Hopeful Monsters

As long as no one gets hurt - that's what we might have to avoid.

Stephen T-B

I�ve thought about this a bit more since I made the opening post.

For reasons I gave, unbelief gets right up the Believer�s nose, while Belief merely strikes the atheist as bizarre, inexplicable, irrational or a joke. It does, nevertheless, come with baggage which some atheists - and certainly many of those who post in EoG, GRD etc - feel passionately about. I�m thinking of the way it places religious dogma above human happiness and welfare; promotes ignorance (by insisting that the �revealed truth� in ancient scriptures never be questioned); promotes superstitions (by giving credence to miracles and other manifestations of �divine� magic) and legitimising conflict, torture and murder (of which history is packed with bloody examples.)

Since many religious Beliefs are a good deal less than harmless, we are entitled to attack them. It may not be compulsory, but it is justified.

seebs

Hmm. I believe in God a lot more strongly than I believe in damnation. I consider both to be clearly debatable terms in any interesting philosophical sense.

I will agree that I believe in God because, well, I believe God to be real. Very succinct, and summarizes the position well.

In college, a friend of mine used to refer to me as a "living counterexample". I'm aware that many believers find doubt inconceivable. I find certainty inconceivable.

seebs

This, I think, is a massive and unsupported generalization. No, wait. It's two of them.

Both claims are true some of the time. Much of the time, even. Both claims are sometimes obviously false.

I can find you believers who range anywhere from white-hot rage at the "willful blindness" of atheists to a cheerful acknowledgement that the position makes sense, and you should stick with it if it makes you happy. I can find atheists who range anywhere from "I wish I could believe, but I can't make it stick" to white-hot rage at the "willful blindness" of theists.

It seems to me that there's a certain amount of question-begging in here. For many religious beliefs, if they are in fact true, then it is virtually impossible to place their dogma "above human happiness and welfare". I was unaware that the war in the Congo was entirely, or even largely, religious; I always thought war was legitimized by conflicts over power (including proxies such as territory or wealth) and that occasional rationalizations were tossed in after the fact.

The superstition question is a perfect example of begging the question. Such credence is a bad thing if and only if it is ill-placed, and that's the question under discussion.

It seems to me that this justification is vulnerable to a very real slippery slope, in which the "harmful" outcomes are vulnerable to exaggeration or overstatement, and this can be used as an excuse.

In the end, the tribalism that characterizes "religious" conflicts is just as much an option for atheists as it is for religious people. The hostility towards religious people, the ease with which people categorize all religous people as "Them" and gradually demonize them, is quite familiar to any student of history. It's the same exact human instinct that's behind all the "religious" conflicts, and it has very little to do with religion, and a great deal to do with human nature.

Stephen T-B

ST-B: �For reasons I gave, unbelief gets right up the Believer�s nose, while Belief merely strikes the atheist as bizarre, inexplicable, irrational or a joke.�

Seebs is right: these are generalisations but not, (as he first suggests then goes some way to contradict ) unsupported ones.
The first claim is supported by the personal experiences many atheists have attested to (here and elsewhere) of how Believers have reacted to their unbelief. The second claim is supported by the fact that some (if not most) atheists do not regard Belief as something intrinsically evil. OK, so some of us regard its consequences as evil, but not the Belief itself. (We could, of course, establish this with a poll here at II: �Do you consider belief in gods to be intrinsically evil?� My guess is that 95 per cent of respondents would say not.)

Seebs asserts that if certain religious beliefs be true, �then it is virtually impossible to place their dogma "above human happiness and welfare".

That is conceding my point. Believers believe their religious beliefs to be true or they wouldn�t believe them; that�s why they place them above human happiness and welfare - with very bad consequences, very often, for happiness and welfare. Atheists stub their toes on this one because most, if not all of us, think that human happiness and welfare are of such importance that preserving them is the best thing a person can do.

Seebs then referred to the war in the Congo (for some reason) and said he always thought war was legitimised by conflicts over power, �and that occasional rationalisations were tossed in after the fact.�
No, most wars are to do with power, and very many have been legitimised by Religion. As examples I can think of the Crusades, the 30 Years War in Europe, the Spanish wars of conquest in South America and numerous nasty little squabbles including those we�ve seen recently in Northern Ireland and the Balkans.

Seebs thinks superstition is a bad thing �if it is ill-place,�

My view is that superstition is bad, period. It sidelines the cognitive process, which is the one thing human beings are supreme at.

Seebs doesn�t like the idea of atheists finding justification for attacking Believers.
I think he confuses Belief with Believers.
The only justification for attacking Believers would occur if they arrived in a gang or army and said: �Become a Catholic / Baptist / Mormon / Seventh Day Adventist / Scientologist / Muslim just like us or we�ll burn down your house and kill you.�

Attacking Belief, in my view, is harmless fun.

rainbow walking

Seebs: The superstition question is a perfect example of begging the question. Such credence is a bad thing if and only if it is ill-placed, and that's the question under discussion.



It seems to me that this justification is vulnerable to a very real slippery slope, in which the "harmful" outcomes are vulnerable to exaggeration or overstatement, and this can be used as an excuse.

In the end, the tribalism that characterizes "religious" conflicts is just as much an option for atheists as it is for religious people. The hostility towards religious people, the ease with which people categorize all religous people as "Them" and gradually demonize them, is quite familiar to any student of history. It's the same exact human instinct that's behind all the "religious" conflicts, and it has very little to do with religion, and a great deal to do with human nature.


rw: Then how do you explain this...?


www.themoscowtimes.com/st...7/120.html

Friday, Jun. 27, 2003. Page XXIV

Global Eye -- Errand Boy

By Chris Floyd


So now we know. After all the mountains of commentary and speculation, all the earnest debates over motives and goals, all the detailed analyses of global strategy and political ideology, it all comes to down to this: George W. Bush waged war on Iraq because, in his own words, God "instructed me to strike at Saddam."

This gospel was revealed, appropriately enough, in the Holy Land this week, through an unusual partnership between the fractious children of Abraham. The Israeli newspaper Haaretz was given transcripts of a negotiating session between Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas and faction leaders from Hamas and other militant groups. Abbas, who was trying to persuade the groups to call a cease-fire in their uprising against Israeli forces, described for them his recent summit with Ariel Sharon and Bush.

During the tense talks at the summit, Bush sought to underscore the kind of authority he could bring to efforts at achieving peace in the Middle East. While thundering that there could be "no deals with terror groups," Bush sought to assure the rattled Palestinians that he also had the ability to wring concessions from Sharon. And what was the source of this wonder-working power? It was not, as you might think, the ungodly size of the U.S. military or the gargantuan amount of money and arms the United States pours into Israel year after year.

No, Bush said he derived his moral heft from the Almighty Himself. What's more, the Lord had proven his devotion to the Crawford Crusader by crowning his military efforts with success. In fact, he told Abbas, God was holding the door open for Middle East peace right now -- but they would have to move fast, because soon the Creator and Sustainer of the Universe would have to give His attention to something far more important: the election of His little sunbeam, Georgie, in 2004.

Here are Bush's exact words, quoted by Haaretz: "God told me to strike at al-Qaida and I struck them, and then He instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me, I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them."

You can't put it plainer than that. The whole chaotic rigmarole of Security Council votes and UN inspections and congressional approval and Colin Powell's whizbang Powerpoint displays of "proof" and Bush's own tearful prayers for "peace" -- it was all a sham, a meaningless exercise.

No votes, no inspections, no proof or lack of proof -- in fact, no earthly reason whatsoever -- could have stopped Bush's aggressive war on Iraq. It was God's unalterable will: the Lord of Hosts gave a direct order for George W. Bush to "strike at Saddam."

And strike he did, with an awesome fury that rained death and destruction on the mustachioed whore of Babylon, with a firestorm of Godly wrath that consumed the enemy armies like so much chaff put to the flame -- and with an arsenal of cruise missiles, cluster bombs, dive bombers and assault helicopters that killed up to 10,000 innocent civilians: blasted to pieces in their beds, shot down in their fields and streets, crushed beneath the walls of their own houses, boiled alive in factories, ditches and cars, gutted, mutilated, beheaded, murdered, women, children, elders, some praying, some wailing, some cursing, some mute with fear as metal death ripped their lives away and left rotting hulks behind. This was the work of the Lord and His faithful servant, whom He hath raised high up to have dominion over men.

And this is the mindset -- or rather, the primitive fever-dream -- that is now directing the actions of the greatest military power in the history of the world. There can be no doubt that Bush believes literally in the divine character of his mission. He honestly and sincerely believes that whatever "decision" forms in his brain -- out of the flux and flow of his own emotional impulses and biochemical reactions, the flattery and cajolements of his sinister advisers, the random scraps of fact, myth and fabrication that dribble into his proudly undeveloped and incurious consciousness -- has been planted there, whole and perfected, by God Almighty.

And that's why Bush acts with such serenity and ruthlessness. Nothing he does can be challenged on moral grounds, however unethical or evil it might appear, because all of his actions are directed by God. He can twist the truth, oppress the poor, exalt the rich, despoil the Earth, ignore the law -- and murder children -- without the slightest compunction, the briefest moment of doubt or self-reflection, because he believes, he truly believes, that God squats in his brainpan and tells him what to do.

And just as God countenanced deception on the part of Abraham, just as God forgave David for the murders he ordered, just as God blessed the armies of Saul as they obliterated the Amalekites, man, woman and child, so will He overlook any crime committed by Bush and his minions as they carry out His will. That's why Bush can always "do whatever it takes" to achieve his goals. And by his own words to Abbas, we see that he places his election in 2004 above all other concerns, even the endless bloodshed in the Middle East.

So what new crimes will the Lord have to countenance to keep His appointed servant in power?

'Road Map a Lifesaver for Us,' PM Abbas Tells Hamas
Haaretz, Thursday June 26, 2003

seebs

Oh, there's certainly some support - but the full generalization is still false. Furthermore, if you were to ask believers whether "unbelief" were intrinsically evil, I'd guess that you'd get a fairly substantial percentage who said it wasn't. I know that, among the believers I know personally, it'd be about 100%.

Yes, but to assert one conclusion or the other to be "better" is simply to reassert "we believe different things".

That said, I think you're looking at a few examples (I'm guessing the Vatican's stance on condoms is an obvious example) and making an overgeneralization from it. Many believers believe that human happiness and welfare are themselves goals, and many believers devote a great deal of energy to engendering such outcomes.

The fact that it's to do with power means that it is power that makes people go to war. Religion is a rationalization; if it's not handy, something else will be found. The Congo was a good example simply because I've seen no evidence that it has any hint of religion to it.

Sure, if we use the definition of superstition as "false beliefs about...", but then, many religious people are adamantly opposed to "superstition"; they just have a different set of beliefs about which supernaturalist beliefs are false.

I don't think so. To attack belief requires some degree of attack on the believers; if nothing else, you have to make them into idiots or fools for your attacks on their beliefs to be any stronger than "I disagree". Once you've decided that they're idiots, you've already done substantial damage.

In the end, once an ideology must attack competing ideologies, the battle has already been lost yet again. I don't see any meaningful distinctions to draw between ideologies which call for attacks on other ideologies; whether one is supernaturalist and one is naturalist makes no difference at all. It's the same underlying instinct, and it is the thing that is so often blamed for the problems of "religion". It's really just the tribal instinct to condemn those who aren't like "our people", and it will probably be around forever.

seebs

I don't get it. When Bush says there's WMD, I'm supposed to disbelieve him because he's a liar. When he says Hussein's government is dangerous, I'm supposed to disbelieve him because he's a liar. When he says that he made a decision based on religion, suddenly he's truthful?

The guy is not exactly a 100% reliable witness.

I tend to assume that, when people come up with stuff like this, it's most likely that it's a rationalization after the fact. Of course, one could always entertain the alternative hypothesis that, in fact, Hussein's government was sufficiently evil that, being a little short on sulfer to rain down, God sent in someone with cruise missiles. Unlikely, but hey, it's consistent with observed data.

rainbow walking

Originally posted by seebs
I don't get it. When Bush says there's WMD, I'm supposed to disbelieve him because he's a liar. When he says Hussein's government is dangerous, I'm supposed to disbelieve him because he's a liar. When he says that he made a decision based on religion, suddenly he's truthful?

The guy is not exactly a 100% reliable witness.

rw: And that's why Bush acts with such serenity and ruthlessness. Nothing he does can be challenged on moral grounds, however unethical or evil it might appear, because all of his actions are directed by God. He can twist the truth, oppress the poor, exalt the rich, despoil the Earth, ignore the law -- and murder children -- without the slightest compunction, the briefest moment of doubt or self-reflection, because he believes, he truly believes, that God squats in his brainpan and tells him what to do.

A Variation of the "No True Scott'sman? Or..."When All Else Fails-Blame It On God"? Bush made no secret of his religious convictions prior to running for office and through-out his public handling of the 9/11 disaster. If I had to choose betwixt the three I opt for number three.


I tend to assume that, when people come up with stuff like this, it's most likely that it's a rationalization after the fact. Of course, one could always entertain the alternative hypothesis that, in fact, Hussein's government was sufficiently evil that, being a little short on sulfer to rain down, God sent in someone with cruise missiles. Unlikely, but hey, it's consistent with observed data.

rw: Or we can just opt for the obvious conclusion that gods only exist as justification for power hungry moguls as an excuse for their aggressive tendencies. So if the god-told-me-to rationalization no longer carries any weight with the American people...what's next on the list?

seebs

And Stalin could do the same thing because he believed something else.

It's not religion or irreligion that's the problem; it's zealotry.

There's an infinite supply to choose from.

However, I don't think the conclusion you state is "obvious" from the discussion; in fact, it doesn't seem to be even the slightest bit supported, except that we can rule out gods who consistently, immediately, and visibly, punish anyone who follows them badly. At least in Christianity, that's explicitly not the case.