|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Better to get rid of religion than rape.
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
It's worth noting that right after the inflmmatory quotation, and in apparent explanation of it, Harris says:
quote:
I think more people are dying as a result of our religious myths than as a result of any other ideology. I would not say that all human conflict is born of religion or religious differences, but for the human community to be fractured on the basis of religious doctrines that are fundamentally incompatible, in an age when nuclear weapons are proliferating, is a terrifying scenario.
If Sam Harris thinks that there is no possibility that current levels of rape will lead to the extinction of our species and the destruction of our world, whereas that there is a small but significant chance that current levels of religious belief might, then, given the absurdly hypothetical choice of magicing one or the other away, there would seem to be a fairly good case for choosing religion.
That is, of course, if he doesn't remotely entertain the possibility that any theistic religion is actually true (which I think we can probably assume).
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian
The correct way of phrasing it would be that racist beliefs and sexist beliefs cause discrimination and conflict, and so do religious beliefs.
I agree that some religious beliefs cause discrimination and conflict, but if these are eliminated that does not get rid of all religious beliefs. And, of course, if not all religious beliefs are eliminated, then religion still remains as a morally valid position. Your argument is that religion itself is the cause of evil, so the onus is on you to show that all religious beliefs cause evil effects.
If you really think that all religious beliefs cause discrimination and conflict, then perhaps you may like to explain how the following statements from the Bible cause discrimination and conflict:
“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbour and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet your brethren only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the tax collectors do so? Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect." (Matthew 5: 43-48)
"He has shown you, O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God?" (Micah 6:8)
Perhaps you may like to explain how the belief that there exists a personal intelligent creator intrinsically and unfailingly causes discrimination and conflict, whereas the belief that we are all just clumps of ultimately meaningless matter - the products of mindless nature - absolutely and unfailingly guarantees that we will all treat each other well. I would be fascinated to see your logic, but I am 100% certain that you will make a complete fool of yourself if you try to argue for this.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Perhaps you may like to explain how the belief that there exists a personal intelligent creator intrinsically and unfailingly causes discrimination and conflict, whereas the belief that we are all just clumps of ultimately meaningless matter - the products of mindless nature - absolutely and unfailingly guarantees that we will all treat each other well. I would be fascinated to see your logic, but I am 100% certain that you will make a complete fool of yourself if you try to argue for this.
Behold! EtymologicalEvangelical can make men out of straw!
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab
If Sam Harris thinks that there is no possibility that current levels of rape will lead to the extinction of our species and the destruction of our world, whereas that there is a small but significant chance that current levels of religious belief might...
Talking about the danger of total destruction, what was the event that brought the human race to the brink of total annihilation?
The Cuba Missile Crisis was driven by Cold War politics, not religion, and, of course, it involved the inflammatory actions of a totalitarian atheistic state, on the one hand, and a culturally 'Christian' state, on the other (but which was actually officially secular).
So the world was brought to the edge of total destruction by a conflict between an atheistic state and a secular one.
That rather demolishes all those stupid arguments about 'religion' being the cause of the world's problems.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab
Behold! EtymologicalEvangelical can make men out of straw!
I can't help but notice that you have not made any effort to substantiate that comment.
Probably because you can't.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
That rather demolishes all those stupid arguments about 'religion' being the cause of the world's problems.
quote:
Said by Sam Harris and quoted by me at the top of this fucking page:I would not say that all human conflict is born of religion or religious differences
If you ever decide to engage with what the other side is actually arguing, I'm all ears.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab
If you ever decide to engage with what the other side is actually arguing, I'm all ears.
Then I suggest you clean out your ears.
I responded directly to what both you and Sam Harris said, and gave the example of the most serious incident regarding nuclear proliferation and explained that it was nothing to do with religious difference, but political difference. Apparently you seem to have ignored that example, which is rather sad, but also rather telling.
What were you saying about "engaging with what the other side is actually arguing" again...??
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I responded directly to what both you and Sam Harris said, and gave the example of the most serious incident regarding nuclear proliferation and explained that it was nothing to do with religious difference, but political difference. Apparently you seem to have ignored that example, which is rather sad, but also rather telling.
The example was there to pad out your ridiculous strawman ("Religion magically causes all evil, atheism guarantees goodness"), which, of course, no one is insane enough to argue for. If anyone did, then I fully accept that the Cuban missile crisis would be a counter-argument, but since no one is saying what you are arguing against, it's irrelevant.
The question Harris raised was whether to abolish rape or religion. Not politics or religion. One of his arguments is that religious disputes in a world of nuclear weapons put us all at risk. And he is obviously right about that. People do horrible and irrational things because of religious faith. It is not in the least implausible that starting a nuclear war might be one of those things.
The fact that there are other plausible roads to annihilation makes no difference at all to that argument. No one denies that. No one is saying that the abolition of religion would remove all evil and conflict. Sam Harris, in particular, is explicitly saying the opposite.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
But is Harris saying that religion is more likely to lead to conflict than other things, say, territory, minerals, water, nationalism, greed, economic collapse, and so on?
How would he demonstrate that?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But is Harris saying that religion is more likely to lead to conflict than other things, say, territory, minerals, water, nationalism, greed, economic collapse, and so on?
How would he demonstrate that?
Proof by assertion. Isn't that good enough for you?
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
This implies that those bad things would not be done for some other reason if we got rid of religion. Which is STUPID.
And yet some on this thread seem to be perfectly happy to assert that all the good things religion has done would not be done for some other reason if we got rid of religion.
Either religion causes people to do things that they wouldn't do without it, or it doesn't. You can't have it both ways depending on whether the things are good or bad.
Nice but irrelevant. I'm responding to Harris, not to other arguments, and refutations of other arguments don't vindicate Harris.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But is Harris saying that religion is more likely to lead to conflict than other things, say, territory, minerals, water, nationalism, greed, economic collapse, and so on?
How would he demonstrate that?
Proof by assertion. Isn't that good enough for you?
Well, it's interesting that Mr Harris thinks this, but generally, in public discussions, we move beyond just thinking something to something more informative. I suppose if I had a magic wand, I would invoke 'evidence'.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Nice but irrelevant. I'm responding to Harris, not to other arguments, and refutations of other arguments don't vindicate Harris.
Fair enough, but if the best way you can come up with to defend religion against Harris' charge is to paint it as something that doesn't affect people's behaviour then it'll be something of a pyrrhic victory!
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
Yep. Anyone who this wars or even the crusades are about religion rather than power and corruption and who thinks that somehow atheism would present this is either hard of thinking or very lazy.
And yet if you put forward the opinion that communism was about power and corruption rather than atheism...
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Nice but irrelevant. I'm responding to Harris, not to other arguments, and refutations of other arguments don't vindicate Harris.
Fair enough, but if the best way you can come up with to defend religion against Harris' charge is to paint it as something that doesn't affect people's behaviour then it'll be something of a pyrrhic victory!
But why does Mr Harris select religion as the other thing to get rid of, as well as rape? Why not cite poverty, or greed, or nationalism, or economic woes?
Does it mean that Mr Harris sees religion as particularly conflictual?
If so, how has he demonstrated that?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
The question Harris raised was whether to abolish rape or religion. Not politics or religion. One of his arguments is that religious disputes in a world of nuclear weapons put us all at risk. And he is obviously right about that. People do horrible and irrational things because of religious faith. It is not in the least implausible that starting a nuclear war might be one of those things.
The fact that there are other plausible roads to annihilation makes no difference at all to that argument. No one denies that. No one is saying that the abolition of religion would remove all evil and conflict. Sam Harris, in particular, is explicitly saying the opposite.
Hang on, that's a very slippery argument.
Specifically what Sam Harris said was that he would rather get rid of religion that rape. That implies - in fact more than implies, asserts - that religion does more harm than rape. You've slipped into an argument of potential. There are plenty of things that are potentially harmful.
So let us compare rape and religion. As I've said before to argue - as he implicitly is - that religion is evil (more evil than rape, for example) one has to demonstrate one of two things. Either the good done by religion (whatever that means) is outweighed by the bad - to such a great extent as to be worse than rape or that the bad religion does is so bad it cannot be mitigated by any good.
If one constructs the same argument for rape, it is rather difficult to see a positive side. In the interests of completeness I would say that I have come across women who have become pregnant from rape and who choose to keep the child and love them despite the nature of the conception. I say that not to prescibe any course or to suggest that it excuses the rape. What I'm saying is that in a tiny number of cases you can maybe possibly, find something good. But clearly that's for the individual and no one else's business. As such, I'm sure it's not uncontroversial to state rape is an unmitigated evil.
As such, contructing an argument that religion is somehow worse is quite challenging. So far no one has demonstrated that religion's bad stuff is so bad as to make the good irrelevant. Or demonstrated that the bad outweigh's the good. So the best you can come up with is that religion has maybe, possibly the potential?
As I said, I think the fault lies more with the people than the religion. There are plenty of examples of people doing bad stuff for religious reasons and there are plenty of examples of people doing bad stuff in the absence of religion. Never mind the fact that religion often mitigates against bad stuff.
AFZ
--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Nice but irrelevant. I'm responding to Harris, not to other arguments, and refutations of other arguments don't vindicate Harris.
Fair enough, but if the best way you can come up with to defend religion against Harris' charge is to paint it as something that doesn't affect people's behaviour then it'll be something of a pyrrhic victory!
There's a false equivalence lurking here. "Doesn't eliminate all bad behaviors" and "Induces good behaviors" are not mutually exclusive. Uncle Mike might not be able to get Bobby to stop throwing rocks at the cat, but there may be good things he can get Bobby to do that no one else can.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I can see the argument that whereas religion can cause conflict and wars between people, it is unlikely that rape could do that.
But this is true of many things in human society, for example, our economic greed, our territorial needs, patriotism, racism, and so on.
So why single out religion?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
There's a false equivalence lurking here. "Doesn't eliminate all bad behaviors" and "Induces good behaviors" are not mutually exclusive. Uncle Mike might not be able to get Bobby to stop throwing rocks at the cat, but there may be good things he can get Bobby to do that no one else can.
Perhaps. The way I've been reading this discussion is slightly different though, so allow me to slightly mangle your "Uncle Mike" example to illustrate how I've seen this play out.
Uncle Mike is telling Bobby both to throw rocks at the cat and to be really nice to the other kids.
The anti-Uncle Mike side is saying that if there was no Uncle Mike, Bobby wouldn't throw rocks at the cat. Sure, he might be a bit less nice to the other kids as well, but that's a price worth paying for feline safety.
The pro-Uncle Mike side is saying that if there was no Uncle Mike, Bobby would still throw rocks at the cat because that's just what Bobby does. And he'd probably start throwing them at the other kids as well.
Does that sound like a fair analogy?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
Yep. Anyone who this wars or even the crusades are about religion rather than power and corruption and who thinks that somehow atheism would present this is either hard of thinking or very lazy.
And yet if you put forward the opinion that communism was about power and corruption rather than atheism...
My apologies for my appalling typing. But yes, that's fair. Of course Communism is explicitly atheist (in most forms that we're familiar with) and the atheism is one of the factors that shapes the thinking that underpins the ideology. Similarly in 'religious wars' often the most unspeakable evil is excused in the name of God because 'we're the good guys and they're the bad guys.'
All of this is completely removed from the truth claims of course.
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Perhaps. The way I've been reading this discussion is slightly different though, so allow me to slightly mangle your "Uncle Mike" example to illustrate how I've seen this play out.
Uncle Mike is telling Bobby both to throw rocks at the cat and to be really nice to the other kids.
The anti-Uncle Mike side is saying that if there was no Uncle Mike, Bobby wouldn't throw rocks at the cat. Sure, he might be a bit less nice to the other kids as well, but that's a price worth paying for feline safety.
The pro-Uncle Mike side is saying that if there was no Uncle Mike, Bobby would still throw rocks at the cat because that's just what Bobby does. And he'd probably start throwing them at the other kids as well.
Does that sound like a fair analogy?
That's a fair analogy as far as it goes, but what does Uncle Mike have to say about rape?
AFZ
--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab
The example was there to pad out your ridiculous strawman ("Religion magically causes all evil, atheism guarantees goodness"), which, of course, no one is insane enough to argue for.
You totally misquote what I wrote, and then accuse me of presenting a strawman argument. How honest of you! If you had bothered to think about my question to Marvin, you would see that it was a follow up to his comments about religion - a category in which he includes theism. I was drawing out the logical implications of his position. If religion (theism) is such a problem, then logically he needs to show how it causes evil (i.e. how it necessarily and not incidentally causes evil), and how the naturalistic alternative counteracts evil. If the alternative to theism / religion cannot be shown to be morally superior, then his argument is completely vacuous.
Why don't you start thinking through the logical implications of what people actually say, instead of just blurting out the first emotional impression you have when you read someone's comment?
Ridiculous.
[ 21. November 2012, 17:28: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
Specifically what Sam Harris said was that he would rather get rid of religion that rape. That implies - in fact more than implies, asserts - that religion does more harm than rape. You've slipped into an argument of potential.
I haven't slipped in the argument about potential harm. It's there in the original interview. Harris says it right after the words quoted in the OP. It is at the very least a plausible reading of his words that the potential for worldwide catastrophic harm caused by a religious fanatic with a nuclear bomb is a major reason for him wanting to magic away religion. The little I've read of his other writings would tend to support that reading.
If that is his reasoning, AND he thinks that religion is utterly untrue, so has no intrinsic value, only incidental benefits, I'd say he has a case. Not that he's definitely right, but that his choice to magically* abolish religion rather than rape, given what he believes, is not an outrageous or obviously wrong call.
(*I'm sort of assuming that Harris thinks the hypothetical abolition of religion by magic obviates the question of rights and freedoms. I don't think I agree with that – I think altering beliefs 'by magic' would be morally problematic – but I don't think that has been factored into the moral question by Harris, and I'm considering the choice as I think he sees it.)
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
You totally misquote what I wrote, and then accuse me of presenting a strawman argument.
What you wrote (your exact words) was:
quote:
Perhaps you may like to explain how the belief that there exists a personal intelligent creator intrinsically and unfailingly causes discrimination and conflict, whereas the belief that we are all just clumps of ultimately meaningless matter - the products of mindless nature - absolutely and unfailingly guarantees that we will all treat each other well.
How is “Religion magically causes all evil, atheism guarantees goodness” not a fair summary of that? The word “all” in my summary is the only part that is even arguably unfair, and that was a response to your dumbass argument about the Cuban missile crisis demolishing the (strawman) contention about 'religion' being the cause of the world's problems.
There is no one on this thread arguing for the position you describe. That position is not logically implied by anyone's arguments. Not mine, not Marvin's, not Sam Harris's. It's all fucking straw. And that's being much more polite that you deserve.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
There's a false equivalence lurking here. "Doesn't eliminate all bad behaviors" and "Induces good behaviors" are not mutually exclusive. Uncle Mike might not be able to get Bobby to stop throwing rocks at the cat, but there may be good things he can get Bobby to do that no one else can.
Perhaps. The way I've been reading this discussion is slightly different though, so allow me to slightly mangle your "Uncle Mike" example to illustrate how I've seen this play out.
Uncle Mike is telling Bobby both to throw rocks at the cat and to be really nice to the other kids.
The anti-Uncle Mike side is saying that if there was no Uncle Mike, Bobby wouldn't throw rocks at the cat. Sure, he might be a bit less nice to the other kids as well, but that's a price worth paying for feline safety.
The pro-Uncle Mike side is saying that if there was no Uncle Mike, Bobby would still throw rocks at the cat because that's just what Bobby does. And he'd probably start throwing them at the other kids as well.
Does that sound like a fair analogy?
No. more like, Uncle Bob wants Bobby to throw rocks, and talks Uncle Mike into egging him on. If Uncle Mike had a heart attack, Uncle Bob would find some other agent to entice Bobby to throw rocks. And it might even be more accurate to say that Uncle Bob tells Bobby that Uncle Mike wants him to throw rocks, when Uncle Mike wants no such thing.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
I know it's hard for many of you to imagine anything that isn't spelled out in small words. And it doesn't help when a concept is gibbered by a zealot like Harris.
BUT, here's a try:
Imagine that you don't believe in god. No, really. But make it a lack of belief instead of the reactionary hating of belief most of you assume atheism is. (Says the agnostic.) So that makes religion... what? Let's say what I usually think of it: a crutch. Created for good, to be used by the weak / lame / real humans. So, what if instead of just yanking the crutch away, with the metaphoric horror of the consequences you might imagine, the crutch was simply no longer needed?
So, yeah, balance that - the concept of elevating mankind in general such that we don't generally need saprophytic organizations to tell us how to care for each other - against rape. Seems to me that it would kind of solve rape too, honestly.
Aren't these meaningless hypotheticals fun?
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Face it Rook, you just wanted the opportunity to use the word 'saprophytic' on another thread.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Beautiful pie your sky's got there, RooK. You go away and figure out how to do that in the real world, and come back when you've got it settled, and we can talk. Meanwhile anybody can spin pretty stories and it proves squat.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
orfeo: Rumbled.
mousethief: This diverges from the actual origin of this topic how? We are talking about a magic wand that miraculously (however ironically) rewrites reality. My amusingly impossible take on the "religion goes away" option is no less silly than hoping the "rape goes away" option would mean people would just not want to commit rape at all. Perhaps you were imagining that the "rape goes away" option involved rapists spontaneously combusting, which technically isn't a very nice thing to do other nearby people who might be still quite upset about being -er, part of the semantic trigger.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
The more I read this thread the more it resembles threads where I've tried to define and defend atheism only here the arguments are reversed.
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I still don't get the sense in which Harris argues that religion is particularly dangerous or conflictual. How does he establish this? Nobody presumably denies that religion can be a source of conflict, and war, but is it more so than other things? How would he know that?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I still don't get the sense in which Harris argues that religion is particularly dangerous or conflictual. How does he establish this? Nobody presumably denies that religion can be a source of conflict, and war, but is it more so than other things? How would he know that?
If someone stated that it would be a good thing to magicly get rid of war how much sense would it make to argue that it would be pointless as we would still have famine, greed and natural desasters.
The argument that religion isnt the only thing that causes problems and therefore it's pointless to get rid of it sounds close to the argument that we shouldn't arrest the drug pusher on the street corner becasue someone else will still be steeling cars.
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I still don't get the sense in which Harris argues that religion is particularly dangerous or conflictual. How does he establish this? Nobody presumably denies that religion can be a source of conflict, and war, but is it more so than other things? How would he know that?
If someone stated that it would be a good thing to magicly get rid of war how much sense would it make to argue that it would be pointless as we would still have famine, greed and natural desasters.
The argument that religion isnt the only thing that causes problems and therefore it's pointless to get rid of it sounds close to the argument that we shouldn't arrest the drug pusher on the street corner becasue someone else will still be steeling cars.
But Harris must think that religion is highly dangerous, mustn't he, for him to suggest this thought experiment? Otherwise, why not suggest getting rid of greed or imperialism or colonialism? Why select religion?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Harris himself states this:
I think more people are dying as a result of our religious myths than as a result of any other ideology.
(Sun magazine interview).
OK, that's what he thinks. How will he demonstrate it?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
If religion (theism) is such a problem, then logically he needs to show how it causes evil (i.e. how it necessarily and not incidentally causes evil), and how the naturalistic alternative counteracts evil.
Religion causes evil because it provides evil people with a very efficient way to get good people to do what they want. Someone may be the best person you could imagine, but if someone else convinces them that God wants them to kill they will do it. Because what God wants (translation: what the religious heirarchy of the day say God wants) is, by definition, good as far as religious people are concerned.
No other factor that has been mentioned on this thread has that kind of ability to redefine good and bad. Nationalism et al may provide a convenient excuse for bad people to indulge themselves, but you seldom find good people arguing the "my country right or wrong" line in the same numbers as you find good people arguing the "my God is always right, even if that means I have to oppress you now" line.
And even the ones who do use the "my country right or wrong" line are still aware that what they're doing is wrong! That in itself provides a form of check against excess that isn't present in those who believe atrocities are perfectly justified as long as they're God's Will.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
If religion (theism) is such a problem, then logically he needs to show how it causes evil (i.e. how it necessarily and not incidentally causes evil), and how the naturalistic alternative counteracts evil.
Religion causes evil because it provides evil people with a very efficient way to get good people to do what they want. Someone may be the best person you could imagine, but if someone else convinces them that God wants them to kill they will do it. Because what God wants (translation: what the religious heirarchy of the day say God wants) is, by definition, good as far as religious people are concerned.
No other factor that has been mentioned on this thread has that kind of ability to redefine good and bad. Nationalism et al may provide a convenient excuse for bad people to indulge themselves, but you seldom find good people arguing the "my country right or wrong" line in the same numbers as you find good people arguing the "my God is always right, even if that means I have to oppress you now" line.
And even the ones who do use the "my country right or wrong" line are still aware that what they're doing is wrong! That in itself provides a form of check against excess that isn't present in those who believe atrocities are perfectly justified as long as they're God's Will.
But can you actually demonstrate some of these things? You have expressed them in a totally abstract manner.
For example, that people who do bad things out of patriotism, know that they are doing wrong? Evidence for that? How about doing bad things because of colonial expansionism? Do they know they are doing wrong? Evidence?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Liopleurodon
Mighty sea creature
# 4836
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
I really wish old white men would quit telling me about how awesome rape is. It's getting quite irksome.
Yes, I must admit that my first thought on reading this was not a careful examination of the relative wrongs of rape and religion, but "Really? Again?" And noting that it's much easier to make these kind of glib comments about rape when it's extremely unlikely to happen to you and not something that you have to have at the back of your mind on a day to day basis. If you want to make a comparison of religion with something nasty, it's probably best to talk about something that concerns you personally. Otherwise it comes across as "I have been more personally inconvenienced by religious people than by rapists, so they're clearly worse for the world."
Posts: 1921 | From: Lurking under the ship | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot
The argument that religion isnt the only thing that causes problems and therefore it's pointless to get rid of it sounds close to the argument that we shouldn't arrest the drug pusher on the street corner becasue someone else will still be steeling cars.
OK, so according to your reasoning we should ban all forms of transportation, because cars, trains, planes etc can cause problems, like kill people?
FFS, are some of you atheists utterly incapable of seeing the difference between a thing that is intrinsically evil, and one which is only evil as a result of abuse?
Unless, of course, you think that 'religion' is something inherently evil? If that is the case, then could you please show me your reasoning to justify that point of view.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Harris himself states this:
I think more people are dying as a result of our religious myths than as a result of any other ideology.
(Sun magazine interview).
OK, that's what he thinks. How will he demonstrate it?
I think it's something he likes to believe.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
But surely Harris is very pro-science? He seems to be stating currently that science can answer moral questions.
In that case, his idea that religious ideology is the most dangerous ideology needs to be backed up by evidence, in order to satisfy some kind of empirical requirement. You know evidence, that's the thing that atheists say that theists lack!
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I still don't get the sense in which Harris argues that religion is particularly dangerous or conflictual. How does he establish this? Nobody presumably denies that religion can be a source of conflict, and war, but is it more so than other things? How would he know that?
If someone stated that it would be a good thing to magicly get rid of war how much sense would it make to argue that it would be pointless as we would still have famine, greed and natural desasters.
All of these can be mitigated against. Famine isn't a matter of a food shortage. Corrupt or incompetent government and war are needed to cause a serious famine. Greed is a general human condition and is mitigated by law; some say not enough, and had the tsunami that hit Japan recently struck a poorer country, such as Bangladesh, then ten times more people would have died (and we would have heard ten times less).
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
FFS, are some of you atheists utterly incapable of seeing the difference between a thing that is intrinsically evil, and one which is only evil as a result of abuse?
What, you mean like sex?
You're right, EE. That's the glaring flaw with the proposition. It's a comparison between a thing capable of both good and evil - religion - and a thing that is by its very definition the evil FORM of something more general.
'Rape' isn't a thing in its own right. It's the nasty, evil form of something that, done properly, lots of enjoy and think is good and healthy.
The only purpose of the comparison is to try and lump 'religion' in the same category as 'rape', which is why it's a load of rot.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Some atheists do argue that faith is in itself a vice, since it arrives at conclusions, without considering evidence.
But I wonder if that argument is itself similar, that is, it's an abstract argument, with no demonstration and no evidence.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Some atheists do argue that faith is in itself a vice, since it arrives at conclusions, without considering evidence.
In which case some atheists are completely mucking their contrasting pairs again.
Atheism is not directly connected to evidence any more than religion is directly connected to faith. It's perfectly possible to have atheists who operate on faith at times, just as much as it's possible to have religious people operate on evidence. Either that, or enormous amounts of the world's science was done by people who fundamentally didn't agree with their own research.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian
Religion causes evil because it provides evil people with a very efficient way to get good people to do what they want.
Frankly, you really need to think about the concept of causation.
Religion does not cause evil, even in the context of your argument. What certain aspects of religious belief can do is provide a pretext to justify evil actions. That is far removed from the idea of 'causation'.
An atheist could just as easily say to himself that "Because there is no God, therefore I can do what I like". Atheism can clearly provide a pretext for evil actions.
But let's suppose that Harris is granted his wish. He waves his magic wand (anyone see the irony?) and religion disappears off the face of the earth, and everyone magically becomes a fully signed up atheist. One day some poor soul is caught gazing up at the stars and heard muttering to himself: "I wonder whether there is more to reality than meets the eye. Perhaps there is a point to this universe after all? I really hope so." He is then clapped in chains and sent for forcible re-education, because he has committed a grave evil by indulging in that vile thing called 'religion'!!
It doesn't really require much intelligence to grasp that there is quite obviously nothing evil in religious thoughts and sentiments per se.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
It’s not really that hard to understand.
Religion can cause people to do bad things. > Some of the bad things people do because of religion would not be done without religion. > Without religion, there would be less bad things done by people.
Harris is suggesting that without religion the overall reduction in harm done by people would be greater than the overall reduction in harm done if there were no rape.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
It’s not really that hard to understand.
Religion can cause people to do bad things. > Some of the bad things people do because of religion would not be done without religion. > Without religion, there would be less bad things done by people.
Harris is suggesting that without religion the overall reduction in harm done by people would be greater than the overall reduction in harm done if there were no rape.
Yes. which is bollocks.
--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
Not really, afz. Harris is making a valid point, albeit in a deliberately inflammatory way.
We’re talking about the bad things done by people because of religion. You do agree that some people do bad things because of religion, right? Do you really think that those same people would do the same bad things without religion? Do you suppose the exact same people who died in the 9/11 attacks would have died that terrible day if there were no religion? They’re dead, all those sons, mothers, sisters and fathers, because religion exists.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Not really, afz. Harris is making a valid point, albeit in a deliberately inflammatory way.
We’re talking about the bad things done by people because of religion. You do agree that some people do bad things because of religion, right? Do you really think that those same people would do the same bad things without religion? Do you suppose the exact same people who died in the 9/11 attacks would have died that terrible day if there were no religion? They’re dead, all those sons, mothers, sisters and fathers, because religion exists.
Well, actually I think that historically much of the bad stuff done in the name of religion would have been done in any other convenient name. Of course there are some things done in the name of religion that probably would not have been done in any other name.
And of course, this is aside from the good done by religion which would inevitably be part of some ridiculous calculation.
No, my point is this:
quote:
Harris is suggesting that without religion the overall reduction in harm done by people would be greater than the overall reduction in harm done if there were no rape.
...is bollocks.
AFZ
--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
It’s not really that hard to understand.
Religion can cause people to do bad things. > Some of the bad things people do because of religion would not be done without religion. > Without religion, there would be less bad things done by people.
Harris is suggesting that without religion the overall reduction in harm done by people would be greater than the overall reduction in harm done if there were no rape.
Which deliberately ignores:
Religion can cause people to do good things. > Some of the good things people do because of religion would not be done without religion. > Without religion, there would be less good things done by people.
I'm suggesting that without religion the overall reduction in good done by people would be greater than the overall reduction in harm done if there were no religion.
The whole reason the comparison is stupid is because "the good done by rape" is pretty well an empty category (unless you're particularly enthusiastic about increasing the world population). You're taking something where the focus is harm, harm, harm, and the whole reason for comparing it to religion is to slip the mind into thinking about religion in terms of harm, harm, harm.
Which is blindingly unfair. I said it once, I'll say it again. If you want to weigh up the good and bad caused by sex against the good and bad caused by religion, go right ahead. If you want to weigh up the harm caused by rape with the harm caused by religious bigotry or religious hatred, go right ahead. But "religion" does not consist of only the nasty aspects of religion. It's a 2-sided leger, and no amount of comparing to 'bad-only' sex will turn religion into something that's all bad.
[ 22. November 2012, 10:58: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
It’s not really that hard to understand.
Religion can cause people to do bad things. > Some of the bad things people do because of religion would not be done without religion. > Without religion, there would be less bad things done by people.
Harris is suggesting that without religion the overall reduction in harm done by people would be greater than the overall reduction in harm done if there were no rape.
He just has to demonstrate this, instead of merely asserting it.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Orfeo
Nicely argued. It's a kind of sliding hope-you-don't-notice sleight-of-hand, if I compare something with no redeeming qualities (rape) with something (religion), which I would assert has few redeeming qualities. Please note that this assertion is unsupported and evidence-free.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
