to violently overthrow the United States of America; the part of the country that killed millions of Americans. To support slavery.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)The problem is that religion is used to justify those actions. Persons under stress because of poverty or hunger or subject to ethical condemnation will avoid changing their behaviours and claim that a higher authority approves those actions. Another way of phrasing it is "I was only obeying orders ..." except instead of it being the Fuhrer it is God or Jesus or Mohammed and it is used to justify slavery, bigotry, murder, genital mutilation and many other moral atavisms.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)At least not in the sense that a claim that religion does not cause any of the violence using religion as a justification.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)such as Christian people or Muslim people or German people is, to an extent, counter-productive. I believe the majority of humans act ethically no matter what other influences they have upon them, it is only the minority who act in unethically and destructively and it is they who seek justifications for their behaviour.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Religion bears no responsibility for this? He would have done it anyway, he just used religion as an excuse?
intaglio
(8,170 posts)and his justification was religion, however his motivation was to end what he saw as the murder of babies. Not all the faithful act as Scott Roeder did and I have met one or two atheists who think that abortion is on a par with murder but all lack justification to murder a doctor.
On the other hand Elliot Rodger used the justification of revenge for imagined slights but his motivation was misogyny.
Perhaps I am too forgiving but it is my view.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Perhaps I am unclear on your response.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)Let's say that I have a minimum wage job where there is the opportunity to take some money from the till without being discovered. My poverty provides me with a motive for taking that money but my perception of the boss may or may not provide justification for my actually acting. Say the boss works harder than I did, is always fair, lived over the shop and drove a clunker - personally I wouldn't take that cash, indeed I did say how easy it would be to cheat. On the other hand if the boss had been an asshole, sneered at his staff, lived in a $5 million mansion and drove a Ferrari to the country club every day ...
Schroeder decided that he had to stop what he regarded as murder and that his act of homicide was justified by the "eternal reward" he would get for that act. How Schroeder decided he had motive is another matter though I suspect the toxic echo chamber of the anti-abortion activists played a big part.
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)So we can see at least two religious motives at work in Dr. Tiller's killer:
1) Catholic anti-abortionism;
2) Hope of later eternal reward in heaven.
While 3) the killer probably voiced religious motives in his many statements.
I think therefore we'd have to say that Religion played a very, very large part in the killer's decision to kill someone. Enough to tip the balance of any other motives he might have had.
Next? Suppose we take the Crusaders, trying to free the "Holy Land" from evil pagan heretics. Or their counterparts, the Muslims who yelled "Die Infidels" when they killed nonbelievers. Would it be your contention that they would have done so, without this extra motivation? That it was mere coincidence that they expressed this religious idea, over and over and over again?
By the way? Didn't we have this same discussion on DU four or five months ago? Where we found strong religious language and motives in one case after an other? And then cited six or seven professional Psychiatric journals citing religion as the deciding motive in dozens of murders?
Then finally what would be your ultimate point?
That it's OK to pump people up with religious motives to kill, since they would probably kill people ANYWAY?
Incredibly, that does seem to be your point.
A very, very chilling display of rationalization, and excuse-manufacturing, indeed.
You have no problem in rationalizing murder.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)The Crusades were motivated by economics (the control of the Silk Road and the Red Sea trade) they were justified by faith.
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)See also my post 73 (?)
2) The flip side or logical corollary of saying that religious motives don't matter, since people would do things anyway? Is saying that there is no point in teaching positive religion ... since all people will do what they want anyway.
So religion is irrelevant, and plays no role in behavior?
intaglio
(8,170 posts)You need a reason (motive) to perform an act and then you need to justify attempting to commit the act, such justifications can include "I won't get caught" or "it will make me feel better" or "it is for the greater good" or, sometimes, "it is the will of God". I have a motive for robbing a bank (shortage of money) but I have no justification for attempting doing so.
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)"it is the will of God" is sufficient as both motive and justification. The motive for capturing Jerusalem was "it is the will of God that Jerusalem should be part of Christiandom". The justification was "it is the will of God". As noted elsewhere other motives also were in play. You haven't escaped from religion as a motivation at all. You can't. It is a motivating factor.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)You are separating causes into motivation and justification arbitrarily. I could just as easily assert the opposite: the crusades were motivated by religion and justified by economics. Both factors were motivating and justifying. Individual participants could in fact be motivated exclusively by one or the other. Certainly you cannot honestly believe that there was not one individual, for example, in the first crusade participating only for religious reasons.
Leontius
(2,270 posts)people how do you separate who is using it as motivation or justification in general not just to specific individuals of power and influence? Given what is know of the history of man does it even matter?
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)That is the point.
Leontius
(2,270 posts)Is that reasonable and honest in your opinion?
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)people who refuse to acknowledge that religion shares any blame.
Now that we agree that religion is a causal factor in many violent acts we can move on.
Leontius
(2,270 posts)And doing so in an unbiased way without allowing your prejudice to color the answer is the problem.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)What happens when you take religion out of a doctrine like "the divine right of kings"?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Religion by its very essence provides the perfect excuse to do pretty much anything you want. As long as you can claim that you are religiously obligated to do so and that your instructions are coming from something greater than you, you can probably rationalize just about anything.
The key is in being able to differentiate those that are using religion from those that are being used by religion from those who may suffer from a significant psychiatric disorder. In almost all of these cases of heinous acts, one of those things is probably true.
The vast majority of religious people do not commit these acts.
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)Because people are going to do what they want anyway.
So? There is no positive point in teaching religion.
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)Here people are suggesting that religion doesn't cause people to do bad things; they were going to do them anyway.
I'm saying that if we accept the logic of those who say that religion is ion effect, powerless? That it does not cause problems? Then the same logic would suggest that it does not cause them to get better either. They will just do what they were going to do, anyway.
So clearly, the logic used to defend religion from claims it causes problems, will present problems of its own for defenders.
So that? This argument should not be used by defenders.