DiscussMormonism.com

Tarski,

You pick up all the negative baggage from typical social constructs and try to pin it all on one of them: religion. But I can see clearly through this charade, which is essentially a back door way of blaming theism. It is very much like saying caucassians are inherently dangerous because the KKK murdered hundreds. According to New Atheism logic, they did these things because they were caucassian! After all, being caucassian was fundemantal to their belief that they were superior. This makes for great fodder for bigots, but that isn't science. Virtually all social groups can influence or even coerce individuals to do dangerous things. So at the fundamental level of the problem, Sam Harris, if he even understood this, would have to argue against the freedom of association because organizations are inherently dangerous. And I'm sorry, but "unjustified belief" is not the thing that distinguishes between the dangerous and the innocuous.

Moreover, and I have said this before, the same exact social construct that defines religion also exists as academia, corporate america, the military, the boy scouts, grade school, soccer games, nationalism, congress, atheist forums, etc.

Your real problem is that you don't like the fact that religious theists also include what Harris prefers to call "unjustified beliefs." Well fine. You don't have to believe them. But let's not play stupid by insisting religions contain all of these negative aspects of basic social organization, because of these unjustified beliefs. Let's not entertain ridiculous propositions like "a world without religion would be a world without divisions or war" as Dawkins fantasizes.

People of all social systems do stupid things, even dangerous things, because of negative aspects of social organization. Kids in school suffer from anxiety due to social pressures, being mistreated by the only society they know, and some of them come to school with a loaded gun with retribution on their mind. Using the New Atheist logic, we should deem public education inherently dangerous.

Adults socialize at clubs and bars, end up drinking for social reasons. Some drive home drunk, killing another person along the way. Using the New Atheist logic, we should consider partying inherently dangerous. Clubs and bars should be outlawed. I mean wouldn't that be the ethical thing to do since more than 16,000 people died because of drunk driving last year? That's five times the number killed on 9-11, and it includes more than 400 children under the age 14. If Sam Harris really cared about innocent victims and dangerous actions based on beliefs, then he should focus his attention on drunk driving. But then again, that wouldn't sell as many books and he'd probably lose most of his current fan base. So maybe Sam Harris is really concerned about something else.

The same negative aspects exist in theistic religions, but this is only because religion is just another variant of social organization. It isn't because theistic religions accept the existence of God. Too many people refuse to understand this and do hand waving in the face of sociological scholarship.

This is what irks me about the New Atheists.

They appear to have no proper sense of causation. They begin with the assumption that religion is the culprit in just about every given circumstance, so they go looking for any kind of religious link, no matter how superficial or absurd. For example, when Sam Harris was confronted with the undermining facts about the Marxist Tamil Tigers practicing suicide bombing for the same political reasons social scientists say it is practiced by Muslims in Palestine, he responds by saying these people are probably religious and that ther views of the afterlife explain their actions! When Pol Pot was brought to the attention of Peter Atkins, he quipped, "well I think he was probably a Buddhist." He wasn't. It is utterly amazing how bigotry can make some otherwise intelligent individuals come across as completely foolish.

My point is that this isn't science, and the irony is that while they are preaching science as their preferred method, they refuse to present any science to support their historical/sociological/psychological conclusions. They are just mouthing off with the usual sophomoric arguments that they mined from obscure webpages. I was amazed when I found out that Richard Dawkins, Mr. Oxford University himself, brought himself down to such a level when writing his book. He consulted with none of the relevant scholarship. But he snagged a cittion from infidels.org, which falsely attributed something to a Church Father who supposedly said something like, "if it is supported by evidence, then that is reason not to believe in it," or something to that effect. Dawkins was trying to make the point that Christianity has a doctrine of anti-reason enshrined in its theology. But the citation was an invention, and Dawkins' credibility dropped through the floor like a lead brick.

I tend to agree with you here. In order to state that society with religion produces a larger (or smaller) amount of war, crime, and other undesirable group behavior versus society without religion, societies with similar cultural and genetic origins and makeups would need to be compared under both conditions. The practical impossibility of this experiment means that this is a question we will likely never be able to answer with a high level of scientific certainty.

In my experience, Western atheists do tend to be both more educated and more peaceful than their religious counterparts, however this hardly demonstrates causation. It appears more likely to me that highly educated people with diverse cultural experiences are more likely both to be non-violent, as they find it harder to dehumanize the targets of their violence as they get to know them better, and to adopt universalist, agnostic, and atheist forms of belief as the beliefs of their upbringing have far more opportunity to be strongly challenged by other bodies of information.

A fear of performing socially undesirable actions can be quite useful in the construction of a stable society, and I think that religion, while an imperfect means to this end, does provide a useful if incomplete ethical framework for many who would otherwise not have the desire or the ability to create an ethical framework of their own.

Thama wrote: It appears more likely to me that highly educated people with diverse cultural experiences are more likely both to be non-violent, as they find it harder to dehumanize the targets of their violence as they get to know them better, and to adopt universalist, agnostic, and atheist forms of belief as the beliefs of their upbringing have far more opportunity to be strongly challenged by other bodies of information.

It seems to me that, after studying history, greed and power are the drivers behind most violence now and in the past. Education and religion are far behind greed and power. And I'm not sure there's an antidote to greed and power, atheist or deist.

I think that the misapplication of things like religion and nationalism grow out of negative tendencies in Human nature. In that sense, religion does not cause people to behave badly, it is just one of the ways we behave badly. If you removed religion from the equation, it is likely that humans would continue to behave badly in similar ways. It is in our nature. Religion is not the cause it is the effect.

dartagnan wrote:Tarski,

..
..
.. enshrined in its theology. But the citation was an invention, and Dawkins' credibility dropped through the floor like a lead brick.

I personally find Dawkins to be more credible than you.
You really have a hard on for Dawkins. Sheesh.

I don't have time for two threads like this. Go read my reply in the other one. I'll come back to this perhaps later.

I tend to agree with you here. In order to state that society with religion produces a larger (or smaller) amount of war, crime, and other undesirable group behavior versus society without religion, societies with similar cultural and genetic origins and makeups would need to be compared under both conditions. The practical impossibility of this experiment means that this is a question we will likely never be able to answer with a high level of scientific certainty.

Exactly, and I have made this point before as well. The trouble is we can't really compare apples and aples because there isn't a purely atheistic society anywhere for us to compare. And even if there were, how would be used crime statistics to determines which society was more moral? And what about all that grey area. Most people on the planet believe in a God, but few of them are actually religious in the sense that they participate regularly in religious activity.

In my experience, Western atheists do tend to be both more educated and more peaceful than their religious counterparts, however this hardly demonstrates causation. It appears more likely to me that highly educated people with diverse cultural experiences are more likely both to be non-violent, as they find it harder to dehumanize the targets of their violence as they get to know them better, and to adopt universalist, agnostic, and atheist forms of belief as the beliefs of their upbringing have far more opportunity to be strongly challenged by other bodies of information.

It could also be that the only atheists you know of are educated and upright citizens. How many atheists in prison do you know? But with your second point I completely agree. It s said in anthropology that one only understand his environment after completely drowning himself in another. Living in different countries has totally changed my perspective on things like American politics and culture.

A fear of performing socially undesirable actions can be quite useful in the construction of a stable society, and I think that religion, while an imperfect means to this end, does provide a useful if incomplete ethical framework for many who would otherwise not have the desire or the ability to create an ethical framework of their own.

Yes, and that is an established benefit with a long track record of goodness. So it wold have to take something extremely powerful to outweigh this on teh negative end. Sam Harris hasn't proided anything. He doesn't rely on science to make his case against religion, and that's the irony really.

I think that the misapplication of things like religion and nationalism grow out of negative tendencies in Human nature. In that sense, religion does not cause people to behave badly, it is just one of the ways we behave badly. If you removed religion from the equation, it is likely that humans would continue to behave badly in similar ways. It is in our nature. Religion is not the cause it is the effect.

Yes, yes yes!

This is what I argued many months ago.

People do bad things because of human nature, not because of "unjustified beliefs." So how do we remedy that? Religion generally accepts this premise that humans are, what is calls, "sinful by nature," and needs to be constantly rehabilitated in a "spiritual" way. It has been successful in making bad people good and good people better.

How can science, per se, compete with that? Science might come up with ideas but ideas alone do not get accepted and practiced just because they are true. a while back beastie once commented in a thread discussing the problems in society and she responded that religion wasn't the cure, the "Scientific method" was. What? Science isn't in the business of teaching morals. It never has been. In fact science is doing more damage I think because the latest tendency in evolution is to see the natural world just taking its course in makng the human being what it is today. Our conscience and consciousness is just an illusion since we're just a brain operating according to natural laws. The implications of this are huge. For instance, why should we punish a murderer who kills? He cannot be blamed because he is just doing what nature made him do. Scott Atran hit the nail right on the head when he criticized the New Atheists. He said he was embarrassed to be a scientist and an atheist and that they have no basis to insist everything be based on empirical truth.

dartagnan wrote:How can science, per se, compete with that? Science might come up with ideas but ideas alone do not get accepted and practiced just because they are true. a while back beastie once commented in a thread discussing the problems in society and she responded that religion wasn't the cure, the "Scientific method" was. What? Science isn't in the business of teaching morals. It never has been.

I don't know any scientists who I think would advocate a "science as moral teacher" idea. Rather, science illustrates aspects of human nature and social dynamics that must be taken into account, and philosophy (in the field of ethics) provides the moral framework. I do think that it is possible to achieve a more successful ethical framework that that which religion provides, but until the framework has been decided upon (ethics is still a bitterly divided field) and a proven teaching mechanism is in place (difficult to beat the church system and the idea of eternal reward/punishment), religion will have a valuable place in society.

As for atheists being on average more educated and peaceful, that's purely my experience. Among family and friends in general, most tend to be religious. Those that aren't are generally more well-read and possess higher education, and professors and scientists with whom I've conversed are rarely religious. This experience was also backed up by my mission in the SoCal slums (where you'll rarely find anyone who will admit to being a non-believer). I'm not claiming that this is anything statistically valid.

John Larsen wrote:I think that the misapplication of things like religion and nationalism grow out of negative tendencies in Human nature. In that sense, religion does not cause people to behave badly, it is just one of the ways we behave badly. If you removed religion from the equation, it is likely that humans would continue to behave badly in similar ways. It is in our nature. Religion is not the cause it is the effect.

Here are the problems that I would like to see addressed.

1. False beliefs. Superstitions. Devils, angels, UFOs, Atlantas, Nephites, winged horses, Garden of Eden. Big fat foolish false beliefs about the way the world actually is (or um, isn't).

2. The enshrinement of belief without real evidence as some kind of virtue (faith).

3. Apocalyptic thinking.

4. Jihad. The wish to defeat or destroy infidels.

5. The teaching of hell and the devil to children.

6. The notion that this is an explicitly Christian nation, dominionism. (Read some freaking Jefferson!)

7. Creationism and other religiously motivated anti-science movements.

8. Spiritualism, tarot, astrology, anti-medicine nonsense. Fake healing.

9. Political powerlessness of out of the closet unbelievers.

10. Biblically justified support of bigotry.

11. Dartagnanism (LOL, the denial that these things have anything to do with good old nice religion)

You can argue all you want about how serious the problems may be but these things exist (ubiquitously)

This is what irks me about the New Atheists.
They appear to have no proper sense of causation.

This is awesomely dumb, spoken like a true ignorant religious/ignorant right wing faschist, any idiot should know Science is about progress and falsification of theories/hypothesis, there is not a single rule of thumb immune to this process. This includes speed of light rule . Scientists are wrong more often than not,that is how the process improves, not because the idiot Prophet proclaims the truth from the pulpit

I'd be irked too, Dawkins is scary, he is good.
Coming back to causation; Do you think Jerk Jesus or Genocidal Elohim had part in it? And yet they have the keys to send atheists to hell.
Where do sign up?
I'll be the first to face those major Jerks.

Tarski wrote:
1. False beliefs. Superstitions. Devils, angels, UFOs, Atlantas, Nephites, winged horses, Garden of Eden. Big fat foolish false beliefs about the way the world actually is (or um, isn't).

2. The enshrinement of belief without real evidence as some kind of virtue (faith).

3. Apocalyptic thinking.

4. Jihad. The wish to defeat or destroy infidels.

5. The teaching of hell and the devil to children.

6. The notion that this is an explicitly Christian nation, dominionism. (Read some freaking Jefferson!)

7. Creationism and other religiously motivated anti-science movements.

8. Spiritualism, tarot, astrology, anti-medicine nonsense. Fake healing.

9. Political powerlessness of out of the closet unbelievers.

10. Biblically justified support of bigotry.

11. Dartagnanism (LOL, the denial that these things have anything to do with good old nice religion)

You can argue all you want about how serious the problems may be but these things exist (ubiquitously)

And it would be nice if Church organizations were given similar tax treatment as charities. That is required to have finances made publicly available, and guidelines set on how much must be paid out as charity in order to qualify for tax exempt status . It seems Churches are more in the business of accumulating asset wealth for reinvestment than in distribution of funds for charitable purposes benefitting public generally.