Choosing my religion

In article , d.nesbit says...

This was sent to me from one of my relitives in the USA. ithought i'd pass
it on ..


Sure, just stupidly, uncritially, pass it on...

Fortunately, in the USA, we also have people who make it their business to look
into these things:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/allah.asp

The story is false.

Banty

Banty wrote:

In article , d.nesbit says...

This was sent to me from one of my relitives in the USA. ithought i'd pass
it on ..

Sure, just stupidly, uncritially, pass it on...

Fortunately, in the USA, we also have people who make it their business to look
into these things:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/allah.asp

The story is false.

Banty
----------------------------
The story may be false, but it's still true!
Steve

In article , Banty
wrote:

I am interested in the flow of ideas. Why does one lot of Christians think
it OK to practice apartheid, while the rest do not? Why does one lot of
Muslims think it is OK to kill ordinary people via suicide, and others do
not? How do they come to those beliefs? There is a logic to people's
beliefs that can be followed and understood (unfortunately, it makes better
TV if mad axe-murderers commit axe-murders *because* they are mad, and Muslim
extremists commit murder *because* they are Muslim extremists.) But I think
we need a 'heresy cutoff' if we're going to apportion blame.

Does that make more sense?


Um, no. Especially after you've enumerated all the established religions
(and whole categories of religions) that are indeed heresies of other religoins.

What you've presented is a long-winded version of the bad apple argument,
that's all. "It's those guys; don't blame us."

So who gets the blame for the Salem witch trials, then? All 'religious'
people? Including, say, the Australian Aboriginal peoples? Seems a bit
unfair to me -- well, to be precise, it seems intellectually lazy as well as
unfair. The concept of 'religious' people is a bit like the category 'Asian'
-- it's a construct invented by people from outside that group (Europeans) to
describe the Other, but it's sometimes too broad to be useful, and resented by
those whom it describes. So -- I favour tracking *ideas* if we are going to
blame a particular group for something.

--
Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
(Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)

"Parenthood is like the modern stone washing process for denim jeans. You may
start out crisp, neat and tough, but you end up pale, limp and wrinkled."
Kerry Cue

In article , Chookie
says...

In article , Banty
wrote:

I am interested in the flow of ideas. Why does one lot of Christians think
it OK to practice apartheid, while the rest do not? Why does one lot of
Muslims think it is OK to kill ordinary people via suicide, and others do
not? How do they come to those beliefs? There is a logic to people's
beliefs that can be followed and understood (unfortunately, it makes better
TV if mad axe-murderers commit axe-murders *because* they are mad, and Muslim
extremists commit murder *because* they are Muslim extremists.) But I think
we need a 'heresy cutoff' if we're going to apportion blame.

Does that make more sense?


Um, no. Especially after you've enumerated all the established religions
(and whole categories of religions) that are indeed heresies of other religoins.

What you've presented is a long-winded version of the bad apple argument,
that's all. "It's those guys; don't blame us."

So who gets the blame for the Salem witch trials, then? All 'religious'
people? Including, say, the Australian Aboriginal peoples? Seems a bit
unfair to me -- well, to be precise, it seems intellectually lazy as well as
unfair.

I think there's merit in this outlook - the Salem witch trials arose from the
same category of beliefs that lead, for example, an animist village to expel or
kill a member for supposedly having brought some misfortune on that village by
having insulted a diety or having attracted the attention of an evil being to
the village.

It can also very reasonably be viewed as an extension of the long and vicious
persecution of "witches" by Christians of the middle ages which really was the
brutal suppression of practicioners of pre-Christian European relgions.

So, yes, that sort of thing, more than many other things, can be placed at the
feet of religion.

The concept of 'religious' people is a bit like the category 'Asian'
-- it's a construct invented by people from outside that group (Europeans) to
describe the Other, but it's sometimes too broad to be useful, and resented by
those whom it describes. So -- I favour tracking *ideas* if we are going to
blame a particular group for something.

And religion is a kind of *idea*! I wouldn't favor discrimination against
religious *individuals*, but surely it's valid to oppose religion and religious
ideas.


Banty

Chimp wrote:

...
That is what I mean by the Christian doctrine that the act
of believing -- the attaining of a state-of-mind-of-believing
-regardless-of-the-evidence -- is considered so virtuous
and meritorious as to outweigh any and all sins one
might have committed.


I think that is an oversimplification. The teachings of various
Christian sects are many and varied, of course. But they do share
several common elements beyond the "doctrine of faith", which you have
identified.

Works are commonly viewed as being a result of belief. Belief causes
behavior. If you believe, then you will do good works. Hence, lack of
good works is viewed as evidencing lack of belief.

The second notion is that of "forgiveness". If you have done evil in
your life, you may repent and change your ways. Then the sins you may
have committed are forgiven, and you proceed to live according to your
new belief. (The notion of a deathbed conversion is just an extreme
example, with little opportunity for subsequent acts. If such
conversions were not allowed, it would be difficult to draw a bright
line as to exactly when it was too late.)

Both of these effects are beneficial to society.



And it is that valuing of the act of believing that I described
as a "religious approach". In science, the act of
believing-without-adequate evidence is deprecated
while believing-given-sufficient-evidence is fine,
but not something meritorious or worthy of reward.

I think most people actually operate by a third approach:
Belief-in-a-working-theory, until/unless contrary evidence is known with
enough certainty to overwhelm that belief.

Each religion provide a working theory, which seems to work for the
people who believe it. The theory of "karma", for Buddhists, is an
example of a theory that seems to work, but has no scientific evidence.
The theory of "belief" or "faith", for Christians, is also an example
of a theory that seems to work. Both help society to function with
reduced conflict and increased cooperation.

The key is, of course, that absence of evidence _for_ a theory is not
the same as evidence _against_ it.


Steve

Steve Hansen wrote:
Chimp wrote:

That is what I mean by the Christian doctrine that the act
of believing -- the attaining of a state-of-mind-of-believing
-regardless-of-the-evidence -- is considered so virtuous
and meritorious as to outweigh any and all sins one
might have committed.

[large snip]
The theory of "belief" or "faith", for Christians, is also an example
of a theory that seems to work. Both help society to function with
reduced conflict and increased cooperation.

Some of the effects of "faith" are good, yes, but some are harmful.
See, for example, Chookie's explanation in this thread on Aug 24th
of why the traditional punishment for heresy is death, and usually
a nasty death.

If you allow that the act of believing the right thing is virtuous
to the extent that it can be rewarded by heaven, then it almost
inevitably follows that believing the wrong thing is wicked.
And that very often leads to conflict between those who
believe different things. Hence the number of wars in which
a difference of religious opinion has been a major factor.

Chimp

In article , Banty
wrote:

So who gets the blame for the Salem witch trials, then? All 'religious'
people? Including, say, the Australian Aboriginal peoples? Seems a bit
unfair to me -- well, to be precise, it seems intellectually lazy as well as
unfair.

I think there's merit in this outlook - the Salem witch trials arose from the
same category of beliefs that lead, for example, an animist village to expel
or kill a member for supposedly having brought some misfortune on that village
by having insulted a diety or having attracted the attention of an evil being
to the village.

It is? Not sure about that -- but I'll defer to your superior knowledge of
the events there.

It can also very reasonably be viewed as an extension of the long and vicious
persecution of "witches" by Christians of the middle ages which really was
the brutal suppression of practicioners of pre-Christian European relgions.

So, yes, that sort of thing, more than many other things, can be placed at
the feet of religion.

A *particular form* of a *particular religion*. Or *should* I hold
traditional Aboriginal religion responsible for the Salem witch trials?

The concept of 'religious' people is a bit like the category 'Asian'
-- it's a construct invented by people from outside that group (Europeans)
to describe the Other, but it's sometimes too broad to be useful, and resented
by those whom it describes. So -- I favour tracking *ideas* if we are going
to blame a particular group for something.

And religion is a kind of *idea*!

Well, which particular idea *is* it?

I shall trot out my own theory at this point, which is that any ideology --
any big idea on which people disagree -- can be used as incitement to mass
murder. There must be an organisation with which to conduct the killing. In
the Third Reich, or during the Great Terror, there was a vast machinery. In
Rwanda, that organisation was just a mob. It need not take much. But you
need an idea on which people divide -- even if it is which end of a boiled egg
you open!

I wouldn't favor discrimination against
religious *individuals*, but surely it's valid to oppose religion and
religious ideas.

*How* would you propose to do oppose religion and religious ideas *without*
discriminating against adherents? Religious ideas tend to be found in
containers called people...

--
Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
(Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)

"Parenthood is like the modern stone washing process for denim jeans. You may
start out crisp, neat and tough, but you end up pale, limp and wrinkled."
Kerry Cue

In article , Chookie
says...

In article , Banty
wrote:

So who gets the blame for the Salem witch trials, then? All 'religious'
people? Including, say, the Australian Aboriginal peoples? Seems a bit
unfair to me -- well, to be precise, it seems intellectually lazy as well as
unfair.

I think there's merit in this outlook - the Salem witch trials arose from the
same category of beliefs that lead, for example, an animist village to expel
or kill a member for supposedly having brought some misfortune on that village
by having insulted a diety or having attracted the attention of an evil being
to the village.

It is? Not sure about that -- but I'll defer to your superior knowledge of
the events there..

Sure.

Without a rational means to determine guilt or innocence, and without a
propensity to go to rational means to determine and address the causes of
misfortunes, cultures turn to superstitious explanations, and that gets directed
toward their own members. Salem witch trials. Voodoo. Sacrifices to please
the spirits.


It can also very reasonably be viewed as an extension of the long and vicious
persecution of "witches" by Christians of the middle ages which really was
the brutal suppression of practicioners of pre-Christian European relgions.

So, yes, that sort of thing, more than many other things, can be placed at
the feet of religion.

A *particular form* of a *particular religion*. Or *should* I hold
traditional Aboriginal religion responsible for the Salem witch trials?

I think what you're doing is to ascribe ANY evil perpetuated in the name of, or
for the sake of, ANY religion to whatever particular sect is responsible, and
thereby deny that religion per se could be responsible for ANYTHING.

Do, or do not, religions seek to eliminate competing religions? Christianity
has done that quite violently in the past.

Do or do not religions claim for themselves spiritual superiority? Most do.
The one you belong to does. On balance, is it a good thing to have religion as
all or part of the way people define their conflicts? I'm not sure of the
answer. But to dismiss it all piece by piece saying "oh, that's that particular
sect", "oh that's that other particular sect" is just avoidance of the issue.


The concept of 'religious' people is a bit like the category 'Asian'
-- it's a construct invented by people from outside that group (Europeans)
to describe the Other, but it's sometimes too broad to be useful, and resented
by those whom it describes. So -- I favour tracking *ideas* if we are going
to blame a particular group for something.

And religion is a kind of *idea*!

Well, which particular idea *is* it?

I shall trot out my own theory at this point, which is that any ideology --
any big idea on which people disagree -- can be used as incitement to mass
murder. There must be an organisation with which to conduct the killing. In
the Third Reich, or during the Great Terror, there was a vast machinery. In
Rwanda, that organisation was just a mob. It need not take much. But you
need an idea on which people divide -- even if it is which end of a boiled egg
you open!

I agree that any ideology *could* be used to justify murder (how I entered this
thread). I also agree that many conflicts which are actually over power or
land, are said to be over religion.

But that's NOT the same as saying that religion does not incite, give
rationalization to conflicts over land or power (who DID give that eastern
Mediterranean land to whom??), never directly created conflict, or does not have
serious potential to cause conflict today.


I wouldn't favor discrimination against
religious *individuals*, but surely it's valid to oppose religion and
religious ideas.

*How* would you propose to do oppose religion and religious ideas *without*
discriminating against adherents? Religious ideas tend to be found in
containers called people...


The same way any other set of ideas is opposed - by discussion and persuasion in
the public arena of ideas.

Banty

In article , Banty
wrote:

Without a rational means to determine guilt or innocence, and without a
propensity to go to rational means to determine and address the causes of
misfortunes, cultures turn to superstitious explanations, and that gets
directed toward their own members. Salem witch trials. Voodoo. Sacrifices
to please the spirits.
snip
I think what you're doing is to ascribe ANY evil perpetuated in the name of,
or for the sake of, ANY religion to whatever particular sect is responsible, and
thereby deny that religion per se could be responsible for ANYTHING.
snip
Do or do not religions claim for themselves spiritual superiority? Most do.
The one you belong to does. On balance, is it a good thing to have religion
as all or part of the way people define their conflicts? I'm not sure of the
answer. But to dismiss it all piece by piece saying "oh, that's that
particular
sect", "oh that's that other particular sect" is just avoidance of the issue.

I think that our disagreement is actually more over whether "religion" per se
is a useful category. I think it's either too broad to be useful, or not
quite broad enough. Ideology is broader. Religions are ideologies, but not
all ideologies are religions.

Any ideology will, (to use your phraseology), incite or give rationalization
to conflicts over land or power, directly create conflict, or have serious
potential to cause conflict today. Are the various religions more likely to
do these things than any other ideologies? I don't think so (can't see any
way to prove it, though). I can rephrase the para I have quoted from you
above:

Without a rational means to determine guilt or innocence, and without a
propensity to go to rational means to determine and address the causes of
misfortunes, cultures turn to *ideological* explanations [...]
Salem witch trials. Voodoo. Sacrifices to please the spirits.
Invading Iraq. Our new Industrial Relations laws. The Purges. The
Inquisition.

(Our propensity to rationality is much smaller than we hope!)

*How* would you propose to do oppose religion and religious ideas *without*
discriminating against adherents? Religious ideas tend to be found in
containers called people...

The same way any other set of ideas is opposed - by discussion and persuasion
in the public arena of ideas.

That's a relief -- I had visions of book-burnings and re-education camps...
But I should think you would have to oppose any and every ideology, and I
suspect humans won't function too well without them.

--
Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
(Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)

"Parenthood is like the modern stone washing process for denim jeans. You may
start out crisp, neat and tough, but you end up pale, limp and wrinkled."
Kerry Cue

"Chimp" wrote in message
oups.com...
Steve Hansen wrote:
Chimp wrote:

That is what I mean by the Christian doctrine that the act
of believing -- the attaining of a state-of-mind-of-believing
-regardless-of-the-evidence -- is considered so virtuous
and meritorious as to outweigh any and all sins one
might have committed.

[large snip]
The theory of "belief" or "faith", for Christians, is also an example
of a theory that seems to work. Both help society to function with
reduced conflict and increased cooperation.

Some of the effects of "faith" are good, yes, but some are harmful.
See, for example, Chookie's explanation in this thread on Aug 24th
of why the traditional punishment for heresy is death, and usually
a nasty death.

If you allow that the act of believing the right thing is virtuous
to the extent that it can be rewarded by heaven, then it almost
inevitably follows that believing the wrong thing is wicked.
And that very often leads to conflict between those who
believe different things. Hence the number of wars in which
a difference of religious opinion has been a major factor.

Chimp

I Agree.