Ship of Fools: Better to get rid of religion than rape.

Thread: Better to get rid of religion than rape. Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=024351

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

Yep, that's what the great Sam Harris said, he of scientistic morality. Here's the interview.

quote:
If I could wave a magic wand and get rid of either rape or religion, I would not hesitate to get rid of religion.

Pretty pathetic really.

But not surprising.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

Sorry, should have explained that, even though this comment is from an article from 2006, it was tweeted to me and others today, and the journalist who sent it to me justified it by saying that "it's only now getting twitter traction". Hence it's now "news".

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

Go ahead. Make your case. Tell us why you'd prefer to keep rape than religion.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

RuthW -

Are you asking me or Sam?

If me, then, sorry you've lost me...

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

Perhaps I misunderstand your purpose here. In fact, I have a feeling that "perhaps" is being a bit too generous to myself.

Never mind me. I'm going to see if I can find my brain lying here somewhere. [Hot and Hormonal]

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

And now the board home page reads "Better to get rid of RuthW"!

Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :

He sounds like a wanker. Try to ignore him. Sometimes, the talent free <cough Richard Dawkins cough> try to be inflammatory rather than intelligent.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
And now the board home page reads "Better to get rid of RuthW"!

Oh dear. Famous Last Posts is going to have a field day with this one.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Has Mr. Harris repudiated or reaffirmed this outrageous pronouncement in the 6 years since he first made it?

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

It's interesting to read what he goes on to say, rather than focusing on the deliberately inflammatory soundbite:

quote:
(snipped to avoid copyright implications)
I think more people are dying as a result of our religious myths than as a result of any other ideology ... I think we do the world a disservice when we suggest that religions are generally benign and not fundamentally divisive.

...

There are the Dominionist Christians, for example, who actually do think homosexuals and adulterers should be put to death.

...

Their opposition to stem-cell research, for instance, is prolonging the misery of tens of millions of people at this moment ... Reginald Finger ... has said that even if we had a vaccine against HIV, he would have to think long and hard about whether to use it, because it might encourage premarital sex.

Now, these people are not evil. They’re just concerned about the wrong things, because they have imbibed these unjustifiable religious taboos. There is no question, however, that these false concerns add to the world’s misery.

He's saying that religion causes more misery worldwide than rape, and therefore that of he could only get rid of one he would get rid of the one that is causing more misery.

How many people are raped in a given year? How many people are murdered or made to die preventable deaths, denied human rights, and otherwise oppressed because of religion in any given year? And if the second number is larger than the first, in what way is Harris wrong? Outrageous or not, that's a conversation that's worth having in my book.

Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
And now the board home page reads "Better to get rid of RuthW"!
Oh dear. Famous Last Posts is going to have a field day with this one.

Diet advertisement coming up.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian
He's saying that religion causes more misery worldwide than rape, and therefore that of he could only get rid of one he would get rid of the one that is causing more misery.

What do you mean by 'religion'? Or what do you think Harris means?

If it means, say, 'theism', then clearly it is pathetically stupid to say that theism causes human misery, because theism is just a belief in God. It's what people do with that belief that matters.

However, can we really say that 'rape' in itself is not immoral, or is just amoral, but it is only the abuse of rape which is wrong? Of course not! So Harris' comparison between rape and religion is just idiotic.

Actually why don't we call for the abolition of gravity, so no one will ever hurt themselves when falling from a third floor window etc.!!

[ 20. November 2012, 11:26: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Marvin the Martian: He's saying that religion causes more misery worldwide than rape, and therefore that of he could only get rid of one he would get rid of the one that is causing more misery.

If you purely look at the number of victims (as you seem to do in the paragraph after this one) then surely cars cause more misery worldwide than rape.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
And now the board home page reads "Better to get rid of RuthW"!
Oh dear. Famous Last Posts is going to have a field day with this one.
Diet advertisement coming up.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
How many people are raped in a given year?

In some parts of the world 48 per hour.

It seems to me an unnecessarily inflammatory comparison for which S Harris would deserve a flame. There is a very sober discussion to be had about the evils of religion in the world, but comparing it to rape seems to add nothing but heat to the discussion.

We've covered the problems of unnecessarily-inflammatory comparisons elsewhere in the ship I believe.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
What do you mean by 'religion'? Or what do you think Harris means?

I imagine he means Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Sikhism, Zoroastrianism, Mormonism, Jehova's Witnesses, Baha'iism, and so forth. All religions, in other words. Hardly a difficult concept.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
If you purely look at the number of victims (as you seem to do in the paragraph after this one) then surely cars cause more misery worldwide than rape.

Also true, yes. But with the caveat that very very few people deliberately kill or maim others with their car, whereas there are very very many people who deliberately kill, maim or otherwise oppress people with their religion.

[ 20. November 2012, 11:52: Message edited by: Marvin the Martian ]

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
He's saying that religion causes more misery worldwide than rape, and therefore that of he could only get rid of one he would get rid of the one that is causing more misery.

OK. I'll buy that for a moment.

But to make this argument meaningful you have to demonstrate one of two things:

Either the bad done by religion outweighs the good or the bad done by religion is so bad that no good could mitigate it.

And that all depends on accepting the premise that the problem with people's religion is the religion. I tend to think the problem is the people.

I don't think the choice of rape as the comparison was accidental. And thus he is genuinely trying to say that rape is less harmful than religion. That's a BIG claim.

AFZ

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Yes, there is no such thing as religion. There are people with religious ideas and practices, and it is people who tend to do bad things, partly because of their ideas.

Presumably, Harris thinks that people with no religious ideas would do fewer bad things? Hmm, I would like to see that demonstrated as a causal link.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, there is no such thing as religion. There are people with religious ideas and practices, and it is people who tend to do bad things, partly because of their ideas.

Presumably, Harris thinks that people with no religious ideas would do fewer bad things? Hmm, I would like to see that demonstrated as a causal link.

It's hard to imagine that the Inquisitors of Spanish fame would have bothered were they not protecting people from teachings that would take them to hell; similarly it's hard to imagine that folk would hijack planes and fly them into buildings if they didn't think Allah would smile upon them for so doing.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Are you talking about 9/11? Surely, that was a political act also. Why did they not attack a large Christian cathedral?

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Are you talking about 9/11? Surely, that was a political act also. Why did they not attack a large Christian cathedral?

A political act also. A political act drawn from politics largely informed by religious perspectives. And helped along by promises of favour in the afterlife.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
But to make this argument meaningful you have to demonstrate one of two things:

Either the bad done by religion outweighs the good or the bad done by religion is so bad that no good could mitigate it.

I'd say he's probably shooting for the first option. So while a world without religion would not have as much charity, it would also have significantly less persecution, 100% less religiously-motivated violence and/or terrorism, and no Middle East problem whatsoever (because the whole fucking thing boils down to Christians/Jews v.s. Muslims).

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

The crusades were as much a political act as a religious act. ISTM people will be bastards to each other regardless of religion. That the large scale damage done in religion's name is truly done for power. Power will use whatever label expedient to its ends.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
and no Middle East problem whatsoever (because the whole fucking thing boils down to Christians/Jews v.s. Muslims).

Right. "Oh yes, they fucked us over a barrel for decades, but it is alright as we are all atheists."' Is this your alternate history?

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
But to make this argument meaningful you have to demonstrate one of two things:

Either the bad done by religion outweighs the good or the bad done by religion is so bad that no good could mitigate it.
I'd say he's probably shooting for the first option. So while a world without religion would not have as much charity, it would also have significantly less persecution, 100% less religiously-motivated violence and/or terrorism, and no Middle East problem whatsoever (because the whole fucking thing boils down to Christians/Jews v.s. Muslims).

The Middle East has been a warzone since man first stepped in it. Nothing particular to do with Jews, Assyrians, Amalekites, Philistines, Canaanites, Christians, Muslims, Romans, Ottoman Turks, the League of Nations mandate powers and the rest, it's been Trouble Central for the whole of recorded history.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
What do you mean by 'religion'? Or what do you think Harris means?
I imagine he means Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Sikhism, Zoroastrianism, Mormonism, Jehova's Witnesses, Baha'iism, and so forth. All religions, in other words. Hardly a difficult concept.

You don't say!

OK, so what's your point, given that none of these are sufficient causes for evil, nor even necessary causes - after all atheists can commit evil (assuming we know what we are talking about when referring to 'evil', otherwise the discussion is pointless)?

If Harris' argument is to be taken seriously, then logically we should get rid of atheism, because atheists are capable of great evil.

quote:
How many people are raped in a given year? How many people are murdered or made to die preventable deaths, denied human rights, and otherwise oppressed because of religion in any given year? And if the second number is larger than the first, in what way is Harris wrong? Outrageous or not, that's a conversation that's worth having in my book.

Imagine the following scenario...

On a particular evening in a particular town the following crimes are committed: three rapes, one murder, six assaults and ten robberies. The police manage to arrest all the perpetrators. A local journalist well versed in 'Harrisian' logic manages to discover that the majority of the criminals are 'religious': one of the rapists, three of those who committed assault and seven of the thieves have some kind of spiritual belief, ranging from extremely vague (like reading their horoscope) to fanatical. He then writes an editorial in the local paper concluding that 'religion' is the cause of the majority of crime in the town, and since crime committed by religious people exceeds the incidence of rape, he argues that it would be better to eliminate religion in the town than rape.

Of course, this bright spark conveniently ignores the fact that two of the assaults did not result in murder due to the brave intervention of two religious people, that some of the emergency and medical staff involved in treating victims were religious, that some of the police officers were religious, and that some of the other criminals were atheists. He also fails to acknowledge that 'religion' is an extremely vague term that covers a multitude of beliefs, ranging from satanism to the most altruistic forms of commitment. Now this not implausible scenario demonstrates how twisted Harris' reasoning really is.

Evil is not caused by 'religion', but by messed up human beings, who justify their actions with reference to all manner of convenient belief systems. This is a point so patently obvious to anyone with any spark of intellectual honesty, that I really wonder why so many atheists keep hammering away trying to defend the indefensible. Well, actually, I do know the reason: sheer desperation.

[ 20. November 2012, 13:46: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]

Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :

This is a ridiculous statement, as if the absence of organised religion would stop people thinking and acting like idiots.

You can look around and see people hating, persecuting, killing and oppressing in the name of religion. Then it is so simple to assume one is caused by the other. You can say get rid of religion and humanity will be transformed, everyone will start being kind to each other, no one will ever be greedy, hateful, angry, or fearful ever again. No one will make bad judgements, or think wrongly, or act out of ignorance, or fear, or just plain selfishness.

It's been tried. If anything the hating, persecuting, killing and oppression got worse, if that was possible. It certainly wans't the magic bullet that suddenly transformed humanity into wonderful, altruistic, peace-loving utopians. There is no magic bullet. Not the removal of religion, or eradication of primitive superstitions, or even first contact with the Vulcans - we'd just start a war with them out of suspicion or greed.

The truth is religion doesn't make us do bad things, we can do them all by ourselves.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

Let's look at the actual examples Harris gives...

Christian Dominionists believe adulterers and homosexuals should be killed. So what? Christian Dominionists are a minority within a minority. You can find more victims of rape on college campuses than you can Christian Dominionists in the entire United States. Homosexuals face more danger of being executed in other countries. However, rape is a much greater problem than persecution of homosexuals in places such as Africa. The idea that eliminating religion would eliminate persecution of gays and lesbians is simply wrong.

Stem cell research? First, Harris assumes one particular form of stem cell research would lead to the results he claims it would. So far, that hasn't been the case. Second, all George W. Bush did was say the US government wouldn't fund research on new stem cell lines. Many Christians opposed that decision. In any event, nothing prevents Europe, Japan, or the atheists of China from funding all the research on stem cells they want to fund. Nothing prevents private research on stem cells. Perhaps, atheists could donate large sums of money on stem cell research. Oh wait...you got Marvin's point about charity. And you would rather keep rape?

Third, who cares about Reginald Finger's opinion on using a theoretical HIV vaccination? You are going to tell the victims of rape that you would rather they be raped because of some insignificant person's opinion about a nonexistent vaccination? I think that's a stupid position to try to defend.

Fourth, violence in the name of religion? People were fighting wars in the Middle East long before the coming of Judaism, Christianity, or Islam. Predominantly atheist nations have killed people by the millions. Majority populations have persecuted minority populations for any number of reasons having nothing to do with religion. Yes, that includes gays and lesbians. Get rid of religion and at best you get rid of one reason given for persecuting the minority.

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :

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.

If you want to argue that religious can be far worse because people try to justify the most horrific things in the name of god then there's a case but that has to be weighed against the evil done for all sorts of reasons by people who believe there is no accountability and the good done in the name of faith.

AFZ

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

These arguments always remind me of the Age of Reason, drowned in blood by the French revolutionaries. Ah, but maybe they were deists, so you see, there's still a tinge of that evil-dealing religion at work. Now, if they'd been atheists, the tricoteuses would have played pat-a-cake with Marie Antoinette!

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Get rid of religion and at best you get rid of one reason given for persecuting the minority.

You know what, even if that's all it does then I can't see that it's all bad. Then we can move on to destroying all the other reasons. Of course, we've already made great strides towards destroying some of the other reasons (racism and sexism, for example).

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Get rid of religion and at best you get rid of one reason given for persecuting the minority.
You know what, even if that's all it does then I can't see that it's all bad. Then we can move on to destroying all the other reasons. Of course, we've already made great strides towards destroying some of the other reasons (racism and sexism, for example).

Racism and sexism are reasons. Religion is rarely more than a pretext.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
If you want to argue that religious can be far worse because people try to justify the most horrific things in the name of god then there's a case but that has to be weighed against the evil done for all sorts of reasons by people who believe there is no accountability and the good done in the name of faith.

I think the reason why religion is such a problem is the way it can be used by the powerful to convince the public to go along with their nefarious power-mad schemes.

It may not be motivating the generals, but it's sure as hell motivating the footsoldiers. Removing that motivation means removing the footsoldiers, and without them the generals can't do shit.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

No, you don't. All the powers that be have to do is find a reason for war. Generally, "those people over there did something bad to us" works just fine. Religion is never the only reason for war and it's rarely even the primary reason.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian
Of course, we've already made great strides towards destroying some of the other reasons (racism and sexism, for example).

Here's a great argument for you...

We abolish discrimination and conflict on the basis of race and sex, but, of course, we do not abolish race and sex.

We seek to abolish discrimination and conflict on the basis of religion...

therefore...

we abolish religion!

Good one.

Logic is alive and well in the corridors of atheism, I see!

[brick wall]

[ 20. November 2012, 15:42: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]

Posted by claret10 (# 16341) on :

To me it's far more an attitude of 'us' and 'them' and religion is a convenient dividing line. You only have to watch children playing to watch groups that are anti each other form for the silliest of reasons.

To compare religion to rape is just inflamatory [Mad]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
How many people are raped in a given year? How many people are murdered or made to die preventable deaths, denied human rights, and otherwise oppressed because of religion in any given year? And if the second number is larger than the first, in what way is Harris wrong? Outrageous or not, that's a conversation that's worth having in my book.

Because it foolishly presumes that if religion were removed, people wouldn't find some other excuse to do all those things: jingoism, racism, nationalism, EconomicTheoryism, regionalism, HowYouWearYourClothesIsm. It is naive (to say the least) to think that it's only religion that causes people to do all these wrong things.

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Yep, that's what the great Sam Harris said, he of scientistic morality. Here's the interview.

Atheist aren't terribly happy with him either. See also the following gems he's come up with.

quote:
"The people who speak most sensibly about the threat that Islam poses to Europe are actually fascists."

"We should profile Muslims, or anyone who looks like he or she could conceivably be Muslim, and we should be honest about it."

"It is time we admitted that we are not at war with “terrorism.” We are at war with Islam."

He's also come out in defence of torture and of racial profiling.

He's walking proof that getting rid of religion wouldn't stop people behaving like fuckwits.

[ 20. November 2012, 16:21: Message edited by: Justinian ]

Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :

I really wish old white men would quit telling me about how awesome rape is. It's getting quite irksome.

Posted by roybart (# 17357) on :

Harris, it seems to me, set up an outrageous either-or (religion or rape) in order to provoke discussion. Based on the evidence in this thread, he has succeeded. This is sad, because his example is forcing those who disagree with him to adopt his us-or-them mode of discussion.

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Because it foolishly presumes that if religion were removed, people wouldn't find some other excuse to do all those things: jingoism, racism, nationalism, EconomicTheoryism, regionalism, HowYouWearYourClothesIsm. It is naive (to say the least) to think that it's only religion that causes people to do all these wrong things.

Is anyone seriously saying that? Of course, there are other forms of us-versus-them thinking and behavior. Of course "religion" leads to and justifies behavior that is good as well as bad. Of course religious conflict is fundamentally a power conflict, which does not negate the fact that it is also a conflict over religion.

The point is, that many (not all) people and organizations involved are doing serious harm in the name of -- and with justifications provided by -- their religious faith. You don't have to be an atheist to believe this; I for one am a church-going Christian. I think it would be wonderful if we heard more from all church organizations, and from their defenders and spokespersons, admitting the darker side of religious self-identification and the misuses of religious ideology. Such honesty would reflect rather well on religious faith and institutions.

Steven Weinberg, a Nobel Prize winning physicists, made a relevant point during an address to the Association for the Advancement of Science, in 1999:

quote:
With or without [religion], good people can behave well and bad people can do evil. But for good people to do evil ... that takes religion.

I can think of exceptions to that last part. But if you take "good" to mean objectively good and not a delusion, I think the statement holds up pretty well.

[ 20. November 2012, 17:04: Message edited by: roybart ]

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Yep, that's what the great Sam Harris said, he of scientistic morality. Here's the interview.

quote:
If I could wave a magic wand and get rid of either rape or religion, I would not hesitate to get rid of religion.
Pretty pathetic really.

But not surprising.

Let's narrow the focus a little, from religion in general to Christianity in particular.

So Dr Harris waves his magic wand. In an instant, a number of organisations that owe their origins to Christianity vanish from the Earth: The Samaritans, Oxfam, Cafod, Christian Aid, to name but a few. Millions die from suicide and poverty as a result. Untold numbers of hospitals, hospices, schools and colleges disappear, leaving holes in the ground where their foundations were. Gone from our museums are works by Michelangelo, Raphael, El Greco, and others whose primary income was from the Church. For the same reason, many of the works of Mozart, Bach, Palestrina, Byrd and Josquin go unwritten. The plays of Sophocles, the philosophy of Plato, the poetry of Homer - all rotted in the earth centuries ago, uncopied and unpreserved by generations of religious scholars and monks.

And rape remains.

I think it is very important indeed that we do not let Dr Harris get his hands on a magic wand.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

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.

Preach.

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :

Adeodatas, that's kinda what I was trying to say. And yet you were far more eloquent than me.

AFZ

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
He's also come out in defence of torture

Beautiful proof that if people didn't do awful things in the name of God, they'd find something else 'nice' to do awful things in the name of.

My first 2 bets are 'for the good of the nation' and 'for the good of the economy'.

[ 20. November 2012, 20:51: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
He's also come out in defence of torture
Beautiful proof that if people didn't do awful things in the name of God, they'd find something else 'nice' to do awful things in the name of.

My first 2 bets are 'for the good of the nation' and 'for the good of the economy'.

Don't forget "To encourage the others" or whatever that is in French.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by roybart:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Because it foolishly presumes that if religion were removed, people wouldn't find some other excuse to do all those things: jingoism, racism, nationalism, EconomicTheoryism, regionalism, HowYouWearYourClothesIsm. It is naive (to say the least) to think that it's only religion that causes people to do all these wrong things.
Is anyone seriously saying that?

That is EXACTLY what he is saying. "People do bad things in the name of religion. If we get rid of religion, it would get rid of more bad things than getting rid of rape would." This implies that those bad things would not be done for some other reason if we got rid of religion. Which is STUPID.

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by roybart:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Because it foolishly presumes that if religion were removed, people wouldn't find some other excuse to do all those things: jingoism, racism, nationalism, EconomicTheoryism, regionalism, HowYouWearYourClothesIsm. It is naive (to say the least) to think that it's only religion that causes people to do all these wrong things.
Is anyone seriously saying that?
That is EXACTLY what he is saying. "People do bad things in the name of religion. If we get rid of religion, it would get rid of more bad things than getting rid of rape would." This implies that those bad things would not be done for some other reason if we got rid of religion. Which is STUPID.

Yup. And when PZ Myers is saying you are too anti-religion (other than Sam Harris's version of Buddhism) you have a problem.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
We abolish discrimination and conflict on the basis of race and sex, but, of course, we do not abolish race and sex.

We seek to abolish discrimination and conflict on the basis of religion...

therefore...

we abolish religion!

False comparison. Race and sex are inherent qualities of human individuals, religion is not. The correct way of phrasing it would be that racist beliefs and sexist beliefs cause discrimination and conflict, and so do religious beliefs.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

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.

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

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).

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

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.

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

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!

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

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.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

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.

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

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.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

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...??

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

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.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

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?

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

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?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

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.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

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'.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

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!

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

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...

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

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?

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :

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

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

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.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

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?

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

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?

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :

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

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

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 ]

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

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.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

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.

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :

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?

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Face it Rook, you just wanted the opportunity to use the word 'saprophytic' on another thread.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

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.

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :

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.

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

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.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

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?

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

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.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

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?

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

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?

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

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.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

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?

Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :

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."

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

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.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

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.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

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!

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

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).

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

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.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

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.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

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.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

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.

Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :

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.

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :

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.

Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :

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.

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :

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

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

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 ]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

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.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

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.

Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :

I don't think it's a matter of proving anything with evidence, quetzy. It's just a bit of rhetoric aimed at provoking people to think and talk about it, which I think is quite useful.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
I don't think it's a matter of proving anything with evidence, quetzy. It's just a bit of rhetoric aimed at provoking people to think and talk about it, which I think is quite useful.

It's all good, mate. I just find it ironic that someone like Harris, supposedly one of the Great Gnus, should set out unsupported and evidence-free assertions like this. In fact, he's almost boasting of them, isn't he? He think that religion is the most dangerous ideology - well, fuck me, if Sam Harris thinks it, it must be well, thinkable, at any rate.

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

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?

Of course most of us aren't. We can see the difference between the imaginary and the real. That you choose to make a song and dance out of the imaginary and consider it more important than the real is a different matter entirely.

And absolutely right on faith earlier - it is nothing more than intellectual sloth with a new coat of paint. The answer to the sky challenge is that without sloth we would say "I wonder what's up there" and all go and invent telescopes and spend our lives on astrophysics. Of course this is a reason why a limited degree of sloth is necessary.

That said, Sam Harris has about as much of a moral leg to stand on as any other torture apologist and, as has been pointed out if you are a torture apologist and an atheist (as Sam Harris is) then your argument that religion provides a unique approach to getting to absurd evil is self-defeating.

Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
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).

Ironically, the only times I've heard anyone claiming that rape was anything but wholly negative, they were explicitly doing so because of their religion.

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:

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."

Yes, this is what's at the heart of Dr Harris's cuntiness. He knows he can't avoid a suicide bomber's blast, so he seeks to make his own world safer by getting rid of suicide bombers. However, ignorant, nasty piece of work that he is, at heart, he reckons he can *avoid* being a victim of rape, (a) because he's a man and (b) because he isn't a rape-victim-type-of-person - rape victims being inherently different from people like him; so it's OK with him if rape lives to rape another day.

There's even the hint of an implication that if religion didn't exist then rape wouldn't be all that bad, but if I start on that, I'll never stop.

I'm finding him quite hard to love. Oh and none of this is because he's an atheist. It's because he's a complete fucking cock.

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

While I agree that religion does far more harm than good I also agree that his decision to use rape as an example is rubbish. The only reason I can think of as to why he did it was wanting something bad to compare with religion and then going "hmm, what's the worse thing I can think of".

Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

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.

I agree with this. It’s clear that religion causes some people to do good stuff and some people to do bad stuff. It may perhaps be argued that religion is a net benefit to mankind, though I find that doubtful. I suppose most people will view the equation from an entirely personal perspective- those who love their religion will consider it a net benefit to mankind, and those who don’t won’t.

As a secular humanist, I wonder how many Cistene Chapel ceilings and Bach oratorios are worth one single human being’s life. I guess the relatives of those killed in the 9/11 attacks are better qualified than me to answer this.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
As a secular humanist, I wonder how many Cistene Chapel ceilings and Bach oratorios are worth one single human being’s life. I guess the relatives of those killed in the 9/11 attacks are better qualified than me to answer this.

Oh yeah, Yorick, that's really a better comparator than the one we started the thread with.

Do me a favour. Go and read Robert Pape's Dying to Win, and come back when you've stopped believing the shit-arse nonsense that acts of suicide terrorism are religiously based.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

But Yorick's point reminds me of something that seems imponderable. How do you calculate the harm done by anything?

If you take disastrous events of the recent past, you might list WWI and WWII, Vietnam, Mao's Great Leap Forward, the war in Congo, and so on.

You can actually add up the number of dead, well, roughly at any rate, I believe the dead in Congo are currently estimated at 5 million, in the Great Leap Forward, about 34 million, but these are obviously estimates.

So how do we do our comparisons now? I suppose start a ledger, with a column for religious wars, and a column for secular ones, and another one for 'don't know'.

Do historians do this?

But 9/11 shows the obvious problems, since an increasing number of people are arguing that it was not really a religious attack at all.

Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :

[this to orfeo]

I was making a point about personal perspective. If you ask a relative of a suicide bomber victim whether the good caused by religion outweighs the harm, you are likely to get one answer; if you ask the Pope, another.

[ 22. November 2012, 13:40: Message edited by: Yorick ]

Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But Yorick's point reminds me of something that seems imponderable. How do you calculate the harm done by anything?
...

In any case with the Dead...if you take worst case, and even count whatever Hitler and Stalin was* as religious, you get around 0.5Billion.

There are around 3Billion women in the world, and I remember the sexual assault statistic in the west being shockingly high. So I'm far from convinced that one isn't forced to try either some 'rape' and 'non-rape rape' argument to argue the premise, or more tortured links**.

*or if you really want to sound bitchy, argue it should be counted because the victims were religious.

**And even with something seemingly sound-bitey like Aids, I'm not sure that follows.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

And male rape never happens? Not

Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :

True, I was remiss.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
[this to orfeo]

I was making a point about personal perspective. If you ask a relative of a suicide bomber victim whether the good caused by religion outweighs the harm, you are likely to get one answer; if you ask the Pope, another.

And if you ask an atheist with a massive axe to grind, another again. Which is how we got here in the first place. Not by ACTUALLY asking the relatives of suicide bomber victims, many of whom know perfectly well that suicide bombing is not a religiously motivated act.

I just love these contrasting opposite pairs that aren't actually correct opposing pairs. The opposite of "terribly religious Pope" is NOT "relative of suicide bomber victim who is inevitably atheist because of the trauma", okay?

Because the supposition in the latter category is completely false. The correct category is "atheist who wrongly believes that all relatives of suicide bombers will be atheists and simultaneously sympathetic so that no-one would dare to tell them that ascribing suicide bombing to religion is a crock of shit".

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
...because he isn't a rape-victim-type-of-person - rape victims being inherently different from people like him

Can you point us to something said or written by Sam Harris that gives some evidence about what he thinks are the sort of people who get raped, or are you just making shit up?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

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 you're equating "religion" with "stealing cars" -- as if "religion" were an act that is intrinsically wrong. You're making a category error. We're saying if you get rid of religion as a means of enticing people to kill, people will find another way to entice people to kill. Which is completely different from saying if we stop people from killing they'll all go out and commit arson.

[ 23. November 2012, 00:53: Message edited by: mousethief ]

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :

Hey now. Leave Grant Theft Auto out of this. It's so great, they made a video game about it.

Posted by Snags (# 15351) on :

Yorick:

quote:

As a secular humanist, I wonder how many Cistene Chapel ceilings and Bach oratorios are worth one single human being’s life.

Orfeo's already picked up on the whole "is suicide bombing actually religiously motivated issue", but this equally false and weighted pairing seems to have slipped past.

A better comparator would be lives damaged/taken due to religious motivation vs. lives blessed/saved as a result of religious motivation.

Assuming, of course, that one can adequately define "religion" and then determine the root causes and motivators in all of the countless incidents that would be covered.

[ETA: and that's doing the question the courtesy of accepting it on its own merits when actually the whole thing is just a facile rhetorical device for point-scoring and ducking the core issues which hinges on "Is it true?", and if so "If the outcomes are harmful, have we got it right?". It's not really something with which one can play some cosmic accounting game, and as both 'sides' have pointed out, your viewpoint is inherently coloured by your own underlying assumptions]

[ 23. November 2012, 07:30: Message edited by: Snags ]

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Grant Theft Auto

Sounds like one of our Automotive Engineering professors after they've been turned down by yet another research council...

[Razz]

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:

quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
...because he isn't a rape-victim-type-of-person - rape victims being inherently different from people like him
Can you point us to something said or written by Sam Harris that gives some evidence about what he thinks are the sort of people who get raped, or are you just making shit up?

I'm making shit up. Because he's a cock.

But there is a big difference between saying "I would rather suffer rape myself than live in a world where religious belief exists" and "I would rather rape existed than religious belief." Rape existing pre-supposes someone is being raped - it cannot exist without victims.

Anyone who is preferring the existence of rape to the existence of [any other act] is either saying that that they would prefer to be a victim of rape themselves, or that they would prefer other people to be victims of rape.

Which do you think he means?

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:

quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
...because he isn't a rape-victim-type-of-person - rape victims being inherently different from people like him
Can you point us to something said or written by Sam Harris that gives some evidence about what he thinks are the sort of people who get raped, or are you just making shit up?

I'm troubled now. Maybe Dr Harris *has* been raped - or at least, I don't know that he *hasn't*. That would certainly make his statement even more bizarre. But it would make me even more wrong too. And I can't *know* that it isn't the case. Maybe I'm very very wrong.

[Hot and Hormonal]

Sorry.

[ 23. November 2012, 11:31: Message edited by: Erroneous Monk ]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

He certainly seems to be saying that religion is worse than rape; therefore, presumably, rape is better than religion.

That makes the argument seem truly atrocious, which is probably correct.

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :

At the very least, we can probably deduce that Mr. Harris dislikes religion so much that it has entered the realm of the irrational. Can't say that I think that makes it wrong for him to hate religion. There's plenty of rational reasons to hate it without inventing magical comparisons.

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
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'.

That depends how you count theological doctrines - for instance (to take an extreme example) the Aztecs mandated mass human sacrifice which would have been incredibly unlikely to have happened without religion. And there are two major doctrines I consider very harmful that simply wouldn't exist without religion.

The first is the concept of an eternal hell - something that is inherently a perversion of justice. We've clashed on that before (mostly because you do not believe in an eternal hell, instead using the word hell to refer to something more like purgatory). I believe that this doctrine can only undermine moral sensibilities because it is itself so wrong.

The second is a desire for purity - something I find fundamentally inhuman. This maps to sacredness, setting things aside, and to opposition to contraceptive sex, and numerous other things I consider obviously wrong - and is a consequence of many if not most religions.

But those are case studies - although I don't believe that the religion in question is a mere pretext in either case; I don't think even that many of the aztec priests wanted to sacrifice humans on the scale they did. But I believe it is a consequence of a corruption - and Atheism gave the world Ayn Rand amongst others (and there's a moral corruption). To me the only thing wrong with religion per se is that it casts faith as a virtue rather than a form of (necessary) intellectual sloth.

Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
He certainly seems to be saying that religion is worse than rape; therefore, presumably, rape is better than religion.

No, I don't think so. The comparison Harris makes is between the overall harm to humanity caused by religion and the overall harm to humanity caused by rape. It's a rhetorical argument, designed to provoke people into considering the scale of harm caused by religion. It's not a matter of whether rape is literally better than religion, any more than being stabbed to death is 'better' than being killed by a dirty bomb. Rape and religion cause harm, and Harris is proposing that, in the abstract, religion causes more overall harm than rape. I'm inclined to agree with this as far as it goes (but then I don't have a vested interest in religion being described as all nice and lovely).

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Well, you're inclined to absurd lapses in logic, then.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Well, OK, then, 'in the abstract' religion is worse for humans than rape. Therefore, rape is better for us than religion.

Posted by Inger (# 15285) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
And there are two major doctrines I consider very harmful that simply wouldn't exist without religion.

The first is the concept of an eternal hell - something that is inherently a perversion of justice. We've clashed on that before (mostly because you do not believe in an eternal hell, instead using the word hell to refer to something more like purgatory). I believe that this doctrine can only undermine moral sensibilities because it is itself so wrong.

The second is a desire for purity - something I find fundamentally inhuman. This maps to sacredness, setting things aside, and to opposition to contraceptive sex, and numerous other things I consider obviously wrong - and is a consequence of many if not most religions.

I'm surprised you don't mention the concept that for me is the most harmful of all. It is not found in all religion, but is an essential part of Christianity and Islam: the concept of an afterlife that is not just good, but infinitely better than life here on Earth. This Earth is but a vale of tears; what happens to you here is ultimately not very important, since (if you believe/are good) you will get your reward or compensation in the hereafter. You've only got to listen to a few Bach Cantatas to get the picture.

This concept has led to some very bad things, which I think are essentially dependent on religious belief. On a milder level to

The rich man in his castle,
The poor man at his gate
God made them high and lowly
And ordered their estate

a verse usually omitted today.

At worst however to the auto da fé and "Kill them all, the Lord will recognise His own." I would guess this is what prompted Steven Weinberg's remark "But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."

It has also led to the belief that the Earth is ours to despoil as seems good to us, since it is ultimately unimportant what happens to it.

I'm well aware that most people here on SoF would dislike these consequences as much as I do. As for the comparison with rape, it seems unhelpful to me - essentially meaningless.

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
It's not a matter of whether rape is literally better than religion, any more than being stabbed to death is 'better' than being killed by a dirty bomb. Rape and religion cause harm, and Harris is proposing that, in the abstract, religion causes more overall harm than rape.

The problem I have with this is that only one of the two really works as an abstract concept - the harm caused by religion. The harm caused by rape is not an abstract. It's not a bit of head-scratching about whether terrorist acts are religiously motivated or politically, it's not a bit of navel-gazing about whether those who kill in the name or religion are really true followers of their claimed faith. It's about people violently abusing and degrading other people.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

Better to get rid of religion than rape ?

Not sure it's possible to get rid of either really .
Mind you if rape carried a sentence of castration that may go some way to getting rid of it.
Using violent deterrents to get rid of religion was tried by Rome . It failed.

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :

Check out the myopic miss-the-point goggles on rolyn. Is there anything you can't misconstrue into a sufficiently moronic concept that you can pretend to understand?

Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
No, I don't think so. The comparison Harris makes is between the overall harm to humanity caused by religion and the overall harm to humanity caused by rape. It's a rhetorical argument, designed to provoke people into considering the scale of harm caused by religion. It's not a matter of whether rape is literally better than religion, any more than being stabbed to death is 'better' than being killed by a dirty bomb. Rape and religion cause harm, and Harris is proposing that, in the abstract, religion causes more overall harm than rape.

I agree with everything I quoted. While I think the dichotomy is a bit over the top, it is thought provoking.

Where I disagree is that religion itself is bad, or that rape itself is bad. Neither is an animate object. Religion and rape do not happen without the presence of people.

All rape is bad. I think I am safe in assuming everyone on the Ship believes that. So, no need to address or persuade anyone on that front.

Not all, but at least some religion can motivate people to do good things. Religion at it's best speaks to the desirability of acting well as regards other people.

Is some religion bad? Of course. Any notion of religion that says "we" are good and getting a reward from some divine being and everyone else is "bad" and getting something bad from some divine being is not good as far as I am concerned.

Does that say anything about whether or not religion is better than rape? No. It says some religion is better than rape. That is as far as formal logic takes us.

Back to is it better to get rid of religion than rape. Pfft. Y'all are straining to pull a syllogism out of a false dichotomy.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Or, as it's known colloquially, pulling a syllogism out of your bottom.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
It's a rhetorical argument,

As opposed to some other kind of argument.

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
But there is a big difference between saying "I would rather suffer rape myself than live in a world where religious belief exists" and "I would rather rape existed than religious belief." Rape existing pre-supposes someone is being raped - it cannot exist without victims.

Anyone who is preferring the existence of rape to the existence of [any other act] is either saying that that they would prefer to be a victim of rape themselves, or that they would prefer other people to be victims of rape.

Which do you think he means?

I've already set out what I think he's saying. And I struggle to see any plausible alternative reading. This is the same point worked through:

Harris starts of by opposing the argument that religion is acceptable because it is a natural impulse. So, he says, are genocide and rape.

As it happens, I think that's a poor response to a (bad) argument. Genocide and rape are not the same sorts of thing as religion. But you can see what point he's trying to make. And you can see that by lumping rape with genocide, that Harris (like all civilised humans) regards rape as an unmitigated evil.

After that he's told he's being inflammatory, and says he can top that, because he'd rather magic away religion than rape.

He then attacks religion. But he doesn't seek directly to quantify the harm of religion and balance it against rape. He gives specific examples of people (who he says are "not evil") doing things which are highly damaging (opposing medical research and vaccinations) because of their religious views. He is thinking about one particular consequence of religious thought - one that Marvin explains upthread - that religious belief can change the very definitions of right and wrong, and lead people to do thinks believing them to be morally obligatory which, but for religion, they would reject as plainly evil.

And Harris is absolutely right to identify this as a major concern about religion. Not particular religions, or the abuse of religion, but to identify it as a real and serious danger inherent in religious thought. There may be other ideologies that also do this, but there's no sensible case for disputing that religion is particularly good at it. There is nothing like having an absolute moral authority in the form of a God whose teachings define what is right and wrong, combined with an imperfectly understanding such as all humans possess, for making the bad seem good. Religious people who do not see that Harris has a point here are fooling themselves.

Is that enough to make religion worse than rape? There's only one thing that Harris says in the interview on which such a case can be built - which is his point about nuclear war. It's a point he also makes in Letter to a Christian nation. Having nuclear weapons potentially in the hands of people who believe that the end of the world will be a glorious vindication of their faith in a morally perfect deity really, really, scares him. Is he wrong?

Harris is certainly not saying that he thinks rapists are better than believers (his point is that religion can make people do bad things who are not themselves wicked) , or even, necessarily, that the total harm done by religion could be weighed out on some metaphysical set of scales and would exceed the harm of rape. He is saying that religion might end the world. That is the essential respect in which it is worse than rape.

Why look for any other interpretation of what he might mean? Isn't it a sufficient interpretation that, once he identifies religion as a significant threat to the whole of human existence, he would prefer its abolition even to the abolition of a great deal of human suffering?

If you read him like that - and I submit that there is absolutely no reason not to - then what he is saying may be provocative, but it is not outrageous or evil.

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :

I see the logic what you're saying, Eliab, but I still think you are being kinder to him than he deserves. Is it always/ever worth causing pain to provoke thought?

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
I see the logic what you're saying, Eliab, but I still think you are being kinder to him than he deserves. Is it always/ever worth causing pain to provoke thought?

Would you like a reply from a Hellhost? [Snigger]

[ 26. November 2012, 11:59: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
It's a rhetorical argument,
As opposed to some other kind of argument.

I guess that would be a big club?

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Having nuclear weapons potentially in the hands of people who believe that the end of the world will be a glorious vindication of their faith in a morally perfect deity really, really, scares him. Is he wrong?

Nope.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

It's a bit odd to say that someone is 'wrong' to be scared, since I don't know that person's psychological make-up. For myself, I am not scared about the possibility of religious nutters destroying the world, and I find it to be a melodramatic and even hysterical reaction, especially to be 'really really scared'. Does this mean that Sam Harris is permanently shivering in fear?

However, if someone is scared, fair enough. I can't say that I am scared in general, about the prospect of global war, leading to our destruction. I can see that various factors, such as patriotism, nationalism, territorial expansionism, the plunder of mineral wealth, economic competition, and so on, might lead to a huge war, for example, between the US and China. At the moment, though, it doesn't scare me.

I am trying to think of something to cheer up Sam Harris, but it's difficult, if he is that way inclined. I find that baking pies and cakes is very good for me, and dispels pessimism, so I recommend it. Last week, I made a pumpkin pie, and by gum, it made me happy!

[ 26. November 2012, 14:11: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

Turns out a prominent New Atheist is a complete dick.

Gosh, what a surprise.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Oh come on, you can be a torture apologist, and support a nuclear first strike, and still think religion is very very bad. Where's the contradiction?

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

The fact that someone with their finger on the button is religious is not what makes them scary. The fact that someone with their finger on the button is the kind of person who can rationalise their actions and divorce themselves from the consequences of what they're doing is what makes them scary.

Because there are plenty of religious people who maintain their internal mechanisms of doubt and scepticism and 'what if I'm wrong'. One need only look aroud the Ship to see that.

Are religious people capable of being one-eyed and deluded and therefore dangerous if they have weapons at their disposal? Yes. Is that a property of religion? No. It's a property of a certain kind of mind that embraces points of view and ideologies uncritically. I see them at football matches booing decisions against their team even when their team was in the wrong. I see them on Idol and X Factor and Dancing With the Stars cheering wildly for their favourite after an utterly crap performance.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I see them saying my country, right or wrong.

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :

Watching the hysterical poo-flinging as a response to a stupid false-equivalency made my eyes roll. As they rolled, I saw a kaleidoscope of religion / rape / religion / rape... Got me wondering.

How does one go about raping religion?

And would we be talking about scientology, or Gaza?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Scientology is rape of the credulous. Gaza is a mutual clusterfuck.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

If anyone is hysterical it's Sam Harris. Torture apologist, advocate of a nuclear first strike, fuck me, he should be in the Pentagon.

Posted by Cthulhu (# 16186) on :

SOUNDS LIKE MY KINDA GUY

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cthulhu:
SOUNDS LIKE MY KINDA GUY

That sounds like thread necromancy, which we hate on H&A days too.

H0stly Bowler on

Thread closed

H0stly Bowler off

Sioni Sais
Hellh0st

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0