Are people of moderate religious beliefs responsible for extremists?

[Larry of the Lawn]

Wise Fool -

So correct me if I have this wrong. It is your belief that Religion is not intrinsically evil, it is like many other modes of thought in that it can be twisted to evil purposes?

If that is what you are saying, would you agree that Religion is possibly the most dangerous of these modes of thought because it is so high-stakes? To clarify, I might allow Rational Egoism to justify lying about an assignment that I didn't do, but I doubt very much that I could stretch that loophole wide enough to justify murder. Whereas with religion justifying murder is much easier?

Are most murders committed because of religion?

[Jon Flow]

Larry,

Are most murders commited with a nuclear weapon? No....

Is it a horrifically easy way to murder millions? Yes....


I don't understand the importance of your question.

[Wise Fool]

Wise Fool -

So correct me if I have this wrong. It is your belief that Religion is not intrinsically evil, it is like many other modes of thought in that it can be twisted to evil purposes?

If that is what you are saying, would you agree that Religion is possibly the most dangerous of these modes of thought because it is so high-stakes? To clarify, I might allow Rational Egoism to justify lying about an assignment that I didn't do, but I doubt very much that I could stretch that loophole wide enough to justify murder. Whereas with religion justifying murder is much easier?

I don't even believe in such a thing as "evil," let alone intrinsic evil... but that is an approximation of what I'm arguing, yes. But, I don't agree that religion is the most dangerous on account of stakes being high. People invest into concepts only what they put into them. Of course you might not allow 'rational egoism' to justify murder.... but then, you're not likely to be murdering people in the first place, no?

(If, however, you did commit a murder. How would you justify it? There'd have to be a way. Perhaps you didn't intend it. Perhaps you were intoxicated. Perhaps you thought it was self-defense. Perhaps you think the victim deserved it for some reason. Perhaps you just lost control of your emotions. Perhaps you were in a war and just kind of whimsically did it. Perhaps you realized that life has no intrinsic value since we're all merely collections of cells and organs scrabbling around a rock in space. Perhaps you can't explain it, but you would admit you were wrong. Either way, there'd have to be some psychological mechanism that allowed you to accept and move on from that terrible event in your life. Maybe even religion! But it would be a thing that justified after the fact... the actual causes and conditions would almost certainly be more complex than any of these. Few things are simple.)

My real point is that religious institutions, working alongside or acting as a government.... these can be blamed for all sorts of things. Certainly, murders and wars and oppression of all sorts. This is where I think religion can be most effectively criticized and where I believe there is the most potential for progress and change. But simply trying to criticize the basic ideas of religious philosophy, whether it's belief in God, a heaven or hell, a scripture, funny hats, as being responsible, guilty, or whatnot for behaviors is too much of a stretch for me. Ideas don't kill people, people kill people. In other words it's like the second amendment; the freedom to own a gun doesn't kill, the gun itself doesn't kill, people use the gun and the freedom to kill. Debating the merits of guns or freedom (America FUCK YEAH!) is, contrary to what a lot of liberals seem to believe, doesn't really address the issues of gun violence.

I hope that clarifies my position a bit. Probably it doesn't. I tend to digress and ramble.

[Mladen]

Here the NY Times review of Armstrong’s book Fields of Blood:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/14/books/review/fields-of-blood-by-karen-armstrong.html?_r=0

Interesting... And here is the wonderful example of how accurate the thesis is. I mean, look at the Yugoslav wars, which first and foremost were ethnic confrontation based on the differences that were thrown under the rug during the Communist period. The churches, especially if I am going to speak about Serbian Orthodox Church, came much later. Basically, after Tito's death, ethnic and political crisis (aka secular crisis) hit Yugoslavia strongly. The memorandum of Serbian Academy of Science and Art from 1986, which is often cited as the program for Yugoslav wars, is written without the influence of Serbian Orthodox Church and mostly by people who were very powerful in academic circles of Communist Yugoslavia. It wasn't until much later, circa early 1990s did the church started playing significant role in the conflicts (actually all religious organizations in Yugoslavia back then). The nationalism within the Serbian Orthodox Church prevailed back then, as the clear desire that the Church needs to play significant role in day-to-day life. Needless to say, they used the influence they had among the people and played the role in the wars, but it should have never been forgotten that Yugoslav wars were originated in the time when the Churches couldn't have played significant role. And that Milosevic is basically a Communist progeny.

[polishgenius]

Larry,

Are most murders commited with a nuclear weapon? No....

Is it a horrifically easy way to murder millions? Yes....

I don't understand the importance of your question.

If religion is the most dangerous of various modes of thought because it's the easiest way to justify killing people, then it would stand to reason that most deaths would be down to religion.

But that just isn't true. Human beings are perfectly capable of coming up with reasons to kill each other and everything else without religion. It's lovely that you believe in the best of humanity and sure, I agree we're capable of great things - but we're also total bastards. That's not because of religion, religion just gets subsumed and used by that instinct sometimes same as everything else.

[HK-47]

Heh, just remember that the next time you're praying for some meatbag to recharge your batteries.

Correction: My batteries far exceed the normal meatbag lifespan.

Query: What do you take me for?, an iPhone?.

[polishgenius]

Query: What do you take me for?, an iPhone?.

You're not nearly pretty enough to be an iPhone.

[HK-47]

You're not nearly pretty enough to be an iPhone.

Corrective statement: I also function properly too.

[Stubby]

I have read through the critiques of the article I linked.

The point I was making, which has evidently been missed, is that religion (any religion) relies on beliefs. In order to defend those beliefs, or (dare I say it) spread those beliefs, religion gave birth to some dangerous ideas.

Even today, we are seeing religion being used to justify heinous stuff.

Let's look at some of the responses so far.

Ormond said that genital cutting existed well before the development of Judaism or Islam. Of course it did. But Judaism and Islam condone it or encourage it and in fact make it obligatory on some readings. That divine permission or instruction is a bad idea.

Ormond also found the idea that some religious folk are unwilling to accept change insulting. I don't know why. It was one sentence in a paragraph that stated that apologists 'often' distance themselves from some nasty stuff as written in some holy texts. In this thread and others we see that the statement is true. And taking a criticism of a belief as 'insulting' is the very foundation of blasphemy - another of religions bad ideas.

Shryke thinks I am "kidding myself". With respect, Shryke, you made the same error Ormond did. Yes, mutilating genitals was a practice that had existed prior to the development of Abrahamaic scripture, at least in part due to religious reasons. But the religious permission to mutilate genitals is an 'instruction from god' and is a bad idea that can be laid squarely at the feet of religion. To condone such an act as cutting away bits of your children, folks that came up with that idea must have felt uncomfortable with the idea. Solution = divine permission!

And then we have Wise Fool, who seems to think that refusal to accept metaphor is a good reason to give religious texts a free pass on their bad ideas. When such 'metaphors' spill over into physical impacts on the those that do not share your beliefs, then the idea is bad - whether it is a metaphor or not.

The first thing to note is WF's the idea of hell is a metaphor. I hear this a lot. Maybe it is a metaphor, maybe it isn't. But it is, as the article suggests, a bad idea, metaphor or not. The concept of hell - eternal punishment or suffering or the metaphorical stick to the carrot of belief - is bad. It suggests that eternal suffering (however you take that to mean) is the penalty for disagreement with the religious teachings of some other folk. Frankly, anyone who thinks that a god who can design such a concept is loving has been misled. Of course, the idea of hell does not come form god - it comes from men who wanted others to share their beliefs.

Then we have WF's need to blather about 'religion sux' comments. This just shows that WF does not think about the responses in detail. This particular atheist does not see himself as superior to others in a way that makes those others less than human, which was the point of the article's comment about the religious idea of a 'chosen people'. Again, it is divine permission to kill, maim, torture, enslave, rape etc. Because conduct like that is the same as criticising belief systems on the internet. :rolleyes:

The section in WF's analysis which deals with divine permission is typical. In fact, the article predicted it, in the penultimate paragraph.

Under your particular holy book, WF (I don't know which one you follow) what is the penalty for blasphemy? Your attempt to minimise blasphemy is appalling, given we have just seen numerous very public murders "justified" by the idea of blasphemy.

WF, your comments responding to the "righteous torture is a bad idea" comment again miss the point. Are you really saying that it is not part of Christian belief that Jesus died being tortured on the cross in order to atone for sins of others? That, after all, is the epitome of "righteous torture". And even it is not, the idea that being a martyr for a cause is a bad idea.

I could go line by line through WF's critique repeating the same misunderstanding of the article, but the point has been made.

Now to link it all back to the topic.

The refusal of those arguing in favour of religion here (all of whom I would accept are religious moderates or even less committed to a faith than that) to accept that religion has been responsible for some bad ideas. That refusal to accept bad ideas - even in light of modern up-to-date evidence of religious justifications for heinous things - points to moderates having some responsibility for the actions of extremists or fundamentalists.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Stubby,

Any plans to read Fields of Blood or anything else that might a more nuanced view of religon than the article you linked to provides?

[Stubby]

Scot,

Any plans to actually concede that religions (in general) are responsible for some bad ideas?

[Gears of the Beast]

My real point is that religious institutions, working alongside or acting as a government.... these can be blamed for all sorts of things. Certainly, murders and wars and oppression of all sorts. This is where I think religion can be most effectively criticized and where I believe there is the most potential for progress and change. But simply trying to criticize the basic ideas of religious philosophy, whether it's belief in God, a heaven or hell, a scripture, funny hats, as being responsible, guilty, or whatnot for behaviors is too much of a stretch for me. Ideas don't kill people, people kill people. In other words it's like the second amendment; the freedom to own a gun doesn't kill, the gun itself doesn't kill, people use the gun and the freedom to kill. Debating the merits of guns or freedom (America FUCK YEAH!) is, contrary to what a lot of liberals seem to believe, doesn't really address the issues of gun violence.

Wow.

Nothing to add, just wanted to highlight this.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Stubby,

Scot,

Any plans to actually concede that religions (in general) are responsible for some bad ideas?

No, not generally. As I pointed out up thread that assertion is grossly oversimplistic regarding extremely nuanced and complecated cultural questions.

[Stubby]

Stubby,

No, not generally. As I pointed out up thread that assertion is grossly oversimplistic regarding extremely nuanced and complecated cultural questions.

Which shows how moderate believers can unwittingly make it easier for extremists or fundamentalists.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Stubby,

So, enlighting yourself as to the complexities is a bad idea?

[Stubby]

Stubby,

So, enlighting yourself as to the complexities is a bad idea?

This was beneath you, Scot.

I have never claimed here that "all wars or violence are the fault of religion". That is the premise to Armstrong's book. I accept her premise. I also accept that the reviews suggest that she has made a convincing case against that idea. That's all I need to know - and I already knew it so I don't need her reasoning to consider her argument further.

I have, however, and will continue to make the case that religious thought has produced bad ideas. I think I have articulated that above.

To examine it further, let's talk about blasphemy. I have made my case about why blasphemy is a bad idea. How about you tell us how blasphemy is a good idea?

[Wise Fool]

And then we have Wise Fool, who seems to think that refusal to accept metaphor is a good reason to give religious texts a free pass on their bad ideas.

This sentence doesn't even parse. Not sure what it is you're trying to claim I'm saying, but I'm positive it's not what I actually wrote.

When such 'metaphors' spill over into physical impacts on the those that do not share your beliefs, then the idea is bad - whether it is a metaphor or not.

Nope, not even close to what I said. Metaphors aren't causing physical impacts: that's complete nonsense right there.

The first thing to note is WF's the idea of hell is a metaphor. I hear this a lot. Maybe it is a metaphor, maybe it isn't. But it is, as the article suggests, a bad idea, metaphor or not.

The concept of the Cruciatus curse - raw, pure pain inflicted with the flick of a wand - is bad. Bad idea, bad idea, so Harry Potter is bad. I'm quite sure you must agree, the logic is the same.

The concept of hell - eternal punishment or suffering or the metaphorical stick to the carrot of belief - is bad.

That isn't the concept of hell, that's the concept of hell as understood by children. That is the literal, pop-culture understanding of hell. It's really as if you saw me mention "metaphor" and decided to negate the argument by just saying "maybe it's a metaphor, maybe not" and then proceeded on the assumption that it's not.

I gave that shitty, off-topic article much more merit than it deserved. As I thought, it was a waste of my time, because its biggest advocate isn't even paying fucking attention.

Then we have WF's need to blather about 'religion sux' comments.

Oh, he needs to, does he? Does he also need to talk to other people in the third person - as if there's some sort of caste society and he's just too good to either respond to what is actually said or direct comments to who they are aimed? No. Others do that, though.

This just shows that WF does not think about the responses in detail.

He responds in detail, which is a great deal more than could be said of you.

This particular atheist does not see himself as superior to others in a way that makes those others less than human, which was the point of the article's comment about the religious idea of a 'chosen people'. Again, it is divine permission to kill, maim, torture, enslave, rape etc. Because conduct like that is the same as criticising belief systems on the internet.

Chosen people does not mean other people are "less than human," but it's nice to see you're consistently wrong when it comes to religion.

And when or where did I claim that murder is "the same as criticising belief systems on the internet?" Perhaps you could... oh, I don't know... quote me.

The section in WF's analysis which deals with divine permission is typical. In fact, the article predicted it, in the penultimate paragraph.

Do explain how my analysis was "predicted" by the laundry list of strawman arguments made by the author. Or don't. Vague, meaningless assertion seems to be your central theme.

Under your particular holy book, WF (I don't know which one you follow) what is the penalty for blasphemy?

Oh dear, you're talking to me!

What would it matter, the answer to this 'question?'

Your attempt to minimise blasphemy is appalling, given we have just seen numerous very public murders "justified" by the idea of blasphemy.

What did I say, specifically, that was appalling? (That I continually have to ask you to clarify what you think I said so often is not a hopeful sign for this discussion.)

WF, your comments responding to the "righteous torture is a bad idea" comment again miss the point. Are you really saying that it is not part of Christian belief that Jesus died being tortured on the cross in order to atone for sins of others? That, after all, is the epitome of "righteous torture". And even it is not, the idea that being a martyr for a cause is a bad idea.

Again, the Harry Potter books are terrible. Full of bad ideas. For did not Dumbledore sacrifice himself? As a martyr? For a cause? What is your proposed solution, how can we advance ourselves as a species and leave this J.K. Rowling dark age behind?

Maybe I'm missing the point, in which case you'll have to do much better than simply saying "[this religious belief] is bad" over and over. A cluck of disapproval does not a compelling argument make. And I really shouldn't have to explain to a presumably grown man the religious or philosophical difference between Jesus dying on the cross and Joe the Bomber torturing someone.

I could go line by line through WF's critique repeating the same misunderstanding of the article, but the point has been made.

See, here i'm thinking it's not that I'm missing the point, so much as you have no point to make. You just came here to squat, drop off an article, wipe your ass and leave us to "debate" with an author who isn't here. And when we (like idiots, I guess) actually do that, you march back in to (vaguely) declare how we're all wrong and also, we should flush the toilet because who made such a stink?

Careful now, I used a metaphor here. Metaphors are dangerous: I hear they can spill out into physical impacts.

The refusal of those arguing in favour of religion here (all of whom I would accept are religious moderates or even less committed to a faith than that) to accept that religion has been responsible for some bad ideas. That refusal to accept bad ideas - even in light of modern up-to-date evidence of religious justifications for heinous things - points to moderates having some responsibility for the actions of extremists or fundamentalists.

Thanks for the effort. But here's what you're actually saying:

"I am going to assume that those who disagree with this argument I found on the internet are religious moderates. Because they disagree with the article I found, I assume they have some weird inability to accept that religions have come up with bad ideas. Because they have a weird inability to accept bad ideas, I'm going to conclude they have responsibility for the actions of extremists."

Let me get this clear. Your own silly assumptions aside, your argument here is that people who disagree with you, here, on this forum, are partly responsible for terrorists.

And if you're going to make that argument, you had damn well better give it a better shot than what you've got so far. Extraordinary claims, and all that.

I'd recommend not, though.

[Stubby]

Wise Fool,

Despite your rambling response, the one time I addressed you with you with a question you ignored it. Please answer it.

What is the penalty for blasphemy in you version of religion?

I intend to ignore the complete misrepresentations of my ideas until you do.

[Wise Fool]

Wise Fool,

Despite your rambling response, the one time I addressed you with you with a question you ignored it. Please answer it.

What is the penalty for blasphemy in you version of religion?

I intend to ignore the complete misrepresentations of my ideas until you do.

I don't think so. You do not deserve to know.

If that's the excuse you need in order to [continue to] ignore what I've written, so be it.

[Stubby]

I don't think so. You do not deserve to know.

If that's the excuse you need in order to [continue to] ignore what I've written, so be it.

This is what the author of the article meant when she said this:

...denying problems doesn’t solve them. Quite the opposite, in fact. Change comes with introspection and insight, a willingness to acknowledge our faults and flaws while still embracing our strengths and potential for growth.

Refusing to answer questions amounts to denying problems exist. This is how the author predicted the response in this thread. You are doing exactly what she said. And you are trying to blame me for asking the question as an excuse for your obfuscation.