EVIL RELIGIOUS LEADERS KILL INNOCENTS!
38 Comments Published by tet on Monday, October 1 at 7:30 AM.
Oops, sorry, I've got that exactly backwards:
EVIL SECULAR LEADERS KILL PACIFIST MONKS
Burma is just one more example of what I've been saying in here for over a year--Religion is the brake system on the tendency of humans to do evil, particularly when they're in positions of power. Keep in mind that those Buddhist monks don't believe in a God any more than most of you atheists. Their faith, however, gave them the strength to oppose a truly despicable regime.
I pray for their safety and the eventual overthrow of their government.
UPDATE: As of noon Eastern time, it looks like the death toll is in the thousands. There are new photographs at the above site. What I want to know is, "Where all the activist groups that normally bitch about everything while this is going on? "
Tom
EVIL SECULAR LEADERS KILL PACIFIST MONKS
Burma is just one more example of what I've been saying in here for over a year--Religion is the brake system on the tendency of humans to do evil, particularly when they're in positions of power. Keep in mind that those Buddhist monks don't believe in a God any more than most of you atheists. Their faith, however, gave them the strength to oppose a truly despicable regime.
I pray for their safety and the eventual overthrow of their government.
UPDATE: As of noon Eastern time, it looks like the death toll is in the thousands. There are new photographs at the above site. What I want to know is, "Where all the activist groups that normally bitch about everything while this is going on? "
Tom
Labels: current events, government, religion, Tet
Atheists killing atheists. I fail to see how it proves your point.
Hanno, since they're both non-theists, the thing that separates a group of progressive activists from crass killers in this case is religion.
If you notice over the course of the debate, I have never stated that a belief in God is a necessity for a person to live a moral life. Nor have I argued that the moral teachings of the various scriptures were in any way divinely ordained.
What I have instead done is speak of the civilizing influence of religion itself and how it makes us better than we would be otherwise.
The monks could just as easily been of a theistic variety, like the missionaries that the Chinese government is currently imprisoning and murdering. In that case, also, the separation in behavior is due to the faith of the victim.
Tom
Actually if I remember correctly, you once made a short list of 5 or so religions that were "worthy" or some such thing because they held their worshippers' balls in vices. I think it was LDS, Catholocism, and a few others but I can't remember the whole list. You seemed to imply all others just weren't cutting it.
Hmmm. I'm trying to remember.
I doubt very much if I referred to them that way. However, in the case of young men, Hanno, "keeping their balls in vises" is known as providing a civilizing influence to male adolescents in their formative years.
Without religion, these same young men do exactly the kind of thing we're seeing in Burma now or saw in Cambodia during the time of Pol Pot.
You also see it in the inner cities of the United States where the influence of family and religion have vanished. You get tribes of barbarians even though the amount of overt racism and poverty is less than it was fifty years ago.
Getting back to your question, though. I believe that the list that I had was that of religious people that I would be most comfortable having next door to me.
I'm pretty sure the LDS and Buddhists were at the top of that list. Roman Catholics would be pretty far up there, also.
I mean, Hanno, seriously, if it was a dark night in an urban area and you were alone with a hundred bucks in your pocket, would you rather that the half-dozen guys coming towards you have just left a basketball court or a prayer meeting?
Tom
Having walked through the upper east side of Manhattan at 3 a.m. completely sauced in nice clothes with about $50 in my pocket, I couldn't care less honestly. I'm not paranoid and I know my lifelong odds of being a victim of crime are infinitesimal at any given point in time. Actually odds are I'd be more likely to be left alone by six guys coming from a basketball game after a quick "hey, how ya doin" than the guys coming out of the prayer meeting. I've been accosted by more evangelicals on the street than thugs, given the relative annoyance factor I'm far more comfortable with the guys coming from the game.
Your odds of being a crime victim are only infinitesimal because you look white.
Ask a person of color the question I posed to you and get back to me.
In any case, why don't we get back to talking about the hundreds or thousands of people being murdered by the junta, or are the fates of folks over in Asia not important enough to rate a discussion?
Tom
Tom,
Shouldn't the question be, if you were walking a city street at night and saw somebody walking toward you, would you rather that person be an atheist or a religious believer? In which case, my answer is unequivocally the atheist. That isn't to say I walk around in fear of people leaving prayer meetings (that isn't really the point of any atheist's argument about the nature of religion's adverse effects on the world and you know it), but it is to say that being a secular humanist tends to be an accurate indicator that one will behave in a civil manner.
The government of Myanmar may very well be atheist, Tom. But what people like me, or Lally, or Sam Harris or Richard Dawkins, argue for isn't merely atheism, it's skepticism and an insistence on empirical evidence to support one's positions, which religion necessarily interferes with to some degree or another. An absence of religion did not cause Myanmar's government to oppress its citizenry - the oppression of citizenry has gone hand in hand with the universal desire for power which has characterized all of human history, and which corrupts believers and nonbelievers alike.
Ah, Brian. My hypothesis is that the corruption is the natural state of affairs and religion allows a small number of individuals and civilizations the tools to remove themselves from the corruption for a while. I am speaking directly against the reliance strictly on reason that you are espousing.
In other words, without religion, the world would collapse into the kind of Orwellian state characterized by a "boot smashing itself against a human face forever."
IF Jonathan Haidt is correct and reason serves only to provide rationalizations for conclusions that humanity has reached through intuitive means, then you perceive the situation entirely backwards. Without the connection to the "otherness" outself of one's self provided by religion, rationalists and secularists are capable of rationalizing any kind of behavior that they desire.
I saw a wonderful quote in the Chicago Sun-Times over lunch today. It's by Peter DeVries: "It is the final proof of God's ominpotence that he need not exist in order to save us."
If I was to answer the question I posed earlier? I would definitely want the next person to come by me be religious, since the odds are, if he's an atheist, he is capable of finding empirical evidence somewhere that a proper way to behave towards me would be to kill me and roast me over a fire for supper. In addition, since he and I are only matter set in motion, the fact that he did so will not matter in a century, so why not?
I am finding more and more evidence as time goes on that the inability to connect with the "moral overmind" of humanity provided by religious thought may actually be a form of insanity caused by faulty wiring. In other words, I think that there may be a causal link between mild autism and Asperger's Syndrome and atheism.
Please note above: I am not referring to agnosticism. Agnostics seldom act in proselytizing manners, nor do they generally run huge continent-spanning empires. They are therefore probably sane and, in any case, do not present the danger to the future provided by atheists.
I can't speak for you and Lally, Brian, but Dawkins and Harris (and Hitchens) are not agnostics, nor are they skeptics about the possiblity that God might exist. They are "Big-A" atheists. If you are not, then I suggest you disconnect yourself from their convictions and speak as a skeptic, not as a believer in their dogma.
To summarize my position: I believe that if the government of BURMA, (keep in mind Mr. Progressive, that the name for the country you just used here was imposed by the brutal, murderous junta we're talking about) was still Buddhist, it would not be doing the things it is doing to its people right now. Following their religion would have stopped it.
Tom
Tom -
I think the junta is not being discussed, because not to be caustic or a general asshole (although I do excel at both), there is always a junta going on somewhere. And outside of generally wringing our hands and saying what a shame, what exactly can we (the United States) do?
We have tried the direct military approach. Didn't work. We have tried building a coalition. Didn't work. We have tried economic sanctions. That really didn't work. So what can we do to affect these parties so that the can change their mind? This is not a rhetorical question; what can we do.
Here's a fascinating discussion of the questions about faith raised by this attempt at liberation at the Daily Telegraph.
Prescott, if we want to avoid a future in which situations like this occur over and over again, it is probably best to work towards dissemination of religion in the world, rather than trying to end it like Hitchens, Dawkins and Harris. That's what we can do, do now, and it won't cost us as much as a bullet or a soldier.
Tom
Brian,
When did we agree that atheist = secular humanist? Most of the atheists I know only lack belief in God because they don't care enough to think things through. They are spiritullay/philosophically passive and concerned only with getting through school, making as much money as possible, etc. What makes you think people like this follow a stricter moral code, or follow any code more strictly?
As easy as religious people find it to twist their texts so they can do evil, surely it's easier to justify doing whatever you went when you're not following any rules at all.
For that matter, what evidence to you have that atheists people behave in a more civil manner, on average, than religious people? You can only make accusations like that because the community of atheists is neither formally organized nor anywhere close to as large as those of religious people; in other words there is almost no information on that community available.
You act like all atheists are these philosopher kings who are above the petty realm of blind belief; you have no evidence of atheism producing the results you assume it does. You just "know" it's better - based on your empirical evidence, of course.
Tom,
I love Peter DeVries. Can you figure out why? I can't remember if I've ever said anything on the blog about why he would be particularly important and relevant to me.
He's from your faith, right? I think I remember you saying that you were raised Dutch Christian Reformed at that one lunch we both attended.
He also wrote a wonderful book in honor of his daughter after she died, The Blood of the Lamb. Did you read it as a child?
He worked with Thurber, didn't he? Might be something literary...
If I didn't get it in three, I probably won't in twenty.
Brenda, there have been large formal communities of atheists in the past--Leninist/Stalinist Russia and Maoist China are fine examples. Their defining major characteristic has been democide on nation-spanning scales.
Not something to aspire to, in my opinion.
Tom
Tom -
Your proposal would not cost us a single bullet or soldier. It would cost us boxes of bullets and battalions of soldiers.
I am going to avoid discussing the complex issues of combining foreign policy and religion, as I am sure Hanno et al will more than touch and that. I presume that you will be able to expect the pitchforks and torches outside your office by the end of the day. But come on Tom. The dissemination of religion to the masses requires missionaries going into the wild. Missionaries bringing religion often results in dead missionaries...I know this because I went to Sunday school and I know Missionaries die...its what makes them saints. If the modern day missionaries you propose die, after being supported by the US government, the government has to respond in force. Special ops, tactical replies, and suddenly troops are back in the equation. Soldiers die, and things escalate.
Your alternative still results in loss of life. At the end of the day, its only about how much will be lost.
Prescott, where the hell did I mention government in my last post?
Are you so indoctrinated by the government you show yourself totally unable to conceive of action by anyone else? If so, you are no different than Brian or Hanno.
Right now, there are missionaries all over the world getting killed for their faith--China, Nigeria, Pakistan, India. Our government is not doing a thing about it, nor should they--government is the problem not the solution.
We are the solution.
Tom
Yes! Dutch CRC! A million things in DeVries' life intersect mine. Plus my Dad is crazy about him and we've got all his books.
I wasn't counting state-imposed atheism, but yeah, you've got a point.
Brenda, we gotta sit down and visit for a lunch hour or two. Send me an email and let me know when you want to do that.
I can't wait to hear about Europe.
Tom
"For that matter, what evidence to you have that atheists people behave in a more civil manner, on average, than religious people?"
Actually Brenda if we look to our own prison system, the proportion of atheists is far smaller than in the population at large. Granted this isn't proof of anything, but it's an indicator. Although to be fair, I'd say it has more do to with the general education level of atheists than any particular spiritual belief or lack thereof. To be fair once again, the numbers are doubtless skewed by nonresponse rates approaching 20%. Still, Brian isn't completely talking out of his ass this time.
Well, Hanno, it also would require that the prison system accurately model the rest of society for any measurement within it to tell us anything about the relative condition of society outside of it.
If it actually did model it, we would have to conclude that African-Americans are almost all potential criminals from the percentage of the prison population represented by them.
In other words, your example shows us nothing about the rest of society whatsoever--too many variables. Don't they teach youse guys statistics in college?
Tom
Tom -
I am not indoctrinated by anything. I am member of the Catholic Church that has been doing this type of thing for about 2000 years, without government sanction or protection. In addition, I have worked with organizations such as the Salvation Army and Soup kitchens, so yes, I am quite comfortable with the idea that organizations outside of the government can have a real effect outside.
Unlike you I do not have the deep abiding faith in individuals nor do I such an abhorrent distrust in government to think that either is always the answer or problem. Both have positive functions and drawbacks, and in any given situation can improve or worsen a situation. The NGOs, which you must be referring to, lack any power or ability without complacent governmental support. I doubt a Nigerian warlord cares what an aging college professor or law school student think.
As for our government not doing anything when missionaries are killed, obviously you are not paying close attention. First of all, from the period of 1999-2005 there were 177 deaths associated with missionary work. 177 total deaths, 156 were murders, and that are all the deaths for all Christian missionaries (Catholic, LDS, etc.) If there was no large government backing these guys up, you don't think that number goes higher? That these individuals are not safer because those that would persecute them do not think twice because of the repercussions that larger governments would rain down on their head?
And yeah, actually, the government does intervene when one of their citizens are killed during missionary work. Quite often, as soon as they guys are killed the local embassay jumps into "help" the investigation and to provide substantive support. And if you don't think that in those countries where the deaths are the highest (Uganda, Congo, etc.)that there is not some CIA presence going to work making sure it does not happen again using means that you may not approve of, I just don't think you are seeing the whole picture. The government does take a hand in these things, if not overtly, still substantially.
I do not think that we need government in every aspect of life, that it is the answer to every question. But to refuse to use a tool that is available merely because I am scared of it or don't like it at the risk of not achieving the goal I want seems to be a dangerous proposition.
"...the risk of not achieving the goal I want..."
By such words are we damned, Prescott.
Your life, as well as everyone else's, is placed much more in risk by your compromises with the forces of evil than they would be by any real or imagined failure on your part to reach a goal.
As I said earlier today, it's by the appearance of usefulness to people like yourself that government gains power over them. Government "help" is more like the One Ring than it is a laser-guided circular saw.
Free your mind and your heart will follow.
Tom
"Free your mind and your heart will follow."
Funny. That sounds like what Dawkins would say to your adherence to religion...
Tom -
I know you don't know me, and believe me, I am quite alright with that. But I can guarantee you that using such terms as "free your mind and your heart will follow" and comparing government to an item from a fictional world is almost a guarantee that I will categorically ignore the words that immediately proceed and follow those phrases as sentimental claptrap trying to make unworthy appeal to emotions as opposed to reason. Don't try that with me...it will not work.
I also resent the implication that merely because I do not drink your brand of Kool-Aid means, by necessity, that I am brainwashed into thinking that the government is the end all, be all. No, I do not. I am all for small government, but I am also for effective government. Everything points to the need for a government. Economics showed there was a need for government to resolve transactions costs, and that without government, the market would fail. Its called Coase theorem, and the guy who wrote it not only won the Nobel Prize for it in Economics, but it is also the most cited law review article in American legal universe. In Political Science we call it Balance of Power theory, when people band together for the mutual security of all. Jefferson, Paine, Adams, Rousseau, Hobbes, all of them, while they differed on the size on scope of the government, all agreed that one was necessary. To say that all of us are stupid and ignorant of the real world is incredibly short sighted.
I have read your arguments against government; they are hardly the best I have read, but definitely not the worst. They were logical, and well written, even if I did think some of your assumptions were convuluted. But all in all I remain unconvinced.
You bandy words like good and evil too easily and too freely, to the extent that they almost lose their meaning. I am not interested in poetry and how you turn a phrase; its why I don't read any of your stories or recollections. But I did not come here to be spiritually saved or find redemption. I came here for debate. When you seize the bully pulpit and merely preach out of some indecipherable application of good and evil you curtail all discussion and limit your point of view.
Government, like most things, is neither good or bad; its just a tool. It all depends on how you use it. I do not appreciate it that you somehow infer that any attmept to use any aspect of the federal government is some Faustian deal which will result in my eternal damnation. Its just plain insulting and kind of aggravating.
Look, Tet, it's apparent that the moral overmind shares some space with religious belief, but the two spheres don't completely overlap. Some people who aren't great moral thinkers do just fine by relying on religious beliefs; some people who don't have any spiritual capacity rationalize their behavior based on the standards they have discerned from their moral context.
As Tet has discerned, cultures which deny religion in favor of state or groupthink-worship, and which also actively work to change the moral overmind via propagandizing and brainwashing... go down very bad roads.
But I don't think that it follows that religious faith, of itself, dictates the morality of a people, or that its presence is always civilizing. Sometimes it is barbarizing.
Now, stop babbling a lot of nonsense about street gangs and evangelicals. I can say with confidence that the street gang members are much more pleasant to talk to, but if it comes down to being accosted, I'd much rather be thumped with a few pamphlets than shot by some kid who doesn't feel like being jumped in.
Is 'lack of family' and religion what creates the gang environment? I don't think so. Most of the young black and Hispanic men I see have extended families that put ours to shame when it comes to sharing, expressing emotion, nurturing each other during times of crisis, and looking after family members in financial need. Most of the women, of a certain age, have religion, and frequently admonish their youthful family members to live, if nothing else, a more godly life. So these young people HAVE family, they HAVE religion right there in their home... but their moral context and culture is hopelessly perverted by violence and denigration. Their moral overmind is different from yours and mine.
Can religion be used to change that? Again, only for those who aren't moral thinkers, who can wholly and uncritically buy into another set of values. Unfortunately, most of these young people are more intelligent than that. They are indeed moral thinkers, but they reach wrong conclusions because their context is wrong.
Prison populations represent the poor, the mentally ill, the drug-addicted, and the institutionalized.
Ok, Prescott, this post of yours explains a lot, especially why you can't quite understand what I'm trying to prove to you.
You see, since I believe that reason is a method by which the brain rationalizes decisions made by the intuition, a lot of my arguments are not made in my political commentary articles.
They're made instead in my recollections and stories. Prescott, those are parables. (Now, keep in mind that some of them are just stories about big effin' black cats.)
The recollections are a series of essays on the different events which led me to the philosophies that I have discovered. The stories are often about applications of those philosophies.
If you take my political commentary, my recollections, my stories and descriptive articles like the one on the Heinlein Convention and put them all together, you end up with a set of writings designed to convert people exactly like you into the kind of person that we need to save humanity and allow us to make it through the next fifty years.
I'm on a mission here, Prescott, and as long as you and the rest of the readership are out there, I'm going to try to enlist you in the crusade. There's too much at stake for me to slack off now.
So, if you really want to debate me, go back and read everything. Some of it, I wrote just for you....
One short note, though. When I speak of damnation, I do not mean a literal hell. What I am speaking of is the likelihood of you, Prescott, looking back at your life at 60 and finally understanding that I was right and that you did real evil in the pursuit of your goals. I'd like to protect you from that if I can--I've seen it happen to way too many of my contemporaries and it is always very tragic.
Syl, you have more experience dealing with young barbarian men. Please, tell us if you can, the things that you believe can save them. If they're making the wrong decisions and building the wrong moral structures, how can we facilitate them demolishing them and replacing them with things that won't lead to them leading lives more characteristic of barn cats than human beings.
Tom
"If you take my political commentary, my recollections, my stories and descriptive articles like the one on the Heinlein Convention and put them all together, you end up with a set of writings designed to convert people exactly like you into the kind of person that we need to save humanity and allow us to make it through the next fifty years."
Tom. You know I love ya buddy, but this is about as arrogant as you've ever been. You're putting a lock on truth and wisdom relegating all other points of view to the margins as being wrong or evil...
You know I think you and Prescott just need a good old fashioned Thunderdome match. Granted you're a little old, so you can have a champion like master blaster. Prescott will have to grow his hair out to pull of a Mad Max though...
No, Hanno, I am perfectly willing to listen to other points of view. I do not have God whispering in my ear telling me what is right and what is wrong.
What I have is experience, intelligence and the contents of about twenty thousand volumes of mankind's written works kicking around in my head. It may be worth something, it may not.
I also have determination to help humanity to survive. Hanno, we're at the dawn of a new civilization. The kind of power that is about to be dropped into the hands of humanity is that which has only been possessed by the Gods of the ancients--the power to create life where there was none, the power to rearrange the face of this planet, the power to render humanity extinct if one so desires.
In order to get through this period, a new set of ethics capable of handling this has to be developed, starting yesterday. I intend to be one of the people who invent this ethos, and thereby help to save the world.
I'm just a human being, for good or ill. I have been blessed with physical placement in the heart of one of the places from which the world-altering changes will originate.
I will probably die long before any of this comes to fruition. However, before I go, I wish to contribute the remainder of my life to seeing humanity off on the road leading to transhumanism.
You will probably live to see the world that will be created, Hanno. Don't you want to make sure that the kind of awful things that might happen, don't?
You do have the power to make that difference. Accepting the responsibilty for that power is not arrogance, it is duty.
Tom
Tom, 12:30pm: "Agnostics seldom act in proselytizing manners...They are therefore probably sane."
Tom, 7:00pm: "I'm on a mission here, Prescott, and as long as you and the rest of the readership are out there, I'm going to try to enlist you in the crusade."
Hmmmm.
Brian, atheists are not insane because they're proselytizing.
They're insane because they're proselytizing in favor of something that even if it's not wrong, is counter to the continued existence of humanity.
I'm sure that you would agree that leading people to democide and eventual extinction would be crazy, right?
They also may be crazy due to wiring. I don't know if too many other people besides myself and Vox Day have noticed this. It first began to interest me when a noted atheist named PZ Meyers was talking about Asperger's Syndrome. He had an initial test for the disorder that he linked to on his blog.
What was amazing was the replies from the set of militant atheists that regularly posted to the blog. Poster after poster was scoring in the Asperger to "mild autism" range.
I'm sure someone, somewhere might be able to test for a causal link between lack of empathy and autism and the incapability of linking to the transcendent. I'm waiting for this with 'bated breath.
Sociopathy would certain explain the vicious nature of Hitchens, Dawkins and Harris. After all, anyone who claims that religious instruction is synonymous with child abuse has to have a screw or two loose.
For those of you who are terminally curious, here's the test. It was copied from the Daily Mail and put on that site so you don't have to pay for it.
Let me know how you score. Me? I've probably got a mild case of AS and severe case of ADD, (and was a militant atheist for years) but I got better with medical treatment.
True to form, I score a 34 on the test even after treatment--it's early and all the drugs haven't kicked in yet.
Tom
Let me give you an illustrative example of exactly how destructive and intolerant Dr. Dawkins is....
Here is a letter in which he espouses the abolition of the theology department at universities.
He feels that even discussions of the subject like the ones that we do here and that exist at institutions of higher learning are destructive. Insanity? You decide--oh wait, haven't you mentioned in the past, Brian, that there are some subjects unworthy of discussion? Did you learn that from Dawkins or think that up yourself?
Tom
The only way to save them is to rewrite their cultural ethos. Who are the kids who get out? The ones who successfully leave the milieu long enough to pick up a different set of rules. The military is the usual route for the young men, but there are others. The young women have an easier time getting out, because they have a clear path mapped out for them into the semi-professional community.
One of the first things that needs to happen is a full-out culture war. The whole gangbanger society is rotten top to bottom, and it's fed primarily by the media. No doubt Tipper Gore was right, but you can only feed a beast like this with censorship or labelling. To starve it, you must create an appealing option (more easier said than done) and throw the weight of the media juggernaut behind it.
Imagine what would happen, say, if the whole medieval-nostalgia Renfaire subculture leveraged its way to prominence. Music, movies, television, all showing scenes of gallantry and courtly love; elaborate costuming, young people listening to monks raptly, etc. Goodbye girls with the boyfriends' name tattoed on the neck; hello boys wandering around with their girlfriends' decorated ipod holders as a mark of favor, or something. Goodbye ho or babymomma hello belle dame.
In other words, a lot of the problems we're seeing come from a subculture that was put through a forced-growth by the media. There's no reason why another one, with more positive ideals, couldn't be chosen likewise. But whatever it is, it needs to have style, and it needs to have some innate appeal, and it needs to feel subversive. If it reads like a set of motivational posters, or it's not self-sustaining and revenue-generating, it will fail.
One of the things that I do in my free time is experiment with cultural ethos. All that it really takes to reverse a negative trend amongst a large group of largely-indifferent people is a set of strong personalities who publicly demonstrate a code of behavior. The problem is that when you try to create these personalities artificially, they tend to fail given enough time. To make it work, the new leaders have to believe their own ethos.
And as for the rest of you: I don't believe Tet ever claimed to be an agnostic or sane. By any objective measure, he is neither. Most visionaries aren't. So what's your argument?
Okay, just took that test, Tom, I got a 16 out of 50, which ranks me one point above "average woman, and average male or female biologist," one point below "average female scientist," and two points below "average man."
...which would actually make me LESS autistic than the average man.
This seems to be one of those kinds of tests that is not even close to reliable, so I don't really think I've proven anything, and of course I would never dream of thinking that YOU would think I've even so much as dented your argument. But just thought you might want to know.
As to Dawkins and theology, are you just hoping that people don't click through to your link and read Dawkins' actual letter? He objects to the teaching of theology DEFINED AS "the organised body of knowledge dealing with the nature, attributes, and governance of God," and explicitly says, "Of course, university departments of theology house many excellent scholars of history, linguistics, literature, ecclesiastical art and music, archaeology, psychology, anthropology, sociology, iconology, and other worthwhile and important subjects."
You don't have to agree with him. I'm not even sure I agree with him. But it's not an unreasonable, hateful, "destructive and intolerant" position.
More to the point, I don't dispute that Dawkins and Hitchens and others at times overstate their case. But atheism isn't defined by thinking that raising religious children is child abuse, or thinking that theology departments should be abolished. It is defined as an absence in the belief of god, and beyond that, there is no coherent philosophy tied to it. What an atheist thinks beyond that baseline position rests upon what that person thinks is reasonable. This, you are correct, can lead to mere "rationalizations," which does not distinguish it in any way from EVERY SINGLE SYSTEM OF THOUGHT EVER, including religion. What DOES distinguish it from religion is that it is not bogged down by beliefs that would universally be seen as fairy tale by an objective observer who had no prior knowledge of religion.
You have argued that "even if [atheism is] not wrong, [it] is counter to the continued existence of humanity," which is as explicit of an argument there can be that people should be religious because religion is useful, even if there is every reason to believe that religion is not true. I do not accept so easily the notion that moral living can only exist through fantasy, or that the only meaning and purpose mankind can possess is that which is entrenched by a tradition of self-delusion and the delusion of others. If it isn't true, it can't be truly meaningful.
"If it isn't true, it can't be truly meaningful."
I just had to put up your quote there.
I guess by that statement, you are claiming that one's life is not improved by reading Shakesperare, watching Casablanca, pondering Voltaire's works or following along with the adventures of Don Quixote.
All of these are fantasies, and yet provide all kinds of guides to moral living. You sound as if you're rejecting all of them. Aren't you?
How bare and meaningless must a life be that only allows the rational. Gone are the flights of fancy that are caused by poetry. Missing are the episodes of self-examination caused by the great thoughts of storytellers.
I would think that there is ample proof that fantasy could be considered essential for the continued existence of humanity. After all, the oldest writings that we possess are not instructions on how to build a building, they're the story of Gilgamesh and describe how immortality was not sufficient to provide happiness.
I really don't often pity people. You're moving in that direction, now, Brian. What a desolate life.
If atheism was merely the belief in the non-existence of God, Brian, there would not be a problem. As I pointed out earlier, Buddhists are atheists, and are very, very religious.
It is not your lack belief in God that is the problem for me. It is the denial of the possibility of any transcendendence of material reality. Add to that the belief that you are promulgating that religion is destructive and we have a real problem.
If you said to someone, "God doesn't exist." You and I would get along fine.
What you and the Big Three Atheists say, instead is "God doesn't exist, and for the good of humanity, I am going to do my part to wipe out religion."
This can only lead to the destruction of humanity as the kind of democide perpetrated by atheistic states during the 20th Century returns, along with the other ills of secular society like abortion and slavery.
It is therefore my duty to combat you, and people like you whenever I get the chance.
Tom
Sigh. It has become clear, if it was not clear already, that you are not arguing in good faith. You know and I know and everybody who was reading my post knows that I obviously was not referring to mere works of fiction. I have posted on this very blog recommendations for fictional movies, and bands, and songs. My blog roll to the right is the only one (including yours) that has websites specifically designed for critical reviews of works of art, usually fictional ones. It is readily apparent that I do not believe that works of fiction cannot offer meaning. The instructiveness that believers gain through religion is clearly different than the instructiveness everybody gains through appreciation of the arts. In fact, that's EXACTLY MY POINT. Believing the Bible is non-fiction is totally unnecessary to gain meaning from some of its stories, since very obviously meaning can be gained from fiction. But there is no discernible reason why that meaning can ONLY be derived if we choose to believe that an obviously fictional story is not fictional.
You know that you misrepresented my argument. You are wasting my time, and you are clearly arguing dishonestly, which is an indication to me that you NEED to argue dishonestly in order to have any hope of arguing persuasively. It is truly pathetic.
And, no, I am not arguing that it is my duty to "wipe out religion." I have a position on this issue. I think that at the end of an honest debate on this issue, people should agree with me. I argue in good faith the entire time, however, and am completely open to the possibility of an argument that will change my mind. This does not mean I am trying to "wipe out religion." It doesn't even really mean I'm trying to proselytize. What I am trying to do is have an honest discussion of ideas about an issue I have a firm position on.
You, on the other hand, are being nothing but a sophist. I resent you for it, and my impression is that most of the other contributors to this blog do too.
I rarely post on this blog anymore, even though it was a creation of Billy and myself. The reason why is because it is difficult if not impossible to engage in a good faith discussion of ideas with you around. If your goal is to convert readers to your philosophy, you should know that you're not getting anywhere.
All right, Brian, all right.
Let me back off here a bit. I was infuriated with you when I posted. I have no intention to drive you away from the blog, since you and Billy Joe began it.
Let's go back to the arguments that you were making. The point that I have been talking about all along is that whether or not God exists is irrelevant to the good that religion does by its existence.
Here's your last paragraph in full:
"You have argued that "even if [atheism is] not wrong, [it] is counter to the continued existence of humanity," which is as explicit of an argument there can be that people should be religious because religion is useful, even if there is every reason to believe that religion is not true. I do not accept so easily the notion that moral living can only exist through fantasy, or that the only meaning and purpose mankind can possess is that which is entrenched by a tradition of self-delusion and the delusion of others. If it isn't true, it can't be truly meaningful."
You're missrepresenting my point--it's not that the only way moral instruction can exist is through fantasy. It's that the relgious or other kinds of "fantasy" instruction is far, far superior to logical instruction.
Why? Logical instruction only works on one level--the rational circuits of the brain. "Fantasy" instruction works on not only the rational, but also the emotional and "transcendental" circuits. This means that people who otherwise would be unreachable due to lack of training in the logical or the kind of higher education that you possess, Brian, can learn morals.
As far as my accusation concerning "ending" religion goes, Brian, you might be a fine young fellow, but one is known by the company one keeps. You lump yourself and Lally in with Dawkins, Hitchenson and Harris, authors of books with titles like:
The God Delusion
God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything
and The End of Faith: Religion, Terror and the Future of Reason
All three of them are actively campaigning for the end of religion on earth and its replacement by reason.
So, if you want to be taken as an innocent in actively destroying religion, I would like you to personally disavow these three authors views on the necessity of doing so.
As for me destroying active discourse here, I have never seen any need to take it easy on people who can't keep up with me.
However, since it is your blog, if a majority of your readership wishes me to leave, I will. If I am dominating the discourse to the detriment of others, it may as well be time for me to move out onto my own space.
As a matter of fact, I'll set up a voting arrangement and agree to abide by the results.
Tom
Why do we need to believe that these fantasies actually happened in order to find them instructive? I'm all for non-rational sources of understanding the world. Moral, emotional and aesthetic enlightenment are enormously important, and any complete person has to pay attention to those things in addition to logical and intellectual enlightenment. But what you're describing isn't non-rational, it's irrational. What religion says is, "Here is a series of events describing the organization of the universe and the way people should behave and why they should behave that way. Many aspects of this system of thought are outlandish on their face, and if they weren't presented to you within the specific category of what we call 'religion,' you and everybody else would call it absurd. But you should sacrifice your critical thinking skills in this one confined area and believe in things that are absurd even though there is no reason to do so." That's not adding a helpful, non-rational element to one's understanding of the world. It's irrational, plain and simple.
This, by the way, is the basic argument writers like Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris make. That is why I associate myself with them. Yes, they are campaigning for the end of religion, because they take a firm position on the issue, which is what I said I did in my previous post. There's nothing wrong with that, because the way they are trying to achieve this goal is through civil discourse. In other words, they're trying to destroy religion the same way you try to destroy government: persuading people that it's a bad thing.
More specifically, I haven't read Dawkins' book, so I won't comment on him. I have read Hitchens' book and other writings, and seen him on TV, and I will concede that he, as a person, is a self-important blowhard. He is incredibly rude in debate and seems to be closed to any perspective that isn't his own. He is inclined to hyperbole and ranting. Those are bad things, and I freely criticize him for it. I have read things by Harris, and in my view, he has never failed to argue a point in bad faith or seemed in any way closed to reasoned, civil discourse. So...that's my perspective on them.
I also want to revise my previous comments about my participation here. You're not the only reason I don't post much any more. This blog has evolved in a way I'm not entirely happy with, which is fine - I don't own it and I don't claim any right to dictate what goes on within it. You ARE a part of that evolution, but you are not the only part. Not to mention, I'm in law school now and just don't have as much time as I used to. In any case, whether I created it or not, if I don't like it, I should be the one to extricate myself, and I have done so to the degree I feel happiest with. It's not an enormous disappointment to me, and it's not something I'm torn up about. Participate to whatever degree you want.
I'll mark that down as a "stay" vote, Brian, thanks.
Ok, I've got a question for you. If you were presented with undeniable, incontrovertible evidence that the survival of humanity in a near-paradisical state was more likely if they followed irrational beliefs like religion, would you still oppose those beliefs being disseminated?
If you say yes, then there is nothing that I can say to convert you to my way of thinking because you are acting solely on faith, not reason. After all, what could be more rational or reasonable than the survival of our species? It would seem that too great an attachment to the concept of rationality would, in this case, ultimately be the epitome of irrationality.
If you say no, then I can move on and continue to attempt to prove to you that such a future is, indeed, possible using the philosophical tools that our ancestors have granted to us.
Tom
"I think that at the end of an honest debate on this issue, people should agree with me. I argue in good faith the entire time, however, and am completely open to the possibility of an argument that will change my mind."
Brian, I cannot tell you how many times Tom has used these (almost)exact words in arguments with me. Maybe you guys are too much alike to get along.
"Ok, I've got a question for you. If you were presented with undeniable, incontrovertible evidence that the survival of humanity in a near-paradisical state was more likely if they followed irrational beliefs like religion, would you still oppose those beliefs being disseminated?"
We've had religion for millenia and we're no nearer to paradise than we were at the beginning. In fact, if you read 19th century Romantic literature, we're further from paradise than we've ever been with each generation we spend not on some tropical island with hot women wearing nothing (not that I disagree with the concept) we get further still. The problem with this argument is that there is no undeniable, incontrovertible evidence and there never will be. It's all speculation on your part and many of us maintain a healthy skepticism.
Religion is like any other paradigm. It is pervasive and informs a person's views on pretty much everything in their life. It's not particularly unique in that respect and what you seem to be shooting for with all of your blustering about the greatness of religion is that people need a foundational philosophy.
Religion is generally distinguished as involving the belief in the supernatural and adherence to a predefined set of beliefs (what most consider "organized" religion). Life philosophy is a little more fungible and open-ended. I tend to put Buddhism down more in the life philosophy camp than the religion camp even though it is technically a religion because the question of the supernatural doesn't really enter the equation in most instances.
Part of the problem that many people, myself included, have with religion is the adherence to tradition in the face of a reality that is quite inconsistent with the traditions. The other problem with religion is the general claim of exclusive truth. Most religions claim that they are the only source of truth, light, and goodness. It's quite impossible for them to all be right.
In order to adequately respect all religions, state's and leadership HAVE to be secular to a point. They don't have to be atheists, but they can't hold absolutist viewpoints either because if everyone not in their special club is wrong then things get ugly. The dawning of the 21st century is seeing a revival of religious fundamentalism and the 21st century may well see religious purges and widespread conflict both between religious groups and between religious groups and their secular governments. This is already occurring in the Middle East, it's already happening in a different form here in the U.S. It's not religious people against the god-forsaken atheists, it's religious people against other religious people who are more tolerant of differing viewpoints.
Just off the top of my head some recent and continuing conflicts that have a substantial religious element: Darfur, Iraq (both the invasion and the civil war), Afghanistan, Kashmir, the Indian partition, Somalia's partition from Ethiopia. Doubtless you'll talk about how much worse they'd be without religion. Maybe. It's not provable. Here's my future prediction: Warfare in the 21st century will largely be along religious lines.