Secularism and morality
November 9, 2005 10:16 AM Subscribe
Does religion make people evil? A brief and well-balanced article by George Monbiot discussing the conclusions of this research paper.
This post was deleted for the following reason: posted previously
This sounds like a great question for The Daily Show's former "Even Stevens" segment...
posted by clevershark at 10:23 AM on November 9, 2005
posted by clevershark at 10:23 AM on November 9, 2005
That segment has moved to the Colbert Report, renamed "Worthy Adversary".
posted by Pretty_Generic at 10:33 AM on November 9, 2005
posted by Pretty_Generic at 10:33 AM on November 9, 2005
Does religion make people evil?
No. Next question.
posted by Heminator at 10:33 AM on November 9, 2005
No. Next question.
posted by Heminator at 10:33 AM on November 9, 2005
Well, I'm convinced.
Hey Cleardawn, what color is your hobbyhorse?
posted by Divine_Wino at 10:37 AM on November 9, 2005
Hey Cleardawn, what color is your hobbyhorse?
posted by Divine_Wino at 10:37 AM on November 9, 2005
Prediction: nothing good will come of this thread.
posted by you just lost the game at 10:40 AM on November 9, 2005
posted by you just lost the game at 10:40 AM on November 9, 2005
This reminds me of that balanced movie by Leni Riefenstahl discussing the Nazi Army.
posted by dios at 10:46 AM on November 9, 2005
posted by dios at 10:46 AM on November 9, 2005
I'm a fairly devout atheist/agnostic, but Mr. Monbiot's article didn't strike me as particularly well-balanced. The research paper he used as his source seemed like pure data mining.
Many of the results seemed to follow the same logic: US = highly religious, US = relatively high rates of X, therefore highly religious = high rates of X.
It seems that Dr. Paul could have replaced variables like "% attending regular religious services" with "% obese" and concluded that being fat caused high homicide rates.
posted by justkevin at 10:47 AM on November 9, 2005
Many of the results seemed to follow the same logic: US = highly religious, US = relatively high rates of X, therefore highly religious = high rates of X.
It seems that Dr. Paul could have replaced variables like "% attending regular religious services" with "% obese" and concluded that being fat caused high homicide rates.
posted by justkevin at 10:47 AM on November 9, 2005
The Bible contains many contradictory values. The ones society regard as more important are by and large the ones that atheists also regard as important. A society most ideally geared towards these values would not have the superstitious distractions and irrelevencies inherent in both organised religion and in the atheistic personality-cults of Hitler and Stalin.
posted by Pretty_Generic at 10:47 AM on November 9, 2005
posted by Pretty_Generic at 10:47 AM on November 9, 2005
I mean, say what you like about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos.
posted by Divine_Wino at 10:48 AM on November 9, 2005
posted by Divine_Wino at 10:48 AM on November 9, 2005
fairly devout atheist/agnostic
see? they are religions!
posted by quonsar at 10:48 AM on November 9, 2005
see? they are religions!
posted by quonsar at 10:48 AM on November 9, 2005
Ha ha, "well-balanced" and "Monbiot" in the same sentence.
posted by Ugandan Discussions at 10:49 AM on November 9, 2005
posted by Ugandan Discussions at 10:49 AM on November 9, 2005
Whether religion "makes" people evil or not could simply be a matter of semantics: "Evil" is basically a religious concept, after all. Without religion (of some kind), "evil" doesn't really make sense.
So by virtue of establishing a meaning for the term "evil"....
posted by lodurr at 10:49 AM on November 9, 2005
So by virtue of establishing a meaning for the term "evil"....
posted by lodurr at 10:49 AM on November 9, 2005
Evil is most definately not the word to use here, and it's not a word Monbiot uses in the article.
posted by Pretty_Generic at 10:51 AM on November 9, 2005
posted by Pretty_Generic at 10:51 AM on November 9, 2005
... having said what I said, people who self-identify as non-religious are much more likely to be well-educated. (If only because less well-educated are less likely to take the risk of self-identifying as non-religious.) So the standard demographics for the well-educated would apply.
posted by lodurr at 10:52 AM on November 9, 2005
posted by lodurr at 10:52 AM on November 9, 2005
Excellent Big Lebowski reference, Divine_Wino.
And for the record, while I don't think religion makes people evil, I do think it is a compelling force in making good people do evil things. I tend to see religion as one giant appeal to authority fallacy.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 10:54 AM on November 9, 2005
And for the record, while I don't think religion makes people evil, I do think it is a compelling force in making good people do evil things. I tend to see religion as one giant appeal to authority fallacy.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 10:54 AM on November 9, 2005
Obviously it was a badly-worded post, but neither that nor the pirates should prevent us actually debating the findings of the research paper.
In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion … None of the strongly secularized, pro-evolution democracies is experiencing high levels of measurable dysfunction.” Within the United States “the strongly theistic, anti-evolution South and Midwest” have “markedly worse homicide, mortality, STD, youth pregnancy, marital and related problems than the Northeast where … secularization, and acceptance of evolution approach European norms”.
posted by Pretty_Generic at 11:00 AM on November 9, 2005
In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion … None of the strongly secularized, pro-evolution democracies is experiencing high levels of measurable dysfunction.” Within the United States “the strongly theistic, anti-evolution South and Midwest” have “markedly worse homicide, mortality, STD, youth pregnancy, marital and related problems than the Northeast where … secularization, and acceptance of evolution approach European norms”.
posted by Pretty_Generic at 11:00 AM on November 9, 2005
In India, we see men whose religion forbids them to harm insects setting light to human beings.
I assume the religion he is referring to is Jainism, but what incident is he talking about?
posted by If I Had An Anus at 11:00 AM on November 9, 2005
I assume the religion he is referring to is Jainism, but what incident is he talking about?
posted by If I Had An Anus at 11:00 AM on November 9, 2005
YOU KNOW WHO ELSE WAS MEAN? THE NAZIS!
posted by dios at 10:46 AM PST on November 9
Eight comments in.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 11:03 AM on November 9, 2005
posted by dios at 10:46 AM PST on November 9
Eight comments in.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 11:03 AM on November 9, 2005
In my opinion, the real issue is poverty and religion is tandem. Poor people tend to be more religious as well as more disfunctional because of the same root causes: desperation and bad education. Those same causes tend to keep them poor, unless society steps in to help them.
posted by Pretty_Generic at 11:06 AM on November 9, 2005
posted by Pretty_Generic at 11:06 AM on November 9, 2005
Christian anarchism, Religious Society of Friends (consensus, hee hee), Dorothy Day, Peace churches, Abolitionism, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr..
I guess my version of this question would be: Does religion happen to sometimes justify, excuse or coincide with the evil behaviors of certain people or peoples and does religion also sometimes help to elevate, soothe or inspire certain other people and, if so, what the fuck am I posting about? It was ever thus.
ps. Optimus, I wouldn't have hauled out the boys in black that quickly myself, but I don't think that was what dios was saying.
pps. I am a happy atheist who happens to find many of the teachings of Jesus Christ (not the rules of the spinoff religion, I think Christianity is mostly the Joanie Loves Chachi to Christ's Happy Days) a nice metaphor for a pretty good way of looking at the world and treating people. I know exactly how religion is used to oppress, distract and leverage people , I don't think it always has to and I don't think blindly flailing away at some monolithic notion of what religion is does anything to help.
posted by Divine_Wino at 11:12 AM on November 9, 2005
I guess my version of this question would be: Does religion happen to sometimes justify, excuse or coincide with the evil behaviors of certain people or peoples and does religion also sometimes help to elevate, soothe or inspire certain other people and, if so, what the fuck am I posting about? It was ever thus.
ps. Optimus, I wouldn't have hauled out the boys in black that quickly myself, but I don't think that was what dios was saying.
pps. I am a happy atheist who happens to find many of the teachings of Jesus Christ (not the rules of the spinoff religion, I think Christianity is mostly the Joanie Loves Chachi to Christ's Happy Days) a nice metaphor for a pretty good way of looking at the world and treating people. I know exactly how religion is used to oppress, distract and leverage people , I don't think it always has to and I don't think blindly flailing away at some monolithic notion of what religion is does anything to help.
posted by Divine_Wino at 11:12 AM on November 9, 2005
admins: please stop fucking with this thread.
everybody else: keep up the good work!
posted by zpousman at 11:12 AM on November 9, 2005
everybody else: keep up the good work!
posted by zpousman at 11:12 AM on November 9, 2005
If you read the article, one of the points that Monbiot makes is that the most ethical people he's ever met (he uses the word "hero") were in fact Christian.
It would be easy to take this research and say, See, Christian = Bad! But that isn't at all what he did. Hence my use of the word "balanced". Obviously my use of the term "evil" in this context was intended ironically and to encourage debate, rather than as a serious Yes/No question.
Personally, I have a shrine to Lord Shiva in my apartment, and do regular prayer, yoga, and meditation. I'm not at all anti-religion. But I think you have to look at the details of the particular religion you're talking about.
Clearly, there are many good religious people, and many bad atheists, and vice versa. Some types of religion seem likely to encourage people to be less educated, less honest, and less self-critical. Others are quite the reverse. Buddhism and Hinduism, among others, actively encourage questioning and self-analysis. So do the Quakers and some other fringe Christian groups. So it's hard to accurately generalize.
Personal anecdote: Once, many years ago, I met a very nice, very intelligent guy who also happened to be a born-again Christian, and a teetotaller. Over several months of genuine friendship, and I'm sure partly as a result of my influence, he became a heavy drinker, and decided that he was an atheist. He also stopped being a nice guy and became an absolutely intolerable asshole. Your mileage may vary.
posted by cleardawn at 11:17 AM on November 9, 2005
It would be easy to take this research and say, See, Christian = Bad! But that isn't at all what he did. Hence my use of the word "balanced". Obviously my use of the term "evil" in this context was intended ironically and to encourage debate, rather than as a serious Yes/No question.
Personally, I have a shrine to Lord Shiva in my apartment, and do regular prayer, yoga, and meditation. I'm not at all anti-religion. But I think you have to look at the details of the particular religion you're talking about.
Clearly, there are many good religious people, and many bad atheists, and vice versa. Some types of religion seem likely to encourage people to be less educated, less honest, and less self-critical. Others are quite the reverse. Buddhism and Hinduism, among others, actively encourage questioning and self-analysis. So do the Quakers and some other fringe Christian groups. So it's hard to accurately generalize.
Personal anecdote: Once, many years ago, I met a very nice, very intelligent guy who also happened to be a born-again Christian, and a teetotaller. Over several months of genuine friendship, and I'm sure partly as a result of my influence, he became a heavy drinker, and decided that he was an atheist. He also stopped being a nice guy and became an absolutely intolerable asshole. Your mileage may vary.
posted by cleardawn at 11:17 AM on November 9, 2005
Religion, by and large, serves the purpose of clouding people's minds so that they aren't destroyed by the existential void.
Arguments about religion, by and large, serve the same purpose.
Can anybody
Give me a reason
For living?
posted by lodurr at 11:20 AM on November 9, 2005
Arguments about religion, by and large, serve the same purpose.
Can anybody
Give me a reason
For living?
posted by lodurr at 11:20 AM on November 9, 2005
Well said, dios, or rather, well-imaged. Correlation does not imply causation, and this "study" just shows some selected correlations. The Southern US has higher rates of blahblahblah than the Northeast. Well, duh, it's poorer. That seems to me to be a much more likely cause than the higher rates of religious nuttism.
I'm an athiest, myself, but folks like this don't speak for me any more than IDers speak for all Christians.
posted by gurple at 11:20 AM on November 9, 2005
I'm an athiest, myself, but folks like this don't speak for me any more than IDers speak for all Christians.
posted by gurple at 11:20 AM on November 9, 2005
Obviously my use of the term "evil" in this context was intended ironically and to encourage debate, rather than as a serious Yes/No question.
Sarcasm doesn't work well in hypertext - that's what emoticons are for. :[
posted by Pretty_Generic at 11:23 AM on November 9, 2005
Sarcasm doesn't work well in hypertext - that's what emoticons are for. :[
posted by Pretty_Generic at 11:23 AM on November 9, 2005
Re: "Devout atheist" - my hubby describes himself as "an evangelical atheist"
Personally, I find the major flaw in Christianity (especially certain brands) is that it requires small children (and everyone else, but it starts there) to believe that they are born bad, and not just bad, but sinful. This is not good for one's self-image and does nothing to promote personal responsibility or respect for others. The lazy/less inclined can just say "I'm born this way, what do you want?" and "Look, he's never gotten past his evil start. Why should I respect him?" With a basic tenet like original sin, what really can we expect of the practitioners of the faith?
I much prefer the idea that there is an alternate, less tortured way to exist, a higher state of consciousness - and that living a life that practices those ideals is a path worth walking.
posted by dbmcd at 11:29 AM on November 9, 2005
Personally, I find the major flaw in Christianity (especially certain brands) is that it requires small children (and everyone else, but it starts there) to believe that they are born bad, and not just bad, but sinful. This is not good for one's self-image and does nothing to promote personal responsibility or respect for others. The lazy/less inclined can just say "I'm born this way, what do you want?" and "Look, he's never gotten past his evil start. Why should I respect him?" With a basic tenet like original sin, what really can we expect of the practitioners of the faith?
I much prefer the idea that there is an alternate, less tortured way to exist, a higher state of consciousness - and that living a life that practices those ideals is a path worth walking.
posted by dbmcd at 11:29 AM on November 9, 2005
*yawn* ... didn't we link to the article that's being discussed in this blog? ... so why are we linking to a blog about it, now?
oh, i get it ... time to kick the little tin demon around some more ...
posted by pyramid termite at 11:32 AM on November 9, 2005
oh, i get it ... time to kick the little tin demon around some more ...
posted by pyramid termite at 11:32 AM on November 9, 2005
The ubiquitous pirate graph is more interesting than it seems. The passage of time since 1820 corresponds not merely to an increase in temperature, but to an unprecedented increase in the level of heat generated by human activity (in both thermal and thermodynamic senses). It would be quite surprising if that didn't correspond to an increase in piracy, since hot systems tend to be more chaotic, and pirates thrive on chaos....
posted by lodurr at 11:33 AM on November 9, 2005
posted by lodurr at 11:33 AM on November 9, 2005
Cleardawn,
If you run into the fireworks factory with a lit road flare, it doesn't really matter how much you backpedal later. If it's a good question people will debate it.
Also, you might want to check out some of the valid criticism of Hinduism and Buddhism as they are practiced in the east. Especially with regard to the caste system and the role that religion plays in the totaly feudal culture in Tibet. It's not all yoga mats and clear skin bro. If you can pick and choose from those religions why do you imagine it's so hard for people of the book to do so as well.
In regard to self questioning, I would also suggest looking into Jesuit thought, for instance or Saint Augustine.
posted by Divine_Wino at 11:33 AM on November 9, 2005
If you run into the fireworks factory with a lit road flare, it doesn't really matter how much you backpedal later. If it's a good question people will debate it.
Also, you might want to check out some of the valid criticism of Hinduism and Buddhism as they are practiced in the east. Especially with regard to the caste system and the role that religion plays in the totaly feudal culture in Tibet. It's not all yoga mats and clear skin bro. If you can pick and choose from those religions why do you imagine it's so hard for people of the book to do so as well.
In regard to self questioning, I would also suggest looking into Jesuit thought, for instance or Saint Augustine.
posted by Divine_Wino at 11:33 AM on November 9, 2005
Interesting suggestion, DW. Jesuit thought is a particularly good way of illustrating the ability of the disciplined mind to deal with internal contradictions. Or great big yawning chasms of fear and doubt, for that matter.
Of course, mental discipline can be put to good or ill ends. What's needed is not more or less religion, but more attention on the part of each of us to the ethical ecosystem within which each of us lives.
posted by lodurr at 11:43 AM on November 9, 2005
Of course, mental discipline can be put to good or ill ends. What's needed is not more or less religion, but more attention on the part of each of us to the ethical ecosystem within which each of us lives.
posted by lodurr at 11:43 AM on November 9, 2005
If we want people to be morally educated, I think a better tool than religious belief would be an education in moral philosophy.
Many people are quite ignorant of secular moral philosophy. Religion seems to have a monopoly in the public consciousness when it comes to morality. What if high schools discussed people like Hume, Kant, Hobbes, Rousseau, Nussbaum, Mill, Rawls and others? Perhaps more people would discuss morality and its basis in ways that don't exclude secular ideas.
Basically, this whole idea that morals can't exist without religion really pisses me off. It's condeceding, and it's wrong.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 11:45 AM on November 9, 2005
Many people are quite ignorant of secular moral philosophy. Religion seems to have a monopoly in the public consciousness when it comes to morality. What if high schools discussed people like Hume, Kant, Hobbes, Rousseau, Nussbaum, Mill, Rawls and others? Perhaps more people would discuss morality and its basis in ways that don't exclude secular ideas.
Basically, this whole idea that morals can't exist without religion really pisses me off. It's condeceding, and it's wrong.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 11:45 AM on November 9, 2005
Oh, and Dios's last post is hillarious, succinct and dead on.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 11:49 AM on November 9, 2005
posted by [expletive deleted] at 11:49 AM on November 9, 2005
I think people are prone to acting "good" or "evil" whether or not religion is there to support them/punish them. The historical record bears that out.
Personally, I just find being alive miracle enough. I don't need an afterlife, or the threat of being punished in the afterlife, to keep me on the relatively straight and narrow. And frankly, I find a big, uncaring, basically absurd universe kind of reassuring for reasons I've never been entirely able to explain.
Through out the magic and all the notions of "chosen people" and keep The Golden Rule, and maybe, just maybe, we could learn to get along without any help from above.
On preview: right on, expletive
posted by theinsectsarewaiting at 11:50 AM on November 9, 2005
Personally, I just find being alive miracle enough. I don't need an afterlife, or the threat of being punished in the afterlife, to keep me on the relatively straight and narrow. And frankly, I find a big, uncaring, basically absurd universe kind of reassuring for reasons I've never been entirely able to explain.
Through out the magic and all the notions of "chosen people" and keep The Golden Rule, and maybe, just maybe, we could learn to get along without any help from above.
On preview: right on, expletive
posted by theinsectsarewaiting at 11:50 AM on November 9, 2005
Basically, this whole idea that morals can't exist without religion really pisses me off.
As it should, it's a totally false idea.
lodurr: Yup.
posted by Divine_Wino at 11:50 AM on November 9, 2005
As it should, it's a totally false idea.
lodurr: Yup.
posted by Divine_Wino at 11:50 AM on November 9, 2005
Thanks for the headsup, P_G, I'll use emoticons more in future. :-))
It seems a lot of posters here expect a Yes/No question to "Does religion make people evil?" and even think that I, or Monbiot, have suggested one - which of course we haven't. Perhaps naiively, I'm a little disappointed. I thought MeFi was smarter than that.
Dios, of course you're right that correlation does not NECESSARILY imply causation. On the other hand, most discoveries in social science involve a combination of demonstrated correlation and suggested mechanism. As, indeed, this study does.
To do as you seem to be suggesting, and reject all correlations as evidence, would leave us back at the stage of accepting Genesis as literal truth.
Dios to Galileo: "There is no evidence that the correlation between drop times of these two differently-sized cannonballs shows anything about other cannonballs..."
Divine_Wino: Thank you for that informative post. Previously, I hadn't heard any criticisms of the caste system. Why, I thought Hinduism was all about yoga mats and clear skin!
posted by cleardawn at 11:55 AM on November 9, 2005
It seems a lot of posters here expect a Yes/No question to "Does religion make people evil?" and even think that I, or Monbiot, have suggested one - which of course we haven't. Perhaps naiively, I'm a little disappointed. I thought MeFi was smarter than that.
Dios, of course you're right that correlation does not NECESSARILY imply causation. On the other hand, most discoveries in social science involve a combination of demonstrated correlation and suggested mechanism. As, indeed, this study does.
To do as you seem to be suggesting, and reject all correlations as evidence, would leave us back at the stage of accepting Genesis as literal truth.
Dios to Galileo: "There is no evidence that the correlation between drop times of these two differently-sized cannonballs shows anything about other cannonballs..."
Divine_Wino: Thank you for that informative post. Previously, I hadn't heard any criticisms of the caste system. Why, I thought Hinduism was all about yoga mats and clear skin!
posted by cleardawn at 11:55 AM on November 9, 2005
Finally to add a personal datapoint, religion didn't make me evil, Malt Liquor, Ditch Weed and a little barbershop quartet called Motorhead made me evil.
*walks off to punch a nun, whistling born to raise hell*
posted by Divine_Wino at 11:59 AM on November 9, 2005
*walks off to punch a nun, whistling born to raise hell*
posted by Divine_Wino at 11:59 AM on November 9, 2005
Personally, I find the major flaw in Christianity (especially certain brands) is that it requires small children (and everyone else, but it starts there) to believe that they are born bad, and not just bad, but sinful.
You're missing the whole appeal of it...
(of the concept of sin, I mean, not Christianity)
posted by funambulist at 12:00 PM on November 9, 2005
You're missing the whole appeal of it...
(of the concept of sin, I mean, not Christianity)
posted by funambulist at 12:00 PM on November 9, 2005
Pretty_Generic writes "Obviously it was a badly-worded post, but neither that nor the pirates should prevent us actually debating the findings of the research paper."
We did already. As was pointed out the first time this study was linked, correlation is not causality, nor does either the study or Monbiot's column suggest that it is.
posted by OmieWise at 12:00 PM on November 9, 2005
We did already. As was pointed out the first time this study was linked, correlation is not causality, nor does either the study or Monbiot's column suggest that it is.
posted by OmieWise at 12:00 PM on November 9, 2005
Cleardawn, You're the only pedantic twat allowed on Mefi now? We should probably update the guidelines then.
You chose to instruct us on how hinduism and buddhism are religions that encourage freethinking and self examination and someone points out that, in fact, that is not always the case and you respond with schoolyard sarcasm? Nice.
I could do with a lot less of the I can dish it out but not take it from you chief.
posted by Divine_Wino at 12:04 PM on November 9, 2005
You chose to instruct us on how hinduism and buddhism are religions that encourage freethinking and self examination and someone points out that, in fact, that is not always the case and you respond with schoolyard sarcasm? Nice.
I could do with a lot less of the I can dish it out but not take it from you chief.
posted by Divine_Wino at 12:04 PM on November 9, 2005
scheptech writes "TrollFilter."
Indeed, as well as a double post and a single link op-ed. The trifecta.
posted by OmieWise at 12:06 PM on November 9, 2005
Indeed, as well as a double post and a single link op-ed. The trifecta.
posted by OmieWise at 12:06 PM on November 9, 2005
...the atheistic personality-cults of Hitler and Stalin.
Um, not really. Both took cues from the Christian psychology of the time.
Nazi Germany was extremely religious. You could describe Nazism as a mystic cult based on nationalism, but Lutheranism and Catholicism had significant influence in that culture as well. Hitler himself was a Roman Catholic (an altar boy as a child and educated in a seminary, in fact) before coming to power, and publicly invoked his god more than a little frequently to help advance his agenda. Those that opposed the Nazi party - including clergy - would suffer a similar fate to the Jews, homosexuals, Roma, Communists, and Poles.
Stalin was also an altar boy, and was raised - and punished corporally - in an Orthodox Christian church. For him, being anti-church was emotionally satisfying and politically expedient. It suppressed the worship of all else except Communism and the Soviet state. I guess you could technically consider this to be atheistic, but he was really just demanding the substitution of a god with himself, and the church with his politics. Therefore, I wouldn't strictly label it as such, though many religious writers have been more than happy to do so.
That said, this atheist feels that the "well-balanced" doesn't belong in that sentence either.
posted by Pseudonumb at 12:10 PM on November 9, 2005
Um, not really. Both took cues from the Christian psychology of the time.
Nazi Germany was extremely religious. You could describe Nazism as a mystic cult based on nationalism, but Lutheranism and Catholicism had significant influence in that culture as well. Hitler himself was a Roman Catholic (an altar boy as a child and educated in a seminary, in fact) before coming to power, and publicly invoked his god more than a little frequently to help advance his agenda. Those that opposed the Nazi party - including clergy - would suffer a similar fate to the Jews, homosexuals, Roma, Communists, and Poles.
Stalin was also an altar boy, and was raised - and punished corporally - in an Orthodox Christian church. For him, being anti-church was emotionally satisfying and politically expedient. It suppressed the worship of all else except Communism and the Soviet state. I guess you could technically consider this to be atheistic, but he was really just demanding the substitution of a god with himself, and the church with his politics. Therefore, I wouldn't strictly label it as such, though many religious writers have been more than happy to do so.
That said, this atheist feels that the "well-balanced" doesn't belong in that sentence either.
posted by Pseudonumb at 12:10 PM on November 9, 2005
scheptech writes "TrollFilter."
OmieWise opines: Indeed, as well as a double post and a single link op-ed. The trifecta.
... and followed up with harrassing-fire from people who don't seem to notice that we've managed to assemble something like a discussion from these inferiour parts.
There's a flag drop-down: Use it.
posted by lodurr at 12:16 PM on November 9, 2005
OmieWise opines: Indeed, as well as a double post and a single link op-ed. The trifecta.
... and followed up with harrassing-fire from people who don't seem to notice that we've managed to assemble something like a discussion from these inferiour parts.
There's a flag drop-down: Use it.
posted by lodurr at 12:16 PM on November 9, 2005
There's a flag drop-down: Use it.
Too much work. Easier to bitch.
posted by Rothko at 12:20 PM on November 9, 2005
Too much work. Easier to bitch.
posted by Rothko at 12:20 PM on November 9, 2005
I think blind belief in anything is a fertile soil for evil and oppressive actions. What's a rigid ideologue (of any stripe) but a poltical fundamentalist?
posted by jonmc at 12:21 PM on November 9, 2005
posted by jonmc at 12:21 PM on November 9, 2005
lodurr writes "There's a flag drop-down: Use it."
Oh, I did.
posted by OmieWise at 12:23 PM on November 9, 2005
Oh, I did.
posted by OmieWise at 12:23 PM on November 9, 2005
No. By and large, most of the religious people I know are good, well-meaning people. There is a vocal minority that tries to enforce their beliefs through the law of the land; I call these people "Republicans".
I used to call myself an atheist; until I realized that being an atheist means that you are exerting an effort not to believe in what you disbelieve in...sort of like pushing on both sides of a door.
I also don't believe in the concept of evil or good people, but rather evil and good acts committed BY people. "Good" and "evil" are rather powerful and far-reaching labels, and hard to overcome for those labeled. Did Hitler do evil things? No question. But those trains carrying my Jewish ancestors to their deaths? They fucking ran ON TIME, dude.
posted by weirdoactor at 12:48 PM on November 9, 2005
I used to call myself an atheist; until I realized that being an atheist means that you are exerting an effort not to believe in what you disbelieve in...sort of like pushing on both sides of a door.
I also don't believe in the concept of evil or good people, but rather evil and good acts committed BY people. "Good" and "evil" are rather powerful and far-reaching labels, and hard to overcome for those labeled. Did Hitler do evil things? No question. But those trains carrying my Jewish ancestors to their deaths? They fucking ran ON TIME, dude.
posted by weirdoactor at 12:48 PM on November 9, 2005
I also don't believe in the concept of evil or good people,
Me either. But plenty of people, bith religious and secular, have this rather dangerous tendency to divide the world into neat simple categories of good and bad, freind or enemy.
Of course, there's also the question of sociopathy; those who through genetics, enviornment or some combination thereof lack empathy or conscience. These people are very real threats that must be dealt with somehow, if only for the safety of society as a whole. But that's a side issue I guess.
posted by jonmc at 12:52 PM on November 9, 2005
Me either. But plenty of people, bith religious and secular, have this rather dangerous tendency to divide the world into neat simple categories of good and bad, freind or enemy.
Of course, there's also the question of sociopathy; those who through genetics, enviornment or some combination thereof lack empathy or conscience. These people are very real threats that must be dealt with somehow, if only for the safety of society as a whole. But that's a side issue I guess.
posted by jonmc at 12:52 PM on November 9, 2005
Metafilter: Bringing Fark-grade discussion to the Big Questions - since late 2005.
posted by Western Infidels at 12:52 PM on November 9, 2005
posted by Western Infidels at 12:52 PM on November 9, 2005
Metafilter: Bringing Fark-grade discussion to the Big Questions - since late 2005.
posted by Western Infidels at 2:52 PM CST on November 9
Idon't understand the appeal of making tired in-jokes, but at least get it right. The "Metafilter: ...." in-joke requires that the tagline be something said within a thread. If you are going try to be "in," make sure you do it right. It's like doing the elephant walk wrong in a fraternity.
Also: this is a double post and has been flagged as such. Why the hell is it still here?
posted by dios at 12:57 PM on November 9, 2005
posted by Western Infidels at 2:52 PM CST on November 9
I
Also: this is a double post and has been flagged as such. Why the hell is it still here?
posted by dios at 12:57 PM on November 9, 2005
I used to call myself an atheist; until I realized that being an atheist means that you are exerting an effort not to believe in what you disbelieve in...sort of like pushing on both sides of a door.
Sounds like you're an agnostic. If you were atheist, you'd realize that there is no door and that people are just pushing around a lot of hot air.
posted by Pseudonumb at 1:01 PM on November 9, 2005
Sounds like you're an agnostic. If you were atheist, you'd realize that there is no door and that people are just pushing around a lot of hot air.
posted by Pseudonumb at 1:01 PM on November 9, 2005
Pseudonumb, thanks! That needed saying and bears repeating.
posted by a_day_late at 1:02 PM on November 9, 2005
posted by a_day_late at 1:02 PM on November 9, 2005
I used to call myself an atheist; until I realized that being an atheist means that you are exerting an effort not to believe in what you disbelieve in...sort of like pushing on both sides of a door.
WTF?
On preview, Pseudonumb covered it. You rule, Dude/Dudette
posted by a_day_late at 1:05 PM on November 9, 2005
WTF?
On preview, Pseudonumb covered it. You rule, Dude/Dudette
posted by a_day_late at 1:05 PM on November 9, 2005
I am an (a)theist, I live in a world that has an absence of god, I don't believe in not believing, I just don't believe. Like an anoxic atmosphere doesn't reject oxygen, it just doesn't have any.
weirdoactor: I sorta feel like you do, but there is a tipping point or a gray area (for me) where there is a saturation of good or evil acts that make a person truely good or evil, it's rare though..
Finally I would like to say for the record, that when I was talking about looking into Saint Augustine earlier, I really should have said the first part of his confessions where there is an interesting narrative of how someone could fall towards or away from religion. I find many of Augustines contributions to Christian doctrine to run counter to how I look at the world.
Or if this thread gets deleted, the secret record.
posted by Divine_Wino at 1:06 PM on November 9, 2005
weirdoactor: I sorta feel like you do, but there is a tipping point or a gray area (for me) where there is a saturation of good or evil acts that make a person truely good or evil, it's rare though..
Finally I would like to say for the record, that when I was talking about looking into Saint Augustine earlier, I really should have said the first part of his confessions where there is an interesting narrative of how someone could fall towards or away from religion. I find many of Augustines contributions to Christian doctrine to run counter to how I look at the world.
Or if this thread gets deleted, the secret record.
posted by Divine_Wino at 1:06 PM on November 9, 2005
I see this in a bit different way.
Many religions make the claim that belief in a higher power makes one a more moral person. Within Christianity in specific, there is the doctrine that accepting Jesus in one's life means that one is "moved by the Holy Spirit" in moral decisions. Other religions make more modest claims that living according to religious precepts will help to reduce the temptation for doing evil acts.
At any rate, there is empirical evidence supporting the Gaiman/Pratchett maxim: Most people are good in spite of their religion. Still, there is copious propaganda from cultural conservatives that not having god in one's life leads to all kinds of anti-social behavior.
weirdoactor: It takes no more effort for me to disbelieve, or not believe in god, than it does for me to not believe that a nigerian bank with a large sum of money needs my help to transfer that money to the U.S.. I just shrug my shoulders and get on with my life.
But the most common misinterpretation of atheism is that atheism is the claim that there is no god, rather than just the claim that one sees no reason to believe in god.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 1:10 PM on November 9, 2005
Many religions make the claim that belief in a higher power makes one a more moral person. Within Christianity in specific, there is the doctrine that accepting Jesus in one's life means that one is "moved by the Holy Spirit" in moral decisions. Other religions make more modest claims that living according to religious precepts will help to reduce the temptation for doing evil acts.
At any rate, there is empirical evidence supporting the Gaiman/Pratchett maxim: Most people are good in spite of their religion. Still, there is copious propaganda from cultural conservatives that not having god in one's life leads to all kinds of anti-social behavior.
weirdoactor: It takes no more effort for me to disbelieve, or not believe in god, than it does for me to not believe that a nigerian bank with a large sum of money needs my help to transfer that money to the U.S.. I just shrug my shoulders and get on with my life.
But the most common misinterpretation of atheism is that atheism is the claim that there is no god, rather than just the claim that one sees no reason to believe in god.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 1:10 PM on November 9, 2005
Apologies if this is a double post: I did search for every article I linked before posting, and nothing came up.
Divine_Wino, congratulations on launching an utterly content-free personal attack on somebody who you actually haven't disagreed with! I mean, I'm used to people disagreeing with my views, and then launching waves of insults. But just posting waves of obscene insults, after I pointed out that your stated views are the same as mine, seems a little pointless.
posted by cleardawn at 1:13 PM on November 9, 2005
Divine_Wino, congratulations on launching an utterly content-free personal attack on somebody who you actually haven't disagreed with! I mean, I'm used to people disagreeing with my views, and then launching waves of insults. But just posting waves of obscene insults, after I pointed out that your stated views are the same as mine, seems a little pointless.
posted by cleardawn at 1:13 PM on November 9, 2005
I don't understand the appeal of making tired in-jokes, but at least get it right.
I am aware of the convention, and I wouldn't change a thing.
posted by Western Infidels at 1:15 PM on November 9, 2005
I am aware of the convention, and I wouldn't change a thing.
posted by Western Infidels at 1:15 PM on November 9, 2005
Sounds like you're an agnostic. If you were atheist, you'd realize that there is no door and that people are just pushing around a lot of hot air.
Nope. Not agnostic. According to dictionary.com, an agnostic "believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God", or is "skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism". Neither of these is true about me. I’m not sure that there isn’t a “God” because “God”, like “Satan” are the constructs of humankind, created as devices to control the weak, and as a cash cows for the powerful. I believe in the constructs (i.e., I acknowledge that the constructs exist, in the minds of people), not in the fairy tale.
I understand why religion exists, because some people need a flashlight in the darkness. I do not. I am content knowing that my life is "controlled" (such as anything can be controlled) by chaos and probability. There is no imaginary friend watching over me. A lonely scenario? Somewhat. A sane scenario? More so (in my opinion) than believing that some unseen force makes everything happen for “mysterious reasons”, and only loves me if I “pray” to it and give its acolytes money.
If you went to a psychiatrist and told them that you believed an imaginary being controlled your universe, and required you to offer prayers and money, you'd be pumped full of drugs and put in four-point restraints on a plastic mattress before you could blink. Yet religious organizations are given carte blanche to operate, tax free, gathering their flocks of the fearful. It's mind boggling.
Divine_Wino: Do the acts saturate the person with good/evil, or does the good/evil saturate the person? Or both? That gray area is the norm, I think. I would tend to agree that on rare occasions, there are “bad seeds”, and conversely, “good seeds”. But when does pure good flip to evil? If the religious ran this country as a theocracy (assuming they already don’t), they would, with “good intentions”, do evil.
KirkJobSluder: dictionary.com defines an atheist as “one who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods”. By that definition, the disbelief sounds like an actual effort. I think we agree more than we think we do; I just don’t like labels like "atheist" or "agnostic". I find it unnecessary to label myself with what for me, is a given. What I’m saying is; it’s like wondering whether or not I believe in leprechauns. Like you, I don’t put a lot of effort into it, I just don’t believe it. Period. I don’t call myself an a “aleprechaunist”.
posted by weirdoactor at 1:24 PM on November 9, 2005
Nope. Not agnostic. According to dictionary.com, an agnostic "believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God", or is "skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism". Neither of these is true about me. I’m not sure that there isn’t a “God” because “God”, like “Satan” are the constructs of humankind, created as devices to control the weak, and as a cash cows for the powerful. I believe in the constructs (i.e., I acknowledge that the constructs exist, in the minds of people), not in the fairy tale.
I understand why religion exists, because some people need a flashlight in the darkness. I do not. I am content knowing that my life is "controlled" (such as anything can be controlled) by chaos and probability. There is no imaginary friend watching over me. A lonely scenario? Somewhat. A sane scenario? More so (in my opinion) than believing that some unseen force makes everything happen for “mysterious reasons”, and only loves me if I “pray” to it and give its acolytes money.
If you went to a psychiatrist and told them that you believed an imaginary being controlled your universe, and required you to offer prayers and money, you'd be pumped full of drugs and put in four-point restraints on a plastic mattress before you could blink. Yet religious organizations are given carte blanche to operate, tax free, gathering their flocks of the fearful. It's mind boggling.
Divine_Wino: Do the acts saturate the person with good/evil, or does the good/evil saturate the person? Or both? That gray area is the norm, I think. I would tend to agree that on rare occasions, there are “bad seeds”, and conversely, “good seeds”. But when does pure good flip to evil? If the religious ran this country as a theocracy (assuming they already don’t), they would, with “good intentions”, do evil.
KirkJobSluder: dictionary.com defines an atheist as “one who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods”. By that definition, the disbelief sounds like an actual effort. I think we agree more than we think we do; I just don’t like labels like "atheist" or "agnostic". I find it unnecessary to label myself with what for me, is a given. What I’m saying is; it’s like wondering whether or not I believe in leprechauns. Like you, I don’t put a lot of effort into it, I just don’t believe it. Period. I don’t call myself an a “aleprechaunist”.
posted by weirdoactor at 1:24 PM on November 9, 2005
Dearest Delicate Cleardawn of the Rosy Cheeks,
Well maybe not so much of a wave, as one particular obscene insult, but I am a living obscenity, so who knows?
I'm not sure how many of your views I disagree with as they are sort of occluded, I know I disagree with your view (stated) that christianity is a monolithic block of bad things, your view that hinduism and buddhism (which are as large and varied as christianity and judiasm and islam) are de facto more encouraging of openmindedness and self-reflection than other western religions (this is a common trope by the way, the mysterious spiritual east, it's reductionist and narrowminded in the extreme).
I also know I disagree with your opinion of the collective intelligence of mefi and the neccessity of correcting deficiencies in it in a hectoring, absolutist tone. You have a reputation here for throwing the baby out with the bathwater, I was attacking that, if I was in a fairer mood I probably should have allowed you to develop your ideas more before I leapt in with the insults (debate, rebbutals), I didn't though, perhaps another time I will.
If you would like a wave of obscenity, however, I would be happy to oblige, I'll give you a teaser, a rivulet before the torrent, it's to do with a flacid quivering Chomskyhole and what you can stick in it... So congratulations accepted!
posted by Divine_Wino at 1:34 PM on November 9, 2005
Well maybe not so much of a wave, as one particular obscene insult, but I am a living obscenity, so who knows?
I'm not sure how many of your views I disagree with as they are sort of occluded, I know I disagree with your view (stated) that christianity is a monolithic block of bad things, your view that hinduism and buddhism (which are as large and varied as christianity and judiasm and islam) are de facto more encouraging of openmindedness and self-reflection than other western religions (this is a common trope by the way, the mysterious spiritual east, it's reductionist and narrowminded in the extreme).
I also know I disagree with your opinion of the collective intelligence of mefi and the neccessity of correcting deficiencies in it in a hectoring, absolutist tone. You have a reputation here for throwing the baby out with the bathwater, I was attacking that, if I was in a fairer mood I probably should have allowed you to develop your ideas more before I leapt in with the insults (debate, rebbutals), I didn't though, perhaps another time I will.
If you would like a wave of obscenity, however, I would be happy to oblige, I'll give you a teaser, a rivulet before the torrent, it's to do with a flacid quivering Chomskyhole and what you can stick in it... So congratulations accepted!
posted by Divine_Wino at 1:34 PM on November 9, 2005
weirdoactor: I think that using one sentence from the AHED rather than referring to the large quantity of detailed writing about this issue over the last 4,000 years does not capture the entire issue. Disbelieve breaks open to, "To withhold or reject belief." Which is the case. There certainly may be a weak god of the gaps out there I don't know about, and there may actually be a Nigerian bank that needs my help. But until I see a convincing level of evidence for either, I find it prudent to withhold belief.
I used to play the, "I don't like to label myself" game. But the bottom line is that we live in a socio-political context in which one's belief or lack of belief in god has a large number of political and social consequences (more than being an aleprechaunist.)
posted by KirkJobSluder at 1:36 PM on November 9, 2005
I used to play the, "I don't like to label myself" game. But the bottom line is that we live in a socio-political context in which one's belief or lack of belief in god has a large number of political and social consequences (more than being an aleprechaunist.)
posted by KirkJobSluder at 1:36 PM on November 9, 2005
I'm used to people disagreeing with my views, and then launching waves of insults. But just posting waves of obscene insults, after I pointed out that your stated views are the same as mine
Yes, you manage to annoy and alienate even those who might agree with you, to the point of making them wish they didn't. Kudos.
posted by jonmc at 1:50 PM on November 9, 2005
Yes, you manage to annoy and alienate even those who might agree with you, to the point of making them wish they didn't. Kudos.
posted by jonmc at 1:50 PM on November 9, 2005
No problem. Any time. :-))
Buddhism in particular is absolutely founded on openmindedness and self-reflection. Of course that doesn't mean the illiterate peasants in Burma practice that way... but for us, reading this, who have some choice and education, it would indeed mean that.
Meanwhile, Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are founded on the principle that the words in the book are more important than the evidence of one's own senses. Some people within those traditions, happily, go against that idea (we mentioned the Quakers, also the Sufis, and others no doubt. Not "Saint" Augustine, who proposed repeated self-flaggellation as a means to eliminate any doubts in scriptural truth, if I recall correctly - though his idea that "patience is the reward of patience" has long been a favourite of mine).
So in that sense, yes, the common trope which you deride so vigorously actually holds a fair amount of water. I'm sure you know that - it's just that your words didn't seem to express it. (Though I do have a soft spot for Wycca, too, don't you?)
All of us are reductionist and narrowminded. We have reductionist minds (words=reductionist). Our minds are less broad than the universe, and our words are even less broad than our minds. If you realize that about yourself, rather than slinging it at other people, you might find it easier to see how similar your problems are to mine.
posted by cleardawn at 2:02 PM on November 9, 2005
Buddhism in particular is absolutely founded on openmindedness and self-reflection. Of course that doesn't mean the illiterate peasants in Burma practice that way... but for us, reading this, who have some choice and education, it would indeed mean that.
Meanwhile, Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are founded on the principle that the words in the book are more important than the evidence of one's own senses. Some people within those traditions, happily, go against that idea (we mentioned the Quakers, also the Sufis, and others no doubt. Not "Saint" Augustine, who proposed repeated self-flaggellation as a means to eliminate any doubts in scriptural truth, if I recall correctly - though his idea that "patience is the reward of patience" has long been a favourite of mine).
So in that sense, yes, the common trope which you deride so vigorously actually holds a fair amount of water. I'm sure you know that - it's just that your words didn't seem to express it. (Though I do have a soft spot for Wycca, too, don't you?)
All of us are reductionist and narrowminded. We have reductionist minds (words=reductionist). Our minds are less broad than the universe, and our words are even less broad than our minds. If you realize that about yourself, rather than slinging it at other people, you might find it easier to see how similar your problems are to mine.
posted by cleardawn at 2:02 PM on November 9, 2005
Religion doesn't make people evil, that's fucking stupid. Do evil people make religion? that question while still probably stupid is not as stupid.
posted by I Foody at 2:05 PM on November 9, 2005
posted by I Foody at 2:05 PM on November 9, 2005
[cleardawn] Yes, you manage to annoy and alienate even those who might agree with you, to the point of making them wish they didn't. Kudos. - jonmc
Yes, it is quite an accomplishment.
posted by raedyn at 2:10 PM on November 9, 2005
Yes, it is quite an accomplishment.
posted by raedyn at 2:10 PM on November 9, 2005
Where is Divine_Wino's "utterly content-free personal attack" on cleardawn? Was it deleted, or is cleardawn just a lot more thin-skinned then I thought?
posted by delmoi at 2:10 PM on November 9, 2005
posted by delmoi at 2:10 PM on November 9, 2005
And lets not forget all these militant aithests who, while having now power to actualy do anything bad, are certanly annoying. (think Ayn Rand devotees, for example)
posted by delmoi at 2:13 PM on November 9, 2005
posted by delmoi at 2:13 PM on November 9, 2005
(Though I do have a soft spot for Wycca, too, don't you?)
No, not really. It's responsible for way to many dippy-ass stoner chicks wearing crystals who think they're fucking fairies. Sort of like guys who think reading Soldier Of Fortune makes them Audie Murphy.
(disclaimer: one of my oldest, best friends is a Wiccan, but she both eschews and decries the dippiness described above. When I worked with her, one of our other co-workers was an evangelical christian black guy, who was also quite likable in many ways. Made for some weird conversations, with me in the middle feeling like some sorry-assed Un Peacekeeping force).
posted by jonmc at 2:53 PM on November 9, 2005
No, not really. It's responsible for way to many dippy-ass stoner chicks wearing crystals who think they're fucking fairies. Sort of like guys who think reading Soldier Of Fortune makes them Audie Murphy.
(disclaimer: one of my oldest, best friends is a Wiccan, but she both eschews and decries the dippiness described above. When I worked with her, one of our other co-workers was an evangelical christian black guy, who was also quite likable in many ways. Made for some weird conversations, with me in the middle feeling like some sorry-assed Un Peacekeeping force).
posted by jonmc at 2:53 PM on November 9, 2005
Not to mention, "Wycca?" with a "Y?" I bet you use "womyn," too.
posted by jonmc at 2:57 PM on November 9, 2005
posted by jonmc at 2:57 PM on November 9, 2005
Metafilter: a flacid quivering Chomskyhole.
There, did I get it the fraternity walk right, dios?
posted by funambulist at 3:00 PM on November 9, 2005
There, did I get it the fraternity walk right, dios?
posted by funambulist at 3:00 PM on November 9, 2005
Ummmmmm.... dippy-ass stoner chicks wearing crystals who think they're fucking fairies. ..
posted by c13 at 3:03 PM on November 9, 2005
posted by c13 at 3:03 PM on November 9, 2005
From an mp3 of amusement park effects recorded in the 50s:
Goosey, goosey, gander !
Where shall I wander ?
Upstairs and downstairs,
And in my lady’s chamber.
There I met an old man,
Who would not say his prayers.
I took him by the left leg,
And threw him down the stairs.
If that's not evil, what is?
posted by mischief at 3:17 PM on November 9, 2005
Goosey, goosey, gander !
Where shall I wander ?
Upstairs and downstairs,
And in my lady’s chamber.
There I met an old man,
Who would not say his prayers.
I took him by the left leg,
And threw him down the stairs.
If that's not evil, what is?
posted by mischief at 3:17 PM on November 9, 2005
Pseudonumb: Wow, that's the first time I've ever seen anyone attempt to lay the blame for both Nazism AND Stalinism at the feet of Christianity.
Can you figure out a way to attribute Mao's body count to the Church as well? How about Pol Pot?
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 3:18 PM on November 9, 2005
Can you figure out a way to attribute Mao's body count to the Church as well? How about Pol Pot?
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 3:18 PM on November 9, 2005
Buddhism in particular is absolutely founded on openmindedness and self-reflection. Of course that doesn't mean the illiterate peasants in Burma practice that way... but for us, reading this, who have some choice and education, it would indeed mean that.
Oooh! By that standard Madonna is more Jewish than an Israeli kibbutz.
Look, cleardawn, I mean this in a good hearted way, but how do you know the illiterate peasant in Burma is less genuinely Buddhist, whatever that means, than your educated self? And is that view supposed to be an example of Buddhist open-mindedness and self-reflection?
It's just a little funny the way you said it, you know...
posted by funambulist at 3:20 PM on November 9, 2005
Oooh! By that standard Madonna is more Jewish than an Israeli kibbutz.
Look, cleardawn, I mean this in a good hearted way, but how do you know the illiterate peasant in Burma is less genuinely Buddhist, whatever that means, than your educated self? And is that view supposed to be an example of Buddhist open-mindedness and self-reflection?
It's just a little funny the way you said it, you know...
posted by funambulist at 3:20 PM on November 9, 2005
Does religion make people evil?
No. But a lot of evil people use religion as a cover and to manipulate others.
The perfect excuse and ultimate justification when you do something evil is to make oneself believe you're doing it for a good cause.
Religion is a 'good cause' that is so abstract and flexible it can be adapted to nearly any evil - as history has shown over and over again.
posted by spazzm at 3:37 PM on November 9, 2005
No. But a lot of evil people use religion as a cover and to manipulate others.
The perfect excuse and ultimate justification when you do something evil is to make oneself believe you're doing it for a good cause.
Religion is a 'good cause' that is so abstract and flexible it can be adapted to nearly any evil - as history has shown over and over again.
posted by spazzm at 3:37 PM on November 9, 2005
Religion is the source of all evil.
I think Spazzm sums it up nicely.
posted by a3matrix at 3:45 PM on November 9, 2005
I think Spazzm sums it up nicely.
posted by a3matrix at 3:45 PM on November 9, 2005
artifice_eternity : you might want to check the writings of Morris Berman.
As far as I know, mass political killing predates Christianity, even to the point of the dreaded Damnatio Memoriae, the impulse for which which was well represented by the salting of the lands around Carthage : utter anhilliation unto a fallow forgetfulness ( for a while at least ).
Akhenaton might have a bit so say on this : " 'Pharoah goes into a bar'.....'why the long face' says the bartender....."
Anyway....
I went into this territory in considerable depth this summer, and I'd say this :
I won't touch Mr. Gregory's conclusions with a ten foot pole.
posted by troutfishing at 3:59 PM on November 9, 2005
As far as I know, mass political killing predates Christianity, even to the point of the dreaded Damnatio Memoriae, the impulse for which which was well represented by the salting of the lands around Carthage : utter anhilliation unto a fallow forgetfulness ( for a while at least ).
Akhenaton might have a bit so say on this : " 'Pharoah goes into a bar'.....'why the long face' says the bartender....."
Anyway....
I went into this territory in considerable depth this summer, and I'd say this :
I won't touch Mr. Gregory's conclusions with a ten foot pole.
posted by troutfishing at 3:59 PM on November 9, 2005
Why the hell is this shitty post here?
Does flagging do a damn thing on this website?
It is a blatant and obvious double post and its been flagged as such. Not to mention how crappy of a post it is on its own. (In fairness, it was equally worthless when Postroad posted it---although he managed to not say something as laughable as cleardawn's "balanced" statement).
posted by dios at 4:37 PM on November 9, 2005
Does flagging do a damn thing on this website?
It is a blatant and obvious double post and its been flagged as such. Not to mention how crappy of a post it is on its own. (In fairness, it was equally worthless when Postroad posted it---although he managed to not say something as laughable as cleardawn's "balanced" statement).
posted by dios at 4:37 PM on November 9, 2005
justkevin writes "It seems that Dr. Paul could have replaced variables like '% attending regular religious services' with '% obese' and concluded that being fat caused high homicide rates."
I think that the idea here is to correlate indicators of moral behaviour. Obesity has no moral import -- that's not exactly the case with religion.
dios -- kinda ironic that you're the one who posted the "ax grinding" image at the top. It seems that you're busy at the wheel yourself.
posted by clevershark at 4:51 PM on November 9, 2005
I think that the idea here is to correlate indicators of moral behaviour. Obesity has no moral import -- that's not exactly the case with religion.
dios -- kinda ironic that you're the one who posted the "ax grinding" image at the top. It seems that you're busy at the wheel yourself.
posted by clevershark at 4:51 PM on November 9, 2005
"Does flagging do a damn thing on this website?"
Can you spell 'capricious'?
posted by mischief at 5:22 PM on November 9, 2005
Can you spell 'capricious'?
posted by mischief at 5:22 PM on November 9, 2005
spazzm: Religion is a 'good cause' that is so abstract and flexible it can be adapted to nearly any evil - as history has shown over and over again.
Excellent point.
I'd also point out that the positive philosophical portions of various religions (love your neighbor, help the poor,...) are in no way dependent upon the fantastical claims that these religions make.
One can live a life of love and kindness without resorting to an irrational belief in invisible beings and their magical abilities.
Seeing that religion is superfluous to being good, then it appears that its only useful function is to justify the misdeeds of its followers.
posted by jsonic at 5:48 PM on November 9, 2005
Excellent point.
I'd also point out that the positive philosophical portions of various religions (love your neighbor, help the poor,...) are in no way dependent upon the fantastical claims that these religions make.
One can live a life of love and kindness without resorting to an irrational belief in invisible beings and their magical abilities.
Seeing that religion is superfluous to being good, then it appears that its only useful function is to justify the misdeeds of its followers.
posted by jsonic at 5:48 PM on November 9, 2005
cleardawn: Buddhism in particular is absolutely founded on openmindedness and self-reflection. Of course that doesn't mean the illiterate peasants in Burma practice that way... but for us, reading this, who have some choice and education, it would indeed mean that.
Buddhism has been used to support war. Brian Victoria wrote Zen at War, a book about the involvment of Zen Buddhists in Japan during World War II.
posted by furvyn at 6:50 PM on November 9, 2005
Buddhism has been used to support war. Brian Victoria wrote Zen at War, a book about the involvment of Zen Buddhists in Japan during World War II.
posted by furvyn at 6:50 PM on November 9, 2005
since i am expecting the thread to be deleted, i'll restrain myself from substantive commentary, but:
I think Christianity is mostly the Joanie Loves Chachi to Christ's Happy Days
thanks for the laugh, Divine_Wino.
posted by piranha at 8:06 PM on November 9, 2005
I think Christianity is mostly the Joanie Loves Chachi to Christ's Happy Days
thanks for the laugh, Divine_Wino.
posted by piranha at 8:06 PM on November 9, 2005
Buddhism in particular is absolutely founded on openmindedness and self-reflection. Of course that doesn't mean the illiterate peasants in Burma practice that way... but for us, reading this, who have some choice and education, it would indeed mean that.
When you meet the buddha on the road, look down your nose at him.
ps.
I very clearly ammended my point about Augustine of Hippo (btw putting Saint in quotes is very clever but useless as it is only a point of taxonomy) to refer only to a specific portion of the Confessions.
PPS. All of us are reductionist and narrowminded. We have reductionist minds (words=reductionist)
Mazel Tov on your reductio ad absurdiam of reductionism, triple word score, words are the monads, indivisable, they are the air we breathe (especially on Mefi and other text based internet areas where, thank providence, mime and interperative dance are next to useless)
Reductionist means something quite specific, some of us are much less reductionist and narrowminded than you, unless there is a draft on that I didn't hear about, you can leave me out of your "all of us".
But, fuck me, Cleardawn, I kinda find myself liking you (it's the contraraian Christ figure in me), If you are ever in New York send me an email, let's have a drink and talk.
piranha: Thanks, yo! Go and sin no more.
PPSS:
Delmoi, as far as I can tell, I have not been redacted in this thread.
posted by Divine_Wino at 9:04 PM on November 9, 2005
When you meet the buddha on the road, look down your nose at him.
ps.
I very clearly ammended my point about Augustine of Hippo (btw putting Saint in quotes is very clever but useless as it is only a point of taxonomy) to refer only to a specific portion of the Confessions.
PPS. All of us are reductionist and narrowminded. We have reductionist minds (words=reductionist)
Mazel Tov on your reductio ad absurdiam of reductionism, triple word score, words are the monads, indivisable, they are the air we breathe (especially on Mefi and other text based internet areas where, thank providence, mime and interperative dance are next to useless)
Reductionist means something quite specific, some of us are much less reductionist and narrowminded than you, unless there is a draft on that I didn't hear about, you can leave me out of your "all of us".
But, fuck me, Cleardawn, I kinda find myself liking you (it's the contraraian Christ figure in me), If you are ever in New York send me an email, let's have a drink and talk.
piranha: Thanks, yo! Go and sin no more.
PPSS:
Delmoi, as far as I can tell, I have not been redacted in this thread.
posted by Divine_Wino at 9:04 PM on November 9, 2005
dios: Also: this is a double post and has been flagged as such. Why the hell is it still here?
There's something deeply ironic about this statement in this context, and I leave it to dios to figure out what that is....
posted by lodurr at 6:01 AM on November 10, 2005
There's something deeply ironic about this statement in this context, and I leave it to dios to figure out what that is....
posted by lodurr at 6:01 AM on November 10, 2005
cleardawn: Whether buddism is founded on open-mindedness and self-examination depends on what you mean by "founded" -- but also on what you mean by "self-examination" and "open-mindedness." Yes, the high-level summary of buddist ideology includes statemsnt like "there are many ways and they are all the true way" -- but what were mostly talking about here is not the doctrine and the dogma, but the effect of the religious practice in the world. Not the doctrines, but the practice, in other words. And the effect of buddist practice has more often been to preserve the status quo than to alter it.
Remember: Challenging the status quo often serves the end of preserving it. It can create the illusion of change.
In fact, I could stipulate that you're right -- that buddism is "founded" on openness and self-examination. But in practice, it often serves the end of keeping people from acting to change their world. That's a fact, and it's not at all difficult to imagine how that could happen when you get popular glosses of buddist thought that boil down to "life is pain, deal with it."
The point is that religious dogma has consequences in the real world. Religion is people in action. Dogma and doctrine are meaningless until they are enacted in the world.
I thought the pointer to the Jesuits was particularly relevant here because they've been particularly good at hiding the inconvenient things from themselves, and they've gone about it in a particularly and peculiarly couragious way, when you think about it. They have danced on the edge of the void -- challenged themselves -- and figured out a way to build fragile frameworks of reason that could then be used to support the fairly impressive (if quite morally ambivalent) enterprise that was/is the Jesuit order. What the Jesuits have done, historically, has required incredible self-knowledge: To properly and effectively deny or manipulate your nature, after all, you have to first know it....
... Which brings us back again to the "many ways", of course: Those "many ways" do not always lead to the reduction of pain in the world. Sometimes they lead to sustaining it -- or even enhancing it.
posted by lodurr at 6:14 AM on November 10, 2005
Remember: Challenging the status quo often serves the end of preserving it. It can create the illusion of change.
In fact, I could stipulate that you're right -- that buddism is "founded" on openness and self-examination. But in practice, it often serves the end of keeping people from acting to change their world. That's a fact, and it's not at all difficult to imagine how that could happen when you get popular glosses of buddist thought that boil down to "life is pain, deal with it."
The point is that religious dogma has consequences in the real world. Religion is people in action. Dogma and doctrine are meaningless until they are enacted in the world.
I thought the pointer to the Jesuits was particularly relevant here because they've been particularly good at hiding the inconvenient things from themselves, and they've gone about it in a particularly and peculiarly couragious way, when you think about it. They have danced on the edge of the void -- challenged themselves -- and figured out a way to build fragile frameworks of reason that could then be used to support the fairly impressive (if quite morally ambivalent) enterprise that was/is the Jesuit order. What the Jesuits have done, historically, has required incredible self-knowledge: To properly and effectively deny or manipulate your nature, after all, you have to first know it....
... Which brings us back again to the "many ways", of course: Those "many ways" do not always lead to the reduction of pain in the world. Sometimes they lead to sustaining it -- or even enhancing it.
posted by lodurr at 6:14 AM on November 10, 2005
fuck me, Cleardawn
Slow down, Divine_Wino! A little respect for a fellow sentient being would be nice. Fewer groundless personal insults would be nice. You wouldn't use comments like that to my face, so why use them here? If you stuck to the topic, this could be an interesting discussion. How many people really want to read endless posts of User X slagging off User Y? (one or two apparently do, of course. They probably enjoy circle-jerks too. Still.)
Reductionist means something quite specific, some of us are much less reductionist and narrowminded than you
You clearly don't know what reductionist means. If you did, you'd understand that words are inherently reductionist. Although one can use words to try to describe the real world, it's like using pixels to draw a sine wave. You can always make your description more accurate (use more words) but you can never quite get it right. Anything we say in words is a partially-invalid, reductionist generalization (including this).
That's one of the reasons these discussions so often devolve into misunderstanding and slanging matches, even between people who don't actually disagree at all, such as you and me. You don't appear to actually disagree with me about any substantive issue - you're just making obscene personal attacks, and claiming, without evidence, to be smarter than I am!
you can leave me out of your "all of us" - Sadly, perhaps, no I can't. There is no fundamental difference between your mind and mine, no matter how much you hate me. The people you want to dehumanize are human. Look in the mirror, and there is your enemy. He's also your greatest teacher. If you grasp that idea for a second this thread will have been worth it.
furvyn: Buddhism has done worse than that. The Sri Lankan Buddhists are slowly winding down their decades-old race war against the Hindu Tamils; the Burmese military junta also claims to be Buddhist. And the Hindus - well, look up Shiv Sena and Hindutva if you want to attack Hinduism on well-justified political grounds.
There is some difference between religion as a tribal, or inherited, communal marker, and religion as a chosen path of self-development. I guess that's a major dividing line.
Perhaps a reasonable answer to the question in the FPP might be: If you choose a good religion, and are lucky enough to find good methods of practice, a good community, and good teacher, then religion can help people become happier and more ethically sound.
On the other hand, if you have a lie-worshipping religion, full of hypocrites and arrogance, then it's probably going to make your behavior less ethical.
The devil, as always, is in the details.
posted by cleardawn at 6:30 AM on November 10, 2005
Slow down, Divine_Wino! A little respect for a fellow sentient being would be nice. Fewer groundless personal insults would be nice. You wouldn't use comments like that to my face, so why use them here? If you stuck to the topic, this could be an interesting discussion. How many people really want to read endless posts of User X slagging off User Y? (one or two apparently do, of course. They probably enjoy circle-jerks too. Still.)
Reductionist means something quite specific, some of us are much less reductionist and narrowminded than you
You clearly don't know what reductionist means. If you did, you'd understand that words are inherently reductionist. Although one can use words to try to describe the real world, it's like using pixels to draw a sine wave. You can always make your description more accurate (use more words) but you can never quite get it right. Anything we say in words is a partially-invalid, reductionist generalization (including this).
That's one of the reasons these discussions so often devolve into misunderstanding and slanging matches, even between people who don't actually disagree at all, such as you and me. You don't appear to actually disagree with me about any substantive issue - you're just making obscene personal attacks, and claiming, without evidence, to be smarter than I am!
you can leave me out of your "all of us" - Sadly, perhaps, no I can't. There is no fundamental difference between your mind and mine, no matter how much you hate me. The people you want to dehumanize are human. Look in the mirror, and there is your enemy. He's also your greatest teacher. If you grasp that idea for a second this thread will have been worth it.
furvyn: Buddhism has done worse than that. The Sri Lankan Buddhists are slowly winding down their decades-old race war against the Hindu Tamils; the Burmese military junta also claims to be Buddhist. And the Hindus - well, look up Shiv Sena and Hindutva if you want to attack Hinduism on well-justified political grounds.
There is some difference between religion as a tribal, or inherited, communal marker, and religion as a chosen path of self-development. I guess that's a major dividing line.
Perhaps a reasonable answer to the question in the FPP might be: If you choose a good religion, and are lucky enough to find good methods of practice, a good community, and good teacher, then religion can help people become happier and more ethically sound.
On the other hand, if you have a lie-worshipping religion, full of hypocrites and arrogance, then it's probably going to make your behavior less ethical.
The devil, as always, is in the details.
posted by cleardawn at 6:30 AM on November 10, 2005
You wouldn't use comments like that to my face,
Heh. Heh. Heh.
Also, you may want clean the spit valve of your own horn, cleardawn, all the tooting you do on it, it must be full by now.
posted by jonmc at 6:42 AM on November 10, 2005
Heh. Heh. Heh.
Also, you may want clean the spit valve of your own horn, cleardawn, all the tooting you do on it, it must be full by now.
posted by jonmc at 6:42 AM on November 10, 2005
FWIW, I read "fuck me, Cleardawn" as an expression of exasperation, not a curse. AFAIK, that's the common usage.
posted by lodurr at 6:47 AM on November 10, 2005
posted by lodurr at 6:47 AM on November 10, 2005
Another, closely related question is "Is it in my interest to be evil?"
A Buddhist or Hindu would answer "no," since evil can be defined (in Buddhist terms) as "that which will result in suffering" - or in Hindu terms, as the cause of negative karma.
On the other hand, I can see that a lot of capitalist economic theory (which is atheistic, unless you count the Invisible Hand of the Market as a God) is based on the idea that the answer to the question is "Yes"...
Similarly, if Christian, Jewish, and Muslim folks believe that the only reason to "be good" is to attain a reward in Heaven, or to please Jesus or YHVH, which (being intelligent people) many of them do not actually believe in, then, lacking Buddhist or Hindu notions of consequences, they will believe that evil is in their interests.
That mechanism might explain some of the results of this research.
Jonmc, if you met me, you'd be polite and friendly. You wouldn't be yelling spit-drenched obscenities at me. Besides which, you owe me a beer, and next time I'm in NY, I'm going to collect.
Lodurr, I'm not sure what he meant by that. He probably doesn't either. I just took it as mildly offensive.
posted by cleardawn at 7:01 AM on November 10, 2005
A Buddhist or Hindu would answer "no," since evil can be defined (in Buddhist terms) as "that which will result in suffering" - or in Hindu terms, as the cause of negative karma.
On the other hand, I can see that a lot of capitalist economic theory (which is atheistic, unless you count the Invisible Hand of the Market as a God) is based on the idea that the answer to the question is "Yes"...
Similarly, if Christian, Jewish, and Muslim folks believe that the only reason to "be good" is to attain a reward in Heaven, or to please Jesus or YHVH, which (being intelligent people) many of them do not actually believe in, then, lacking Buddhist or Hindu notions of consequences, they will believe that evil is in their interests.
That mechanism might explain some of the results of this research.
Jonmc, if you met me, you'd be polite and friendly. You wouldn't be yelling spit-drenched obscenities at me. Besides which, you owe me a beer, and next time I'm in NY, I'm going to collect.
Lodurr, I'm not sure what he meant by that. He probably doesn't either. I just took it as mildly offensive.
posted by cleardawn at 7:01 AM on November 10, 2005
Jonmc, if you met me, you'd be polite and friendly. You wouldn't be yelling spit-drenched obscenities at me. Besides which, you owe me a beer, and next time I'm in NY, I'm going to collect.
That all depends on how you acted towards us. (I was referring to divine wino, who is a regular drinking buddy of mine and a nice fellow, but he does not suffer fools gladly).
If you approached us with respect and a willingness to listen rather than wait to pick us apart, we might. If you came at us with the cast-iron condescension wrapped in a velvet glove of touchy-feely that you've displayed on line we'd respond in kind.
And trust me, our obscenities are not "spit drenched." One need not be a raving rage machine to find you tiresome.
posted by jonmc at 7:08 AM on November 10, 2005
That all depends on how you acted towards us. (I was referring to divine wino, who is a regular drinking buddy of mine and a nice fellow, but he does not suffer fools gladly).
If you approached us with respect and a willingness to listen rather than wait to pick us apart, we might. If you came at us with the cast-iron condescension wrapped in a velvet glove of touchy-feely that you've displayed on line we'd respond in kind.
And trust me, our obscenities are not "spit drenched." One need not be a raving rage machine to find you tiresome.
posted by jonmc at 7:08 AM on November 10, 2005
Yeah no I was offering respect in the limited sense that I was saying BUT fuck what I'm saying...
You clearly don't know what reductionist means. If you did, you'd understand that words are inherently reductionist. Although one can use words to try to describe the real world, it's like using pixels to draw a sine wave. You can always make your description more accurate (use more words) but you can never quite get it right. Anything we say in words is a partially-invalid, reductionist generalization (including this).
I wouldn't say I clearly don't know what it means, I said that your simplistic view of Buddhism and Hinduism as "better" religions (in the sense that they encourage open mindedness and self-reflection, ((this is so repetative))) was reductionist, you said but all words are reductionist so we cannot help but be reductionist, which is a dodge plain and simple. Reductionism has a perfectly straightforward meaning that is used specifically to describe a kind of thinking, not thought or words in general. Stop it.
Sadly, perhaps, no I can't. There is no fundamental difference between your mind and mine, no matter how much you hate me. The people you want to dehumanize are human.
Cleardawn, this is nonsense, I don't hate you, I threw an insult at you, I won't apologize for it, but I certainly admit to do it. I don't "seek to dehumanize" anyone.
Look in the mirror, and there is your enemy. He's also your greatest teacher. If you grasp that idea for a second this thread will have been worth it.
This is my point actually (we might in fact agree on many things, stranger things have happened). You come on like the most pedantic lecturing hectoring bore in the world, YOU know the right way, you have the agenda, we are the burmese peasants. I don't find swearing or curses obscene, I find your rhetorical practices offensive and counterproductive and frankly boring, Mefi as soapbox (in fact life as soapbox) is useless.
Please spare me your greeting card bromides, I'm done with you.
posted by Divine_Wino at 7:16 AM on November 10, 2005
You clearly don't know what reductionist means. If you did, you'd understand that words are inherently reductionist. Although one can use words to try to describe the real world, it's like using pixels to draw a sine wave. You can always make your description more accurate (use more words) but you can never quite get it right. Anything we say in words is a partially-invalid, reductionist generalization (including this).
I wouldn't say I clearly don't know what it means, I said that your simplistic view of Buddhism and Hinduism as "better" religions (in the sense that they encourage open mindedness and self-reflection, ((this is so repetative))) was reductionist, you said but all words are reductionist so we cannot help but be reductionist, which is a dodge plain and simple. Reductionism has a perfectly straightforward meaning that is used specifically to describe a kind of thinking, not thought or words in general. Stop it.
Sadly, perhaps, no I can't. There is no fundamental difference between your mind and mine, no matter how much you hate me. The people you want to dehumanize are human.
Cleardawn, this is nonsense, I don't hate you, I threw an insult at you, I won't apologize for it, but I certainly admit to do it. I don't "seek to dehumanize" anyone.
Look in the mirror, and there is your enemy. He's also your greatest teacher. If you grasp that idea for a second this thread will have been worth it.
This is my point actually (we might in fact agree on many things, stranger things have happened). You come on like the most pedantic lecturing hectoring bore in the world, YOU know the right way, you have the agenda, we are the burmese peasants. I don't find swearing or curses obscene, I find your rhetorical practices offensive and counterproductive and frankly boring, Mefi as soapbox (in fact life as soapbox) is useless.
Please spare me your greeting card bromides, I'm done with you.
posted by Divine_Wino at 7:16 AM on November 10, 2005
... I can see that a lot of capitalist economic theory (which is atheistic ...
Now that's a loaded snippet! Not that I disagree with it, but i also happen to think that capitalist economic theory constitutes a religion, in practice. The concept of an "atheistic religion" has been the cause of more virulently vituperative threads on atheism boards than I care to remember. It makes for some strange bedfellows. Some religionists love to argue that atheism is a religion, especially to confound establishment clause arguments.
FWIW, I think it's quite possible to have an atheistic religion. I've known Buddists who practiced buddism as such, and I've know Jews who practiced judaism as such. I also think it's quite possible, and even quite common, for people to have more than one religion at a time. All that matters is that they don't contradict too much in the moment of practice.
Similarly, I don't think there's any inherent necessity for a religion to have a "god". Belief in God and practice of Christianity are very different things; I dont' think one is necessary for the other.
But all of that is probably better discussed in some other context... I'm sure not angling to start one of those threads I mentioned here, and if one does start, I'll do my best to not let it get mean....
posted by lodurr at 7:18 AM on November 10, 2005
Now that's a loaded snippet! Not that I disagree with it, but i also happen to think that capitalist economic theory constitutes a religion, in practice. The concept of an "atheistic religion" has been the cause of more virulently vituperative threads on atheism boards than I care to remember. It makes for some strange bedfellows. Some religionists love to argue that atheism is a religion, especially to confound establishment clause arguments.
FWIW, I think it's quite possible to have an atheistic religion. I've known Buddists who practiced buddism as such, and I've know Jews who practiced judaism as such. I also think it's quite possible, and even quite common, for people to have more than one religion at a time. All that matters is that they don't contradict too much in the moment of practice.
Similarly, I don't think there's any inherent necessity for a religion to have a "god". Belief in God and practice of Christianity are very different things; I dont' think one is necessary for the other.
But all of that is probably better discussed in some other context... I'm sure not angling to start one of those threads I mentioned here, and if one does start, I'll do my best to not let it get mean....
posted by lodurr at 7:18 AM on November 10, 2005
Lodurr, I'm not sure what he meant by that. He probably doesn't either. I just took it as mildly offensive.
No seriously, are you kidding? I thought you were English? What the fuck? Are you fresh out of condescending class?
This is all a big joke right?
posted by Divine_Wino at 7:23 AM on November 10, 2005
No seriously, are you kidding? I thought you were English? What the fuck? Are you fresh out of condescending class?
This is all a big joke right?
posted by Divine_Wino at 7:23 AM on November 10, 2005
It's not even just british; I first heard it from Wesley Snipes's character in White Men Can't Jump.
posted by lodurr at 7:34 AM on November 10, 2005
posted by lodurr at 7:34 AM on November 10, 2005
Lodurr, little known fact, Wesley was playing a Brit in that film, he just can't do accents.
posted by Divine_Wino at 7:44 AM on November 10, 2005
posted by Divine_Wino at 7:44 AM on November 10, 2005
Fie jon, FIE!
posted by Divine_Wino at 7:52 AM on November 10, 2005
posted by Divine_Wino at 7:52 AM on November 10, 2005
cleardawn writes "Another, closely related question is 'Is it in my interest to be evil?'
"A Buddhist or Hindu would answer 'no,' since evil can be defined (in Buddhist terms) as 'that which will result in suffering' - or in Hindu terms, as the cause of negative karma. "
C'mon, cleardawn, you can do better. Not only is your question inflammatory, it's predicated on the notion that people recognize thier actions as evil, rather than using their religion to rationalize those actions as good.
And, your argument would be much stronger if you didn't cherry-pick your examples. Sure, certain Hindus and Buddhists would say no, as would certain Christians, but you mentioned Hindutva above, and unless you don't actually know what that means, you know damn well that many of those nationalists do as much bad shit as they can. Bombing, murder, attempts to pass laws based solely on Hindu religious principles...what part of that doesn't accord with your vision of using religion for evil? Why do you condemn Christianity wholesale, but conventiently ignore discomfirming evidence about religions that you inexplicably find acceptable.
Your assertion, over several different threads, that monotheism=bad, but "Eastern religions"=good is tiresome, orientalist and, yes, reductionist.
posted by OmieWise at 7:54 AM on November 10, 2005
"A Buddhist or Hindu would answer 'no,' since evil can be defined (in Buddhist terms) as 'that which will result in suffering' - or in Hindu terms, as the cause of negative karma. "
C'mon, cleardawn, you can do better. Not only is your question inflammatory, it's predicated on the notion that people recognize thier actions as evil, rather than using their religion to rationalize those actions as good.
And, your argument would be much stronger if you didn't cherry-pick your examples. Sure, certain Hindus and Buddhists would say no, as would certain Christians, but you mentioned Hindutva above, and unless you don't actually know what that means, you know damn well that many of those nationalists do as much bad shit as they can. Bombing, murder, attempts to pass laws based solely on Hindu religious principles...what part of that doesn't accord with your vision of using religion for evil? Why do you condemn Christianity wholesale, but conventiently ignore discomfirming evidence about religions that you inexplicably find acceptable.
Your assertion, over several different threads, that monotheism=bad, but "Eastern religions"=good is tiresome, orientalist and, yes, reductionist.
posted by OmieWise at 7:54 AM on November 10, 2005
Your assertion, over several different threads, that monotheism=bad, but "Eastern religions"=good is tiresome, orientalist and, yes, reductionist.
Not to mention, a classic example of "fetishizing the other." People who wouldn't be caught dead in a Christian church, a synagogue, or a mosque oftentimes lap up anything from the "mystical east," and ask for seconds. It's a form of racism if you want to know the truth. "Those Asians, they're just so wise and inscrutable! Like Confucius, Sun Tzu, and Mr. Miyagi!"
posted by jonmc at 8:07 AM on November 10, 2005
Ancient Egyptian leader: "Great Wall of Prophecy, reveal to us God's will so that we may blindly obey."
Ancient Egyptian priests: "Free us from thought and responsibility."
Ancient Egyptian leader: "We shall read things off you."
Ancient Egyptian priests: "Then do them."
Ancient Egyptian leader: "Your words guide us."
Ancient Egyptian priests: "We're dumb."
posted by jeblis at 2:42 PM on November 10, 2005
"Monotheism=bad, 'Eastern religions'=good"
Isn't it possible to judge a religion on objective terms? I'm not saying it's going to be perfect, but I think you can get a good idea of a religion by how it's members behave. In other words, the proof is in the pudding!
I don't see very many christians excersing the forbearance of, say, tibetian buddhists... Look at the Dali Lama -- he and many of his fellow tibetians have been handed the "wet end of the plunger" by China (to put it mildly). Still he teaches love and compassion for all, not fire and brimstone and hell for *some*. How many other religions would that *actually* happen in? Not many.
posted by webnrrd2k at 3:15 PM on November 10, 2005
Isn't it possible to judge a religion on objective terms? I'm not saying it's going to be perfect, but I think you can get a good idea of a religion by how it's members behave. In other words, the proof is in the pudding!
I don't see very many christians excersing the forbearance of, say, tibetian buddhists... Look at the Dali Lama -- he and many of his fellow tibetians have been handed the "wet end of the plunger" by China (to put it mildly). Still he teaches love and compassion for all, not fire and brimstone and hell for *some*. How many other religions would that *actually* happen in? Not many.
posted by webnrrd2k at 3:15 PM on November 10, 2005
« Older God Bless Helen Thomas | The appeal of Calvin and Hobbes Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Mr_Zero at 10:20 AM on November 9, 2005