Faith-based missiles

[Winston Blake]

Although he is constantly referring to "Religion", I believe he is really talking about a greater category of things, of which Religion is only one item. It's not only the promise of an afterlife that has the effect of de-valuing one's own and other people's life, it's generally "ideas that are greater than oneself", or Ideologies.

Have you thought about this quantitatively? Although both religion and other ideologies make people willing to suffer and sacrifice their lives, religion gives a much greater incentive (perfect paradise, forever!) and influences many more people.

So it's correct to say that reducing the amount of paradise afterlife belief would reduce the number and severity of martyrs, regardless of the fact that a handful of non-religious exceptions can be found. Wouldn't you say that a world with only people like the 'Black Tigers' (I had never heard of them) would be safer than our world which has all those, plus the millions and millions of hardcore fundamentalists worldwide?

[Darth Wong]

I have never liked this "A does not cause X because C can also cause X" logic, nor am I fond of its inevitable follow-up, "you can't blame A for X because C can also cause X". It's like saying that lung cancer wouldn't be decreased if cigarettes disappeared tomorrow, because there are other things which can cause lung cancer.

[Medic]

That must be the pinnacly of your Dishonesty. It clearly says "cultish" devotion to a person. - And that's supposed to make it a religion? So the "cultish" devotion of Bush followers make them a religion, too?

That in a way exactly makes the point of the argument that I am trying to make. Even if you forbid specific religions, people will still come up with their own cultish following of certain ideas and use that as an excuse to atrocities. The problem is in the brain, not in the religions.

I have never liked this "A does not cause X because C can also cause X" logic, nor am I fond of its inevitable follow-up, "you can't blame A for X because C can also cause X". It's like saying that lung cancer wouldn't be decreased if cigarettes disappeared tomorrow, because there are other things which can cause lung cancer.

I'd say it's unfair inasmuch as how hard one pushes it. RUSerious takes it too far in declaring outright religion isn't the problem, instead of the more rataional belief that it is still A problem, if not the only.

On the other hand, a conveniently referenced source such as religios script is far more tangible than vague evidence that humans would still go elsewhere for crazy beliefs. Furthmore, injecting quasi-religion instead STILL resorts to systems based on inherent irrationality.

To an extent though it is true that there's more than one road to hell, but look at Europe -- it's had it's share of rampant religiosity AND nationalism and has the Crusades and 2 World Wars to show for it. It's a much more pleasant society because of the advance of reason and tolerance.

Pride, even in nationality, isn't immoral or unethical in anyway unless it is a basis for superiority without evidence. In this sense, I'd say nationalism has many of the same vices as everything negative observed so far and I'd have to agree that the nature of a belief and arbitrary goals are not desirable, as Wong noted.

That these last 2 observations coincide with religions, cults and irrational beliefs is the POINT RUSerious. I can see your argument to a point -- the cutoff is saying religion isn't an object because something else is. I still contend religions the greater one.

[mr friendly guy]

I'd say it's unfair inasmuch as how hard one pushes it. RUSerious takes it too far in declaring outright religion isn't the problem, instead of the more rataional belief that it is still A problem, if not the only.

The other argument is also that even if religion was the problem, some other problem will magically (and with no evidence to back it up) will replace religion. It almost becomes classical this apologist line.

RU Serious isn't the only person here to use this type of argument here, and I suspect he won't be the last. The thing is, others who used this argument have conceded the point so there is no need to drag them into it. I am curious as to whether RU serious do the same.

[R. U. Serious]

After taking a day to think through it, and especially with the posts of Darth Wong and _some_ of the points of mr. friendly guy which used honest (and correct) arguments, rather than distort what I was saying (like Bush), I am partly changing my position (conceding), due to parts of my previous position being indefensible (i.e. wrong).

First let me make clear that it was not my intention to defend religion, or to free it from the "accusation" of Dawkins. If you read my very first posts, I say:

Although he is constantly referring to "Religion", I believe he is really talking about a greater category of things, of which Religion is only one item.

I never said that religions do not exhibit such traits, I said that it is not merely religions that eexhibit that trait, but that it is Ideologies as well,

So there I was not saying we should ignore what religions have "contributed" to the existing and past problems of the world, I was however saying (well, not saying explicitly, but that was my line of thought) that if we look one step further maybe we can better find the source of the problem, the source that is responsible for religion and for religious or cultish behaviour, which is not exclusive to religion, but also to Nationalism and (some) other Ideologies when taken to the extreme. I mean, I guess everybody in this thread will probably hold the position that religion was not created by god, but by man. It was hugely "successful" (from a memetic POV), so there is probably something inherent in humans that makes them behave in certain ways. If it hadn't been "real" Reliions with Deities, it would have been cultish-like following of other similar Ideologies that have the potential for the same violence.

Apparently whenever I say that it may be helpful to look at the source of the problem of religions, to also understand "cultish" behaviour in non-religious (but "religion-like) scenarios, this is taken to mean that I am defending Religion. That was not my intention (although I have to concede that I did slip into that terrority with a few statements, but that happened after I was accused of doing it).

Now as said above, here are the points I concede:

I would argue that "extremism" can be intrinsically limited by the nature of what they believe, so it is the nature of the belief rather than the extremism of the belief which is most important because there will always be a spectrum of intensity of belief; the trick is to change the limits of that spectrum. [snip - example - snip]

That is true. And in that respect not every Ideology is the same. I thought that became clear (by implication), when I said that there would never be such a thing as a humanist suicide attacker. So not all Ideologies are prone to extremism in the same way, or rather extremism in them will lead to vastly different outcomes (with some non-violent, some violent, and some very violent). And the abrahmaic religions are on the "top" of such a scale of a worst thinkable outcome, due to the language and explicit statements that are contained at their base.

As I said, it's very hard to conclusively talk about a non-existant hypothetical world. I previously claimed we would have had the same problems if religion had not existed. I am conceding that statement. Instead I would fall back on the position that if religion had been replaced by Ideologies that fare similar on the above scale, we would have the same problems, and if religions had been replaced by ideologies that are lesser on that scale (or no Ideologies at all), there would have been less problems. However two things I note: 1) I am saying "would", because as the position is now described, it's probably (almost?) a truism and isn't very helpful. and 2) I believe that due to human nature it is highly likely if it had not been actual religions (with Deities and supernatural aspects) that arose back in the day, it would have been something very similar in it's nature and potential for violence on the above scale.

The USSR was (or, rather, became) quasi-religious. If a fucking Egyptic pyramid with a dead body of a leader and slogans like "Great Stalin Lives Forever" don't make it very fucking clear for you that the USSR had been taken over by a cult of definetely religious nature.

That's the point I am trying to make. Take away real deities and real religions, and the same people will cling to Ersatz-Religion. Now there must be a reason for that. And I find that to be the more interesting aspect.

Of course a lot depends on how those religions would have "magically" disappeared/ could be made to disappear today, obviously trying to squelch the early religions with force did not work out very well. CaptJodan mentions education, which is a very good (and obvious) point. The situation even in the US though shows, that it's not an easy process and that there still is resistance. Yet that approach is leaps and bounds above any sort of violence used to settle the matter - and not only that, but education is also an "armor" against fallin for other cultish/religion-like behaviour.

mr friendly guy made a reference to the big majority of religious people that are non-violent, or "non-violent DESPITE their religion". That's an important group to look at with respect to Dawkins statement. Now, when you try to campaign on the issue that religion is inherently evil and violent (even while agreeing that luckily most people following it manage to live relatively decently and non-violent), you are getting into a position that is very undesirable from a diplomatic POV. Religion to many people (even when they are only superficially practicing it) is part of their history and identity, and people become rather touchy on the subject. You'll certainly not get them to concede, that yes, it'll probably be better to completely distance theirselves from it - that would be just as successful as trying to get them to drop their language and start using another language (of course those are not the same things, but people would probably react similarly to those two requests). I hope that explains why I thought that expanding the problem space is helpful/interesting.

[R. U. Serious]

I have never liked this "A does not cause X because C can also cause X" logic, nor am I fond of its inevitable follow-up, "you can't blame A for X because C can also cause X".

I did not say that. I explicitly said (repeatedly) that Religion is a subset of the problematic Ideologies. So what I did say was: "A causes X, yes, but A belongs to group C, and group C causes X. So it's maybe helpful to look at C (which contains A) to talk about the problem.

[Winston Blake]

I have never liked this "A does not cause X because C can also cause X" logic, nor am I fond of its inevitable follow-up, "you can't blame A for X because C can also cause X".

I did not say that. I explicitly said (repeatedly) that Religion is a subset of the problematic Ideologies. So what I did say was: "A causes X, yes, but A belongs to group C, and group C causes X. So it's maybe helpful to look at C (which contains A) to talk about the problem.

In this case, A has the single biggest effect out of everything else in group C, so changing A has the most effect on changing X. Knowing that they'll live forever in heaven can give people an enormous amount of willpower, but we're not saying 'any religious person is a suicide bomber just waiting to happen'. Do you agree that significantly reducing the number of people who believe in a paradise afterlife would significantly reduce the number of people willing to martyr themselves?

To say "pinning this behaviour only on religion is missing the bigger picture" is like saying "pinning lung cancer only on cigarettes is missing the bigger picture". Here's the thing, cigarettes don't have to the only cause of lung cancer to be the biggest cause of it. Sure, other things can cause lung cancer, like inhaling radon gas. But that doesn't mean it's wrong to say that without cigarettes, the occurance of lung cancer would be greatly reduced.

[K. A. Pital]

Instead I would fall back on the position that if religion had been replaced by Ideologies that fare similar on the above scale, we would have the same problems, and if religions had been replaced by ideologies that are lesser on that scale (or no Ideologies at all), there would have been less problems.

Well then all and good. Until there is a certainity that religion's dissapearance can cause negative consequences, you can't really argue positively for it's protection, you know. You can only say "if religion gets replaced by equivalent phenomena", but you can't be certain that it will be. More below on that:

Take away real deities and real religions, and the same people will cling to Ersatz-Religion.

This is not always true. And in fact it's amazing how Russia underwent a transformation from an almost 100% religious society usurped by the Church and the "Holy Tsar" for centuries to a secular and relatively democratic country in a mere 70 years. Of course, this was a violent assault on religion, which was a reaction to hundreds of years of religious domination - but it has achieved remarkable goals - even with the downfall of the quasi-religious personality cults and the communist ideology itself, Russia remains a quite secular nation - above, say, the US, and many other religious countries, like, say Islamic nations. That even taking into account the resurgence of religion.

I explicitly said (repeatedly) that Religion is a subset of the problematic Ideologies. So what I did say was: "A causes X, yes, but A belongs to group C, and group C causes X. So it's maybe helpful to look at C (which contains A) to talk about the problem.

What we have seen so far is that group "C" which you refer to generally contains religions and lesser cults, or cultic ideologies if we may use the term. So yes, there are problematic ideologies. When do they become problematic? At a point where they take on explicitly religious, cultic forms. Until an ideology turns into a cult, it cannot exhibit such traits as irrational belief, devotion and worship.

[R. U. Serious]

Do you agree that significantly reducing the number of people who believe in a paradise afterlife would significantly reduce the number of people willing to martyr themselves?

To be honest, no, I do do not believe that be very significant (measurable maybe, but not significant with regards to the actual problem). And I've answered that argument on the page before. I think that the importance of the promised afterlife for a wanna-be martyrer is overstated, and the economist article I linked to (which, granted, is not an authority on the subject) has the title: "Terrorists have embraced suicide attacks mainly for their advantages in this world, rather than their rewards in the next." which nicely fits my pre-conceived opinions (So no, I cannot prove it).

To say "pinning this behaviour only on religion is missing the bigger picture" is like saying "pinning lung cancer only on cigarettes is missing the bigger picture". Here's the thing, cigarettes don't have to the only cause of lung cancer to be the biggest cause of it. Sure, other things can cause lung cancer, like inhaling radon gas. But that doesn't mean it's wrong to say that without cigarettes, the occurance of lung cancer would be greatly reduced.

This analogy fails, because Radeon gas does not have the same availability. More like: outlawing the cigarette brands of the Marlborro company for their effects on the lung, while giving all other cigarette companies a pass, "because we have to start somewhere and most people smoke Marlborro, Marlborro Light, Marlborro Mint". Dangerous religions and cultish Ideologies are nothing but different brands of the same thing (IMO). Take away one brand, and the people may well end up with another.

Take away real deities and real religions, and the same people will cling to Ersatz-Religion.

This is not always true. And in fact it's amazing how Russia underwent a transformation from an almost 100% religious society usurped by the Church and the "Holy Tsar" for centuries to a secular and relatively democratic country in a mere 70 years. Of course, this was a violent assault on religion, which was a reaction to hundreds of years of religious domination - but it has achieved remarkable goals - even with the downfall of the quasi-religious personality cults and the communist ideology itself, Russia remains a quite secular nation - above, say, the US, and many other religious countries, like, say Islamic nations. That even taking into account the resurgence of religion.

You can't have it both ways, you know, you just said yourself that they did have a strong personality cult "with pyramids" etc. Also the End of the USSR is only very few years away. It's IMHO too early to conclusively say anything. People haven't magically become less gullible or smarter or better enarmored to deal with new cultish groups. AFAIK the church has been making a very strong comeback, and there is also cases of smaller cults, that - given time - may well grow to considerable sizes.

However I am not saying that a society with the absence of religion would not be sustainable, it certainly would, I simply think it has to be achieved via different means (like a solid, basic scientific education and lots of time for slow change). I am sure that someone who has out of a personal decision, after reading and learning much about the history of cults and religions conciously decided against religion will hardly become a victim of the "next messiah". Again, declaring all religions to be the enemy or "the loaded gun" does not help at all, if anything, it's more likely to get those people to "rally behind their leader, because they are being attacked".

[R. U. Serious]

Until there is a certainity that religion's dissapearance can cause negative consequences, you can't really argue positively for it's protection, you know.

Show me, where I have positively argued "for religion's protection".

I am saying that it may be more helpful to approach the problem from a different angle, and solve it in such a way, that it won't come back with a different brand tacked on it.

[K. A. Pital]

You can't have it both ways, you know, you just said yourself that they did have a strong personality cult "with pyramids" etc.

Did. It was introduced by a failed cleric (JVS) and gradually aquired power, and later dissolved again after the death of it's main architect. Moreover, the more educated the people became - and the USSR aimed at making people educated - the cult planted the seeds of it's own destruction. People became educated and eventually dismantled the cult.

Do you see how different that is from Christianity, which sustains itself for hundreds of years literally?

Also the End of the USSR is only very few years away.

The end of the cult, however, stretches far earlier, with the downfall of Brezhnew most cultic belief elements were dying out in public conscience, and by 1985 the USSR was a modest secular authocracy.

People haven't magically become less gullible or smarter or better enarmored to deal with new cultish groups.

Magically - no. But due to strong education, especially in things concerning cosmology, physics, math, biology, history of religion - the population became better educated and more aware.

It's true that religion makes a strong comeback - however, this is a far cry from the times of 1905-1917, where 70% of the population were religious illiterate peasants who believed in the infallibility of the Bible and only 1800 engineers per year graduated in the whole of Russia! And almost 100% of Russia's population was Othrodox, including the Tsar, whereas there were also decrees prohibiting anti-religions actions, and religion had heavy ties with the state and the supreme ruler himself.

So how do we see progress? Is it not enough that modern Russia has, IIRC, a ~10-15% God-belief compared to, say, the US with it's stunning 70-80%? That in a country where a century ago exactly I believe the result would give out 99% - or no less than 70%, for sure.

I simply think it has to be achieved via different means (like a solid, basic scientific education and lots of time for slow change)

I think that it's a better strategy, too. Solid, quality education is, in my view, what brings cults down and allows science and rationality to flourish. This is the basis of eventually getting rid of cults.