seebs

Some of it may be tedious, but some of it strikes me as far from tedious.

Not always; if it were entirely based on the stories, it would be redundant. Paul in particular makes a lot of points that are not directly rooted in anything in the story parts... (Although I call to your attention how differently this reads if you refer to them as "historical parts" instead of "stories".)

Obviously. I think it is something more. Agreeing that Genesis is a myth doesn't change that.

Most importantly, I think it's an account of humans reaching for God; this is not merely "society", but something else. The interesting question, I guess, is whether they found Him or not.

JPD

Ooops! I was editing while you were posting!
I presume that you are not here to attempt to convert people because if you were, I doubt you would have very much success!

seebs

I'm mostly here because I enjoy chattering about religion.

I am not particularly interested in "converting" people; I'm mostly interested in finding ways people can learn to live together peacefully. The essence of apologetics is answering the question "Why shouldn't we just throw the lot of you to the lions?"

JPD

Fair play. If I suggested that one way that people can learn to live together peacefully involves the abolition of all organised religion how would you feel?

seebs

Well, I've heard it before, and I don't buy it; we've got a long history of attempts to abolish religions, and it can't be done peacefully. I also see no reason at all to believe that it would result in any more peace than we have now, and I think it might well leave us with more war. The casual claim that religion "causes" wars, I find unconvincing; I think religion is sometimes used as an excuse, but I'm not sure I could find a single example of a "religious" war where there wasn't some other motivation available... Meanwhile, some religious groups seem to be doing a good deal to make society more peaceful.

In short, if every last vestige of religion, sexual dimorphism, skin color, language, culture, and political beliefs were eliminated from our species by magic, it would probably take us about a day to find something to fight over.

JPD

If you think that religion is more of an excuse (not a reason) rather than a cause in itself, but would appear to contribute to conflict in some way, could it not be the case that removing religion from the equation (eliminating the practice of allowing people to gather in churches, mosques, synangogues etc, putting in place a complete state/religion split so that, for example, swearing on the bible in law courts is abolished and so on), would mean one less reason to fight? I think that you underestimate the power of religious texts to create social tension.
I think that you could be right in one way - in more prosperous countries there would appear to be less opportunity for tension to become conflict. In poorer countries, however, the scope for religion to muck up societies is widened.

seebs

No.

Well, theoretically, if you could cause it to have always been the case, maybe. But even then... No. Excuses are not reasons. People do not fight because of any excuse; they fight over other things, and use the excuse to make it look pretty. Deny them the excuse, and they'll find another or fight anyway.

But... Eliminating freedom of association is far, far, too high a price to pay for peace, even if it would work.

Indeed. I don't think they create it. Further, many of them (including mine) seem to contribute substantially to reductions in social tension, too; you would lose that, as well.

I don't think so. I don't think religion is at all at issue; Africa's recent history suggests that religion is pretty much a side issue at most.

There are much better ways to try to achieve peace.

Quick trivia point: Which group is the most peaceful; atheist Communists in Asia, or Tibetan Buddhists in Asia?

Religion isn't the problem. (If you want a slightly easier example, consider the long string of atrocities associated with the Mennonites, Amish, and Quakers. For instance, uhm... There were some questionable prison-management policies in, if memory serves, the 1700s. Also, some Amish boys threw tomatoes at a passing car.)

JPD

So you don't actually want peace at all, if it means making personal sacrifices.


People who do not have beliefs in entities that aren't there are at least as capable as those that do.

I would have thought the Buddhists.

Perhaps it isn't always a direct cause but it is a contributory factor.

seebs

I wouldn't say that. I don't want peace if it means imposing sacrifices on others. More generally, I am not willing to do immoral things to obtain peace.

If everyone were dead, there would be no more war, but I don't think I like the trade-off.

In principle they should be. However, you're somewhat begging the question by assuming that the entities believed in don't exist. Furthermore, there's some problems, one of which is that this doesn't quite seem to be true. While religious groups certainly screw up sometimes, they've also been powerful forces for much-needed social change.

Indeed. So perhaps eliminating religion won't make things as peaceful as you might suspect.

I am not convinced that it really is. Furthermore, while religion may not always cause peace, it does sometimes; the question of whether we'd be better off without it is a very tricky one.

JPD

I see Buddhism more as a philosophy rather than a religion, but there.
I see what you are driving at. I would still like to see more of a separation between religion and state.