Religulous

[Homo Aestheticus]

David,

Meh I think Eric was asking for it.  He's taken as much or worse over years (look back on cmg with Mel, Eric and others and you'll something out of control!), it's no skin off his nose.  Provoking a response is a victory for him, he's probably chuckling about it right now!

Actually I am not chuckling.

[Homo Aestheticus]

Note that I am not in the least religious and have no illusions about the shortcomings of much religious belief and many religious institutions--but neither am I so stupid or ignorant of history not to recognize that religions in general and Christianity in particular have been overwhelmingly greater forces for good than for evil in the world...and that just about every decent, redeeming characteristic of human societies stems from the religions at their moral centers.

God did not endow me with a lot of cognitive ability.... I know that I'm not very bright and I'm sorry if you have to put up with my dumb questions but are you saying that without the advent of Christianity society would have basically deteriorated ?

Would we really have been so bad off if left with only the products of Greco-Roman culture and Platonism ?

[DavidW]

Edgy or not, I can sign up to this manifesto. Regardless of the personal neuroses that govern our attitudes to particular examples of religious institutions, or the political machinations that often supplant the spiritual ideal, this is a matter of cultural history rather than one of belief.

Well I can't.  Any manifesto whose argument is "if you disagree with me than you are a stupid, ignorant bigot" does not get my support.  It reads like something that M would have written.  I think that religions across the world would desire a more reasoned, even-tempered response to the Erics in the world.  The fact that Eric managed to get under Dave's skin without slinging personal insults shows how good he is at this.  If anything you should be embarrassed and not supportive!

There are two good responses-- (a) clever but level headed debate, (b) silence.  Cursing and insult after insult is not my idea of a good response.  Eric has not labeled anyone with insults as far as I see, but just in the past few posts he has been called "ignorant bigot, moron, nitwit, complete asshole, boor, pathetic loser, small minded bigot and wacko."  Eric can take it, and I understand Dave getting pissed, but why would you support this Elgarian?  It's not exactly a shining moment.

[DavidW]

Would we really have been so bad off if left with only the products of Greco-Roman culture and Platonism ?

Nobody can know that, religion is so deeply intertwined with our cultural history that asking "how good has religion been for us?" is unanswerable. 

[zamyrabyrd]

Would we really have been so bad off if left with only the products of Greco-Roman culture and Platonism ?

Don't think Debussy would have happened except for the particular congruence of events that led up to the 19th century as we know it.

[drogulus]

Nobody can know that, religion is so deeply intertwined with our cultural history that asking "how good has religion been for us?" is unanswerable. 

     The question is answered all the time in our law and politics. Religion is treated, quite properly, as one of the most dangerous forces on earth when it's not restrained by the power of secular law. The reluctance to evaluate religion in all its aspects has nothing to do with any inability to come to conclusions. This reluctance is more like the right hand not knowing something about the left hand. We know but prefer not to say.

     We celebrate what we say is good about religion but wouldn't think of letting that lion out of its cage. As long as the lion is caged we can imagine it as benevolent. I wonder how we decided a cage was the best place for it, though? Could it have anything to do with the wars that have been fought in its name, and that are now being fought in its name where the cage was never built?

[DavidW]

Well Ernie, I would like to hear the reasons why religion is so dangerous.

Oh btw you might to want delete from your sig the evidence that you're using a pirated beta of Windows 7!

[drogulus]

Oh btw you might to want delete from your sig the evidence that you're using a pirated beta of Windows 7!

     Why? It's not illegal. I got it early, that's all. It's registered with Microsoft, BTW.  _0:)

     As for the other question, I think the history of the wars of religion and the rise of a new secular vision that permits (in fact requires) religious freedom to practice but not the freedom to oppress speaks for itself. When the value of religion is to be measured deeds count where words are rarely spoken. We treat religion as dangerous because it is, and history demonstrates this even up to this day. So when you count up the pluses and minuses remember what kind of society you live in and how it got that way. And look at what societies are like that don't put a secular democracy and law between the people and the cults that are so desperate to rule them.

     

[Elgarian]

why would you support this Elgarian?

Look specifically at the piece I quoted, David, because that's the piece I endorsed:
"I ... have no illusions about the shortcomings of much religious belief and many religious institutions--but neither am I so stupid or ignorant of history not to recognize that religions in general and Christianity in particular have been overwhelmingly greater forces for good than for evil in the world...and that just about every decent, redeeming characteristic of human societies stems from the religions at their moral centers."

The substance of that is what I'd be willing to sign up to, that is: while acknowledging that religious beliefs and institutions have many shortcomings, on the whole they have been a substantial force for good. I wouldn't myself have phrased it so forcefully as DR did, and in hindsight maybe I should have qualified it a little - but there's nothing much to object to there in substance, is there? You might disagree, and I might argue the point - but the point itself isn't an unreasonable one, surely?

I don't (and didn't) endorse the second section of DR's post, where I think he let his temper get the better of him, and I'd have much preferred it if he hadn't.

[Elgarian]

Incidentally, it's human beings that are dangerous. Not religions, particularly. Human beings will take any system and manipulate it to their own ends.

[drogulus]

    There is a thesis afloat but rarely rendered in detail that people wouldn't be good without religion, that religion is responsible for the moral instincts, and that in effect it grows the food and doesn't just sell the product. I think the reason this is not made explicit is that it's a laughable claim. Show me a society where the moral instinct is absent. Show me one where murder, rape and robbery are not crimes. People all over the world have moral values and it's been tested, the difference between atheists and believers is almost zero on moral questions. The value of religion is considerable as a form of social glue and group welfare. Religion contributes greatly to building a particular society, but can be corrosive for the one it displaces.

Incidentally, it's human beings that are dangerous. Not religions, particularly. Human beings will take any system and manipulate it to their own ends.

     Even Communist human beings? Really, you can do better. Or, if you can't, let it be noted.

[drogulus]

    Try this as an experiment in honesty. Tote up all the good things attributed to religion and count them unambiguously in its favor. But let someone commit a crime in religion's name, even with the full authority of the cult leaders, and then it's people who do wrong. Does that sound fair?
   
    How about this, then? It's people who are moral, people who think its wrong to kill and rape and steal, and we shouldn't blame religion for that either. Are you with me?  

[Elgarian]

Really, you can do better.

Better than what? Than making the statement that human beings are dangerous? Do you think it isn't true? Any human being, possessing any idea which he wishes to impose upon others, is dangerous if he's in a position to be able to attempt it through control and abuse of a system. Priests, communists, or evangelical atheists; Orwellian pigs, or men. That's why the independent secular legal system you mentioned is needed - not to curb those who abuse religious systems, particularly, but to curb those who abuse any systems.

The idea of loving your neighbour as yourself seems to me a pretty fine moral principle to begin with. The danger lies not there, not in the essence of the religious thought, but in the abuse of the system that's built around it. And religious systems don't have a monopoly on abuse.

[DavidW]

     Why? It's not illegal. I got it early, that's all. It's registered with Microsoft, BTW.  _0:)

Oh!  I was under the impression that only illegal things come from mininova.

[DavidW]

     As for the other question, I think the history of the wars of religion and the rise of a new secular vision that permits (in fact requires) religious freedom to practice but not the freedom to oppress speaks for itself. When the value of religion is to be measured deeds count where words are rarely spoken. We treat religion as dangerous because it is, and history demonstrates this even up to this day. So when you count up the pluses and minuses remember what kind of society you live in and how it got that way. And look at what societies are like that don't put a secular democracy and law between the people and the cults that are so desperate to rule them.
 

Well I think I agree with that.  Religion was an extremely important factor in many wars or conflicts that were about Protestant reform, Islamic jihad, the Crusades etc etc It's a common defense to say that it's about politics and so forth, as if pointing out the existence of other factors automatically implies that it's not about religion when it clearly is about religion.  But I will draw the line at including cults and their bid for power, because imo a cult is not considered to be a religion because of it's small size.

[drogulus]

And religious systems don't have a monopoly on abuse.

    I didn't say they did, and I compared them with the Communists for that reason. Irrational ideologies cause lots of trouble even if they call themselves materialist. In every way but that they behaved like a combination of a religious cult and a criminal gang.

    And human beings tend to be dangerous when they are in the grip of absolutist ideologies, religious or otherwise. The crucial point is that they are believers, that is they think that what they believe is true beyond any evidence that could show otherwise. It is part of their belief that they can't be wrong, so nothing they do in the name of their faith can be wrong. Modern secular democratic governments exist today largely in response to the religious wars. What do you think is the danger that democracy was trying to counter? The danger of religious fanaticism was the greatest one. Robespierre and the Communists were just as bad, and they too believed.

    So, to sum up, human beings are dangerous, yes, and they are most dangerous when they serve an ideology that tells them they can't be wrong, and any crime they commit, well, isn't a crime. Ideologies are dangerous, there should be no trouble understanding that. Don't let them off the hook so easily. Would you accept "Communists don't kill people, people do"? I hope not.

Oh!  I was under the impression that only illegal things come from mininova.

    I am a criminal, a thought criminal. But this is a democracy so these guys can't get at me.

     But someday, the Lord of Whatever will descend from his perch and then there will be Retribution, and the Scourge of True Justice will bring the pitiful moans of whoever is Naughty. 

[DavidW]

The substance of that is what I'd be willing to sign up to, that is: while acknowledging that religious beliefs and institutions have many shortcomings, on the whole they have been a substantial force for good. I wouldn't myself have phrased it so forcefully as DR did, and in hindsight maybe I should have qualified it a little - but there's nothing much to object to there in substance, is there? You might disagree, and I might argue the point - but the point itself isn't an unreasonable one, surely?

I must object, as Ernie did, to "just about every decent, redeeming characteristic of human societies stems from the religions at their moral centers."  That is just as extreme as Eric's assertion that nothing good comes from religion.  It's interesting to note the earliest code of law, the code of Ur-Nammu, is not a religious text but a simple list of punishments per crime.  It demonstrates that we have a sense of value and law that does not stem from religion.  To say that all sense of ethics stem from religion is to take a pre-enlightenment stance that has no place in the 21st century.  Without religion would we be ruthless, barbaric creatures or would we be where we are now?  We can't really say, which is why I think the question is unanswerable.

[Elgarian]

    Try this as an experiment in honesty. Tote up all the good things attributed to religion and count them unambiguously in its favor. But let someone commit a crime in religion's name, even with the full authority of the cult leaders, and then it's people who do wrong. Does that sound fair?
   
    How about this, then? It's people who are moral, people who think its wrong to kill and rape and steal, and we shouldn't blame religion for that either. Are you with me?  

I'm thinking of the man who asked the way to New York, and was told, 'If I were going there, I wouldn't start from here.' Likewise, I wouldn't start with the juxtaposition you make. I'd start like this:

1. It is only ever people who do wrong.
2. It is only ever people who do good.
3. Basic notions of what might be considered universal moral truth are inculcated in the heart of many religious systems.
4. Insofar as those principles have assisted the adherents to those religions to do good, then those systems are helpful. I would say that a very large number of human beings have found this so.

And sometimes these organised religious systems go wrong, for a multiplicity of possible reasons, and in a multiplicity of possible ways - just like any organised system, secular or otherwise. 'Religion' is no more to blame for this than the piece of wood that's used to bash someone's head in. We can be pretty sure, for example, what a world governed by evangelical atheists would be like. They already speak the language of intolerance and self-deceit that we might associate with the worst excesses of religious extremism. The Thought Police are alive and well, and in waiting, and they don't adhere to any religion.

[drogulus]

  

    Nope, the NAZI Party was evil, the various churches that burned people at the stake were evil, the Communists were evil in a way that included but was not limited to the guilt of the individuals involved. The KKK was evil, too. Organizations can be evil and sometimes are.
   

[DavidW]

      But someday, the Lord of Whatever will descend from his perch and then there will be Retribution, and the Scourge of True Justice will bring the pitiful moans of whoever is Naughty. 

Yes Ballmer will throw his chair!