|
Lac, you are not reading my posts in context and are commuting a general fallacy I see often: You are projecting a meaner onto my words that somehow must be what I mean because its what you expect me to mean. This is True even when I tell you my meaning is not what you think it is. EG, I never equated Atheism generally with Communism. I will show you what I mean.
If you don't want to believe the results of the study, that's your right. The results of the study are clear--reading passages where God sanctions violence cause believers to become more aggressive.
Actually this is not what the abstract said. I have not read the Study and doubt you have but the abstract posted here only says that focusing on God sanctioning Violence and selectively reading the Scriptures can contribute to aggression. There is a marked distinction.
Its not like all “believers” read those passages and become more aggressive automatically. The Abstract said that they were read in Isolation or repetitively and in conjunction with a Theology that focuses more on God's wrath on sinful conduct.
If your going to discuss the study discuss what it actually says.
That said, if your going to blast me for rejecting the study, make sure the words you use to condemn me were about the Study. They were in this case about someone else's presumptions.
This says nothing of other groups becoming aggressive from reading violent sections of other works and in fact, the study does suggest that people become more aggressive when they read violence. The point of the study, however, is that believers become more aggressive than the general population when they read a passage where God sanctions the violence.
No its not. Nothing in the abstract said “Believers” become more Violent than general people who read other works that promote Violence.
This is more of a Bias that says Religion has a greater capacity to motivate Violence and aggression than anything else. That may be an accepted Truism, but there is no factual basis for it and if you had read my other posts you'd soon realise that I've mentioned this problem before.
Religion is not some separate thing some people have and others don't that has an effect on its adherents that is markedly different than other forms of Thought. There is no logical reason to think Religion has a greater capacity to induce Violent behaviour than any other Human endeavour.
Nor can you cite this study actually saying that it does.
Think about this for a minute. What predictions could be made from these results. Well, to start, it could be predicted that believers who obsess over passages where God sanctions violence will be more violent than believers who don't.
But the same is true of anyone who obsesses over Violent Imagery or texts that promote Violence. Political Ideologies that promote Violent revolution can produce exactly the same effect.
And I will remind you, nothing in the abstract presented here said that Religion would cause a stronger reaction than anything else. The idea that Religion would make Violence worse is unsubstantiated and is, in fact, nonsense.
The reason for these results is simple: Anyone who focuses on Violence as an acceptable solution or that immerses himself in literature that promotes Violence, or literature they interpret as promoting Violence, will become inherently more aggressive.
There is no Logical reason to presume a Religious text would amplify this trend beyond a Non-religious Document or Literary set.
If only there were a way to test this prediction. Can you think of any groups which espouse a violent, extremist religious philosophy?
its been tested to death and it snot limited to Religion. The NAZi's did this. In fact, the American and French Revolution did this too. Politics is just as capable of yielding the same basic Results.
Your entire communism=atheism=murder argument is flawed because you're comparing the acts of individuals to the acts of the State.
I never said that Communism=Atheism=Murder though. I said that the Communists were driven by an inherently Atheistic Ideology. I was however very explicit in saying I do not think all Atheists are Communists nor do I think all Atheists are Violent. You are reading into my argument a presumption that I simplistically make that sort of assessment, which by the way undermines your own claim of how my argument is flawed.
The point is, Religion ( narrowly defined here as belief in a god) is hardly the cause of Violence and that Atheistic “philosophy” (Itself a religious practice) is just as likely to yield Violence.
The Human Animal has been known for Violence for its entire History, and we've known for centuries that being exposed to material teachings that glorify or promote Violence impacts people by making heir own outlook more Violent and thus increases the chances they will themselves become violent.
In fact, Thomas Aquinas wrote about this Phenomenon, as did St. Basil and Origen.
The entire claim is not new, but tis also not something that is restricted to, or amplified by, Religion.
Lenin and Stalin (like most totalitarian dictators) ordered people killed because of a perceived threat to total authority. The church in Russia was a powerful entity and was attacked by the State because it was a threat to the State's total power.
That's a nice excuse but the Church was not particularly Strong in China. Mao still had Christians shot.
I realise you want to preserve the perception that an Atheistic belief system can never in itself motivate Violence, but the Truth is that Lenin and Stalin did not go after the Orthodox Church merely because it was a Threat to their Total Power. Lenin didn't even want Total Power. He was an Idealoge and fairly honest about it. The reason the Communists went after the Orthodox Church, and for that matter the much smaller and weaker independent Protestant Churches and the Catholic Church, had more to do with Ideology. Marx predicted that in a Communist Society Religion would fade away and die as the people Advanced toward the True Freedom in Socialism and finally Communism. When this did not happen, rather than admit the Theory was wrong, even if just in part, they took direct measures to ensure the prediction became a reality.
The Communists did not target the Orthodox Church simply because it was a Threat to their Total power, the Communists targeted it because belief in God itself was offensive to their “Scientific” and “Rational” perspective on the world and because the Orthodox Church taught something contrary to Dialectic Materialism and the Marxist understanding of the world.
Saying otherwise is just an attempt to mitigate against the obvious problem that we have Atheists killing “religious people” because they are Religious and explaining it away so that you can retain the purity of Atheism by claiming Atheism had nothing to do with it.
By the way they killed Jews and Muslims too.
Also, no one is trying to implement Harris' ideas, though I'm not sure which ideas you're talking about since he has written on a wide variety, from the threat of Islam in "The End of Faith" to his idea of objective morality in "The Moral Landscape."
How about his “Some people have beliefs so dangerous they should be killed” idea? Or his promotion of a society in which you are told you have to Rationally defend your beliefs before you can participate in decision making. We all know that if that were done what defines “Being Rational” will hinge on however is in charge an ill become nothing more than an inquisition designed to enforce a sort of orthodoxy. Harris also sanctioned the use of Torture.
I would welcome an organized effort to implement his ideas in "The Moral Landscape" and I bet you would too--his basic idea is that anything which causes suffering to "conscious creatures" is inherently immoral and that a morally perfect society would be one in which no one caused suffering to anyone else and people worked to relieve the suffering of others.
I have not read “The Moral Landscape” but, if the above is what he wants we already try to Implement this. However, there is considerable debate on what would and would not be seen as “Causing Harm”. EG, Richard Dawkins said that Raising a Child in a religion was a form of Child Abuse, so do we “protect the Children” by removing them if their parents take them to Church or instruct them, before the Age of 16, in “religion'?
Considering the complaints I had about Harris in his “End Of Faith' book, which I read but admittedly years ago, I don't think I'd trust his judgement on what constitutes harm either. Especially if he deemed my beliefs to be Irrational and barred me form participating in politics, or worse, decided my beliefs were too Dangerous and decided to shoot me in he back of the Head.
Conversely, even if you take the usual route and say I misunderstand Harris ( I get that a lot but I didn't misunderstand him) there is still a massive problem.
Look at Glenn beck or Sarah Palin. They have very clear views on what would be good for society. They would agree with the summation you presented on “The Moral Landscape”, but I somehow doubt if they decided to Implement it you'd like the results.
So who gets to decide what is and is not Harmful?Who decides what causes Suffering and what doesn't cause suffering? I feel that such is a naive perspective that overlooks reality.
It also ignores certain other problems. Suppose I have a girl who is interested in me, and completely in Love, but I do not return her feelings. I tell her, gently, that I'm sorry, but I just don't feel that way abut her. I have just caused her suffering as I crushed her hopes. Should I be imprisoned? Or should I have lied and been with her because I need to avoid causing her suffering?
What about the Child who doesn't want to do the Job the parents wanted them to?
Loads of actions cause Suffering that is unavoidable. Suffering is a part of Life which, while not pleasant, avoidance of Suffering is not going to really serve as a good basis of Laws either. Its in fact completely subjective as to what causes Suffering and not in many cases, and in some cases suffering is simply the result of a choice that had to be made.
When you add to this conflicting Moral assessments you end up with the above Summery being untenable. If someone tried to Implement it it would fail.
I may not agree with his argument about deriving "ought" from "is," but I like his idea of morality.
If you are correct, and assuming you did not leave out Caveats from Mr. Harris's work that would mitigate against my objections above, I am afraid I cannot agree.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
