Dawkins' Documentary: Root of all evil

[King Kong]

Not entirely on faith. Saying don't murder is in there for fairly elementary reasons, for instance. I'd go as far as to say most things religions teach us to do in the mortal realm can be justified in a secular sense, too.

True. Religion is created by our minds, so our instinctual feelings for right and wrong (which Dawkins explores in the show) should feature prominently. The problem is that it's so difficult to change beliefs that have previously been beneficial, but are now destructive to society. This is because of religion's unique power over people's minds.

Yes yes, but the main reason I brought that up was to say that the Almighty no more works as a greater motivator for doing bad than he does good.

You'd have to decide whether people were basically good or basically evil, since the idea of God would strongly motivate people to do anything, and the average effect would be dependent on whether more people wanted to do evil things or good things.

Believe me when I say I am positively shitting myself at the prospect of starting one of these debates on a forum like SDN.

I honestly don't think either of us can conclude a thing, without ourselves becoming gods and testing our pet theories.

I agree. All in all, it doesn't look like we can get anywhere with this debate. We'll just end up philosophizing about exactly where evil comes from, without the ability to produce supporting evidence.

So I'll just state my position and be done with it: While religion is not inherently evil, it promotes obedience through faith and therefore can be used to promote and intensify any conceivable human behavior, which (due to humanity's basic failings) leads to a larger amount of evil in the world because of the unusual effectiveness of religion as a motivator for human behavior.

In other words, if there was no more religion, people would lose their most effective motivation to do evil acts (regardless of religion's ability to promote good deeds), so the net result would be positive.

Back on topic now: An interesting documentary.

[Lord Woodlouse]

True. Religion is created by our minds, so our instinctual feelings for right and wrong (which Dawkins explores in the show) should feature prominently. The problem is that it's so difficult to change beliefs that have previously been beneficial, but are now destructive to society. This is because of religion's unique power over people's minds.

Difficult to change, certainly. But not impossible. Conservative social inertia is well documented in politics as well as religion.

You'd have to decide whether people were basically good or basically evil, since the idea of God would strongly motivate people to do anything, and the average effect would be dependent on whether more people wanted to do evil things or good things.

A difficult thing to answer. I would guess that most people want to do good things but find it easier to do bad things. This would be a gross generalisation, and a complete guess, on my part though.

I agree. All in all, it doesn't look like we can get anywhere with this debate. We'll just end up philosophizing about exactly where evil comes from, without the ability to produce supporting evidence.

So I'll just state my position and be done with it: While religion is not inherently evil, it promotes obedience through faith and therefore can be used to promote and intensify any conceivable human behavior, which (due to humanity's basic failings) leads to a larger amount of evil in the world because of the unusual effectiveness of religion as a motivator for human behavior.

In other words, if there was no more religion, people would lose their most effective motivation to do evil acts (regardless of religion's ability to promote good deeds), so the net result would be positive.

*nods* To sum up, and basically the thing we pretty much disagree on, is that I think secular organisations and beliefs are capable of the same things as religion in the right conditions. I don't know just HOW much they are, if they could equal religion as it stands, fall just short, exceed it or come no where close. But I suspect it would be not far from the same, without that competition.

At the end of the day it is the conditions of society itself which I think dictate the "good" and "evil" inherent within, and I think we'll formulate systems to back up that good or bad (as we see it), and to reinforce many of our instinctive prejudices, even in the absense of religion.

[Darth Wong]

True, but as I say I'm sure some other systems of thought could easily substitute for the process in the absense of religion.

That does not mean this other system would have to suffer from the same flaws. Scripture-based religion's single biggest problem is its absolute resistance to modification and improvement over time. Most other systems of thought are subject to criticism and continual improvement over time.

To a degree. But then it would erroneous to say religions are incapable of modification and change. Look at the Anglican church tearing itself up at the moment over their doctrine with regard homosexuals, for instance.

Over the last 500 years, how many changes has the Anglican church made to its Bible?

[Lord Woodlouse]

Over the last 500 years, how many changes has the Anglican church made to its Bible?

None*. But they have changed their interpretation.

The written in stone system of rules most certainly makes it harder to change a religion, I'm certainly not denying that, only saying it does not make it impossible. I would probably agree that for the most part religion is the slowest to change, however.

(* Though there is a slight difference in translation, I should think. I am not myself Anglican).

[mr friendly guy]

If religion mystically disapeared I'm almost certain some philosophy or political idealogy would fill in the gaps. More often than not these things are used more as excuses for a lack of thought, or for a reason to do something nasty. Things they pretty much wanted to do anyway.

*nods* To sum up, and basically the thing we pretty much disagree on, is that I think secular organisations and beliefs are capable of the same things as religion in the right conditions. I don't know just HOW much they are, if they could equal religion as it stands, fall just short, exceed it or come no where close. But I suspect it would be not far from the same, without that competition.

So your argument essentially comes down to if religion didn't do these things, some other belief system will, where I don't know what this other belief system is, but strangely I can suspect it would have almost the same effect.

Riiiiight.

[K. A. Pital]

The true core of evil is, I'd say, the absense of wealth or resources. When one is poor one is more desperate, and one will be quicker to accept the blame of a an innocent party. The more desperate you are, the more flimsy the excuse you'll need or use.

That's wrong. Wealth is not preventing evil. In fact, in many ways supreme wealth is encouraging evil. The problem is disparity. A poor person is certainly more desperate; however, he's so limited in resources that the maximum of his desperation is an individual terrorist act; respective maximums of wealthy bastards "desperation" are things like Inquisition or World Wars. Especially Inquisition - or, if you want, Osama Bin Laden is the wealthy theist... The Church was extremely wealthy and resourceful during the times of Inquisition. And boy, did it prevent "evil"

The point of wealth preventing evil is wrong.

And more yet, "wealth" means an accumulation of resource with substantial disparity towards other members of the society (otherwise how do we define "wealth"?). Inequality and disparity produce injustice, which in turn produces yet more grievance and, in the end, acts that we could classify as "evil".

That said, absense of wealth cannot be the "root of all evil" because it's a consequence of many causes itself - historical, economical, political, etc.

[Lord Woodlouse]

If religion mystically disapeared I'm almost certain some philosophy or political idealogy would fill in the gaps. More often than not these things are used more as excuses for a lack of thought, or for a reason to do something nasty. Things they pretty much wanted to do anyway.

*nods* To sum up, and basically the thing we pretty much disagree on, is that I think secular organisations and beliefs are capable of the same things as religion in the right conditions. I don't know just HOW much they are, if they could equal religion as it stands, fall just short, exceed it or come no where close. But I suspect it would be not far from the same, without that competition.

So your argument essentially comes down to if religion didn't do these things, some other belief system will, where I don't know what this other belief system is, but strangely I can suspect it would have almost the same effect.

Riiiiight.

Or political idealogy or philosophy or even business corporation. *shrug*

People can take secular ideas on faith, too. That's exactly what communism is (and this is easily the strongest example). We have communist individuals in western society who follow the thing with the same rigid faith (even in the absense of evidence) one would expect from a "fundy" Christian.

Would secular organisations work exactly the same? Unlikely. But I do feel quite strongly that they'd rise to fill a gap that human society demands. A lot of people like others to do the thinking for them, and give them a basic life's purpose.

[Lord Woodlouse]

The true core of evil is, I'd say, the absense of wealth or resources. When one is poor one is more desperate, and one will be quicker to accept the blame of a an innocent party. The more desperate you are, the more flimsy the excuse you'll need or use.

That's wrong. Wealth is not preventing evil. In fact, in many ways supreme wealth is encouraging evil. The problem is disparity. A poor person is certainly more desperate; however, he's so limited in resources that the maximum of his desperation is an individual terrorist act; respective maximums of wealthy bastards "desperation" are things like Inquisition or World Wars. Especially Inquisition - or, if you want, Osama Bin Laden is the wealthy theist... The Church was extremely wealthy and resourceful during the times of Inquisition. And boy, did it prevent "evil"

The point of wealth preventing evil is wrong.

And more yet, "wealth" means an accumulation of resource with substantial disparity towards other members of the society (otherwise how do we define "wealth"?). Inequality and disparity produce injustice, which in turn produces yet more grievance and, in the end, acts that we could classify as "evil".

That said, absense of wealth cannot be the "root of all evil" because it's a consequence of many causes itself - historical, economical, political, etc.

Fair enough. It was an overly simple line of mine which I feel covers a general truth.

I do believe the distrubution of wealth, at least, is critical to what makes people "good" and "bad". There are naturally exceptions to this case, of course. But as a general principle I feel having a little excess of wealth gives people the luxury to be good, and having a need for things can often lead to the perceived necesity for bad.

[mr friendly guy]

So your argument essentially comes down to if religion didn't do these things, some other belief system will, where I don't know what this other belief system is, but strangely I can suspect it would have almost the same effect.

Riiiiight.

Or political idealogy or philosophy or even business corporation. *shrug*

You seem to miss the point, that if you don't know what this belief system is, how do you then argue that such a belief system will replace religion. You are essentially arguing an unknown thing will replace religion.

People can take secular ideas on faith, too. That's exactly what communism is (and this is easily the strongest example). We have communist individuals in western society who follow the thing with the same rigid faith (even in the absense of evidence) one would expect from a "fundy" Christian.

You miss the point. I am not disputing your premise. I am disputing your piss poor logic.

Let me show you

Premise one - Religion exists which its adherents take on faith=>true
Premise two - Non religious philosophies exist which its adherents take on faith=> true

"Logical argument" - Therefore if religion disappears, non religious philosophies will replace it => non sequitar with no supporting evidence.

Let me put it another way using the same logic

Premise one - a virus known as the flu exists which affects x number of people per year.
Premise two - other viruses exists which also affects y number of people

If the flu was cured, the other viruses would start to affect more people by the value of close to x simply because it magically must replace the void left by curing the flu.

Would secular organisations work exactly the same? Unlikely. But I do feel quite strongly that they'd rise to fill a gap that human society demands.

In other words your entire position is summed up by "I feel it to be so". Tell me, why do you think this will wash here? Especially considering Captain Chewbacca used a similar argument in another thread which Darth Wong ripped apart.

A lot of people like others to do the thinking for them, and give them a basic life's purpose.

And it never occurred that there are other reasons why people are religious because they want people to do the thinking for them. You know like peer pressure and indoctrination which makes them want others to think for them as opposed to being that way because of their nature.

[Lord Woodlouse]

You seem to miss the point, that if you don't know what this belief system is, how do you then argue that such a belief system will replace religion. You are essentially arguing an unknown thing will replace religion.

I do so on the premise that most religion exists, at least in the organised form it tends to have in our society, because of a certain level of demand (and yes, yes, I know a certain and probably large amount of that demand is essentially self-replicating, but I don't think enough does to invalidate what I am saying...). If religion disapeared overnight (which is a ridiculous idea in the first place, this whole element of debate is almost purely hypothetical) I think other forces would work to take advantage of that demand either deliberately (essentially by con-men working to take advantage) or through simple social inertia (the herdminded perhaps transfering their dedication to some other unit, and perhaps that unit working to take advantage of the fact). In order to see if they would take advantage of that demand you look at secular forces and see if they are capable of working on a similar premise. My belief is that they are.

I don't know just HOW much they would replicate the same place, I don't even know with any certainty if they would at all, but I don't find it implausible in the least. If people CAN take advantage of an element of society it's my belief that, sooner or later, it will.

You miss the point. I am not disputing your premise. I am disputing your piss poor logic.

Let me show you

Premise one - Religion exists which its adherents take on faith=>true
Premise two - Non religious philosophies exist which its adherents take on faith=> true

"Logical argument" - Therefore if religion disappears, non religious philosophies will replace it => non sequitar with no supporting evidence.

Let me put it another way using the same logic

Premise one - a virus known as the flu exists which affects x number of people per year.
Premise two - other viruses exists which also affects y number of people

If the flu was cured, the other viruses would start to affect more people by the value of close to x simply because it magically must replace the void left by curing the flu.

That's a distortion of my argument, made overly simple and removing some of the statements I made implicit that make it more detailed and (I should hope) make more sense. Hopefully the above statement of mine makes this more clear for you.

In other words your entire position is summed up by "I feel it to be so". Tell me, why do you think this will wash here? Especially considering Captain Chewbacca used a similar argument in another thread which Darth Wong ripped apart.

A little bit more than that. So no. It's not something I believe with any certainity, and if anyone can pick holes in it big enough to invalidate it I'm more than willing to abandon it as a theory. I consider it at very least plausible, however.

And it never occurred that there are other reasons why people are religious because they want people to do the thinking for them. You know like peer pressure and indoctrination which makes them want others to think for them as opposed to being that way because of their nature.

Of course it has. I am speaking generally, and I have said as much in plain English on a few occasions. Exceptions, notable and often large exceptions, exist. I should think that is obvious.

That does not invalidate the statement you directly responded to. "A lot of people" in no way, shape or form is in any sense the same as "every follower of religion that exists".

[K. A. Pital]

I do so on the premise that most religion exists, at least in the organised form it tends to have in our society, because of a certain level of demand

However, this "demand" is just a historical consequence. For example, asian nations did not develop ultra-popular hateful and bigoted religions like Christianity and Islam, so it's certainly history-specific.

If religion disapeared overnight I think other forces would work to take advantage of that demand either deliberately

On that account, we have a controlled experiment. Xtianity was purged in my homeland, and _very_ successfully. Most of the people believe in evolution, only about a 3rd (maybe even less - many Russian religion polls are skewed) believe in a monotheistic God anyway.

look at secular forces and see if they are capable of working on a similar premise. My belief is that they are.

Can they? In a quasi-religious way - perhaps. In a non-religious way - NO.

Purging religion, obviously, will have negative consequences. However, if we'd discuss the ability to handwave religion away and substitute it with positive atheism, or, say, a general humanist belief in man and progress - hell, this is only a step forward from a dark age.

[Lord Woodlouse]

However, this "demand" is just a historical consequence. For example, asian nations did not develop ultra-popular hateful and bigoted religions like Christianity and Islam, so it's certainly history-specific.

A lot of that untapped potential went into, I think, dedication and essentially worship in the ruling class. Emperors of China and Japan have been essentially worshipped as gods, afterall. I would say a certain amount of that "herd desire" has gone into society as a whole.

I'm not saying Christian like religions are inevitable by any stretch.

On that account, we have a controlled experiment. Xtianity was purged in my homeland, and _very_ successfully. Most of the people believe in evolution, only about a 3rd (maybe even less - many Russian religion polls are skewed) believe in a monotheistic God anyway.

You substituted Christianity for essentially a new secular faith, communism (under the barrel of a gun). Now communism is gone religion is rising again.

Can they? In a quasi-religious way - perhaps. In a non-religious way - NO.

Purging religion, obviously, will have negative consequences. However, if we'd discuss the ability to handwave religion away and substitute it with positive atheism, or, say, a general humanist belief in man and progress - hell, this is only a step forward from a dark age.

I did not say substitute anything in it's place. Just leave humans essentially the same, but remove religion as an option. Secular organisations will form units that take advantage of prejudice, that organise likeminded thought, and essentially become new religions... just without the actual spiritual part. Religion is used in modern society largely (but not entirely), and that's because they were pretty much here first. Religion is essentially the first central government ancient civilization had, it's got a big foot in the door.

[mr friendly guy]

You seem to miss the point, that if you don't know what this belief system is, how do you then argue that such a belief system will replace religion. You are essentially arguing an unknown thing will replace religion.

I do so on the premise that most religion exists, at least in the organised form it tends to have in our society, because of a certain level of demand (and yes, yes, I know a certain and probably large amount of that demand is essentially self-replicating, but I don't think enough does to invalidate what I am saying...). If religion disapeared overnight (which is a ridiculous idea in the first place, this whole element of debate is almost purely hypothetical) I think other forces would work to take advantage of that demand either deliberately (essentially by con-men working to take advantage) or through simple social inertia (the herdminded perhaps transfering their dedication to some other unit, and perhaps that unit working to take advantage of the fact). In order to see if they would take advantage of that demand you look at secular forces and see if they are capable of working on a similar premise. My belief is that they are.

1. Don't look at me in regards to religion disappearing as a ridiculous idea. You were the one who suggested this hypothetical.

2. The demand would be for a totally different product, say communism is much different from religion. I don't doubt if the new belief system was very good at indoctrinating it could replace religion. What I disagree with is your claim that demand would automatically switch based on an intrinsic need to transfer allegiance to something else, especially something else which is very different.

3. The most important point (which was the purpose of my post which you replied to)

*nods* To sum up, and basically the thing we pretty much disagree on, is that I think secular organisations and beliefs are capable of the same things as religion in the right conditions. I don't know just HOW much they are, if they could equal religion as it stands, fall just short, exceed it or come no where close. But I suspect it would be not far from the same, without that competition.

Your reply to King Kong's statement about ability to do evil. In other words you think a new belief system will replace religion not just in terms of numbers but also in terms of similar actions as seen below.

My point is how can you justify that this new belief system would do the same thing when you don't even know what it advocates?

and again

If religion mystically disapeared I'm almost certain some philosophy or political idealogy would fill in the gaps. More often than not these things are used more as excuses for a lack of thought, or for a reason to do something nasty. Things they pretty much wanted to do anyway.

Ignoring for a moment the fact that the claim "it was something they wanted to do any way and the idealogy was just the excuse" is unsupported except by your say so, how would you be able to apply this line of reasoning to a new belief system if you don't even know what it advocates?

I don't know just HOW much they would replicate the same place, I don't even know with any certainty if they would at all, but I don't find it implausible in the least. If people CAN take advantage of an element of society it's my belief that, sooner or later, it will.

Again, I am not disputing that someone can take advantage through trickery and indoctrination, I am disputing people will switch allegiance based on an intrinsic demand to be allied to something.

And it never occurred that there are other reasons why people are religious because they want people to do the thinking for them. You know like peer pressure and indoctrination which makes them want others to think for them as opposed to being that way because of their nature.

Of course it has. I am speaking generally, and I have said as much in plain English on a few occasions. Exceptions, notable and often large exceptions, exist. I should think that is obvious.

That does not invalidate the statement you directly responded to. "A lot of people" in no way, shape or form is in any sense the same as "every follower of religion that exists".

No, but its obvious from previous statements that when you say "a lot" you mean most of the people who follow religion do so from intrinsic factors like herd mentality, and an intrinsic need to not think for themselves as opposed to indoctrination.

[K. A. Pital]

A lot of that untapped potential went into, I think, dedication and essentially worship in the ruling class. Emperors of China and Japan have been essentially worshipped as gods, afterall. I would say a certain amount of that "herd desire" has gone into society as a whole.

Worship of a human is fundamentally different.
1) Humans die, and change
2) Humans are, even the worst of them, more moral or equally moral than the claimed "god" of Xtianity or Islam
3) Humans make decisions based on their ratio, if they're not fundies - therefore, worshipping a non-religious person is a thousand times better than a rabidly religious one. A non-religious person may start wars or dictate his rule with an iron fist, but his actions and path are not set. A religion sets the path for actions of it's followers with it's doctrine.

You substituted Christianity for essentially a new secular faith, communism (under the barrel of a gun).

See above. That doesn't negate the fact that religion was successfully purged. Also, the reforms of Peter the Great which made the Church separate from the State had great effect and weakened the Church greatly; if not for that, Russia could have been a dark theocracy waaay into the future years.

Now communism is gone religion is rising again.

No. The problem is not that communism is "gone" - actually, "communism" as a form of belief is always there. The problem is that economic hardship caused many people to sway back to religious nutbars - actually, _still_ the effect of that purge is tremendous - a large amount of population has been born into atheism and still clings to it - without any quasi-religious background, just because their scientific education was strong and systematic. I am one of such people, actually.

Secular organisations will form units that take advantage of prejudice, that organise likeminded thought, and essentially become new religions... just without the actual spiritual part

The advantage of such turn of events is obvious - secular organisations are a LOT less rabid and not as rigid as churches. They evolve and change, and react a lot faster. Muslims have a 1500 yo history - did the nature of their rabid jihadist religion change? No, it didn't. If not for secularism, actually, very little liberalisation of religion would occur - because religion is based on the principle of sanctified doctrine, which means the doctrine cannot be changed, and those who change it are heretics... or infidels.

Religion is a very rigid mechanism of supressing people, and it has the longest history of opression - opressive "secular" (actually, most of the time they're quasi-religious) regimes are just a mere drop in the sea of Dark Ages - not "ages", but fucking centuries of opression.

Yes, religion is the first government - and sadly, it's also the worst one out there.

[Lord Woodlouse]

1. Don't look at me in regards to religion disappearing as a ridiculous idea. You were the one who suggested this hypothetical.

I aint. I mention that as an aside to highlight that virtually every element of this debate is going to be almost purely hypothetical. Objective and hard evidence for such a theory is going to be pretty thin on the ground as a consequence. The debate is essentially about potential human actions given a virtually impossible social condition. I've been very careful not to claim any kind of absolute truth in the debate for that very reason.

2. The demand would be for a totally different product, say communism is much different from religion. I don't doubt if the new belief system was very good at indoctrinating it could replace religion. What I disagree with is your claim that demand would automatically switch based on an intrinsic need to transfer allegiance to something else, especially something else which is very different.

Automatic is probably the wrong word, it would probably be a slow drift. Especially if everyone is instantly aware that they once believed a religion and know they no longer do. *shrug* My reason for beliving it might and probably would happen are largely based on the cynical belief that if it can, it will. Humans as a mass are noted for lumping into herd-like groups, and I think the loss of religion would take away something that fills a hole in a lot of people's desires. That's the whole reason I think religion has the hold it DOES in society. Something would need to fill that hole, I think.

Honestly, I've not thought about this a huge amount. It's a very basic concept that I think makes a degree of sense. Mostly because I tend to suspect society influences religion and politics more than the other way around. I tend to think society would invent something to replace the hole left from the disapearance of something it itself created. If you're challenging me to back this up with hard solid proof you have my concession gladly, I'm fundamentally incapable of getting you it without subjecting the universe to my own social experiment with my own omnipotence.

3. Your reply to King Kong's statement about ability to do evil. In other words you think a new belief system will replace religion not just in terms of numbers but also in terms of similar actions as seen below.

My point is how can you justify that this new belief system would do the same thing when you don't even know what it advocates?

Because it's my belief that the organisation would mold itself around the prejudices of the society, not the society molding it's prejudices around the prejudices of some randon organisation. I don't think it works that way. I don't think religion invented it's own prejudices, I think it took them from the societies that created them. They might amplify those predjudices, but I don't think they grab them from thin air.

I do doubt they would be exactly the same, but there would be fundamental similarities. I can certainly envisage a non-religious anti-homosexual movement, for instance.

and again

Ignoring for a moment the fact that the claim "it was something they wanted to do any way and the idealogy was just the excuse" is unsupported except by your say so, how would you be able to apply this line of reasoning to a new belief system if you don't even know what it advocates?

As above.

Again, I am not disputing that someone can take advantage through trickery and indoctrination, I am disputing people will switch allegiance based on an intrinsic demand to be allied to something.

*shrug* You might be right. I don't know.

But I've seen secular organisations which can use similar methods as religious ones, and I've seen before my eyes how easily some will join religious organisations. To me there's little practical difference. The way I see it a lot of our society, apart from religion, wants to do things like hate homosexuals (that changes with time, thankfully, with education) if religion was not acting as an excuse for that hate (and invariably it IS an excuse, few religious organisations advocate outright hate or physical violence) some other organisation would rise to fill the gap in demand.

People feel better about their predjudices if there are groups of people telling them it's good. This makes a demand which becomes essentially inevitable to be filled by someone.

No, but its obvious from previous statements that when you say "a lot" you mean most of the people who follow religion do so from intrinsic factors like herd mentality, and an intrinsic need to not think for themselves as opposed to indoctrination.

When I say "a lot" I honestly don't mean anything more specific than "a lot", because I don't have a clue what ratio exists on each side. I only know the amount that comes to religion for the reasons I highlight is "a lot".

[Lord Woodlouse]

Worship of a human is fundamentally different.
1) Humans die, and change
2) Humans are, even the worst of them, more moral or equally moral than the claimed "god" of Xtianity or Islam
3) Humans make decisions based on their ratio, if they're not fundies - therefore, worshipping a non-religious person is a thousand times better than a rabidly religious one. A non-religious person may start wars or dictate his rule with an iron fist, but his actions and path are not set. A religion sets the path for actions of it's followers with it's doctrine.

Please, Stas Bush, I am not saying the two systems are exactly the same. Of course there are fundamental differences, that's not my point, my point is that there are also fundamental similarities and that they deal with essentially the same demands in society. Judge the inherent merits of the systems all you like, they're not really the main crux of my argument.

The rabid nature of religious followers depends entirely on time, place and circumstance and is about as objectively noted as the rabid nature of politics. It reflects the society it represents, not the other way around.

...and as I've mentioned already, religions can change their doctrine. They change just as any other system, albeit slower.

See above. That doesn't negate the fact that religion was successfully purged. Also, the reforms of Peter the Great which made the Church separate from the State had great effect and weakened the Church greatly; if not for that, Russia could have been a dark theocracy waaay into the future years.

Of course it can be successfully purged. A man can be successfully told to take his clothes off too, with a gun against his head. That does not make it standard behavior as one would expect to flow naturally. In this debate I presume we're talkiing of society without draconian authoritarian measures to work as countermeasures.

No. The problem is not that communism is "gone" - actually, "communism" as a form of belief is always there. The problem is that economic hardship caused many people to sway back to religious nutbars - actually, _still_ the effect of that purge is tremendous - a large amount of population has been born into atheism and still clings to it - without any quasi-religious background, just because their scientific education was strong and systematic. I am one of such people, actually.

I'm damn sure economic hardship is a big, possibly the biggest, motivator. But I don't think the fact that religion is now no longer considered an enemy of the state is small beans, either. When I talk of communism being gone I talk of it as the state government, not as a floating concept.

Considering religion IS on the rise in Russia I hardly think it's a good example of a place where once you remove religion it's methods will remain gone, because that is obviously not the case. Let's check back in 50, 100 and 250 years to see exactly what the long term result is, eh?

The advantage of such turn of events is obvious - secular organisations are a LOT less rabid and not as rigid as churches. They evolve and change, and react a lot faster. Muslims have a 1500 yo history - did the nature of their rabid jihadist religion change? No, it didn't. If not for secularism, actually, very little liberalisation of religion would occur - because religion is based on the principle of sanctified doctrine, which means the doctrine cannot be changed, and those who change it are heretics... or infidels.

Less rabid? What's that, on average? As a generalisation? What's the average rabidity of a religious organision?

It varies all over the place, mate. The religious are most certainly capable of being rabid, but that applies to just about anyone. I live in the UK, we have a state religion here. The leader of that church is honestly about as rabid as a docile poodle.

Anything becomes as rabid as the social situations of the society dictate, as a whole.

Religion is a very rigid mechanism of supressing people, and it has the longest history of opression - opressive "secular" (actually, most of the time they're quasi-religious) regimes are just a mere drop in the sea of Dark Ages - not "ages", but fucking centuries of opression.

Yes, religion is the first government - and sadly, it's also the worst one out there.

Depends on your definition of oppression. Liberal democracy was hardly a common feature of the middle ages, afterall. Indeed for much of this era the church was the only organisation with the finances and manpower capable of maintaining and building on the knowledge that existed until the renaisance.

As I keep saying in a common theme with my argument, the social situations of society itself tend to dictate most of everything else. The middle ages are not dark because of religion, they are dark because the single monolithic government of the time had collapsed from internal corruption, economic collapse and barbarian invasion. It was chaos of a secular kind that brought the lot of the common man of the time so low, not invocations of god (though in MANY cases I have no doubt they did not help).

[Pint0 Xtreme]

One of the issues raised by the documentary that no Christian I've encountered has ever answered satisfactorily is how you distinguish parts that are allegorical and parts that are literal. On what basis do you use to pick and choose what you take in allegorically and what you take in literally? And for those who virtually take the entire Bible allegorically, why even call yourself a Christian? Despite the fact that no one's successfully argued for the rationality of believing in Christianity, I know there are a number of Christian members on this board and I would really like to know what their answers are.

[Lord Woodlouse]

One of the issues raised by the documentary that no Christian I've encountered has ever answered satisfactorily is how you distinguish parts that are allegorical and parts that are literal. On what basis do you use to pick and choose what you take in allegorically and what you take in literally? And for those who virtually take the entire Bible allegorically, why even call yourself a Christian? Despite the fact that no one's successfully argued for the rationality of believing in Christianity, I know there are a number of Christian members on this board and I would really like to know what their answers are.

Probably the biggest factor is historical context. Besides that is the obvious fact that much of it is a secondary source, and it written by humans with all the same (hell, with more) failings that we have. From which much is presumed to be metaphorical.

In a lot of ways the same problems exist when historians analyse a lot of historical written works. Looking at accounts by some Englishmen during the times of Viking raids in England, for instance, and you would think the apocalypse was upon us. Exageration played a huge part.

[K. A. Pital]

...and as I've mentioned already, religions can change their doctrine.

Under a press from secularism? When did they have any positive change on their own, without secular influence?

That does not make it standard behavior as one would expect to flow naturally.

That's not the point. The point is that if you purge religion once, the "return" to religion would be hindered greatly and perhaps stopped altogether. Thus if we, by handwavium, remove religion, it's resurgence would not only take time, but it will not be as strong as it was before.

Considering religion IS on the rise in Russia

The problem with the rise of religion is also in the fact that the Othrodox Church reaccumulated enormous monetary funds when returned much of what was taken in Soviet times. Thus it fuels with money the new rise of religion in Russia - this is a dangerous tendency, but if religion is vanished overnight, who would be there to accumulate resource? Push for illogical, religious agenda? It would take years for new religions to arise.

What's the average rabidity of a religious organision?

For a world monotheistic religion like the ones discussed? Very rabid, to put it simply. If it's not rabid, it's less religious, and vice versa. You can't adhere to intolerant, idiotic doctrines and be "less rabid" at the same time - the less rabid you are, the less fanatical you are about pursuing the idiocy that is contained in the major monotheistic religions, the less religious you are then.

but that applies to just about anyone

The percentage of "rabid" atheists in your country must be staggering to claim that.

Liberal democracy was hardly a common feature of the middle ages, afterall.

Neither was direct democracy. But aristocracy as a system, and you could argue that, was based on many "divine mandates", so religion could be also the McDaddy of authoritarism in the Middle Ages. Just as it was, and still is, a cause for slavery and racism.

Indeed for much of this era the church was the only organisation with the finances and manpower capable of maintaining and building on the knowledge that existed until the renaisance.

That's sort of wrong. They [Church] halted the progress. An alternative institution that would have enforced it (progress) could be better than the Church that conserved at least some knowledge - much was simply destroyed in religious zeal).

The middle ages are not dark because of religion, they are dark because the single monolithic government

Authoritarian governments which arose on religion, were based on and supported by religion, it's adepts and it's very concepts (divine mandate, non-rebellion preaching, suppression of social justice strife with promises of "future retribution/Heaven"). Religion is one of the major causes in the rise of authoritarianism, since it's a very handy tool to use if you need to claim that you are the uber-powerful ruler. Just as in Egypt, the priesthood had enthroned the Pharaoh with the mandate as "the Son of Ra".

Religion and opression go hand in hand, and vestiges of religion and it's methods of brainwashing and "faith-based blah blah", if they infiltrate secular structures, could also lead to pretty nasty consequence and the formation of quasi-religions.

[Lord Woodlouse]

Under a press from secularism? When did they have any positive change on their own, without secular influence?

Religion obviously does not exist in a vacuum, but the Anglican church most certainly is having the doctrinal dispute at the moment on account of internal pressure, not external.

As I've said more than once already religion will adapt with society at large, same as governments, the free media, corporations and all manner of other organisations do, also.

That's not the point. The point is that if you purge religion once, the "return" to religion would be hindered greatly and perhaps stopped altogether. Thus if we, by handwavium, remove religion, it's resurgence would not only take time, but it will not be as strong as it was before.

I say this depends almost entirely on the society itself you build in the aftermath. This stems back to my original point about wealth being far more important as a dictator of social conditions.

The problem with the rise of religion is also in the fact that the Othrodox Church reaccumulated enormous monetary funds when returned much of what was taken in Soviet times. Thus it fuels with money the new rise of religion in Russia - this is a dangerous tendency, but if religion is vanished overnight, who would be there to accumulate resource? Push for illogical, religious agenda? It would take years for new religions to arise.

That depends entirely on how strong the demand is, naturally.

For a world monotheistic religion like the ones discussed? Very rabid, to put it simply. If it's not rabid, it's less religious, and vice versa. You can't adhere to intolerant, idiotic doctrines and be "less rabid" at the same time - the less rabid you are, the less fanatical you are about pursuing the idiocy that is contained in the major monotheistic religions, the less religious you are then.

Actually you're the only one implicitly talking about monotheistic religions. I'm aiming to keep as general as possible.

...and your interpretation of "rabid" meaning "more religious" is purely that, your own interpretation. Some share it. Some don't. The church leaders of the nation I live in most certainly WOULD disagree with such a false premise.

The percentage of "rabid" atheists in your country must be staggering to claim that.

On the contrary, there's not an awful lot of "rabid" anything in my country. Our politicians are moderate, our religious leaders are moderate, our media is moderate and our people is moderate (hell, even our weather is moderate). That's because our society is reasonably successful at the moment. Most people earn a decent wage, most people are content. There's no calls for finger pointing, because there's not all that much to blame things on.

But the point is that athiests most certainly CAN be rabid about things that they feel are important (and hell, sometimes that thing that they feel is important is their strong disbelief in god). Rabid occurs predominantly in areas of neglect, and of need. Rabid is irrational, and no matter how rational the original premise rabid is what happens to ideas when they go through that crucible.

Neither was direct democracy. But aristocracy as a system, and you could argue that, was based on many "divine mandates", so religion could be also the McDaddy of authoritarism in the Middle Ages. Just as it was, and still is, a cause for slavery and racism.

*shrug* It was rather short of theocracy, though. The monarchies might have added god to their pomp and ceremony but that's about as far as they practically reached. To criticise it as the crux of their flaw is like criticising our legal system because they swear truths on the Bible, or the Office of the American President because he pledges his oath before "Almighty God". The system was still predominantly secular in practice.

That's sort of wrong. They [Church] halted the progress. An alternative institution that would have enforced it (progress) could be better than the Church that conserved at least some knowledge - much was simply destroyed in religious zeal).

No, the collapse of central government halted progress. The loss of infrastructure halted progress. We're talking about the collapse of civilization here, mate, and that collapse was most certainly NOT precipitated by the advance of a religious agenda.

The church funded the translatation, storage and study of the ancient knowledge from before the fall of Rome. It investigated many ideas. It fucked up big time a few times, sure, but for the most part the church kept knowledge safe where it would otherwise have been lost in the chaos following Rome's collapse. Postulating that some "alternative institution" (like what, mate? The Visigothic Institute for the Advancement of Science?) would have done far better is nothing short of assumption on your part.

Authoritarian governments which arose on religion, were based on and supported by religion, it's adepts and it's very concepts (divine mandate, non-rebellion preaching, suppression of social justice strife with promises of "future retribution/Heaven"). Religion is one of the major causes in the rise of authoritarianism, since it's a very handy tool to use if you need to claim that you are the uber-powerful ruler. Just as in Egypt, the priesthood had enthroned the Pharaoh with the mandate as "the Son of Ra".

Religion and opression go hand in hand, and vestiges of religion and it's methods of brainwashing and "faith-based blah blah", if they infiltrate secular structures, could also lead to pretty nasty consequence and the formation of quasi-religions.

Religion was what it was because of the conditions of the time. They did not MAKE those conditions, they were a symptom of them. That goes for the governments, too, which had less resources to call on, less manpower and fundamentally less infrastructure to advance on these basic properties.

They were dictorial and authoritarian first and foremost because they could get away with it. The reasons were mainly secular. They had support from the church (often), sure, but that support was very rarely decisive.

[K. A. Pital]

the Anglican church most certainly is having the doctrinal dispute at the moment on account of internal pressure, not external

"At the moment" means NOW? After hundreds of years of secular influence that continues to that day and even permeates most of religion today (all the humanism-tolerance blah blah)? Well, damn sure it would be...

I say this depends almost entirely on the society itself you build in the aftermath.

If level of wealth is equal - and there was nothing to suggest it would suddenly decline without religion - we have a non-religious society with same level of progress.

That depends entirely on how strong the demand is, naturally.

In today's world with powerful education, if the pushers of anachronistic religion vanished, the demand would decline. Philosophy instead of religion would rule supreme.

I'm aiming to keep as general as possible.

Keeping it "general" means that "religion" could be more of a philosophy. Not a cult-like worship, no "sacred texts". Thus the discussion loses meaning.

...and your interpretation of "rabid" meaning "more religious" is purely that, your own interpretation.

Really? Who is more religious, a person who adopted some secular morality because it seems to be "more adequate for today" and reinterpreted or even just threw away much or all of his "sacred text", or a person who devoutly follows almost every letter of that text (killing infidels in the process)? I'd say the latter is certainly more religious from a side observer POV, regardless of what the more liberal "believer" thinks of himself.

The monarchies might have added god to their pomp and ceremony but that's about as far as they practically reached.

On the contrary, the very first leaders rose to power on religious grounds and then slowly it was abandoned in favour of secularism.

We're talking about the collapse of civilization here, mate, and that collapse was most certainly NOT precipitated by the advance of a religious agenda.

"Collapse" of civilisation? As if the agenda played no part in that, eh?

is nothing short of assumption on your part.

A secular scientific or philosophical organisation would ahve MORE of a motive to save and advance knowledge. The Church had less, because it was not really it's goal,you know.

Religion was what it was because of the conditions of the time.

Because, shortly, there was not much secularism that could oppose it. We just disagree on that. Oh well.

[spikenigma]

thanks Rye, good stuff

nothing I could add that hasn't been said already...

[Guardsman Bass]

I think that, creepier than the minister and muslim near the beginnning in the first part, was the guy who advocated execution for adultery. It's almost like he's wearing a 'modern mask' over a more barbaric person.

[Max]

I watched it, but a very few parts I couldn't understand..but then I read the wiki entry on it and it all came together better. It was very interesting, I enjoyed it a lot. Is there anyway to save video's from youtube?

[Lord Woodlouse]

the Anglican church most certainly is having the doctrinal dispute at the moment on account of internal pressure, not external

"At the moment" means NOW? After hundreds of years of secular influence that continues to that day and even permeates most of religion today (all the humanism-tolerance blah blah)? Well, damn sure it would be...

I say this depends almost entirely on the society itself you build in the aftermath.

If level of wealth is equal - and there was nothing to suggest it would suddenly decline without religion - we have a non-religious society with same level of progress.

That depends entirely on how strong the demand is, naturally.

In today's world with powerful education, if the pushers of anachronistic religion vanished, the demand would decline. Philosophy instead of religion would rule supreme.

I'm aiming to keep as general as possible.

Keeping it "general" means that "religion" could be more of a philosophy. Not a cult-like worship, no "sacred texts". Thus the discussion loses meaning.

...and your interpretation of "rabid" meaning "more religious" is purely that, your own interpretation.

Really? Who is more religious, a person who adopted some secular morality because it seems to be "more adequate for today" and reinterpreted or even just threw away much or all of his "sacred text", or a person who devoutly follows almost every letter of that text (killing infidels in the process)? I'd say the latter is certainly more religious from a side observer POV, regardless of what the more liberal "believer" thinks of himself.

The monarchies might have added god to their pomp and ceremony but that's about as far as they practically reached.

On the contrary, the very first leaders rose to power on religious grounds and then slowly it was abandoned in favour of secularism.

We're talking about the collapse of civilization here, mate, and that collapse was most certainly NOT precipitated by the advance of a religious agenda.

"Collapse" of civilisation? As if the agenda played no part in that, eh?

is nothing short of assumption on your part.

A secular scientific or philosophical organisation would ahve MORE of a motive to save and advance knowledge. The Church had less, because it was not really it's goal,you know.

Religion was what it was because of the conditions of the time.

Because, shortly, there was not much secularism that could oppose it. We just disagree on that. Oh well.

Look, mate, I think I have drawn this debate far off topic and you yourself have driven my own divergence a little further still. I don't see the debate going anywhere so I propose we agree to disagree or, if that's unpalatable to you, I'll gladly concede the argument for a quiet life. I'm not really inclined to keep this to and fro style of debate going much longer.

Anyways, it's been interesting.