All religions are dangerous?

[_John Larsen]

Let's see if JAK and EAllusion can cut to the chase.

Please, just provide one hypothetical situation where the following could be considered "dangerous."

Joe Blow believes God exists. That's it. That's all you know about Joe Blow.

In what hypothetical situation could he present a danger to himself or anyone around him?

I realize you weren't asking me and I probably disagree to some extent with JAK and EAllusion, but...

In this case I would agree Monsieur Blow is not dangerous based on this belief. But I want to make a distinction between personal belief and religion. When a set of beliefs becomes collective and starts to define and shape the actions of a group of people it becomes a religion. Organizations, such as religion, tend to require the submission of the individual to some extent, to the will of the greater collective. These rules are codified as morals or commandments and sometimes they have side effects which can be detrimental to those outside of the organization. So finding dangerous behavior is not that hard--just look for rules, traditions or practices that can cause harm. This harm could be to an individual member, the greater society, another minority group or an outside individual.

If we look back at our examples, I think we can illustrate. The Amish have a practice called rumspringa. You cannot join the Church until you are an adult and it is very common for teenagers to go out and try to sew their wild oats before they join. This is tolerated among the Amish. Ask anyone in Amish country and they will tell you there is a big problem with teenage alcohol and drug abuse. There is a great documentary on this called Devil's Playground that I would recommend. Someone might counter and say that the teenagers are not living by Amish principles, however I think it is clear that the Amish religious tradition is the cause of rumspringa.

Shinto was used as an avenue for the extreme nationalism that spurred Japan on during WWII. Whether this is part of the core doctrine or "dogma" of Shinto or is evident today is irrelevant. This example illustrates how religion can be a danger and a threat to society, it was a useful tool for those in power at the time ergo it was dangerous.

So, since all religions that I know of require submission of individual morality to the morality of the group, they can all be used to produce anti-social behavior in its members that can be a treat or danger to outsider.

Since I claimed this is universal to all religions--the burden of proof is on me. However, if I wrote a post that went through systematically and demonstrated how every single religion is dangerous, it would be too long and no one would read it. So I will be happy to play the game with anyone. Offer up a religion that you think is not dangerous, and I will attempt to show, in some respect, how it can be an outside threat.

[_antishock8]

Offer up a religion that you think is not dangerous, and I will attempt to show, in some respect, how it can be an outside threat.

Jainism?

[_John Larsen]

Offer up a religion that you think is not dangerous, and I will attempt to show, in some respect, how it can be an outside threat.

Jainism?

Since Jainism is pacifist, adherents would offer no defense to an aggressive and abusive outside force. Pacifists offer no resistance to outside tyranny and evil, and thus inadvertently support those with such intentions.

[_antishock8]

Offer up a religion that you think is not dangerous, and I will attempt to show, in some respect, how it can be an outside threat.

Jainism?

Since Jainism is pacifist, adherents would offer no defense to an aggressive and abusive outside force. Pacifists offer no resistance to outside tyranny and evil, and thus inadvertently support those with such intentions.

Yeeeeeeeaaaahhh.... I thought you might take that angle. I agree with you, but you're basically arguing that this religion is dangerous because of something it is NOT rather than what it IS. I'm not sure that's reasonable when we're talking about religion itself being dangerous, ie, pacifism is suicidal when confronted with an aggressive ideology. It has, after all, managed to survive as a systemic ideology for thousands of years in one of the most hostile areas know to man... So it may not be all that dangerous when you're talking about its ability to survive and prosper within the human condition.

[_JAK]

JAK,

I can accept that saying they don't pose 'any' danger was an inaccurate description. Of course all danger is 'relative' to some degree.
I just think we are getting to a pretty 'pedantic' stage of the discussion if we are trying to discuss the dangers that 'old car enthusiasts' pose to me!

I suppose the point of view I'd really want to get across is that the 'end point' for religion isn't bound to be fundamentalism. Again, I'm talking about what I see all around me in this part of the world. Religion is NOT dead here. But the more extreme aspects of it are pretty much dead, or well on the way towards being so. Things are only moving one way over here. It may be different in other parts of the world. But I'd say there are constructive approaches, and nonconstructive approaches.

I would actually argue that too broadly generalising the religious (Just as you correctly pulled me up on generalising danger) is, in fact, dangerous. If people are unwilling to differentiate between fundamentalism and other types of religious belief, then - to me - that means that boundaries and divisions are being 'drawn'. The sense of us vs. them is being created. And I think THAT is dangerous.

I personally think that attitude makes the world a less safe place for me and my loved ones. Not the Amish riding around in environmentally-friendly horse-drawn buggies...

Hi ROP,

I quite agree with your first paragraph. I wrote as I did not because of your statement but because some who post here substitute personal attack, distortion, outright misstatement of what an individual has posted.

In so doing, they make impossible any honest intellectual discussion. They seize on a phrase, take it out of context, generate straw men, and attack what was never stated.

I trust you will understand that. You are a thoughtful poster here.

In your second paragraph, I also agree than not all religions are committed to “fundamentalism.” The most vocal and the loudest seem to be. Consider the great impact on the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections by Christian fundamentalists. They are still there at the ready to push for an agenda to severely limit freedoms by law. They want to dominate the Supreme Court as well as the White House and the Congress.

We don’t see that from some other Christian groups. “Religion is NOT dead” anywhere. It’s more aggressive in some places. It seeks to impose its agendas on the country. While publically defending democratic principle, it privately undermines freedom of choice.

I question your view that: “But the more extreme aspects of it are pretty much dead, or well on the way towards being so.” I hope that’s the case, but doubt it. Rather, I think those extremists are just waiting for another opportunity to dominate in government, the schools, and private lives.

You state: “But I'd say there are constructive approaches, and nonconstructive approaches.”

Yes indeed!

I also agree that “too broadly generalising (generalizing)” the religious is incorrect. However, there are hard-core divisions in Christianity today which require exposure. To the extent that the exposure is well based in reliable information (academic in nature) that exposure diminishes “danger.”

The example of the “Amish” and the road hazard they presented was an illustration Moniker used and which I addressed from the context of “Where reason and evidence are turned aside in favor of dogma and claim absent evidence, danger prevails.”

Hence, again, I am in agreement with your final paragraph here. If you read my comments to Moniker (which would take more time than you may wish to spend), I attempted to clarify for her and return the discussion to the “Dangers of Religion” as it compares truth by assertion to discovery by accumulation of reliable information and evidence.

The “Dangers of Religion” lie in what I have characterized broadly, and I attempted to bring Moniker back to the central issue of that. Fear, intimidation, indoctrination, suppression of information and knowledge are tools and techniques of religion which make it dangerous.

In closing, my compliments to you on your thoughtful posts. In communication where the intent is honest intellectual pursuit, it becomes critical to qualify. Those who engage in personal attack reduce posts to ad hominem.

JAK

[Guest]

I would agree Monsieur Blow is not dangerous based on this belief.

Then you agree that "unjustified" or "unreliable" beliefs are not inherently dangerous. That's a start.

When a set of beliefs becomes collective and starts to define and shape the actions of a group of people it becomes a religion. Organizations, such as religion, tend to require the submission of the individual to some extent, to the will of the greater collective. These rules are codified as morals or commandments and sometimes they have side effects which can be detrimental to those outside of the organization.

What you are describing fits every social scheme in human life. People who join politics become obligated to submit to some extent, to the will of the greater collective. The same is true for college alumi, fraternities, street gangs, high school kids forming social clusters, and virtualy any kind of social organization on any level. Humans are social creatures and this is our tendency. Further, atheists have a tendency to gather together and fight together for a common cause. Though they'd hate to realize it, their actions are predictable to anyone who understand sociology. They are no different from a religious group with respect to the description you provided above. The only difference is that they believe their beliefs are reliable and justified, and they think everyone else who isn't in their group is "dangerous." You're hearing it right now from JAK and EAllusion.

That in and of itself is dangerous because it is a recipe for bigotry. Once an outside group is considered dangerous, then this is the first step towards intoelrant actions towards them. EAllusion and JAK have already declared the rest of us "dangerous" simply because we believe God exists. Following JAK's ridiculous statetement, children who believe in Santa Clause are also dangerous.

So finding dangerous behavior is not that hard--just look for rules, traditions or practices that can cause harm.

And the evidence shows that of all the social structures known to man, religion is among the least dangerous. More people die on a daily basis due to political decisions, not religious ones. More people die because of their loyalty to street gangs, not a Church denominations.
More people are physicaly injured from massive brawls outside soccer stadiums because people attach themselves to one team or another and feel the need to fight about it. So religion is less dangerous than sports!

What you guys aren't taking into consideration is the counterweight to these "beliefs" that you insist "could" cause someone to act dangerously: virtually all religions indoctrinate a sense of morality into the individual and it systematically nurtures those principles, which generally work to preclude violent activity. On an every day basis I would rather be confronted by a pissed off Mormon than a pissed off atheist, because teh chances of physical confrontation is less likely. This is where the value of religious beliefs kick in.
You say finding dangeorus activity isn't that hard in religion? Well clearly it is, because nobody here has been able to present any unique examples that are unique to religion; examples that do not already exist in other social schemes. JAK brings up the crusades, but he knows nothing about them. One can fault the crusaders no more than one can fault a neighbor for coming to the defense of his neighbors under attack. But JAK is a bigot, so he twists the history for ink so he can paint an misleading picture that suits his agenda.

This harm could be to an individual member, the greater society, another minority group or an outside individual.

But what EAllusion and JAK don't understand is that the first step in this direction requires the fear factor, which views the opposing party as a danger. They have already taken that step. Most Christians don't see you and me as a danger in any real sense, and even if they did, Christian actions are tempered by Christian dogma that tells them to turn the other cheek and to love their enemies. Atheist groups are not tempered by any such dogma.

If we look back at our examples, I think we can illustrate. The Amish have a practice called rumspringa. You cannot join the Church until you are an adult and it is very common for teenagers to go out and try to sew their wild oats before they join. This is tolerated among the Amish.

So if a religion doesn't tolerate rebellious behavior it is attacked for being too controlling, and when it allows a person to act according to free will, they are attacked for allowing this? I don't get it. How is this any more dangerous that a bachelor's party, whereby a bachelor has sex with a stripper before getting married? He knows he wil be tied down to one woman for a long time, so he goes nuts beforehand. Following your example here, religion is no more "dangerous" than marriage.

In fact, if you want to follow the same standard of danger, the only real answer is for humans to stop socializing. Socialization tends to produce all of the products you listed above. Religion, Nationalism, Tribalism, are all different versions of the same "danger." I know atheists like to think they are above all of this - being more advanced on the scale of evolution and all - but this only shows how arrogant and uneducated they really are about human behavior. Most atheists opining about this stuff are not sociologists or psychologists. They're generally blow hard philosphers who come up with their own form of dogma, and it attracts other atheists in the same ways religious dogma attracts theists. That is the great irony here. JAK presents a dogma, a belief, and he highlights it in every post because it is so important to him. He is preaching the same as any religious nut would. He isn't interetsed in testing its veracity, he just like how it sounds, and he likes thinking he can be accredited this idea, which in reality, he merely plagiarized from Clifford and refused to attribute proper credit.

Ask anyone in Amish country and they will tell you there is a big problem with teenage alcohol and drug abuse.

As opposed to teenage alcohol and drug abuse in secular contexts? Oh yes, there's no problem there at all!

I think it is clear that the Amish religious tradition is the cause of rumspringa.

That is absolutely ridiculous. So you're blaming the Amish for allowing kids to behave rebelliously? Who would you have step in, the government? There are more parents outside the Amish community, with no religious attachment whatsoever, who abandon their kids altogether.

Even science sees paradigm changes based on the above social elements. Scientists get together, start to socialize and begin to create their own dogma called consensus. It is all just a different version of the same social phenomenon.

You don't really think all Mormons believe the crazy doctrines do you? They are in it because Mormonism provides a social medium, which is necessary for human survival. Likewise, you see scinetists abide by consensus on things like Global Warming, not because they really have a testimony of it, but because the social structure of academia is designed to benefit those who conform to the standards put in place by the club.

[_JAK]

Offer up a religion that you think is not dangerous, and I will attempt to show, in some respect, how it can be an outside threat.

Jainism?

Since Jainism is pacifist, adherents would offer no defense to an aggressive and abusive outside force. Pacifists offer no resistance to outside tyranny and evil, and thus inadvertently support those with such intentions.

Hence, you observe that religion which abdicates responsibility to address informed, documented “tyranny” contributes to the tyranny. Another example of that was the silence of Pope Pius XII in the face of Hitler’s domination and persecution of the Jews. Hitler claimed to be Roman Catholic.

JAK

[_dartagnan]

JAK, why don't you start responding to my refutations and stop lying? I've called your bluff too many times and you think you can ignore it away?

You have that much contempt for the truth, eh?

You're doing the same thing the LDS apologists do. They can't deal with refutations so they pretend none exist.

Oh the irony.

[_EAllusion]

I am responding to the your first post in this discussion. There is no mention anywhere about references to a "famous paper" prior to your post. You're expecting me to read your mind?

I made an argument in that post. There are two prongs to it. 1) Unjustified beliefs by their very nature are less likely to be tethered to what the world is like and thus present greater risk of undesired consequences from interaction with it. 2) Unjustified beliefs take up mental resources that could be used elsewhere, thus retarding our understanding of the world and thus exacerbating 1. I quoted Clifford for a longer version of these points.

It undermines it. It just goes to show how religious belief did nothing to stunt the scientific progress that was needed to give us modern science. In fact, it seems it to have served to bolster it.[/quote'

No it doesn't. Unless my argument is that religious belief completely prevents one from progress, simple examples of religious believers progressing in knowledge doesn't refute my point. The existence of scholars who have done good work is beside the point. As noted above, (proto) scientists were wasting their time on alchemy when they could've been directing that towards more legitimate pursuits directly. That they accmplished many things doesn't show the value of alchemy. It shows what they did despite their fringe beliefs. (And alchemy - or rather the attempt to rigorize it - has contributed to the development of science.) Further, just because certain people were of faith [x] it does not follow that faith [x] deserves any meaningful credit for their accomplishments.

I don't think holding unjustified beliefs will make the world disappear in a puff or cripple people from contributing anything useful.

Yet, you maintain the erroneous and bigoted conclusion that reigious belief is "dangerous." I am still waiting for your evidence of this.

Things can be dangerous without causing the apocalypse or reducing one down to mental paralysis. Now my argument is bigoted? Is the still philosophically popular idea that unjustified belief is dangerous bigoted? Because my stance on religion just flows from thinking it justified plus that.

Yes it does. Hence my argument to that effect.

I understand an argument as a process of reasoning. Anyone can assert, and so far that is all you have done.

Hi. Have you read my posts?

I see now where you posted an excerpt from Clifford, which is really just a cut and paste job from infidels.org (surprise!).

It is? It's actually a cut and and paste from a document stored on my comp that I wrote. I may have originally grabbed it from infidels - I'm not sure - but there are multiple sources. It's a famous essay, after all.

Apparently, you're unaware of any responses to his outdated theory:

Apparently, I suspect you were willing to search and support anything that attacks the essay I quoted from. I don't agree with Clifford with respect to pure evidentialism or deontology. Neither, however, are neccessary to the core argument being lifted. If you didn't simply scramble to find a response to Clifford and declare it good, you might've noticed that I already pointed out that I did not agree with Cliffordian evidentialism, as it rests on a outmoded version of foundationalism. I would happily argue there are certain kinds of beliefs we are justified in holding that do not rest on evidence. That's why I simply expanded the point to include "being justified" rather than evidence per se. I presume that you are endorsing James' broader argument here? You're not just quoting it because it provides you with some sort of response to an argument you were claiming a few lines ago I didn't make? You specifically think that holding beliefs with no rational basis, whatever that may be, is not an inherently dangerous/immoral activity? And you think James' reply to Clifford has established this? If so, I'll gladly reply. If not, please drop the pretense.

[_marg]

Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed how much angrier dart seems to be these days? Sounds like his stages of Mormon recovery are coming along nicely.

His posts are filled with excessive ad hominem. He seems to write to an audience/reader rather than any individuals he is in discussion with. And he apparently thinks the audience doesn't notice the ad hominems in lieu of substance. It's not impressive Kevin. And when you do that you indicate to the persons in discussion you are more into game-playing than honest discussion and in general game playing is not worth one's time to respond to. [/code]