I think that religion (or belief in God) is adaptive in the sense that our brains have evolved to look for cause and effect and that we have evolved in at least a nominally hierarchical social structure. Where a cause is not obvious, we invent a cause-- God. And we naturally assume that we are subordinate to God. As our societies become more knowledgeable about the phsyical world, God gets pushed further and further into the background. We no longer need to invoke “God” to explain lightning, volcanoes or even life on earth. So, at some point you just say: Hey, is there even a reason to believe in God in the first place?
Maybe we should just say that God represents the unknown, or, better yet, the unknowable. I expect that the human mind is not capable of fully comprehending the universe, so God can be a placeholder for that which is ultimately beyond our understanding. But we’ll never really be at the limit of our knowledge, so what’s the point of even that defintion?
Religious differences are just one cultural difference. People have gone to war over all kinds of non-religious isues: usually some sort of economic or territorial dispute, or something as simple as race or blood-feuds. Religion certainly can lead to war and violence (or be the excuse that is used to gin up support for war or violence), but it isn’t a necessary ingredient.
I do of course agree with this. I was arguing against this statement:
You agree that religious people as a group have a large reason to make war and violence, which the atheist group don’t have. This would make them more violent overall, unless you have some reason that makes atheists catch up.
I think religion is rarely the actual reason for violence or war. Religion in Northern Ireland, for example, was a proxy for nationalistic, ethnic and economic clashes. It wouldn’t have made any difference if the two sides were the same religion (which they sort of were anyway-- both Christian).
My point about northern ireland was that its a way to differentiate between the groups. Without the religion, it would be much more difficult to know who to hate. So yes, it would make a large difference if both sides were the same religion. Also, the fact that they are almost the same religion does not seem to assuage the conflict. The same is true for the Sunni and the Shias. And the Croats and the Bosniaks.
I think I agree that religious differences are rarely the actual reason for violence or war, if you by that mean that it is not the major reason. However, I think it is still often a large reason.
Also, I will point out again that, correspondingly, you should point out conflicts were the actual reason is that the people are atheists. Here are some examples, where I think you can say that the violence is actually caused by religion:
I don’t think that anyone would dispute that religion has often been a cause for violence, or at least a proxy for tribal differences.
OTOH atheism may not cause wars, but it certainly doesn’t prevent them. Neither of the World Wars was a religion based conflict, and various communist regimes violently enforced atheism throughout the XXth century.
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pol_pot]
As far as I can tell, neither the religious nor the atheists have any kind of monopoly on violence.
Leadership ability, good ethics, tolerance, courage etc. are qualities I would rather see in government. Ideally they would also be classical scholars, poets, fabulous athletes and outstanding scientists, but I’ll settle for good ethics and nerves of steel.
I think what bothers me about Dawkins’ position, is this unproven certainty that universal atheism would somehow improve the world. Science has immeasurably improved our living conditions and knowledge of the universe, but has yet to prove that it has any applicability in prescribing social behavior, rituals, beliefs about purpose, morality etc. I believe it’s possible to be an atheist without being an intolerant elitist, and that people can live together despite our huge spectrum of strange beliefs.
I don’t think anyone would dispute that either. However, the fact that some atheists are violent, does not prove that atheists are equally violent as religious people.
I guess you could call his position “unproven”. But he does argue for his position, and does it well, I think. One of the reasons that we would be better off without it is the increase of violence. Another is the oppression in fundamentalist states.
About morality, I am curious about how you think religion is a good guideline for morality. Do you think the bible has good morals? Or do you think that the bible itself is bad, but priests are uniquely suited to deciding what moral values are good? Or something else?
Of course its possible to live together. I can also live peacefully together with a communist, or a person who likes rap music. That doesn’t mean I don’t wish those viewpoints were less widespread.
What are good ethics if not rational ethics (as opposed to religious ethics)? Would you really rather see an irrational courageous leader than a rational technocrat? Perhaps you meant only to add your adjectives to mine.
I’m afraid you’re understanding of the “troubles” in Norther Ireland is flawed. Religion was just the uniform the two sides wore in a disagreement that was more political than anything else, but that was exsacerbated by ethnic and economic issues. And you probably meant Croats and Serbs, since the Bosnians (not Bosniaks) are largely Muslim.
Yeah, compared to the piddly death tolls in the two world wars, this is where the real violence is.
Where? Again, this is usually ethnic, economic and geo-political in nature, not so much religious.
Yes, this is the one example where religion was a primary cause if not the primary cause.
True, but do you think there would be ethnic and economic issues if there were no religion? If Ireland were 100% Catholic, would there be the economic divide? Would Northern Ireland even have stayed in Great Britain? I’m not aware that there are significant ethnic differences involved. Take India/Pakistan as another example. Would the partition, and the resulting bloodshed, have happened if there were only one religion involved?
I’m not saying religion causes this, but it provides one more way of defining a group as the other and discriminating against them.
I was indeed thinking if the Croats and the Serbs.
I agree with the sentiment that the conflict is about other things and that the religion is the uniform. In fact I think this is what I said in the last post, in different words. I don’t think the uniform is unimportant though. Its a way to identify the enemy.
Hm, I am not really making myself clear it appears. I will again state what I am arguing against:
Since the world wars were caused by a mixture of atheists and religious people, and cannot really be blamed on either, that doesn’t count against any of the two groups. However, the example I mention, even if its small, counts univocally against the religious people.
Also, the fact that some atheists are prone to violence, does not mean that its impossible for religous people to be more violent overall
Well, I agree that it’s a mixture of reason. But I doubt you will find many suicide bombers who do not have the heavenly reward motive. Thus, it is not correct to say that it is “not so much religious in nature.”
Where? Again, this is usually ethnic, economic and geo-political in nature, not so much religious.
Yes, this is the one example where religion was a primary cause if not the primary cause.
[/QUOTE]
The other thing to keep in mind is that religion can have a positive influence on reducing violence, whereas atheism is neutral. So what is the net effect of religion-- more or less violence? It’s probably impossible to say. But keep in mind that the to be human is, to a certain extent, to be religious. We would have to be a different type of animal in order to eradicate religion completely. So asking the question of how much violence there would be if there was no religion is really asking how much violence would there be if we were a different species.
We weren’t discussing the rationality of the said leader, we were discussing his / her religious beliefs. I also understand you to be saying that religious belief is irrational. Obviously there are some specific religious beliefs which are demonstrably false, but this doesn’t make the entire phenomenon of religious belief irrational.
My vote would entirely depend on the goals of this rational technocrat. If his goal was to obtain world domination for his clan, I imagine his rationally derived ethics would reflect that - this is no better or worse than an equivalent religious leader. There are atheistic ethical systems which I would stand behind - there are others which I oppose - cracking the index of a XXth century history book will list dozens of them.
I would (and do) vote for an atheist if he / she had the qualities I was looking for, but the atheism per se is in no way a guarantee of anything.
I think what I’m seeing in this thread is an assertion that atheists cause less mayhem than the religious, but I haven’t seen much to support that position.
In my first reply I named 4 different arguments that the net effect of religion is more violence. Including the pure statistical argument that areas with religious people actually have more violence. You still haven’t mentioned one argument that atheists are more violent. (I don’t doubt that arguments exist, you just haven’t mentioned any yet.)
Your second point I dont’ dispute, but it’s not so relevant to the discussion. Even if some people will always be religious, there can still be more or less religion in the world. And the question of who is more violent can still be answered.
You are correct to point out that I was not clear. Many religious ethics coincide with rational ethics. The two are not mutually exclusive. I apologize for my carelessness there.
But there is definitely a non-rational component to religion and that is what we were discussing. You suggest “good ethics” as a desirable quality for politicians. I would agree. All other things being equal, are ethics based on 100% reason not better than those with a lessor rational content?
Interesting. The four google adsI see below the last post are for pro-creation/god sites. Apparently athiests don’t use the services of google to spread the word:
Is There A God?
Offering Six Straight Forward Reasons To Believe In God
Does God Exist?
Many Would Say Yes. But Can It Be Proven? http://TheRCG.org (the Restored Church of God)
Scientific Proof of God?
Where Did The Universe Come From- Interpreting the Latest Results www.CelestialMechanic.com
Science and Creation
Free Booklet Explains God’s Creation
I did a quad-take on this one: the first three times I read it I saw “You think there’s nothing I can to do stop mankind from being religious?? Well then stand back; what I’m gonna do about it is destroy everything!!!” :eek:
(In retrospect I think I had pronoun problems.)
On the subject of a correlation between violence and regiousness; it occurs to me that, while religion may show up in cases of group violence, it would seem to be largely absent in cases of individual violence. Wouldn’t it? Are there many cases where murder, theft, mugging and the like are religiously driven? (Excepting cases where they were inspired by the decisions/attitudes of a group, obviously.) Do many crooks say, “God told me to nick that TV?”
Well, possibly, but that’s taking things to a level of abstraction I’m not really comfortable with. In the everyday world, rationality has a lot to do with means and ends and imperfect information etc. From my limited observation, ethics practiced by atheists are not superior to those practiced by the religious, so I remain to be convinced.
It may well be that it was rational for Stalin to collectivize agriculture, and purge dissenters in order to create a powerful state and a strong national identity. He successfully dragged a medieval country into the XXth century and created a world power at the cost of millions dead and great suffering. It’s anybody’s guess as to whether the purges created more welfare than suffering, but I’d have to say that I’m opposed to the methods Stalin used. Where his ethics rational ? Are anybody’s ethics rational ?
On any given issue you’ll find a thousand different “right answers” and I’d be surprised if atheists were aligned on one response and the religious on another (bear bin mind that there are many and varied religions out there !).
Some atheists firmly believe in universal health care, some firmly oppose it. Some Christians firmly believe in universal health care, some oppose it. Some religions forbid health care, and some just go with the flow.
Ditto for death penalty, ditto for sexual mores etc. This is without even getting into the longer term questions of a society’s goal, right to self-determination, right to expansion, right to self-defense etc etc.
Right. Hence “All other things being equal…” You seem to be saying that, even with all other things being equal, you might prefer a politician that is less reason-based. Or are you saying that a 100% reason-based politician is necessarily less… something.
