Lying is the Root of all Religion

[ceeboo]

So the expression that most people use is a misrepresentation of a Bible verse.

Yes - And it is often quoted in part. That's why I posted what I did.

It's found in the book of Timothy:

1 Timothy 6:10 - For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.

Honestly, I learned something from this thread. I had no idea that was from the Bible.

No worries - I have ran into many people who don't know it's from the Bible. I have also seen it quoted as you did many times (I don't think this is done, for the most part, with malice, rather, I think it's done because they simply don't know)

[Some Schmo]

No worries - I have ran into many people who don't know it's from the Bible. I have also seen it quoted as you did many times (I don't think this is done, for the most part, with malice, rather, I think it's done because they simply don't know)

Agreed. I always used it as one of those expressions people use, not knowing from where it came. I wasn't lying; I was saying a false thing.

[Jersey Girl]

I would have done the same thing had not ceeboo done it. Here is why. Because to say money is the root of all evil isn't an accurate portrayal. To omit the the love of from the statement is to remove the element of greed that the scripture refers to.

So the expression that most people use is a misrepresentation of a Bible verse. Honestly, I learned something from this thread. I had no idea that was from the Bible.

Here's the thing: the expression, as I've always heard it, could be construed as demonizing the rich, casting them as an outgroup. Most people seem to have no problem with that.

I think that the quote you used is simply how contemporary society uses it in casual communication. It's the stuff that memes are made of. Kind of like when people partial quote 1 Corinthians 13 Love is patient, love is kind, etc. It's on posters, decor, key chains and whatnot. When actually read in full context, it gives that more popular portrayal of the chapter a deeper meaning.

I don't think it necessarily demonizes the rich, though it sure could. I think it can easily apply to some of the people who break the law, lie, cheat and steal for money--swindle people to make a buck. Then again, there are good reasons to rationalize lying, cheating and stealing for money. a.k.a. what is called the Heinz dilemma in reference to Kohlberg's theory on moral thinking. This was covered in my own coursework and really got me thinking since it's related to executive function and the development of moral thinking and reasoning, how we explain and rationalize our behavior. Here's a quick wiki description of it.

A woman was on her deathbed. There was one drug that the doctors said would save her. It was a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. The drug was expensive to make, but the druggist was charging ten times what the drug cost him to produce. He paid $200 for the radium and charged $2,000 for a small dose of the drug. The sick woman's husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he could only get together about $1,000 which is half of what it cost. He told the druggist that his wife was dying and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the druggist said: “No, I discovered the drug and I'm going to make money from it.” So Heinz got desperate and broke into the man's laboratory to steal the drug for his wife. Should Heinz have broken into the laboratory to steal the drug for his wife? Why or why not?

So yeah, does the love of money explain Heinz's behavior or does love and desperation explain it? I say it's the latter and that the druggist is actually acting on greed or the love of money.

by the way, you can take all of the developmental theorist's work and put them side by side to see the development of the whole human being, each theory focusing on one aspect yet somewhat overlapping. Of course I think it's fascinating. I think the development of humans is fascinating especially when you get to see the beginnings of it in like a thousand young children as I did for 2-3 years each child and sometimes longer. So cool!

[Some Schmo]

Then again, there are good reasons to rationalize lying, cheating and stealing for money. a.k.a. what is called the Heinz dilemma in reference to Kohlberg's theory on moral thinking.

There may be certain individual situations where you're damned if you do and damned if you don't, and so you might do something that's wrong, something you wouldn't do in almost all other circumstances. That doesn't give anyone license to do the wrong thing in their day-to-day lives. You certainly wouldn't want to get into the habit of rationalizing bad behavior.

[Gunnar]

No disrespect intended to you, Gunnar, but lots of disrespect toward Weinberg. He's a brilliant physicist who deservedly won the Nobel Prize in physics. But, in my opinion, that statement is one of the most idiotic things uttered by a high profile atheist. Rwandan genocide is the easiest example -- where an ethnic conflict led neighbors slaughtered neighbors, including children, with machetes.

What causes good people to evil is fear that an outgroup represents an existential crisis. And Weinberg's quip reinforces the in group-outgroup dynamic that is what causes good people to do evil.

But isn't the in-group outgroup dynamic and ethnic conflict you speak of often motivated and amplified by religious differences of opinion and religion-like fanaticism? It still seems to me that Weinberg's statement is far from entirely idiotic and not essentially different from what you just said, but perhaps it is an oversimplification or an overgeneralization. But I will have to ponder your criticism of Weinberg a bit more, I guess, as there are few if any contributors to this forum whom I admire and respect as much or more than I do you.

[Res Ipsa]

No disrespect intended to you, Gunnar, but lots of disrespect toward Weinberg. He's a brilliant physicist who deservedly won the Nobel Prize in physics. But, in my opinion, that statement is one of the most idiotic things uttered by a high profile atheist. Rwandan genocide is the easiest example -- where an ethnic conflict led neighbors slaughtered neighbors, including children, with machetes.

What causes good people to evil is fear that an outgroup represents an existential crisis. And Weinberg's quip reinforces the in group-outgroup dynamic that is what causes good people to do evil.

But isn't the in-group outgroup dynamic and ethnic conflict you speak of often motivated and amplified by religious differences of opinion and religion-like fanaticism? It still seems to me that Weinberg's statement is far from entirely idiotic and not essentially different from what you just said, but perhaps it is an oversimplification or an overgeneralization. But I will have to ponder your criticism of Weinberg a bit more, I guess, as there are few if any contributors to this forum whom I admire and respect as much or more than I do you.

What Weinberg literally says is that religion is a necessary cause of good people doing evil things. But he never actually makes that case, and it isn't self-evident. There's also a little bit of the no true scotsman fallacy at play. If I suggest Pol Pot, he'll be labeled a "bad person." But what about the hundreds of people who carried out his plans. Were they all bad people? I suspect not. But Pol Pot wasn't motivated by religion, and religion doesn't explained what happened.

In looking at your response, you are doing a couple of things. If you talk about religion "amplifying" ethic conflict, then that proves Weinberg's statement is false. When you move to "religion-like fanaticism," that also proves Weinberg's statement false.

It is very difficult to take examples like the troubles in Ireland, for example, and tease out religion as a cause from politics and nationalism as a cause. The same is true of the Holocaust. To claim that religion was a necessary cause of the evil done by people in both circumstances is an example of extreme over simplification.

I would say that Weinberg's statement is both an overgeneralization and an oversimplification, but I wouldn't say it's "a bit." I would say "a wild." If you haven't read Eric Hoffer's The True Believer, I highly recommend it. One of his major points is that, regardless of whether the cause is cultural, ideological, religious, ethnic, etc., all mass movements are interchangeable.

What causes good people to do bad things is being swept up in the mass movements described by Hoffer. To single out religion and claim it is the only reason good people do evil unfairly stigmatizes religious believers. It also neglects the dynamics that actually cause good people to do evil things.

[Gunnar]

What Weinberg literally says is that religion is a necessary cause of good people doing evil things. But he never actually makes that case, and it isn't self-evident. There's also a little bit of the no true scotsman fallacy at play. If I suggest Pol Pot, he'll be labeled a "bad person." But what about the hundreds of people who carried out his plans. Were they all bad people? I suspect not. But Pol Pot wasn't motivated by religion, and religion doesn't explained what happened.

In looking at your response, you are doing a couple of things. If you talk about religion "amplifying" ethic conflict, then that proves Weinberg's statement is false. When you move to "religion-like fanaticism," that also proves Weinberg's statement false.

It is very difficult to take examples like the troubles in Ireland, for example, and tease out religion as a cause from politics and nationalism as a cause. The same is true of the Holocaust. To claim that religion was a necessary cause of the evil done by people in both circumstances is an example of extreme over simplification.

I would say that Weinberg's statement is both an overgeneralization and an oversimplification, but I wouldn't say it's "a bit." I would say "a wild." If you haven't read Eric Hoffer's The True Believer, I highly recommend it. One of his major points is that, regardless of whether the cause is cultural, ideological, religious, ethnic, etc., all mass movements are interchangeable.

What causes good people to do bad things is being swept up in the mass movements described by Hoffer. To single out religion and claim it is the only reason good people do evil unfairly stigmatizes religious believers. It also neglects the dynamics that actually cause good people to do evil things.

Thank you for that response. As usual, your reasoning was impeccable and compelling. I concede the point that Weinberg's statement was both an oversimplification and an overgeneralization, but I understand why he felt that way. Historically, religious faith and fervor often has indeed led otherwise seemingly good people, or who seemed sincerely convinced of their own goodness, to do evil things in furtherance of what they thought were honorable objectives. I still think it takes a kind of religious-like fervor for well-intentioned people to be deluded by selfish charlatans and would be despots like Hitler and Pol Pot, including (Donald J. Trump) into willingly doing evil and hateful things. Can you deny that the unswerving devotion of Trump's supporters seems very cult-like and religious in nature? Do you think that radical Fascism and communism are any less a type of religion than Christianity, Mohammedanism, Buddhism or Hinduism? Certainly doctrinaire Fascism and communism possess the worst and cruelest characteristics of doctrinaire religions.

[Moksha]

Do think that radical Fascism and communism are any less a type of religion than Christianity, Mohammedanism, Buddhism, or Hinduism?

Yeah, those puny fascists and communists have no one to conduct the religious services or spin the prayer wheels. What a misplaced idea to identify them with a religion. Perhaps we've heard Ajax jumble these terms so often that they blend together in our heads.

It would be fun to have Hitler look upon the opened Ark of the Covenant (before it got stored away in the Smithsonian).

At least Evangelicals and Mormons are not those dreaded PROGRESSIVES and LIBERALS. Trump's disembodied head in 3024!

[Some Schmo]

I've really tried to make my peace with people's irrational need for religion. The problem is that the idiots want to bring it to the table in public discourse. I, unfortunately, cannot avoid other people's idiotic ideas about the supernatural, because they come up as a premise for the damned nonsense public servants are trying to foist on the American public.

If people want to avoid being criticized for believing idiotic crap, they shouldn't bring it up as a defense for public policy. I'll say it again; your religion is an obvious damned lie to anyone not brainwashed by your BS. You need evidence for any idea you want to forward. Religion is not a feasible defense for idiotic public policy. I'll leave religion alone when it leaves everyone else alone. Until then, Screw you, pushers of BS.

You lying about the nature of reality is not going to convince everyone, just the morons. Go eat at the kids table while the adults talk.

[Kishkumen]

It does. Our brains lie to "ourselves" constantly. If they didn't, we literally could not function. And there is a ton of evidence that our brains value telling a consistent story over telling the truth. in my opinion, using "lying to themselves" as a substitute for "believing false things" creates a very false picture of what these others are actually doing.

The same with the basis of religion: Saying that religion is based on lies involves a moral judgment that none of us have a basis for making. Do they have origin stories that are not true? Sure. Can those origin stories be traced to an individual group who communicated something that they knew was false? No.

Declaring that something is harmful to society because it originated in falsity isn't really based on evidence. The U.S. was founded, in part, on the notion that "All men are created equal" even though it actually meant "All White Males who own land" are created equal. And yet, over time, changes that have moved us closer to that claim have been beneficial: ending slavery, ending race-based voting restrictions, extending the vote to women, extending property ownership to women, etc.

Christianity, regardless of the truthfulness of its origin story, promotes the Golden Rule. Is that harmful to society?

Religion, and its effect on society, is complicated -- just like everything else about humanity. Emotional black and white narratives are a huge part of what's killing our society today.

Thank you for these comments! You are exactly right, in my opinion.