Thoughts in a Haystack

One of your best ever John, respect!
 

Do these liberal animal lovers also donate to PETA?
Do they claim to be members of PETA who just don't happen to share the view?
Do they defend the actions of PETA even if they themselves don't perform any?
Does PETA get laws passed because it's membership is high? Is PETA able to ostracize other people because it is oh so influential?
 

The "moderate" animal lovers are actually the worst, because they perpetuate the toxic meme that love for animals is innocuous, rather than a spur to radical and extreme behavior. The PETA people are the real animal lovers--the rest just haven't figured out yet that they are animal apathists.
 

Deepak, click the links. I don't think John is talking about what you think he's talking about.

In the linked post about "Uncle Karl," Coyne makes explicit reference to the "zero sum" contest between religion and science, analogizes religion to racism and science to egalitarianism, and writes (rather astonishingly to my ear) that "Team Atheism is more important than Team Evolution."

John,

On "This American Life" last night, a Chicago reporter related the joke about machine politics under Daley: What do you call 99% loyalty? (Disloyalty.)
 

@Chris - i did click the links - but I dont have to defend what Coyne says - I only need comment on what John implies
 

Deepak,

In that case your comment is really not germane to this post--which was specifically about some specific, recently stated views of the Booted One. It wouldn't matter, if we expanded the analogy, whether or not animal lovers gave to PETA, or defended PETA's tactics. Just being animal lovers (according to the analogy) is crime enough, since animal love is (according to the analogy) just not compatible with human rights. We might say that "Team Human" is more important than "Team Ecology."

None of your questions address this exclusivist dynamic, similar to the one laid out in Coyne's linked posts, of unavoidable war between love for animals and human rights.
 

None of your questions address this exclusivist dynamic, similar to the one laid out in Coyne's linked posts, of unavoidable war between love for animals and human rights.

It's not an unavoidable war, like the War on Drugs or The War on Terror, it's an unwinnable war. For many people, faith meets some basic human needs in a way that philosophical positions like atheism or agnosticism never can. So until human nature changes religion - or love of animals - ain't going away any time soon. And to stretch the military analogy, some of the greatest strategists in history will tell you that the best way out of an unwinnable war is not to get into it in the first place.
 

the best way out of an unwinnable war is not to get into it in the first place.

Amen. I'm sure there are many conflicts I don't know about that I'm glad I don't know about. Otherwise I would be omniscient. Not an enviable position, IMO.
 

Ian H Spedding : "It's not an unavoidable war, like the War on Drugs or The War on Terror, it's an unwinnable war. For many people, faith meets some basic human needs in a way that philosophical positions like atheism or agnosticism never can."

Good point. There's also the possibility of a biological component to belief which complicates things even more.
 

Pardon me for dropping in, Mr. Pieret (I think I may have commented here before, but I don't recall; forgive my poor memory), but if I may, a somewhat more involved response to Mr. Shetty...

In effect (this reply is going to be more tl;dr than I originally intended, but I hope it's better than the initial response I had up, which was just something sarcastic or snarky), pretty much all of your defenses of ~*moderate animal lovers*~ can be applied to ~*moderate religionists.*~

Do these liberal animal lovers also donate to PETA??

Moderate Christians, Muslims, etc. don't donate to the Westboro Baptist Church or Al-Qaeda any more than moderate animal loves donate to PETA.

Do they claim to be members of PETA who just don't happen to share the view?

Much like moderate animal loves will call themselves, well, "animal lovers" instead of "members of PETA," moderate Christians/Muslims/whatever will call themselves "moderate Christians/Muslims/etc." rather than "members of the Westboro Church/Al-Qaeda/whatever."

Do they defend the actions of PETA even if they themselves don't perform any?

Most ~*moderate Christians/Muslims/whatever*~ will decry the actions of Westboro/Al-Qaeda/whatever as being wrong and even anti-Christian/Muslim/etc. just as "moderate animal lovers" will decry the actions of PETA as being wrong and even counterproductive to the cause of animal rights.

Does PETA get laws passed because it's membership is high? Is PETA able to ostracize other people because it is oh so influential?

Not really, but then again, neither do Quakers/Sufi Muslims/Zoroastrians/Scientologists/over 9000 other tiny, insignificant religious groups of extremely varying degrees of fanaticism. Your argument is as effective a defense of religion as it is a defense of animal lovers.

Once again, I 'pologize to our gracious host if this comment is overly wordy and/or unwanted in some other way.
 

For many people, faith meets some basic human needs in a way that philosophical positions like atheism or agnosticism never can.

I'm actually agnostic about this. It's not unimaginable that the whole world could go the way of Denmark (though neither is it inevitable.)

What gets me is the Manichaeism, when acceptance of evolution on par with Dobzhanksy or Fisher is Just Not Good Enough, because it "denigrates true science." This is not healthy, and will come to no good.
 

I'm actually agnostic about this. It's not unimaginable that the whole world could go the way of Denmark (though neither is it inevitable.)

I can think of worse ways to go but I think that both the ubiquity and longevity of religion of some sort suggests that it is doing something right - just not what it claims.

What gets me is the Manichaeism, when acceptance of evolution on par with Dobzhanksy or Fisher is Just Not Good Enough, because it "denigrates true science." This is not healthy, and will come to no good.

I tend to look askance at any movement whose purpose is to promote and defend some notion of 'purity', be it racial, religious, moral, political (although that is probably an oxymoron)or scientific. There are too many examples of such thinking leading to unfortunate consequences - mainly for those who have the misfortune to be classified as 'impure' for some reason.

I would question whether so-called purity is an ideal in any form. Coming back to the OP, I'm a cat-lover but I have a serious problem with cat(and dog)shows where so-called breeds are essentially arbitrary human decisions about what is the ideal conformation of that breed. This is imposing aesthetics on biology and many of the poor animals bred to meet such standards are inbred and sickly. Generally, the healthiest and most resilient are the mongrel and the moggie.

And while I would not go so far as to suggest that Gnu Atheists are in danger of becoming inbred (except, perhaps, philosophically) it seems to me that we do not have so many great scientific minds that we can afford to discard some on the grounds that they are contaminated by impure religious beliefs.
 

@Chris
In that case your comment is really not germane to this post-
Its part of the entire argument. While Ill agree that Sam Harris sounds extreme when he call moderates/liberals enablers (because it sounds like they cooperate with extremist which isn't what is meant)- Im still of the opinion that moderates/liberals do bear some responsibility for being part of organized religion - given that one of the reasons organized religion can do what it does because of it's numbers.

And I dont really see anyone complaining(besides the gnus ofcourse) when people compare gnu's with religious fundamentalists.

What gets me is the Manichaeism, when acceptance of evolution on par with Dobzhanksy or Fisher is Just Not Good Enough, because it "denigrates true science."
Why should we complain when people state morality couldnt have evolved? Why should we complain when we are supposed to have a soul magically injected or magically evolved? Could it be for the same reason we complain when someone states the eye was intelligently designed?

@Ian
but I think that both the ubiquity and longevity of religion of some sort suggests that it is doing something right - just not what it claims.
Wow. Are you really this naive?

so many great scientific minds that we can afford to discard some on the grounds that they are contaminated by impure religious beliefs.
Ha!. Any other strawmen you want to knock down?.
 

So John, what do you think is up with Jerry Coyne et al? That his main target are Christians who accept evolution is already something to raise a few eyebrows, and he obviously thinks that they are wasting their time and energy.

So if it is a waste of time to think about things like theology, philosophy, etc., then what are we to make of someone who spends so much of his time mocking it, and keeping tabs on it and researching it to further hone his mockery?
 

Im still of the opinion that moderates/liberals do bear some responsibility for being part of organized religion - given that one of the reasons organized religion can do what it does because of it's numbers.

You're still dodging the subject of this (admittedly satirical) post.

His Bootedness (hardly alone among the Gnus) makes no distinction based on tangible ties between moderate and extreme religious groups. All that matters in his analysis is that they embrace some sort of faith--end of story. In the first WEIT post linked from the OP, Coyne makes explicit that anything less than a full embrace of metaphysical naturalism "denigrates true science."

There is no qualification in Coyne's post along the lines you raise here of who supports what actions, or who claims membership to an organized religion despite heterodox views. These questions just don't apply.

That's what "zero sum" (Jerry's words) means--and in case it isn't clear enough, he spells out more than once that there is "no reasonable middle ground" between full-bore atheism and any kind of religious faith.

And it is the very clarity and unambiguousness of such a view that permits a parody such as John has written here on "moderate" and "extreme" love for animals. If you want to respond intelligently you should probably explain why religious extremism is in a different category than just about any other type of extremism, few of which tend to draw the critique that it's all the fault of the decent, reasonable "Margarets" of the world.

If the animal rights analogy fails to ring any bells for you, perhaps you will consider whether the vigilante murder of pro-slavery partisans in Kansas and Virginia was something the law abiding abolitionists were responsible for, "because of their numbers." Or whether the bombings of the Weather Underground in the 60s and 70s were something that non-violent protesters of the Vietnam War were responsible for?

And, if not, why not?
 

@Chris
Or whether the bombings of the Weather Underground in the 60s and 70s were something that non-violent protesters of the Vietnam War were responsible for?
Ah but if you want to make the analogy exact then these non-violent protesters would have to be part of the weathermen, no?

Again religion has it's influence because of the numbers. Your examples don't illustrate that - that's why a moderate adding to the number is the problem.
So if there were multiple people in the weather underground who were non violent, and still didn't quit the organization after the bombings , saying oh the bombers just interpreted our manifestos wrong and this repeated multiple times, then yes I'd say those people are enablers. Though never at the same level as the people actually bombing.

Religion gets legitimacy from numbers - the only reason a lot of people don't laugh at the father being the same as the son , sending his son who is himself to be sacrificed to himself is because there are so many people who believe it.
 

Again religion has it's influence because of the numbers. Your examples don't illustrate that - that's why a moderate adding to the number is the problem.

You are begging the question. "Religion" is supposedly the "problem" because of the existence of extremist religion which moderate theists "support" because you and Coyne assert there is no difference between moderate and extremist religion.
 

Logic fail, Deepak. Sorry.

So if there were multiple people in the weather underground who were non violent, and still didn't quit the organization after the bombings , saying oh the bombers just interpreted our manifestos wrong and this repeated multiple times, then yes I'd say those people are enablers. Though never at the same level as the people actually bombing.

You're really not engaging with the terms of the analogy. Let's walk through it. On the one side, we have two basic groups: nonbelievers and believers. The believers are divided (for the purposes of this discussion) into moderates and "extremists." They are also, in parallel, divided into numerous groups and sects: Reform Jews, Sikhs, Shintoists, Russian Orthodox, Theravada Buddhists, Sufis, and on and on.

On the other side of the analogy we have people who do not love animals, and people who love animals. The latter are divided into moderates and extremists, and also, in parallel, into various groups and organizations: PETA, the Humane Society, etc.

Or in the case of the Weather Underground the analogy breaks down like this: people who support the Vietnam War, and people who oppose the Vietnam war, the latter divided into moderates and extremists, and, in parallel, into groups like SDS, the SNCC, the Weathermen, Veterans against the War, etc.

The main point is that we begin with an extremely large and polar category--religion, love of animals, opposition to the war--and work our way down to different expressions of that category.

According to Coyne's very explicit reasoning, just being counted in that first, large and polar category is enough to "enable" anything that is done at the extreme fringes of that category.

The analogy here is not to a particular in-group (Wahabbi, Opus Dei, Ludavicher, or what have you) but to religion itself. The Sufi on his meditation cushion, the United Methodist volunteering in a soup kitchen, are "enabling" suicide bombers and gay bashers just by not being atheists. By analogy, merely loving animals alone enables the bombing research labs. Merely opposing the war enables the bombing of recruitment centers.

Do you see the illegitimacy of this reasoning? Why is "belief in belief" any more heinous than belief in love for animals, or antiwar principles? It can't be because some believers commit crimes: all ideologies are prone to this. It can't be because religion is "irrational," because that would exculpate extremism in causes we are sympathetic to, like John Brown, the Weathermen, Earth Liberation Front, etc.

So why then, are we allowed to decent people accountable for having "religion" in common with extremists, but not for having just about any other ideology in common?
 

Again religion has it's influence because of the numbers. Your examples don't illustrate that - that's why a moderate adding to the number is the problem.

This implies a given belief system is a problem by sheer virtue of it being a majority position. As John writes, this begs the question. We're trying to establish why religion is baleful. Merely pointing out it is popular just re-affirms your pre-existing bias against it, rather than making an actual argument. If 97% of the world's population was anti-war, or anti-animal cruelty, you would not, presumably, be worried about "numbers." So why in this case?
 

because you and Coyne assert there is no difference between moderate and extremist religion.
Sigh. Care to show me when I made that particular assertion?. The one we do make is that there is no way to evaluate what is the one true way to interpret religion(or even to judge which way is more valid per the religion) - and that therefore there is no way to say what is the "true" religion - or what is at the "heart" of every religion like Karen Armstrong does.

Which doesn't mean every way of interpreting religion has equal amounts of harm - A point that I will cheerfully concede - contrary to what you state above.

For the moderates thing - let me take an example. The Vatican (and hence Roman Catholicism) has a stand that being gay is a sin, gay people will burn in hell , opposes gay marriage etc etc.
we have
a. Roman catholic priests and Vatican officials who preach the above - they are the fundamentalists / extremists
b. We have ordinary Roman Catholics who also try to spread this message - fundamentalists
c. Catholics who still vote against gay marriage - not quite fundamentalists , not quite moderates
d. Catholics who dont care either way -not quite moderates
e. Catholics who vote for gay marriage but will not take any public stance for various reasons - moderates
f. Catholics who vote for gay marriage and take public stances against it - liberals
g. catholics who are gay and take a stance against it - perhaps they are social liberals.
h. Catholics who are gay and feel they are doing something wrong - spend their life in guilt Some even commit suicide. - could be any of the above.

You can more variations.probably we agree on everything above.

But I also think - why does say a country like Uganda pass laws making homosexuality a criminal offense - aided and abetted by vatican priests? Why does the vatican have any influence in government? What can be done to reduce that influence?

a. We wait for the Roman Catholics to change their religion from within. This is a long process - perhaps they will succeed , perhaps they wont. Fighting this battle on theological grounds is a lost cause - you can make religion say whatever you want.

b. we reduce the influence of the Vatican. How do we do this? - to me the answer is as simple as reduce their membership - Again I'm not asking anyone to give up his belief in Christ - merely to acknowledge that the Vatican as it stands cannot represent any kind/loving God - a fairly obvious proposition in my opinion. And that because moderates aren't willing to do this they share some of the responsibility for the influence the Vatican has. What suggestion do you have?

Im not implying that moderates are as responsible as people in the vatican. or that the amount of harm they do is equivalent as the extremists. And it frustrates me when whatever Im saying is interpreted as the above by otherwise intelligent people. It's not that you disagree with me - its that you misrepresent what i say.
 

This implies a given belief system is a problem by sheer virtue of it being a majority position.
Let me know what you think the cause behind the Vatican's influence is.
 

Let me know what you think the cause behind the Vatican's influence is.

Well, at least you are consistent in your nonresponsiveness, Deepak. Not very courteous of you, though.

I'll keep lurking on this thread in case you change your mind and want to mount an actual argument, rather than just repeating things that seem self-evident to you without substantiation or logical analysis.
 

@Chris
ok. I'm asking you to lay your cards on the table
a. Does the vatican have an influence with governments/framing of public policy etc that it should not have ?
b. if yes , what do you believe is the cause.
Call it non responsive if you want , but I'm not going to further explain my position till I know what yours is.
 

ok. I'm asking you to lay your cards on the table
a. Does the vatican have an influence with governments/framing of public policy etc that it should not have ?
b. if yes , what do you believe is the cause.

The Catholic Church has "influence" with governments largely because democratic governments pay attention to large potential "blocs" of voters and Catholicism is the largest single religion in the world.

It has little or nothing to do with the existence and beliefs of those Methodists Coyne was so surprised to discover.

To the extent the church's "influence" is because the Church may have a potentially large large effect on voters, is that a condemnation of religion or of democracy? More importantly, how is that different than the potentially large vote of "animal lovers" who, nonetheless, do not support eco-terrorism?

It should also be noted that one reason many Catholic dioceses are declaring bankruptcy is the distinct lack of political and financial support the Church hierachy has received for its reaction to the pedophilia scandals from the laity, here in the US and around the world.

In short, you have yet to demonstrate that your position is anything more than the sort of simplistic and unthinking "argument" that Gnus generally make fun of.
 

ok. I'm asking you to lay your cards on the table
a. Does the vatican have an influence with governments/framing of public policy etc that it should not have ?
b. if yes , what do you believe is the cause.
Call it non responsive if you want , but I'm not going to further explain my position till I know what yours is.

I'm not hiding any cards, Deepak. Your question doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. The Catholic Church has the influence you would expect it to have given the size of its membership. If you believe in democracy, then that's as it "should" be.

That doesn't mean that I agree with all the Church's positions (no on abortion, gay marriage, celibacy of clergy, yes on the death penalty and wars of choice.) But for better or worse I don't think any of these issues are trending in the Vatican's favor (in the US, anyway).

Those are my cards.

And I'll say again that the specific influence of one particular sect (large though it may be, globally) is not germane to the questions explored by the OP, which you have still not acknowledged. Are you stalling for time, or are you just a big fan of suspense?
 

@John
democratic governments pay attention to large potential "blocs" of voters
Ah so it is the number of people who claim to be Catholics. Ok good no argument here.We'll ignore for now the non-democratic governments which too seem to be influenced by the vatican.
It has little or nothing to do with the existence and beliefs of those Methodists
Sure. However we are talking about Roman Catholics right now.

is that a condemnation of religion or of democracy?
It would be a condemnation of democracy IF all catholics believed/agreed with the Vaticans policies. As you and I both know there are significant numbers of Catholics who don't actually agree with the Vatican's stance on gay marriage, abortion, contraception, sex outside marriage, hell and so on. Get it now? Inspite of the bloody fact that most of the so called liberals and moderates don't actually believe in the Vatican's policies , the policy is still made with deference to the Vatican because of that potential voter bloc - which includes the liberals and the moderates.

More importantly, how is that different than the potentially large vote of "animal lovers" who, nonetheless, do not support eco-terrorism?
Answered in my first comment.
 

@Chris
If you believe in democracy, then that's as it "should" be.
See reply to John above regarding democracy.

is not germane to the questions explored by the OP,
Ive already told you I don't need to defend Coyne(Im not entirely sure what his position is). My response is part of an ongoing argument with John whether or not you think its relevant to the post.
And I've already mentioned why I think the analogies aren't the same.

Are you stalling for time, or are you just a big fan of suspense?
No I prefer comedies. Its why I read your comments.
 

... we are talking about Roman Catholics right now

Damn! And here I thought we were talking about moderate theists. Oh! The subject's changed, has it?

As you and I both know there are significant numbers of Catholics who don't actually agree with the Vatican's stance on gay marriage, abortion, contraception, sex outside marriage, hell and so on.

So the "influence" of the Vatican on secular society in democracies isn't as large as you originally said? One of us is losing the point here!

Inspite of the bloody fact that most of the so called liberals and moderates don't actually believe in the Vatican's policies , the policy is still made with deference to the Vatican because of that potential voter bloc - which includes the liberals and the moderates.

No, politicians are craven and don't recognize, as you and I do, that the Catholic Church does not control as large a bloc of voters as politicians may fear. Again, your criticism is of democracy, not of Catholics who disagree with the Vatican's stance on gay marriage, abortion, contraception, sex outside marriage, etc.

Answered in my first comment.

Really? So you have given up being anti-religion and, now, are only anti-PETA/Catholic? Strange Gnus we're growing nowadays.
 

Incidently:

No I prefer comedies. Its why I read your comments.

That's not something that can get you banned but, now that I have been officially declared a snark genius, I would really like my commenters to make an effort to do better.

;-)
 

Jesus, Deepak, I actually thought you had a point to make, and weren't just trolling. My fault for being credulous.

Ive already told you I don't need to defend Coyne(Im not entirely sure what his position is).

Then why are you commenting on this thread, which is pointedly about Coyne's remarks? I would wager that John feels this thread is an important part of his side of the "ongoing conversation," and judging from his sentiments (similar to my own) about your refusal to mount an actual argument in response, I don't think "conversation" would be a mutually agreeable term for your interaction with him here.

Exhibit A:

Sure. However we are talking about Roman Catholics right now.

No. The only one talking about Roman Catholics is you. The point of John's post (do you really still fail to grasp it?) is to rebut Coyne's claim that liberal or moderate religious folk (like the Methodists Coyne thought were so charming) "enable" extremists, (whether that extremity is a function of fundamentalism or institutional decadence.) Except that he made it deftly and amusingly and you've made me spoil the fun by having to explain it to you. I don't like being the heavy, but you wore me down.

As you must know, liberal Methodists don't as a rule donate to the Catholic church (any more than you are I), or defend pedophilia, or support anti-sex policies like the church's position on abortion and birth control, making them very much like the animal lovers in John's analogy (it's amazing one has to spell this out) and thereby immune to your concern in your comment @2 that they are part of the problem on those grounds. The only cover they could possibly be said to provide is "belief in belief" but the only argument I've seen attemping to impugn belief in belief is consequentialist, which in the case of liberal believers is just guilt by association. Just as it would be if we blamed all animal-lovers for the excesses of a few.

There are some incredibly high-quality human beings that fall into this category, and it rankles to repeatedly read in the polemics of the Gnus that they are enablers of evil not by virtue of the *content* of their religious faith but by the mere fact of it. As Ian Spedding writes above, this is nothing but a purity test and it has no place in intelligent, civilized conversation.
 

@john
Oh! The subject's changed, has it?
Uh some Roman Catholics aren't moderate theists ? well if you say so.
So the "influence" of the Vatican on secular society in democracies isn't as large as you originally said?
Now where did I say this? Its lesser in secular societies but still more than it should be (which is none). Do you deny that some harmful US policies are influenced by conservative religion of which the is a part of?

No, politicians are craven and don't recognize, as you and I do
Ah the blame the politicians policy. Did you know every Hindu/Muslim riot in India is caused by politicians?
Fair enough to some respect. I still don't see why this contradicts anything that I said - namely if you are a moderate roman catholic who doesn't follow most of Vatican policy - then leave - he's already stated that he doesnt accept the authority of the church to comment on social matters. That will show both the Vatican and those craven politicians. Why doesn't the moderate figure that out?

Let me also add that I personally dont have a problem with Catholics who do speak out against the vatican (e.g. Andrew Sullivan). I dont hold these people as enablers. Its the silent moderates/liberals that frustrate me

Again, your criticism is of democracy,
Ive already explained why my criticism is not of democracy. if the majority of religious people are anti-gay etc , then the explaining needs to be done by those who think compassion and kindness are at the heart of religion. My point is restricted to - moderates and liberals make up the Catholic bloc and the size of the Catholic bloc is the cause of its influence. I'm not making the point that 51% of the people believe something so that whats get implemented in a democracy.

So you have given up being anti-religion and, now, are only anti-PETA/Catholic
No. If I cannot explain why a person belonging to an organized religion is considered an "enabler" for the organized religions policies - I have no hope of explaining the broader religion/moderate argument.
And I have really no desire to be represented as I believe moderates are as bad as extremists.

Strange Gnus we're growing nowadays.
I use gnu for myself as you use "accomodationist". I see myself as an agnostic. Hows that for a strange gnu atheist?

I would really like my commenters to make an effort to do better.
Perhaps you should improve your posts to attract a better class of commenters (was that better ?)
 

Jesus, Deepak, I actually thought you had a point to make, and weren't just trolling. My fault for being credulous.

Ive already told you I don't need to defend Coyne(Im not entirely sure what his position is).

Then why are you commenting on this thread, which is pointedly about Coyne's remarks? I would wager that John feels this thread is an important part of his side of the "ongoing conversation," and judging from his sentiments (similar to my own) about your refusal to mount an actual argument in response, I don't think "conversation" would be a mutually agreeable term for your interaction with him here.

Exhibit A:

Sure. However we are talking about Roman Catholics right now.

No. The only one talking about Roman Catholics is you. The point of John's post (do you really still fail to grasp it?) is to rebut Coyne's claim that liberal or moderate religious folk (like the Methodists Coyne thought were so charming) "enable" extremists, (whether that extremity is a function of fundamentalism or institutional decadence.) Except that he made it deftly and amusingly and you've made me spoil the fun by having to explain it to you. I don't like being the heavy, but you wore me down.

As you must know, liberal Methodists don't as a rule donate to the Catholic church (any more than you are I), or defend pedophilia, or support anti-sex policies like the church's position on abortion and birth control, making them very much like the animal lovers in John's analogy (it's amazing one has to spell this out) and thereby immune to your concern in your comment @2 that they are part of the problem on those grounds. The only cover they could possibly be said to provide is "belief in belief" but the only argument I've seen attempting to impugn belief in belief is consequentialist, which in the case of liberal believers is just guilt by association. Just as it would be if we blamed all animal-lovers for the excesses of a few.

There are some incredibly high-quality human beings that fall into this category, and it rankles to repeatedly read in the polemics of the Gnus that they are enablers of evil not by virtue of the *content* of their religious faith but by the mere fact of it. As Ian Spedding writes above, this is nothing but a purity test and it has no place in intelligent, civilized conversation.
 

Hmmm...these sixties analogies:
'Peter had an intuitive sense of... paradoxical
fatality, which caused him to tell Eldridge Cleaver once, "People who say 'You're either part of the
solution or part of the problem* are themselves part of the problem." (Cleaver replied, wittily, "Fuck
you.")'
Move over Four Horsemen of Atheism,
Huey P. Coyle is founding the Bright Panthers. If we dont see him in leater jacket, beret and shades posing next to a HPLC column it will be most disappoint.
 

Isn't the Communist Party of China officially atheist? They certainly do a good bit of repressing of religion. Deepak Shetty has a lot to answer for, that bloody enabler.

I mean, sauce, goose, gander, you do the math.
 

No. The only one talking about Roman Catholics is you.
Uh. you do know that there are moderate Roman Catholics right. ?
And if I criticise roman catholic moderates as enablers then the criticism you have of Coyne applies to me as well right?

The reasoning behind choosing the Vatican is it prevents the "not my religion" type of defense. If the Vatican cant define what Roman Catholicism is, then who can?

And like I said it is important to me illustrate what is being meant by enablers.
As to the broader question of religion in general and moderates in general - we'll get there - maybe not in this post since it still needs the simple organized religion thing resolved.
You can ofcourse watch something else if the suspense is killing you - X-Men is pretty good.

@mike
You should read the comment about John that goes to the effect that he expects his commenters to do better.
 

Did you know every Hindu/Muslim riot in India is caused by politicians?

And here I thought we were talking only about Catholics! Where did I get that idea? Oh, wait! That's what you said. Deepak Rules, I guess!

Why doesn't the moderate figure that out?

For roughly the same reason that moderate Democrats don't figure out that the party will never bring about the Workers Paradise. Because they aren't working by Deepak Rules.

I see myself as an agnostic. Hows that for a strange gnu atheist?

Okay. So, you spend soooo much time and effort defending Gnus against snarky criticism just to be contrarian? Okay, I can respect that. I can also ignore it.

Perhaps you should improve your posts to attract a better class of commenters (was that better ?)

Only if you appreciate the irony.

And if I criticise roman catholic moderates as enablers then the criticism you have of Coyne applies to me as well right?

Maybe ... if you ever get around to saying what it is that you going on about ... other than being contrarian. Coyne, for all his faults, at least has the virtue of being clear about what he is saying.

If the Vatican cant define what Roman Catholicism is, then who can?

Why, the people who we are actually talking about ... the individual believers ... but that doesn't make for easy polemics, does it?

As to the broader question of religion in general and moderates in general - we'll get there

Ah! The check is in the mail!
 

@mike
You should read the comment about John that goes to the effect that he expects his commenters to do better.

That wasn't snark, Deepak, just a good question: why doesn't your support for atheism "enable" the Chinese suppression of the Falun Gong?
 

@John
I only mentioned the politicians are responsible comment because it is such a common thing for religious apologists to state especially in india.

For roughly the same reason that moderate Democrats don't figure out
In a 2 party system , politics is a bad analogy. Moderate Democrats really dont have much choice.
In any case ignorance isn't an excuse (for democrats or for moderates religious)

just to be contrarian?
Huh? Why do you use the label accomodationist for yourself? just to be contrarian? Im usually careful to not use the word "atheist" - I have some positions that are in common with gnu's but since that label is so poorly defined , I can use it as well.

Only if you appreciate the irony.
Heh. Do you think I dont realise that?

if you ever get around to saying what it is that you going on about
Right now , simply that members of an organized religion "enable" some of the harmful policies of that organized religion. If you concede that, you have in principle conceded that
a. It doesn't take a harmful action from a moderate or a liberal for him to "enable" the extremist
b. That when we say "enable"- we dont mean that moderates are the same as extremists or any of the strawmen that keep getting posted.

If you dont concede it for organized religion then you arent going to understand the broader argument of religion , its harm and its legitimacy. no use making it. In any case as you do point out Coyne and Harris are far more clearer and far more lucid - you could always make an attempt to understand what they are saying instead of repeating your misunderstandings.
 

@Chris
just a good question: why doesn't your support for atheism "enable" the Chinese suppression of the Falun Gong?
Sigh. in the context of my current argument , I would have to be a member of the communist party, paying dues, defending some of their positions, calling the party the divine representative of God for that analogy to hold.

In context of the "can you blame methodists for actions of the Vatican" - (to which my answer is not directly) , that would need discussion of religion, and where it gets its legitimacy from - not something that can be done if the above is not understood.

You/Mike/John seem to think the argument is if a shared attribute exists between group X and group Y then we are saying that X is responsible for actions for Y - where the shared attribute is "religion" since we really dislike religion . So all your analogies whether they deal with animal lovers, communist parties or weathermen are based on a misunderstanding of our position.

And it's gets tiresome to answer questions of the form - you are male why aren't you responsible for the actions of all males? As if its some profound insight you have had that we missed.
Keep patting yourself on the back for coming up with snarky analogies. Perhaps you should spend the time understanding what is being said (Admittedly some of the fault is fine).
However Im probably only going to respond to John henceforth. its hard to respond to multiple people without thinking Im slowly transforming into Anthony Mc Carthy or John kwok.
 

Deepak,

If I understand you correctly, you are saying you have a response to the animal lovers/PETA analogy, but before you share it with us, you first want to establish rhetorical common ground on the concept of enabling extremism within a shared social identity, be it Catholics, PETA members, Republicans, or the Government of the PRC. Is that about right?

Not speaking for anyone but myself, I can see a case to be made there, though maybe not as strong a one as you would like. As you note, Andrew Sullivan is fighting (perhaps in vain, but at least in earnest) to change the semantics of the Republican Party, and there are others like him who abhor the social conservative and war-mongering wings of the party. You've exempted Sullivan from the charge of "enabling" on the grounds that he is vocal in his criticisms.

The question that arises is, If I mention that my Uncle Harry or Aunt Jane is a Republican, what can you say about them with confidence regarding their role as enablers of extremism? What kind of judgement are you prepared to make, based strictly on a one-word label?

So all your analogies whether they deal with animal lovers, communist parties or weathermen are based on a misunderstanding of our position.

Please enlighten us! From what I know of John and Mike I can say that all three of us seek to improve our understanding in the face of honest disagreement. But keep also in mind:

And it's gets tiresome to answer questions of the form - you are male why aren't you responsible for the actions of all males? As if its some profound insight you have had that we missed.

The people you are conversing with are pretty sharp cookies, not prone (in my experience) to demagoguery. Humility and intellectual integrity would recommend you give them a greater benefit of the doubt for engaging you in good faith. We've all read Coyne, Dawkins, Dennett, Grayling and the rest, and yet the substance of the "enabling" argument remains elusive.

Coyne in particular argues almost verbatim along the lines that you call a misunderstanding. So if there is more to the story, please, please share. I, for one, am all ears.
 

John: "And here I thought we were talking only about Catholics! Where did I get that idea? Oh, wait! That's what you said. Deepak Rules, I guess!"

Have you ever played Calvinball?

http://calvinandhobbes.wikia.com/wiki/Calvinball
 

@Chris
Part I
Is that about right?
More or less.
though maybe not as strong a one as you would like.
Thats ok - Im not making the case that you have to agree with me. Merely this - if you think a case can be made,however weak, then
a. You have accepted that moderates bear some(however little) "responsibility" or "enable" some harm without themselves doing the harm or even without having harmful beliefs.
b. That the above is not based onlyon sharing a attribute in common with extremists.
If so then you have made a step towards understanding what the "other" side is trying to say. Again you may not agree and that's fine.

You've exempted Sullivan from the charge of "enabling" on the grounds that he is vocal in his criticisms.
Yes. Its not entirely consistent I know. Id still ask Sullivan why he can't leave his religion or his party if I could, but he isn't an "enabler" in my mind (even if he does have stupid views on non-belief)

If I mention that my Uncle Harry or Aunt Jane is a Republican, what can you say about them with confidence regarding their role as enablers of extremism

Id say they are enablers and withdraw it if they actively speak out against the policies. Aunt Jane by voting republican has made a decision on which policies her votes go towards. However as before the 2 party system sucks - a similar analogy however doesnt work for organized religion - you have plenty of choice.

The people you are conversing with are pretty sharp cookies,
Perhaps. I didn't mean to imply otherwise. However Coyne is a smart cookie too. But smart cookies aren't immune to bias/prejudice/blind spots - that applies to you'll as much as it does to Coyne/gnus/me.
 

@Chris - Part II
To understand the moderates as enablers (bear in mind this is my interpretation of Sam's views based more on watching his debates than End of Faith - however it is still my interpretation) you have to first assume an assertion
Religion(considering moderate/liberal/extreme forms) is a net negative.
By itself that's a controversial statement. It's not a scientific fact, its an opinion, a judgement call based upon one's experience. It does not deal with individual occurrences of harm/good however moving they may be. To debate this comment would take ages - for now take it as an assumption you need to make to understand the argument. Im assuming even if you make the above assumption - your opinion hasn't still changed - i.e. moderates(like the methodists) don't enable extremists (the Vatican) , correct?
So if you take religion as net negative , then it follows a world with lesser religion is a better place right?. Which should then lead you to wonder , why does religion persist ? Even as an agnostic , you have to acknowledge there is no evidence that justifies the "faith" of the religious - moderate or religious. Now there is a multitude of reasons to answer "why does religion persist" in the absence of any evidence that it is "true" - Im not going to go into those - but one reason is(note one of many) - The numbers of people who claim to be religious - It doesn't matter what their exact beliefs are for the above claim. Whether a person believes in jesus and is pro gay marriage or whether he believes in jesus and is anti gay marriage - his belief has added to the legitimacy of Jesus is God and his son, hence Christianity, Hence religion in general. If religion is a net negative thats not a good thing. There is again an underlying assumption here - which is that a good person would be good with or without religion. A person who has harmful views due to religion would be better of without religion.

And seemingly benign beliefs sometimes become harmful. Does it matter to me if people think a cracker transforms into the flesh of some God. Not really - but then it does matter when a student is threatened with ostracism for carrying the cracker out? Were all the people who protested the student carrying the cracker out extremists? Weren't some of them the good , helpful , kind people who had somehow bought into this moderate belief? What enables this ridiculous belief other than the numbers behind it?

And thats why your analogies dont hold.
Does the communist party in China get any benefit or legitimacy by the number of non believers?
Does PETA get more legitimacy because of the number of animal lovers?
 

Deepak Shetty wrote:

So if you take religion as net negative , then it follows a world with lesser religion is a better place right?. Which should then lead you to wonder , why does religion persist ?

First, as I think we agree, there is no metric by which religion could be decided to be either a net positive or a net negative. We all have our own opinions but that is all they are. My position is that the nearest we can get is to make a Darwinian case and argue that the very survival of religion - although not any specific faith or denomination - suggests that it is at least neutral or possibly advantageous in terms of social fitness.

Second, trying to make the same point in an earlier post, I wrote:

...but I think that both the ubiquity and longevity of religion of some sort suggests that it is doing something right - just not what it claims.

to which you replied:

Wow. Are you really this naive?

I'm not sure whether you understood my point. My argument is that human beings are a social species and anything which tends to strengthen the links which bind a society together are advantageous to that extent, regardless of what we might think of them from a moral standpoint.

Coming to the US from the UK, I was struck by just how much more prominent a place religion occupies in small town society here. Whatever you might think of their theologies, churches are often centers of community life and seem to imbue a stronger community spirit than in areas where they are not active. Also, although I have no figures, it would be interesting to compare the effectiveness of faith-based programs compared to their secular equivalents, in countering drug addiction or gang membership, for example.

Whether or not moderate believers can be held to enable or provide a veneer of legitimacy for more extreme elements, if religion is a net benefit to societies in terms of fitness it will survive and there is nothing atheists old or Gnu will be able to do about it.

Unless they can think of a better alternative.
 

Ian, a question: is there something in the UK - social or government - that seems to do for the community what you've observed that churches do here? Not a scientific question of course, just interested in your perspective.
 

(Part 1)

if you think a case can be made,however weak, then
a. You have accepted that moderates bear some(however little) "responsibility" or "enable" some harm without themselves doing the harm or even without having harmful beliefs.

That doesn't logically follow. What I accept is that "enabling" might exist in some limited cases, but we can't make generalizations about it. (I think it is more a matter of appearances than a true logical or causal relationship). What you (or Coyne, or Harris) have not shown is the move that allows you to declare that enabling exists without doing any actual analysis.

To use a loaded word from a prior thread, the issue here is bigotry. You'll exempt Sullivan because his views are well known, but in the case of my hypothetical Aunt and Uncle you deduce they are enabling the social conservative wing strictly on the basis of a one-word label.

b. That the above is not based only on sharing a attribute in common with extremists.

I believe this is a point in my favor. If the factors leading to enabling are multiple or otherwise complex, we cannot lay the blame at the doorstep of a single, catch-all cause. (Religion, Republicanism, Abolitionism, Love of animals).

Id say they are enablers and withdraw it if they actively speak out against the policies.

Shoot first and ask questions later?

Aunt Jane by voting republican has made a decision on which policies her votes go towards.

No one said anything about voting. The only data point you have is that they self-identify as Republicans.

To debate this comment would take ages - for now take it as an assumption you need to make to understand the argument.

This is circular reasoning. You cannot begin an argument that attempts to show that religion is a social evil with the assumption that religion is a social evil ("net negative.") If I need to make this assumption to understand your argument, then, to put it baldly, you don't have an argument.

As I wrote upthread, we can't declare something a 'net negative' just because it has bad consequences. We have to integrate those consequences into a thoughtful ethical order (which is the sense of the word "net" here). Democracy has scads of bad consequences, for example, to use Churchill's example.

Also please note that the very concept of "enabling" has a circularity in it. Take drug use, for example. There are people who are perfectly happy to smoke a cigarette at the end of the day, or when on vacation, or when out with friends, but don't suffer the cravings of the pack-a-day addict. We don't consider casual smokers responsible for either the addiction, or the health consequences of that addiction among heavier smokers.

By contrast, look at the same patterns among cocaine users. We are more inclined to disdain the casual user for encouraging the addict in this case, because we have already decided that cocaine use is not a permissible vice in this society.

Which is just to say that "enabling" is not an argument against moderate religion, but rather a consequence of a prior conclusion that moderate religion in a vice.
 

Part 2

There is again an underlying assumption here - which is that a good person would be good with or without religion. A person who has harmful views due to religion would be better of without religion.

Again, to make the argument against religion in toto (rather than specific expressions of religion) you need to show your work here. How did we arrive at the conclusion that any given person has harmful views "due to religion"?

Were all the people who protested the student carrying the cracker out extremists? Weren't some of them the good , helpful , kind people who had somehow bought into this moderate belief?

I don't know. Do you? Or is this another assumption?

I have no problem with the peaceful protest of "cracker abuse." That's an exercise of speech that comes nowhere close to the harm principle. On the other hand, there were apparently death threats against the kid too, and that's not kosher. The question is who participated in what response? If you have any real data on that, we can include it in this conversation. Until then your claim that moderate religion potentiates extremity remains unsubstantiated.

Does the communist party in China get any benefit or legitimacy by the number of non believers?
Does PETA get more legitimacy because of the number of animal lovers?

In a word, yes!

In a culture where no one cared about the welfare of animals, PETA would have some pretty tough sledding. In a world where there were no atheists, communist regimes would be much harder pressed to make their rhetorical case for dialectical materialism. The development of animal rights in Ethics and of naturalism in philosophy made these extreme philosophies possible. Enabled them, you would even say.

But actual animal lovers and actual atheists do not on the whole endorse, support or defend the extreme tactics or policies of these groups. Just like non-extremist religious folk don't, on the whole, defend or support the tactics or policies of fundamentalists.

The analogy is sound, Deepak. Until you have evidence for actual harm (and let's specify it should be "net harm,") done by moderates, then the charge of "enabling" will remain, in my estimation, a superstitious relic in pseudo-scientific guise.
 

@Ian , Chris
there is no metric by which religion could be decided to be either a net positive or a net negative.
In the context of the argument - im stating this is an assumption you must make in order to understand the moderate are enablers argument. it is likely that you dont accept that basic statement - which is fine , but then that argument is a completely separate one. It has no bearing on moderates and liberals being enablers. My point is if you assume this is true, then can you see why moderates are perceived as enablers.
 

@Ian
I'm not sure whether you understood my point.
yes i didnt. The use of the word "right" isn't normal with "may have conferred or is conferring an evolutionary advantage"
if you mean the latter , then fair enough , I think thats likely.
 

My point is if you assume this is true, then can you see why moderates are perceived as enablers.

If I assume that blacks are genetically lower in intelligence than other races, or that women are too hormonally unbalanced to be placed in positions of authority, then I can see why some people might feel justified in denying them opportunities. But the way that reasoned discourse works is we try to justify contested premises. Merely expressing them is just a slightly more polite version of a shouting match.

It is not hard to grant that if P (religion is a net negative) then Q (we ought to try to reduce its influence.) The interesting question is how are you coming up with P? What is your data set?
 

@Chris
Then can i take it from your response that if there is a reasonable argument to be made that religion is a net negative then you would find that moderates are enablers a reasonable position?

I would think that the argument you are making is no matter what the influence of religion how could a good , kind moderate religious person be held responsible in any way, for the actions of some other religious nut? If that is not the case then we can move on to the religion is a net negative argument
 

@Chris
Then can i take it from your response that if there is a reasonable argument to be made that religion is a net negative then you would find that moderates are enablers a reasonable position?

I would think that the argument you are making is no matter what the influence of religion how could a good , kind moderate religious person be held responsible in any way, for the actions of some other religious nut? If that is not the case then we can move on to the religion is a net negative argument
 

Then can i take it from your response that if there is a reasonable argument to be made that religion is a net negative then you would find that moderates are enablers a reasonable position?

Probably not, for reasons I discuss below. But why be hypothetical about it? Let's hear the argument!

I would think that the argument you are making is no matter what the influence of religion how could a good , kind moderate religious person be held responsible in any way, for the actions of some other religious nut?

Close, but I'd clarify that there are ways in which we are all responsible for each other, as human beings. None of us are saints, and it's hard to know exactly how much sacrifice and nobility is "enough." Think of the scene in Schindler's List, when Schindler regrets he didn't do more--like liquidate his own assets--to save more prisoners. It's mawkish, but don't most of us have these kinds of doubts and regrets?

I don't deny that people can be responsible for each other. What I deny is that religious people are differentially culpable for the harmful actions of extremists who also happen to be religious. That's the argument. And it applies to any descriptor, not just religion. The fact that Jerry Coyne believes that religion and science are in a "zero sum" conflict, and that his stature as a prominent academic gives such a stance the sheen of respectibility, doesn't make him "responsible" for people who use the zero-sum mentality to justify vigilantism, for example.
 

On the question of moderates enabling extremists, I would proceed from the principle that individuals can only be held responsible for something to the extent that they can be held to have had any influence over it. For example, I do not accept any responsibility for the horrors of the slave trade of the eighteenth century or the Holocaust of the twentieth century because they happened before I was born. I could, however, be held responsible for the conduct of Margaret Thatcher's Conservative administrations in the UK to the extent that I voted for her party in general elections.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that this is the point Deepak is making. He, along, with the Gnu Atheists, are arguing that moderates who fail to speak out or act against the extremists can be assumed to be tacitly assenting to and thereby enabling the latter's extreme activities.

Thinking about this reminded me of a scene from one of my favorite movies, A Man For All Seasons based on the play by Robert Bolt. In the trial scene, the character of Sir Thomas More explains the legal version of the point made above:

"The maxim is "Qui tacet consentire": the maxim of the law is "Silence gives consent". If therefore you wish to construe what my silence betokened, you must construe that I consented."

I would argue that it follows fom this that if a believer or group of believers expresses disapproval of the extremists then that is sufficient defense against the charge of enabling, unless they act in such a way as to contradict the denial.
 

TB wrote:

Ian, a question: is there something in the UK - social or government - that seems to do for the community what you've observed that churches do here? Not a scientific question of course, just interested in your perspective.

Local pub, soccer or cricket team, hobbies, shared interests but no single, really dominant center like a church. What is odd is that the UK, with its state church, is far less religiose as a society than is the US with its much more sensible wall of separation.
 

@Chris
But why be hypothetical about it? Let's hear the argument!

One at a time :) . mainly because it had started feeling as I was having my version of the Gish Gallop (where I'm Gish combined with blogger behaving badly). Will get to it in sometime.

The fact that Jerry Coyne believes that religion and science are in a "zero sum" conflict,
But that's a different argument. I'd only ask does science get any benefit from religion (and please no good religious scientists)?
 

@Chris Part I
None of us are saints, and it's hard to know exactly how much sacrifice and nobility is "enough."
This isn't quite the point - You are focusing on the Sullivan example. Which is different from the broader religion in general getting its legitimacy.

What I deny is that religious people are differentially culpable for the harmful actions of extremists who also happen to be religious
Im not sure what this means. Are you trying to say we(gnu's) have different standards when we judge religion as opposed to other problems?
 

@Chris Part II
With the usual caveats - this is my view , it isn't a fact, nor do I know if gnu's agree (other than religion is a net negative).
before we get to it -one disclaimer. We might make a statement that the US without slavery is a better place than the US with slavery - i.e. slavery is a net negative.
Now we dont have a metric for that either , nor has anyone performed experiments to see what possibilities are there, nor has anyone measured harm and counted how many people died to get us to without slavery v/s the benefits, nor did the abolition of slavery end racism or mistreatment of black people. yet we hold the fact that getting rid of it was a good thing. (Not meant as a comparison to religion, just lets get the metrics and how do you measure out of the way - we do it all the time)

a. Most of the good things that religions claim to do, i.e. build a sense of community, define morality, encourage people to be compassionate, kind etc are easily possible without religion. And good people will probably be good with or without religion.
b. Some of the things that religions claim to answer - i.e. the meaning of life, the afterlife, the promise of heaven - even if they might help some people - are almost certainly false. Most religious people would probably agree that they prefer the truth rather than false comfort.
c. Some of the evil correlated with religion would probably exist with or without religion. So two countries may fight without religion being in the mix - but it certainly seems to worsen when you add religion - but it still isnt clear what is causal and what is correlated - since religion also seems to be correlated with a bunch of other negative attributes like illiteracy,poverty, uneducation.
d. Some evils are however caused only due to the religion. The one that comes to mind is religious discrimination. This might sound circular , but it isn't. Religious discrimination exists - and without religion it wouldn't. It wont end all types of discrimination - but it would end one type. There are others as well for which it is reasonable to believe religion is the cause. There is simply no good secular reason to believe that gay people are abominations - the only reasons are religious. Evil people are evil - but for e.g. Some otherwise kind, moderate, helpful people will discriminate on the grounds of religion.

So if religion does cause evil (sometimes even in otherwise good people), and any good that it does can be done without it (Easily in my opinion) - isn't it reasonable to conclude that the net effect of religion is in fact negative?

You could perhaps say that some people are compassionate/kind etc because of their religious beliefs which would disappear if you took away religion - I dont think that's the case and I believe my experience allows me to make that assertion too.

Is it reasonable to have the position I do? If it is, is it reasonable to believe that moderates lend legitimacy to religion and therefore enable the net negative effect?

You might think Im taking giant leaps and making unjustified assumptions - Ill merely state that we do the same when we say that Governments should be secular. We see no harm in removing the influence of religion (because we feel citizens should be equal in front of the government) , and any benefit that a religious government could provide can be provided by a secular government - but there is harm in having a religious government. The reasoning is the same.
 

@Ian,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that this is the point Deepak is making. He, along, with the Gnu Atheists, are arguing that moderates who fail to speak out or act against the extremists can be assumed to be tacitly assenting to and thereby enabling the latter's extreme activities.

Yes, this is the version of the argument I had in mind when I said "there might be a case to be made." However in the end I think it is fallacious. There's an endless supply of things to be opposed to. We literally can't speak out against them all, and despite our best efforts, we are bound to disappoint people who wish we'd spoken out more vigorously against their pet peeves.

Also, there's no readily available record of who has come out against what, making it a very poor standard upon which to base judgements. Case in point, it is often bemoaned that no Muslim clerics condemned the 9/11 attacks, which is utter horseshit. Almost every Muslim organization of note issued a statement within 24 hours of the attacks, including the Muslim Brotherhood, the Ayatollah of Iran, the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia. But this story wasn't part of the wall-to-wall cable chatter after the attacks--you had to go looking for it.

The court of public opinion is just a bad place to adjudicate such things. Let's also remember that Thomas More was executed in 1535, and that since then we have decided to presume innocence (in the US, anyway) in the absence of evidence against one another.
 

But [the zero-sum position] is a different argument. I'd only ask does science get any benefit from religion (and please no good religious scientists)?

It's actually the exact same argument as Coyne makes, with "belief in zero-sum social conflict" substituted for "belief in god" or "belief in religion." Why would we say that one set of beliefs is enabling to its extreme wing, but the other is not?

This isn't quite the point - You are focusing on the Sullivan example. Which is different from the broader religion in general getting its legitimacy.

The reason I mention it is because responsibility can be interpreted both morally and causally. In your description of my argument this distinction was not clear.

Im not sure what this means. Are you trying to say we(gnu's) have different standards when we judge religion as opposed to other problems?

No. I'm just trying to use precise language here to define the disputed issue. You had written "responsible in any way," which is too broad for my taste. What would establish enabling would be differential responsibility, i.e. statistically greater than in a random member of the population.
 

Ian: "What is odd is that the UK, with its state church, is far less religiose as a society than is the US with its much more sensible wall of separation."

Thank you. I wonder how much the mingling of the state and church contributed to that. When one fails in some way, I imagine it would be hard for it not to affect the other.
 

Deepak,

Slavery is pretty much a no-brainer as soon as you commit to taking civil liberties seriously. That's the metric. If you are a homo sapiens, our culture has proscribed certain inviolable rights for you. That's why we can agree that slavery is a "net negative"--because it abrogates one of our most sacred principles. And without exception all the arguments in favor of slavery were based on rationalizations, lies and scare tactics. We recognize now that they were empirically untrue. Read the Lincoln-Douglas debates sometime. It's rigorous stuff.

By contrast, the arguments against religion, including the ones you employ here, are a melange of fallacious reasoning, sloppy folk empiricism, confirmation bias and prejudice. Wherever there is scholarship on religion's impact on society, New Atheist claims are found wanting (Atran. Boyer). The principal error in reasoning one encounters is a category problem, equating individual religious evils with something called "religion" generally, which is like saying that bad political ideologies like the Tea Party are evidence that something called "Politics" is a "net negative."

That's the main one, but there are others, and I'll briefly point them out in your comment.

a. Most of the good things that religions claim to do, i.e. build a sense of community, define morality, encourage people to be compassionate, kind etc are easily possible without religion. And good people will probably be good with or without religion.

This is not an argument against religion any more than the fact that people can get most of the same benefits they get from Pilates by doing yoga is an argument against Pilates. I imagine it would only be convincing to people who have already decided religion is a bad thing and are looking for rationalizations.

b. Some of the things that religions claim to answer - i.e. the meaning of life, the afterlife, the promise of heaven - even if they might help some people - are almost certainly false.

This overstates the role of veridical truth claims in religious life, something which has been studied. It also generalizes from select examples. Not all religions are interested in an afterlife, for example (only about 3.6 billion people worldwide belong to Abrahamic religions, remember). I'll grant you that belief in hell is an unfortunate ideology, but it is not a majority belief, worldwide.

So two countries may fight without religion being in the mix - but it certainly seems to worsen when you add religion.

Some data here would be helpful. We all know how things "seem." That's why we engage in analytical discussions--to test those impressions.

(continued)
 

(continued from previous comment)

Religious discrimination exists - and without religion it wouldn't.

Like your first point, this argument only makes sense if you already assume religion is something we're better off without. Ending discrimination toward a view is a terrible reason to try to minimize that view, as it essentially amounts to blaming the victim. (Coyne had a particularly egregious example of this on his blog earlier this year, essentially blaming Anne Frank's Judaism for her murder.)

There is simply no good secular reason to believe that gay people are abominations - the only reasons are religious.

That's false; there are plenty of secular homophobes. Visit a fraternity sometime. But even if it were true, this would be an indictment against the strains of religion which fomented the discrimination, not religion generally.

Is it reasonable to have the position I do? If it is, is it reasonable to believe that moderates lend legitimacy to religion and therefore enable the net negative effect?

Frankly this all strikes me as fairly unreasonable. I don't mean that personally. It's just poorly argued, poorly sourced, and poorly evaluated for skepticism and the null hypothesis. If you want to have a chance to sway an accomodationist with your argument, you're going to have to raise your game.
 

@Chris
There's an endless supply of things to be opposed to. We literally can't speak out against them all,
this isn't quite the argument about legitimacy of religion - but yes when people tell us how their faith is such a large path of their life - I'd think that the problems with it is not one of the endless supply of problems.

Lets take another example.
Suppose I pick a comic from my collection and tell you when I utter the Green Lantern oath it literally transforms into the flesh of Ganthet and that Im really really serious would you think Im crazy? But if a 100 million people believed the same thing, such that if you question that belief , it angers or upsets most of them - now would you think Im crazy? Nothing has changed except that adding a 100 million people lent a legitimacy to a seriously crazy viewpoint. Of those 100 million people some are good/kind/moderate people. There is no equivalent in all of your analogies.

The speaking out against organized religion was used to set the stage - it's possible to criticise moderates without making the case that they are as bad or morally equivalent to extremists.
 

@Chris - part I
That's the metric. If you are a homo sapiens, our culture has proscribed certain inviolable rights for you
Really? How many centuries did we not have these "inviolable" rights. Rights are those that humans give themselves. Do you have the right to die as you choose? Do you have the right to marry who you choose? Do you have the right to free speech?
Which of these are inviolable? Why doesn't everyone in the world have these rights? Slavery is a slam dunk argument today - it wasn't a few a hundred years ago - but homo sapiens have been around for 1000's of years with their inviolable rights, no?
Admit it - you judge slavery not on the basis of civil rights but on the same one as everyone else harm to slaves and you do not on unscientific basis.
with something called "religion"
Go ahead tell me what is "religion".

This is not an argument against religion
If you get the same benefits form pilates and yoga , but pilates has some harmful side effects and yoga doesnt then why would you push for pilates?

Some data here would be helpful.
What sort of data? opinion polls which the accomodationists seem to prefer?
In any case I was acknoledging that some of the problems that "seem" to be attributed to religion may only be a correlation - so Im not sure where the disagreement is. Certainly some of the religious rhetoric I see for India/Pakistan doesnt help but I would freely conceded that if India/Pakistan shared the same religion , we might still be in the exact same place
 

@Chris
this argument only makes sense if you already assume religion is something we're better off without
Uh you confuse cause and effect. religious discrimination does exist purely on the basis of religion by definition reslly. That some religious people don't discriminate doesn't affect this argument. If you take away religion - those who don't discriminate, wont discriminate, those who did have one lesser reason to do so. Whats blaming the victim about this? - in some ways Im excusing some of the perpetrator's actions - by passing on some of the blame to the religious book he/she reads and to the religious culture that promotes that Christians are better of in the company of other Christians and that a Christian should marry another Christian. And why do I do this? - because the people I see doing the discrimination are good, kind moderate people(sometimes).

Not all religions are interested in an afterlife,
Fair enough. My point is all the unanswerable questions that religion supposedly has an answer to aren't valid. Its not particularly relevant that 20% believe in heaven or 80% do.

there are plenty of secular homophobes
Sure. What are the secular reasons though?

the strains of religion which fomented the discrimination, not religion generally.

If you get rid of religion , what have you lost , what have you gained?

Frankly this all strikes me as fairly unreasonable. I don't mean that personally.
No offense taken

If you want to have a chance to sway an accomodationist with your argument
Ah , you use the accomodationist label for yourself? john please note.
Anyway thats not my goal -to sway you.
Do you still think that when I say moderates
"enable" some harm Im making statements that mean moderates are as harmful as extremists, that they bear the same responsibility, or any of the other caricatures that are made?
You can argue that Im guilty of poor reasoning , fine - I think youll don't think through some of your views till the end.
Do you agree that secular governments are "better" than religious ones? If so how do you make the call?

And finally some people seem to think the disagreement is a matter of "tone" - of civility or the lack of it - of using profanities or not - whereas clearly there are actual fundamental disagreements on the problem and the solution between non believer who are "accomodationists" and those who are "gnus". So all the nonsense about tone is just an unneccessary diversion.
 

Do you still think that when I say moderates domestic
"enable" some harm Im making statements that mean moderates are as harmful as extremists, that they bear the same responsibility, or any of the other caricatures that are made?

If someone "enables" domestic violence against women ... say, by not treating such offenses seriously either legally or socially, do they bear responsibility something like the the actual abuser?

If Coyne, Harris ... and you are misunderstood when you use the term, whose fault is that? Have Coyne, Harris ... or you ... defined elsewhere what you mean?
 

Deepak,

Please read a little more carefully. I said "our culture" bestows these civil rights on human beings. They are inviolable because we make it one of our highest social priorities not to allow these rights to be infringed.

Go ahead tell me what is "religion".

Since you are the one who thinks that something called "religion" is a "net negative," I'll let you go first here, and I will continue to falsify your definition with counterexamples until we can arrive at some kind of mutually agreeable definition.

If you get the same benefits form pilates and yoga , but pilates has some harmful side effects and yoga doesnt then why would you push for pilates?

It is the harmful side effects we are trying to ascertain. The fact there are other methods with similar results does not help us make that determination.

What sort of data? opinion polls which the accomodationists seem to prefer?
In any case I was acknoledging that some of the problems that "seem" to be attributed to religion may only be a correlation - so Im not sure where the disagreement is.

The disagreement is over the fact that there is no evidence that religion causes political violence. If we're going to mount such a serious charge against it, then let's see something empirical. If it "may only be a correlation," then perhaps we should tone down the "religion is a net negative" business.

Uh you confuse cause and effect. religious discrimination does exist purely on the basis of religion by definition reslly.

All discrimination exists on the basis of the thing being discriminated against. If there were no minorities, no foreigners, no poor, no sick, then there would be no discrimination about any of these groups. In itself, this is not an argument to get rid of them. We bave other reasons for saying that minorities, for example, or foreigners, are cherished fonts of diversity, whereas poverty and illness are unfortunate social blights. But in neither case should our attitude toward the phenomenon be determined by the fact that these groups are subject to discrimination.
 

(continued)

My point is all the unanswerable questions that religion supposedly has an answer to aren't valid. Its not particularly relevant that 20% believe in heaven or 80% do.

All of them? Has science demonstrated that all is actually not Maya, as the Vedas would have it, or Sunyata, as the Sutras attest? Are the Four Noble Truths in error? What about the free will question, is the final word in on that yet?

Do you agree that secular governments are "better" than religious ones? If so how do you make the call?

I do, but my reason has nothing to do with any religious ideologies being inherently illegitimate, it has to do with pluralism being the best and fairest form of coexistence our culture has stumbled upon. Secular governments appear to be the best way to safeguard both freedom of religion and freedom from religion. Win-win. (Which is to say, *not* zero sum).

Finally, the reason your Green Lantern analogy doesn't resemble the ones John and I have offered is because it doesn't take any pains to point out differences in belief. When we talk about "Liberal" or "Moderate" Christians, we are not talking about Christians who happen to be nice, or polite. (Lots of batshit crazy fundamentalist Christians are very nice and decent people). We are talking about a radically different interpretation of scripture. There are too many denominations to get into specifics, but to sketch roughly, many of them don't believe in scripture is literal truth, that Adam and Eve were "real," or that heaven or hell are places you go after you die. They can't be lumped in with the literalists and fundamentalists, because they don't believe the same things, though both groups identify as "Christian."

If your Green Lantern example included a second group for whom the Green Lantern story was important and sacred, and "true" in a non-literal, non veridical way, then we might get somewhere. (Heaven forbid!)
 

If someone "enables" domestic violence against women ... say, by not treating such offenses seriously either legally or socially, do they bear responsibility something like the the actual abuser?
yes I'd think so. if you see your neighbor beating up his wife and you go on with "not my problem" don't you think you are an enabler ? but a closer analogy is if you promote a view that says women must be subservient to men and obey men and must cover up when they leave home , aren't you enabling mistreatment of women even if you yourself don't mistreat women?

If Coyne, Harris ... and you are misunderstood when you use the term, whose fault is that? Have Coyne, Harris ... or you ... defined elsewhere what you mean?
If this comment is for me , fair enough. but I believe Coyne/Harris do in fact define their positions and are reasonably clear in their communication. So whose fault is it? I dont know John , possibly when you misunderstand what other people say , the fault must be theirs.
For e.g. isn't Coyne pretty clear when he defines what he means when he says "science" is not compatible with "religion" - why then do so many people respond with some good scientists are religious?
Oh and I hope you noted Chris use of the accomodationist label? i don't how many people it would take before you decide that, that label is acceptable.
 

Oh and I hope you noted Chris use of the accomodationist label?

I should have put that in scare quotes. I really don't like the term. I was in a hurry.
 

I said "our culture" bestows these civil rights on human beings.
And Im pointing out it is your "current" culture. So your metric does not hold in Lincoln's time or prior to his time. Slavery was still evil right?
Similarly your "current" culture doesnt give you the right to marry whoever you choose - but we hold that it is a civil right worthy of having - on the simple reasoning of whats the harm , whats the benefit.
You do it on the basis of I can see a person in my office who is with the same partner for 28 years , who was overjoyed when he could marry his partner when CA allowed it - and we see no harm in allowing this. We do not run scientific tests to check whether society will do better or worse with this right.

I'll let you go first here
I'd go with the first definition here
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion with the "usually" involving rituals and practices changed to almost always.

It is the harmful side effects we are trying to ascertain.
The disagreement is over the fact that there is no evidence that religion causes political violence
Not at that stage.You seem to misunderstand my reasoning
1. There is no benefit to religion (that isnt there anyway through other means)
2. Some of the harm may be merely correlated (e.g. political and country related violence) - but it certainly doesnt "seem" to help. Hence no benefit
3. Some of the harm is due to religious difference. In a multireligious society like India , this is clearly observed when it comes to "marriage". A Hindu parent may have no objection to his son/daughter choosing in his own spouse. but as soon as the choice is say a muslim or a christian , all hell breaks loose.
Note that this Hindu parent may be otherwise fine with muslims/christians - may have them as his friends , play cricket with them and in all other ways be nice, kind,moderate.
What else can you do other than blame the "religion" that teaches that people are different, that some are the favored few, that there is cost to marrying someone from a different religion?
You can observe this in many subtle ways and I could give you many anecdotal examples too.
4. So if you got rid of religion altogether - what harm? what benefit?

But in neither case should our attitude toward the phenomenon be determined by the fact that these groups are subject to discrimination.
Ah but you are missing what promotes the discrimination. if for e.g. the Catholic church allows a catholic to marry a non-catholic but denies the sacrament of marriage to the Catholic , simultaneously emphasizing how important the sacrament is - can't you figure out the goal?
When religion teaches that the people who follow its ritual and practices are "more" favored , "better","chosen","rewarded" can't you figure out the end goal?
Lest you think i have a personal peeve against Catholics , as it turns out the variant of Christianity Im most familiar with happens to be roman Catholicism - its why they are my most favored examples.
 

@Chris
I should have put that in scare quotes
So tell me why is it that you/john feel you are making some point using scare quotes when you cannot see that the choice of the word "gnu" instead of "new" is our version of scare quotes?
 

So tell me why is it that you/john feel you are making some point using scare quotes when you cannot see that the choice of the word "gnu" instead of "new" is our version of scare quotes?

It's very hard to follow your logic sometimes.

There's no special point to putting scare quotes around "accomodationist." Just the usual point of adding distance to the usage. What's the problem?
 

@Chris
All of them? Has science demonstrated that all is actually not Maya, as the Vedas would have it, or Sunyata, as the Sutras attest?
I use aren't valid in the sense no way of knowing whether they are true or false. religion provides no means to evaluate the truth of its claims and these days goes out of its way to ensure that there is no way to verify them.
Im using this point to represent why I dont consider the religion can answer the questions what science cant answer point of view - the answers have no validity when they cannot be evaluated for truth. There is always a possibility that they are indeed true.
But I'd also like to know which of my assertions/opinions/poor reasoning/obervations science has demonstrated as false ? and how come the maya and vedas and the sutras get this benefit of doubt from you when when i dont ? :) Perhaps When I get a million people to agree with me and appoint me as saint?

it has to do with pluralism being the best and fairest form of coexistence our culture has stumbled upon. Secular governments appear to be the best way to safeguard both freedom of religion and freedom from religion.
Ah now that you have made some claim, let me wear my accomodationist hat.
What does "best" mean. How about"fairest" - where's the scientific evidence for this grand claim?
And why are you assuming all religious governments would be unfair? Surely you should be restricting your claim to some religious governments?
And since religious politicians are part of current secular governments surely they could be part of religious governments - why are you tarnishing the image of these good religious politicians? Dont you have better targets?
And really when we already say under god for a secular government what does it matter if we say under jesus?
And whats all this about "appear to be" - we all know things may "seem" and "appear" to be something but you really should have some evidence for this. I mean how presumptuous to think religious governments wont safeguard people's freedom of religion. As if people of other religion's don't stay in religious countries.
So lets try again
Why are secular governments better , in your opinion, rather than religious ones?

I have offered is because it doesn't take any pains to point out differences in belief.
Alright. The superman fans who read Green lantern tend to be more liberal - but the batman fans tend to be more extreme. The people who read Justic league are just a confused lot and those who like marvel feel the DC readers will burn in hell.
Now is the belief that my comic and oath is sacred and magically transform into the flesh of the guardians more palatable?

We are talking about a radically different interpretation of scripture.
yes. But which is the more truthful one? which is more valid? which is correct?

They can't be lumped in with the literalists and fundamentalists,
We dont lump them together. We merely point out the literalist and the non literalist have no way of knowing what the scripture says. they are equally valid or invalid. Who is to say whether the author of genesis meant what he said literally or non literally? This is the whole point of legitimacy. The non literalist still lends credibility to scripture.
If we however lump them together in the harm they cause , then yes you would have a point - that would be wrong.

If your Green Lantern example included a second group for whom the Green Lantern story was important and sacred, and "true" in a non-literal,
Ah but they perpetuate the myth that green lantern is some sort of sacred entity that must be respected. They lend credibility to it , and that has potential to misuse. Same like a religious government
 

@Chris
There's no special point to putting scare quotes around "accomodationist".
Then why put it?

In any case it's directed more towards John who was of the opinion that since gnu's call themselves gnu's that's fine - but accomodationist is this poorly defined , pejorative , changing label which can apply to him as well - so he puts scare quotes when he calls himself "accomodationist" - This sort of ignores why gnu's named themselves
"gnus" instead of "new" - for mostly the same reason.

And he also states that if accomodationists started calling themselves accomodationists then the label would no longer be pejorative - hence the need to point out your use.
 

There's no special point to putting scare quotes around "accomodationist".

Then why put it?

No *special* point, beyond the usual point of using scare quotes. Again, what's the problem?
 

I use aren't valid in the sense no way of knowing whether they are true or false. religion provides no means to evaluate the truth of its claims and these days goes out of its way to ensure that there is no way to verify them.

To the extent that this is true (it is false that there are no means to evaluate religious claims--what you mean is that they can't be evaluated by empirical method), the same could be said for literary theory, aesthetics, sports commentary, political theory, and a whole lot more. Why is religion different?

and how come the maya and vedas and the sutras get this benefit of doubt from you when when i dont ?

Are you seriously comparing a second-rate blog argument (I mean both of us, not just you) to the classics of world religious literature? Can you not see the hauteur in that? Let's start with a slightly lower standard of clear, grammatical and well punctuated sentences and work our way up from there, shall we?

To your point, though, we are actually having a dialogue on the merits, you and I. It is analytic, but not scientific. By contrast, your wholesale quarrel with religious texts reduces to a single metric of whether or not they present to us demonstrable, empirical truth claims, even though we have repeatedly agreed that they are not exclusively taken this way by those that revere them. Many have argued that they are not even primarily taken in this sense, which I find convincing, but at a minimum we can agree that there is no universal quality to "religion" that involves literal interpretation of sacred texts.

What does "best" mean. How about"fairest" - where's the scientific evidence for this grand claim?

This line of argument is used rhetorically against the verificationist stance that only that which is subject to empirical confirmation is defensible. It is intended to show that such a stance is rarely consistent.

It has little sharpness pointed in the other direction, since I have never claimed that the only meaningful statements are those which scientific substantiation. There are also statements of metaphysics, of ethics, of logic, of poetry, of opinion, and of emotional expression, each of which we judge on its own terms.

And why are you assuming all religious governments would be unfair? Surely you should be restricting your claim to some religious governments?

No, I think it's implicit here that religious government means endorsement of a state religion, which conflicts with individual religious liberty. There are other ways to be fair, and I can see any number of hypotheticals in which a religious government was fair in numerous regards. Perhaps more fair than our own when it comes to economic justice, for example. But we have prioritized other kinds of liberty, for historical reasons.

And really when we already say under god for a secular government what does it matter if we say under jesus?

We shouldn't. It is one of the many places we are insufficiently dedicated to the principle in the U.S. (also: putting "In God We Trust" on the currency, swearing on bibles in court).

I mean how presumptuous to think religious governments wont safeguard people's freedom of religion.

To a degree. The Caliphate tended to permit private religious observance among other "people of the book" (Christians and Jews), but it could hardly make it a pressing social priority. Whatever the best intentions, having a state-sanctioned religion privileges the members of that religion, by virtue of how it structures its institutions.
 

(continued)



Now is the belief that my comic and oath is sacred and magically transform into the flesh of the guardians more palatable?

Who is arguing that the existence of moderates makes extremists "more palatable"?

I think we safely agree that extremism is a problem. What we are arguing about is whether non-extreme views are intrinsically problematic. Right?

yes. But which is the more truthful one? which is more valid? which is correct?

Interesting questions, but not really germane to the topic of whether we should tolerate non-extremist religious views.

Who is to say whether the author of genesis meant what he said literally or non literally? This is the whole point of legitimacy. The non literalist still lends credibility to scripture.

Actually there are well-argued opinions on both sides of this question. The fact that they may not yet be empirically decisive does not mean we can't agree with one or the other.

But this is also besides the point we are trying to argue here. What is the intrinsic problem with the non-literalist "lending credibility" to scripture? You presume that it enables fundamentalism, but this stance presumes that literal interpretation is the correct one. Why not make common cause with the non-literalists. and support the notion that scripture should be interpreted non-literally?

I am loathe to introduce yet another analogy, but what if we replace "scripture" with "Thus Spake Zarathrustra," which was (falsely) interpreted by the Nazis as an argument for the dominance of the Germanic race? Even though you and I may not be Nietzscheans, we would not need to argue that any study of his work "lends credibility" to his writings in a damaging way.

and that has potential to misuse.

Everything is subject to corruption. If that's your main concern, I wish you luck.
 

@Chris
I think its at the stage when I have nothing new to respond to most of your comments.
I'll leave the discussion with that whatever reasons you have to prefer a secular government - I can make the same arguments that "accomodationists" make to counter it.
For e.g. the UK has an official church but it is fairly secular. Christians and Hindu's do have some degree of religius liberty in an Islamic country etc etc.
You too are making a judgement call on potential to misuse. You too make a call on whats the benefit of having religion in government? whats the harm of having religion in government?
Replace government with society in general and you should have the same conclusion and the same reasons.
 

Yes, Deepak, I am making judgments. Reasoned judgements. I explained hose reasons to you. If you value freedom of religion, or freedom from religion, then it's best to have a government that is unaffiliated with any religion, all things being equal. The fact that the UK doesn't have too many problems with religious persecution is not an argument against this judgement. The Church of England is a state church in name only; in practice it does not impede religious liberty. Even in the US our secularism is not pure secularism, as we discussed with "Under God" and "In God We Trust." But the fact that there is room for improvement does not detract from the fact that the more secular your government is, the greater your religious liberty will be, ceteris paribus.

However, it would be a mistake to conclude that what is best for governments is thereby best for individual people. This should be clear from the fact that one of the main reasons we cite for secularism in government is to promote religious liberty among individuals, as I mentioned. It would be strange to argue that since secular government promotes freedom of religion (or lack thereof) that therefore people should be less religious. That just does not follow.

The reason we exclude religion from government in our society is not because we have decided that religion is a bad thing, but because we have decided it is a matter of personal choice--one that is so important we have tasked government with protecting it.
 

@Chris
The fact that the UK doesn't have too many problems with religious persecution is not an argument against this judgement.
Heh. Your reasoned judgement is ignoring all these moderate and liberal forms of religious governments and all those good religious politicians - What are you , a gnu?
And I could keep doing that (The Church of England is a state church in name only; = So many religious people dont actually follow anything that their books say)
See why it gets frustrating answering inquiries on these lines?


is not because we have decided that religion is a bad thing,
We have decided its a bad thing when it comes to governance.
You could try again. Is a secular society better than a religious one? (you can do whatever you want in private)
 

You could try again. Is a secular society better than a religious one?

It really does come down to this:

There's no way to answer that question, because what could be signified by "religious" and "secular" is infinitely variable. The Phelps family is not the same as Jerry Coyne's liberal methodists. Randian Objectivists are not the same as The American Humanist Society.

I also reject the presumption that our prospects must be zero-sum. I like pluralism and diversity, personally, and as long as everyone plays by the rules, I'm not overly concerned with what proportion of a society is secularist, and what proportion religious.

We have decided its a bad thing when it comes to governance.

Yes, and I just explained why we cannot and should not apply the same standards to governments and individuals. Most things governments do are expressly illegal when done by its citizens: printing money, imprisoning the convicted, declaring war, collecting tax revenue. Different functions, different relations, different rules.

Heh. Your reasoned judgement is ignoring all these moderate and liberal forms of religious governments and all those good religious politicians - What are you , a gnu?

Reason works best when both people in a discourse attend to it. For the third time now, governments and individuals do not have interchangeable roles. (Plus, how is it "ignoring" something to explicitly mention why it makes a poor example of the point you are trying to make?)
 

@Chris
There's no way to answer that question, because what could be signified by "religious" and "secular" is infinitely variable.
Heh. But you sure knew what "religious" and "secular" meant for government right?

The Phelps family is not the same as Jerry Coyne's liberal methodists.
And the UK government isn't the same as a theocracy. See do you think any gnu doesn't know that? Do you think that's what Sam Harris or Hitchens claims?

I like pluralism and diversity, personally, and as long as everyone plays by the rules, I'm not overly concerned with what proportion of a society is secularist, and what proportion religious.
Pluralism and diversity isn't the problem it's the Christians/Muslims/Hindus are better of in the company of Christians/Muslims/Hindus that usually troubles me no end. It's the way in which say marriage is twisted by religion that troubles me and I would like to see society become more secular i.e. have no influence from religion. Why do you think it is acceptable for e.g. for the Catholic Church to say that the marriage between a Catholic and a Non-Catholic is in some way inferior? Why do you think it is acceptable for an Imam to say that the woman must convert to marry a muslim man? Yes there are liberals who dont give a damn about these customs but "religion" in general is pretty clear on such matters.

Plus, how is it "ignoring" something to explicitly mention why it makes a poor example of the point you are trying to make
Lets assume I'm a sincere liberal Christian. I believe that the world is a better place when everyone follows Jesus. America is a christian majority so there is no problem acknowledging Jesus or praying to Jesus before the government does any important business. Other religious people are free to pray to whomever they want. All other freedoms Americans enjoy will be preserved as is. Why do you keep saying this form of government is unfair? Why do you keep thinking that this is the same as a theocracy? Or take it another way assume the founding fathers did explicitly endorse Jesus while still having the no religious test stuff in the constitution. All other things remain the same. Now ? A secular government is still better right?
 

Heh. But you sure knew what "religious" and "secular" meant for government right?

If we're talking about governments, then even a religion we may decide is "good" (or harmless) should not be embraced because of its impact of freedom of/from religion. The definitions of secularism and religiosity are much more narrow in the context of how we structure government, than in what we tolerate or nurture in society at large, because we are only evaluating one criteria: the protection of minority rights. (Which we both support, yes?)

Pluralism and diversity isn't the problem

Glad we agree on this.

Why do you think it is acceptable for e.g. for the Catholic Church to say that the marriage between a Catholic and a Non-Catholic is in some way inferior? Why do you think it is acceptable for an Imam to say that the woman must convert to marry a muslim man?

I have never endorsed these practices, even implicitly.

Yes there are liberals who dont give a damn about these customs but "religion" in general is pretty clear on such matters.

So you say. But neither data nor logic support this. If politics can evolve (as per your slavery example), why can't religion? We already know that there are millions of religious people who reject traditional religious customs. What's so terrible about this group growing in number, alongside secularists?

Lets assume I'm a sincere liberal Christian. I believe that the world is a better place when everyone follows Jesus.

What I have been calling "liberal" Christianity is ecumenical and non-evangelical, so this is unlikely.

America is a christian majority so there is no problem acknowledging Jesus or praying to Jesus before the government does any important business.

This is a fundamentalist view, not a "liberal" one. Atheists are not the only ones out there protecting the secular state. Many of the most ardent church/state separationists are religious. (Some of them are even--gasp--Catholic!)

Why do you keep saying this form of government is unfair?

Because it abridges the rights of religious and non-religious minorities. If you don't understand this point you really have no business arguing on this subject. To do so would be like arguing about electrical engineering without accepting the concept of imaginary numbers. Or economics without knowing monetary theory. It's central.
 

should not be embraced because of its impact of freedom of/from religion.
Because it abridges the rights of religious and non-religious minorities. If you don't understand this point you really have no business arguing on this subject.
Hmm so If I was a UK citizen my rights would be abridged?
You keep repeating these assertions in the face of obvious examples to the contrary. Take a look here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_religion#State_religions_by_country at countries with an official religion which would still nevertheless be as secular if not more than the USA and whose citizens are still free to practise their religion. You can keep trying your "rights of the minorities" but you have examples that preserve it while still having an official religion.
In any case I have flogged this horse as much as I could - I cannot help but feel you haven't thought through why you prefer a secular government.

I have never endorsed these practices, even implicitly.
Ok good we agree some more. But what does a secular society mean to you then? What would you tell the religious person who insists his children only marry members of the same religion? On what basis will you tell organized religion to stop trying various forms of emotional blackmail when it comes to marriage?
You have yet to demonstrate any benefit we have by following any religion as a whole in society that could not be obtained by other means, easily.
What I have been calling "liberal" Christianity is ecumenical and non-evangelical, so this is unlikely.
So a liberal christian cannot, in your opinion , believe that the world would be a better place if everyone followed the teachings of Jesus? Can he believe his religion is "better"/more like to be "true" than any other? Because if not I wonder why this hypothetical christian is "christian".
This is a fundamentalist view, not a "liberal" one.
Good. So to a non-believer like me "under God" sounds the same as "under Jesus". So would you agree that any American who is in favor of retaining "under God" is fundamentalist?
Many of the most ardent church/state separationists are religious. (Some of them are even--gasp--Catholic!)
And almost all the people who aren't for this separation are gasp -- Religious!
 

Hmm so If I was a UK citizen my rights would be abridged?

Speaking as a UK citizen I would have to say yes, in principle. Of course, now the Church of England is the state church largely in name only. It's role is mostly ceremonial. But in the past it had access to political power that was denied to other denominations and faiths and used it, sometimes to the detriment of those others. The chances that it could ever regain that power are pretty remote but it remains a possibility, with all that entails for the rights of others, while it is still the official faith of the country.

The wall of separation erected between church and state in the US is still, in my view, the best way of preserving the rights of all believers and non-believers alike.

So a liberal christian cannot, in your opinion , believe that the world would be a better place if everyone followed the teachings of Jesus? Can he believe his religion is "better"/more like to be "true" than any other? Because if not I wonder why this hypothetical christian is "christian".

A liberal Christian, like any other Christian, even the Phelps family, is free to believe whatever they want and proclaim it in the public square as loudly and us unpleasantly as they choose. What they should not be entitled to do is impose that belief on others, especially by getting their hands on the levers of political power.

So would you agree that any American who is in favor of retaining "under God" is fundamentalist?

Not necessarily fundamentalist but, speaking now as an American citizen, I regard anything like that, which smacks of an official endorsement of one particular faith, as unconstitutional. As an agnostic, I might want to replace "under God" with "by sheer good fortune and human endeavor" but I doubt of most other Americans woulds agree and I would not expect the state to adopt it as official policy in preference to other beliefs.
 

Deepak,

You keep bringing up religion and marriage, I assume as an example of why you think religion is dangerous. I don't know if you have children or not, but as a parent, I can assure you that I hope my children will marry people who share our values and who do not bash the things we hold to be important. As a liberal Christian, I would not particularly care if my children married someone of a different religion or even no religion at all -- IF that person were also pluralist and liberal in his or her values and outlook.

But I would be quite upset and concerned if one of my children came home with someone who was a fundamentalist religionist OR atheist who actively worked to destroy my relationship with my married child and my grandchildren because that partner did not agree with my values; and yes, it happens. Parents have a lot at stake with who their child marries, because who you marry determines so much of what your life will be like and what your children's (grandchildren's) lives will be like and what kind of relationship you will have with your married child, your new son or daughter-in-law (who is after all now a member of the family) and with your grandchildren. Of course we care who our child marries! Does that mean I can prevent my adult child from marrying someone I disapprove of? Nope, not in America. But I tell you, I have every right and duty to speak up if I think my child is getting serious about someone whose values are a cause for concern. Marriage is difficult enough.

And I find it hard to imagine, with your strong bias against religion, that you as a parent would be 100% supportive if your child decided to marry a religious person who raised your grandchildren to be religious.

-- liberal Christian pew sitter
 

Hmm so If I was a UK citizen my rights would be abridged?

These are not simple yes or no questions, Deepak. Secular and religious & abridged and non-abridged are not binary choices; they exist on a continuum, and, as I mentioned, not even the US with all its protections is 100% secular. (In God We Trust, etc.)

The UK is an unusual case, since it doesn't have any explicit constitutional protection of freedom of religion. In practice this is not a huge problem, though it makes keeping creationism out of schools more difficult than it otherwise would be.

Most of the other states we think of us as secular--Western Europe, the Commonwealth states, Japan--have laws on the books protecting freedom of religion.

On what basis will you tell organized religion to stop trying various forms of emotional blackmail when it comes to marriage?

On the same basis I would argue against secular practices I disapproved of, like Libertarianism, for example.

You have yet to demonstrate any benefit we have by following any religion as a whole in society that could not be obtained by other means, easily.

No, I think I've mentioned a few. I discussed the fact that diversity is an intrinsic good in society as in biology, for example.

But taking this further, I don't think we need to demonstrate a "benefit" to tolerate a given social practice. The standard we should look to is "does it cause harm"? Some things are effectively neutral. Some are, as you mention, redundantly beneficial, but who am I to tell people how to provide benefits to themselves and society, if no net harm comes from their activities?

We agree, of course, that a great number of religious expressions are harmful or problematic. But not all of them are. Some of them are, to my mind, profound and beautiful.

(con't)
 

@Ian
but it remains a possibility, with all that entails for the rights of others,
Well, precisely. The possibility of harm(and previous examples of harm) and the lack of any advantage by maintaining an official religion is the reasoning behind not wanting an official Church in UK, correct? This is what Im trying to point out to Chris since I think this applies broadly to religion as well , not just when it comes to governments.

Not necessarily fundamentalist
Under God - unconstitutional but not necessarily fundamentalist. Under Jesus - unconstitutional and fundamentalist?

but I doubt of most other Americans woulds agree
Most religious Americans right of which some would be liberals and moderates. Ever wonder why that is?
 

Because if not I wonder why this hypothetical christian is "christian".

First: Even Jerry Coyne will tell you these folks are not hypothetical. (Not only that, he explicitly wrote that the First United Methodist Church, which he visited, was not a net negative!)

Second, who shall we appoint to decide the true names of people's affiliations and identifications?

If we take a so-called "Liberal" religious person and observe that she regularly goes to services, reveres the scriptural narratives, baptises her children, chooses a religious ceremony for her wedding and funeral, even though all the while she neither believes that scripture is literally true, or that her religion is the one true path to salvation, should we try to convince her that she is "really" an atheist?

Good. So to a non-believer like me "under God" sounds the same as "under Jesus". So would you agree that any American who is in favor of retaining "under God" is fundamentalist?

No, because I think people's reasons for supporting this retention are more complicated than that (and not entirely rational). Partly I think it's just habit. But there is definitely a majority bias against atheism in the US. I don't think most people have enough of an awareness of what non-religious morality would look like, and so when they hear that we want to remove swearing on bibles from the courtroom, they perhaps imagine some kind of nihilistic free-for-all.

That, however, doesn't make them fundamentalist. I think applying consistent logic to the principles of church-state separation makes it a no-brainer to get God off the money and out of the courtroom. But that doesn't mean that everyone who quails at such a decision feels that any particular brand of theism is the one true religion.
 

@Anonymous
I assume as an example of why you think religion is dangerous
No I bring it up as obvious examples of religious discrimination which sometimes applies even to self identified liberals. These are cases where I can state with a fair degree of confidence that the cause of harm is religion.

I would not particularly care if my children married someone of a different religion or even no religion at all -- IF that person were also pluralist and liberal in his or her values and outlook.
Which means what? I would think that you believe I'm not pluralist or liberal because I express the view that religion is a net negative and that society is better of without it, correct? How about if I expressed a view that the Bible is just made up stuff, riddled with contradictions and edits by people who had theological view points to push? How about If I restricted myself to there is no evidence for any type of religion? Am i still liberal?
Your latter conditional merely serves to show that you aren't serious about your more liberal statement "married someone of a different religion or even no religion at all".

You might be able to get away with a dont ask dont tell policy with you son/daughter in law. But what if your children, after marriage, became non believers? What if they stopped pewsitting with you? A lot of "liberal" parents can't accept that. Perhaps you are an exception.

who actively worked to destroy my relationship with my married child and my grandchildren because that partner did not agree with my values; and yes, it happens
Ah yes - the strawman. Very few non-believers in my experience would ask their spouses to cut off ties with their family on the basis of religion. However they probably do discuss the merits and demerits of religion with their spouses. And they have all the right to raise their children religiously or non religiously or insist that their parents don't teach their children religion. That isn't "destroying" your relationship.

Parents have a lot at stake with who their child marries,
Did I disagree with that? There are a lot of secular attributes that parents would like to see in the partner of their children.

But I tell you, I have every right and duty to speak up
Speak up != Emotional Blackmail.

And I find it hard to imagine, that you as a parent would be 100% supportive if your child decided to marry a religious person who raised your grandchildren to be religious.
I can't help you with your lack of imagination - Incidentally my wife is a practicing Roman Catholic who is well aware of my views.
 

Deepak,

Let's see if I can figure out how to use html tags! :-D

Which means what? I would think that you believe I'm not pluralist or liberal because I express the view that religion is a net negative and that society is better of without it, correct? How about if I expressed a view that the Bible is just made up stuff, riddled with contradictions and edits by people who had theological view points to push? How about If I restricted myself to there is no evidence for any type of religion? Am i still liberal?
Your latter conditional merely serves to show that you aren't serious about your more liberal statement "married someone of a different religion or even no religion at all".

You might be able to get away with a dont ask dont tell policy with you son/daughter in law. But what if your children, after marriage, became non believers? What if they stopped pewsitting with you? A lot of "liberal" parents can't accept that. Perhaps you are an exception.

First, you are correct that the Bible is full of contradictions and made up stuff and edits by people with theological viewpoints to push. I think seeing the bible as a magical book is a big problem, and I am vocal about saying so. In this, I'm fairly typical as a liberal Christian. I'm assuming by no evidence for religion that you're referring to philosophical or metaphysical claims, but this is the same issue we have with philosophy, politics and the arts, assuming you mean something like scientific evidence. Again . . . correct, and so what?

Second, most of my family are nonreligious (including some outspoken atheists), those who are religious are different religions from me, I was an atheist for several years, and my daughter is a nonbeliever. When it comes to family, I pewsit nearly alone. Shrug, again. I enjoy hearing other people's views and I care much more about how people act than what they say they believe. I don't think that makes me much of an exception, though. I think this is fairly typical, but perhaps that is just the crowd I hang with.


Ah yes - the strawman. Very few non-believers in my experience would ask their spouses to cut off ties with their family on the basis of religion. However they probably do discuss the merits and demerits of religion with their spouses. And they have all the right to raise their children religiously or non religiously or insist that their parents don't teach their children religion. That isn't "destroying" your relationship.

Where did I say that simple disagreement and doing things differently was equal to destroying a relationship? My father is an atheist and my mother is Roman Catholic and they both spoke openly about their differences, that's the way I grew up. They also treated one another with kindness and respect despite their differences. That is pluralism and liberalism in action; thus my caveats. I am aware of families where that's not the case; so I sincerely hope my children marry people who deal graciously with differences. Not all people do.

Did I disagree with that? There are a lot of secular attributes that parents would like to see in the partner of their children.

We are agreed again!
(continued below)

-- pew sitter
 

(continuing)

Speak up != Emotional Blackmail.

Here, I must disagree with you. Speaking up is exactly what you seem to be claiming the right to do for yourself, as a nonbeliever. So why, if I express my views, is it suddenly emotional blackmail? Why the double standard?

Or is it also emotional blackmail if you speak up? Or if anyone speaks up at all? This is what puzzles me.

When my daughter was dating a controlling young man who wished to dictate to her which internet sites she should visit and which friends she should have, I expressed my deep concerns. If he had further claimed that he had the right to do so because of his religious or nonreligious convictions, I would express my concerns and, frankly, add that his philosophical views are no excuse and that he had no such right. I disagreed with his values and with the way he was treating my daughter. You bet I spoke up. Why shouldn't I?

I can't help you with your lack of imagination - Incidentally my wife is a practicing Roman Catholic who is well aware of my views.

Great! Given what you've written upthread, you did not come across as someone who would be supportive of religious family members. My apologies for misjudging you.

-- pew sitter
 

In this, I'm fairly typical as a liberal Christian.
What do you believe with respect to
a. Jesus - divine or not divine. Some element of supernatural or not?
b. The bible - some element of divine inspiration or not?


If I think the bible has contradictions and made up stuff - Im still liberal? But if I follow that thought to its logical consequence - which is why is any part of the Bible trustworthy? and that anyone who finds it so isn't thinking clearly I'm suddenly evangelical , anti-pluralism and anti-diversity?

I'm assuming by no evidence for religion that you're referring to philosophical or metaphysical claims,
Religion has factual claims - Surely we do not need to have a discussion why factual religious claims are different from "Shakespeare is a great writer".


Speaking up is exactly what you seem to be claiming the right to do for yourself, as a nonbeliever. So why, if I express my views, is it suddenly emotional blackmail? Why the double standard?

I meant that you can speak up but a lot of parents do much more than "speak up" purely on the basis of religion.
If I illustrate with examples "You need to be aware of the differences you have with your partner which can impact your married life" - Speaking up. "If you marry a non believer you will lose your faith. He/she wont let you baptise your children. You'll drift apart from us, sniff, sniff. After all we have done for you, sniff, sniff" - emotional blackmail.

was dating a controlling young man who wished to dictate to her which internet sites she should visit and which friends she should have, I expressed my deep concerns.
Fair enough. No problems there , and you would express these views whether or not the young man was religious. A more relevant example would be you'd tell your daughter to not go out with someone with views like mine(and you only know this much about me - assume i satisfy all the other criteria) which too is fair enough - but it also depends on what exactly you would tell her and what arguments would you make if she wasn't willing to listen.
I can give more real life examples(somehow in my circle everyone seems to have married people from a different religion or even a different country). Marriage between two Catholics is a sacred union blessed by God , between non-catholic's it is only a "contract". Is that speaking up? Is there a cause for expressing such views other than religion? And these views were expressed by someone who in all other ways is a good parent and a good human being. This isn't just speaking up in my opinion. Its expressing a view that treats people with different beliefs as in some way inferior.
And in the context of my argument all I need to do show is
a. No benefits in being religious that aren't easily obtainable
b. Some harm caused by religion.
Therefore a net negative (or atleast it is reasonable to conclude this).

My apologies for misjudging you.

None actually needed.But Thank you anyways.
An Internet armchair argument is what it is. If the world was a more secular place I wouldn't bother with these arguments.
 

@Chris
On the same basis I would argue against secular practices I disapproved of, like Libertarianism, for example.
Secular practices can be argued on secular grounds. Some religious practices can be argued on secular grounds. Some can't.

I don't think we need to demonstrate a "benefit" to tolerate a given social practice.
Time for another real life analogy. India used to have a caste system that was almost on par with slavery for the harm it caused. Things have moved on in the big cities such that the caste system is very limited (atleast in terms of the company you keep and the people you eat with or hire). Things in the villages not so much. In the cities however you find people who dont otherwise discriminate on the basis of caste , still have objections when it comes to marriage. I could make the same argument against the caste system - No benefit, has caused harm, does cause harm , and has great potential to cause harm(irrespective of the existence of liberal people who nonetheless identify themselves as of a particular caste). I doubt however you would "tolerate" the caste system in the name of diversity or plurarity in social customs. I doubt you would say you dont think we need to demonstrate a "benefit". I doubt Ian would phrase it as the caste system must be doing something right (in evolutionary terms). I doubt you would say a liberal person who calls himself a brahmin does not enable the caste system. Atleast not if you saw the effects with your own eyes.

Even Jerry Coyne will tell you these folks are not hypothetical.
Sorry I meant hypothetical as in my example. I have no doubt such folks exist. John shelby spong for example. In the sense if you dont attach any supernatural events to the religion , then really it is not religion in any meaningful sense. Saying you follow the teachings of Gandhi isn't really a religion, so if you believe Jesus was a man then saying you follow the teachings of Jesus doesn't make you religious and I dont include these people when I talk about religion or religious people.

should we try to convince her that she is "really" an atheist?
Their position makes as much sense to me as an atheist saying he believes in God. But yes if they belong to an organized religion, I would ask them why they dont leave. Whats wrong with that?

That, however, doesn't make them fundamentalist.
Now take a look at what you imply.
Under Jesus - Discriminates against non-christians and non-believers. Fundamentalist!
Under God - Only discriminates against polytheists and non-believers. Complicated. Not Fundamentalist!.
(Im not disagreeing with what you are trying to say though).
 

Secular practices can be argued on secular grounds. Some religious practices can be argued on secular grounds. Some can't.

I don't understand what you mean here.

You asked on what grounds I opposed religious purity tests regarding marriage. My answer is "on the grounds that it is wrong," which is the same metric I would use for, say, focusing on deficit reduction during a down economy.

As for your example on castes, it seems to me you have described something negative, not neutral. My valorization of diversity and pluralism does not extend to all social practices. I think that polygamy is a net negative, for example, because it fosters inequitable gender roles. Some social practices, however, are either neutral, or redundantly positive (we could get the same benefits another way). My question is why are we even worrying about these things?

In the sense if you dont attach any supernatural events to the religion , then really it is not religion in any meaningful sense.

Surely it is meaningful to the people who practice it! You are welcome to try to narrow down the definition of religious so it only applies to veridical supernatural events (though most scholars of history of religion will take issue with this). But are the people attending Spong's Episcopal church not entitled to call themselves Christians rather than atheists?

I would ask them why they dont leave. Whats wrong with that?

Nothing, though I hope you will be prepared to really listen to their answers, and to accept their self-definition as Christian if they are not swayed by your arguments that they aren't.
 

Deepak,

Let us see if I remembered the html trick . . .

What do you believe with respect to
a. Jesus - divine or not divine. Some element of supernatural or not?
b. The bible - some element of divine inspiration or not?

If I think the bible has contradictions and made up stuff - Im still liberal? But if I follow that thought to its logical consequence - which is why is any part of the Bible trustworthy? and that anyone who finds it so isn't thinking clearly I'm suddenly evangelical , anti-pluralism and anti-diversity?

Sorry, I'm not sure why my theology matters, or why my views on biblical interpretation are of interest or relevance here. Why do you ask?

Religion has factual claims - Surely we do not need to have a discussion why factual religious claims are different from "Shakespeare is a great writer".

'Religion' is about as useful a word to generalize about as 'politics.' Which religion? Which claims? Do you think truth claims are the same as factual claims?

I meant that you can speak up but a lot of parents do much more than "speak up" purely on the basis of religion.
If I illustrate with examples "You need to be aware of the differences you have with your partner which can impact your married life" - Speaking up. "If you marry a non believer you will lose your faith. He/she wont let you baptise your children. You'll drift apart from us, sniff, sniff. After all we have done for you, sniff, sniff" - emotional blackmail.

Oh. Well in that case, I don't see why you're singling out religion as a unique cause of parental emotional blackmail, rather than the real cause, which is parents who are emotional blackmailers. My point was simply that parents have a right and a duty to speak up when they have concerns. And emotional blackmailers will latch onto any topic -- religion, politics, social status, job status, sexuality, educational status, looks, health, wealth/poverty, nationality -- whatever they think pulls the strings.

(pew sitter, continued below)
 

(continued)
I can give more real life examples(somehow in my circle everyone seems to have married people from a different religion or even a different country). Marriage between two Catholics is a sacred union blessed by God , between non-catholic's it is only a "contract". Is that speaking up? Is there a cause for expressing such views other than religion? And these views were expressed by someone who in all other ways is a good parent and a good human being. This isn't just speaking up in my opinion. Its expressing a view that treats people with different beliefs as in some way inferior.
And in the context of my argument all I need to do show is
a. No benefits in being religious that aren't easily obtainable
b. Some harm caused by religion.
Therefore a net negative (or atleast it is reasonable to conclude this).

Hmmm. Well, I think Chris Schoen was going 'round with you about whether religion is a net negative; I just was wondering why you seemed to be holding religion to a double standard.

I recall (it's been decades since I was RC) that Catholics teach that the only true sacraments are those dispensed through the Catholic church. Marriage is a sacrament, and so is holy communion, and so are several other things. So, every Sunday, when I take holy communion at my non-Catholic church, there are perhaps millions of Catholics who sincerely believe that it doesn't count because a) I am not a Catholic and b) the eucharistic table was not presided over by a Catholic priest. However, the fact that millions of Catholics may believe that I did not get a sacred meal or that my nonCatholic marriage vows are not sacred does not keep me up at night. Neither am I bothered by the fact that millions of atheists think I am wasting my time and money on organized religion. It is simply a fact that everything I do or say or believe will be something that millions of others disagree with, for one reason or another. Some of those others will even be people I know and respect. So what?

Re "treating people with different beliefs as in some way inferior": you repeatedly express the opinion that religion is a net negative, and that the world would be better off without religion and you imply in various ways throughout the thread that people who stay with organized religions are morally lacking. Is it safe to say that you think religion is inferior to secularity? Is it unreasonable for me to conclude that you believe that religion is in some way morally or intellectually deficient or inferior to the secular? I see elsewhere in the thread, including below, where you are making judgments about who does and does not count as religious.

How is your religion/secular distinction any less of a judgment of superiority/inferiority than your Catholic's sacred/nonsacred distinction?

Why is it morally acceptable when you make judgments through deciding who and what counts as religious (when it seems clear to me that you consider religion/religious to be inferior), but needlessly divisive when a Catholic makes judgments about what counts as sacred (and perhaps the Catholic even makes it clear that he considers the nonsacred to be inferior)?

I do not see the difference.

-- pew sitter
 

@Anonymous
Sorry, I'm not sure why my theology matters,
Only for me to get a feel for what you believe.

I don't see why you're singling out religion as a unique cause of parental emotional blackmail,
Religion is one of the causes. Remove it and you have one less thing. Discrimination exists in various forms. You could take any one and make the same argument. Why bother about racism when so many other forms of discrimination exist?.

I just was wondering why you seemed to be holding religion to a double standard.
What double standard are you referring to? In the context of this blog , I generally respond to John about matters about gnu's - since I don't disagree with the other stuff he posts. If you are trying to say I don't complain about other evils , not true.

re not sacred does not keep me up at night.
And I dont either. Nor does my wife. But her parents to do. I fail to see why that must be so when I see no benefit to religion.

It doesn't bother me much if people think I'm inferior because of my skin color, or my lack of religion, or my caste. But that's quite different from shrugging my shoulders and saying racism,casteism, anti-atheism is ok because it doesnt bother me.
It's one thing to criticise someone based on some reasoning - its quite another to do it under the guise of made up stuff like religion. Im assuming as a liberal religious person you do recognise that a good deal of the religious stuff is made up?

Is it safe to say that you think religion is inferior to secularity?
Yes. don't you?

I see elsewhere in the thread, including below, where you are making judgments about who does and does not count as religious.
Im stating that I dont consider such a person "religious" and hence when I criticise religion or religious practices these people are not included. So that the next time I argue with Chris, I don't need to add multiple caveats.

How is your religion/secular distinction any less of a judgment of superiority/inferiority than your Catholic's sacred/nonsacred distinction?

Because Im not using authority to make that argument. Im not threatening to ostracize people who dont agree with me. Im not threatening to deny people anything if they dont agree with me. Im not stating that Im representing a higher supernatural power that no one ever had evidence of. And as given in earlier caveats , these are opinions, not scientific facts - made using some analysis and some logic (Though I still could be wrong). The church however sets itself as high moral authority whose head can be "infallible" when he chooses to be.

I do not see the difference.
Seriously?
 

I don't understand what you mean here.
Merely that sometimes you are going to have to say "your religion is nonsense" (e.g. do unbaptised babies go to limbo or to hell?)

As for your example on castes, it seems to me you have described something negative, not neutral.
How so? The original intent of "caste" might have been the same as me saying Im a software engineer and John saying he is a lawyer. What is negative about someone saying he is a Brahmin?

My question is why are we even worrying about these things?
How do you say that religion is either neutral or redundantly positive? Are you saying you see no causality between some forms of harm and religion? I restricted myself to acts that moderates and liberals commit as well - there are the fundamentalists of course.

But are the people attending Spong's Episcopal church not entitled to call themselves Christians rather than atheists?
They can call themselves whatever they wish. I would see no difference between them and people who call themselves Gandhian. I simply clarified that if you dont believe in the supernatural and you dont have any special reverence to a holy book then I do not include these people as "enablers".
Im with Hitchens on this - if you dont believe Jesus is the only son of God, who died and was resurrected for our sins you are not Christian in any meaningful sense. You can ofcourse still call yourself Christian.

I hope you will be prepared to really listen to their answers,
well i did go through all your responses :P.
 

Deepak,

Only for me to get a feel for what you believe.
Why is that relevant?

Religion is one of the causes. Remove it and you have one less thing.

Yes, and the homophobes say if gay people would just go back into the closet, things would be fine; the racists and misogynists say if other races and all women just stayed in their proper place things would be fine.

My point is that you are writing off an entire category of people or demanding they change to suit you. If you are doing the very thing you condemn, how do you expect to demonstrate a better option?

And I dont either. Nor does my wife. But her parents to do. I fail to see why that must be so when I see no benefit to religion.,

So if you personally see no benefit to something, the whole world must abolish it?

that's quite different from shrugging my shoulders and saying racism,casteism, anti-atheism is ok because it doesnt bother me.

Where did I say injustice and bigotry was okay? Is it really injustice or bigotry if someone merely disagrees with me?

It's one thing to criticise someone based on some reasoning - its quite another to do it under the guise of made up stuff like religion. Im assuming as a liberal religious person you do recognise that a good deal of the religious stuff is made up?

You mean, made up stuff like numbers? Or moral concepts? Or philosophical concepts like what counts as valid "reasoning"? As a liberal religious person, I think "religious stuff" carries transformative truth.

Is it safe to say that you think religion is inferior to secularity?
-- Yes. don't you?
It all depends on the context. Some forms and expressions of religion are vastly superior to some forms of secularity; some forms and expressions of secularity are vastly superior to some forms of religion. I do not categorically condemn either, nor do I categorically approve of either.

Im stating that I dont consider such a person "religious"

Huh. So what makes a person 'religious'?

Because Im not using authority to make that argument(...) The church however sets itself as high moral authority

No, you're just writing off billions of human beings as less intelligent, moral, and perceptive than you are, based on an arbitrary category. Which is the essence of discrimination.

And why would you accept the moral authority of the Catholic church?

Seriously?

Seriously, because I see the same dynamic of power plays at work. If (and I am making a perhaps unjustified assumption here) a Catholic tells you that you do not have a 'real' marriage because it wasn't done in the Catholic church, that's a power play.

As far as who does and does not 'count' as religious -- Chris Schoen's sketch of a liberal Christian woman fits me quite well. If someone who wants to abolish religion says that people like me are not 'real' religious people because he defines religion to include all that he holds in contempt yet he apparently approves of something about CS's sketch, that's a power play too -- much as if a misogynist were to pat me on the head by telling me he counted me as "one of the boys" (until of course, I do something he doesn't like and then he decides after all that I'm acting "like a typical woman").

Same dynamic -- and all of these people can be fine people, admirable in many respects. But they are also using power plays to let those whom they see as categorically different from them, know that they find the mere fact of those differences to be offensive.

-- pew sitter
 

when religion has a causal relationship and point to other problems.

You mean, made up stuff like numbers? Or moral concepts? Or philosophical concepts like what counts as valid "reasoning"? As a liberal religious person, I think "religious stuff" carries transformative truth.
No I mean stuff like the stories about jesus have been added years later and the gospels heavily edited and changed.(for e.g. forgiving the adulteress or tracing the path of births from Adam to Jesus). What is the point of attributing views and actions to Jesus when you have no way of knowing whether they are true/fictional? You might as well worship Superman.
You'll have to explain what you mean by "transformative truth".

Some forms and expressions of religion are vastly superior to some forms of secularity;
for example? Note that the expression must be religious in order to be compared against its secular equivalent. What is forms of secularity? secularity is the absence of religion. What forms does it have?

Huh. So what makes a person 'religious'?
For me? You must have an element of supernatural. If you merely believe that Jesus was a man who taught good stuff(though you dont really know whether he taught it) - then you could say the same about the Buddha or Gandhi or Mandela or any other great person. I'd ask why call yourself Christian and not anything else?

No, you're just writing off billions of human beings as less intelligent, moral, and perceptive than you are, based on an arbitrary category. Which is the essence of discrimination.
For this one topic of religion. Just as I'd say creationists are less smarter than me on that topic. Just as homophobes are less moral than I on that topic. You'd have to prove how my views actually affect my behavior to prove discrimination. Or you are expressing a view that by me merely having a view that religion is a net negative is the essence of discrimination. In which case I'd have to reconsider just how liberal you actually are.
 

Damn I messed up copy - paste.
Here is the full reply

and the homophobes say if gay people would just go back into the closet, things would be fine;
Going back into the closet causes harm to the gay people. So it isnt the same.

My point is that you are writing off an entire category of people or demanding they change to suit you.
To suit the world. Im sure I dont need to list where entire categories of people have had to change. Im not sure why you feel the need to exaggerate with "writing off people","abolish","power plays".

So if you personally see no benefit to something, the whole world must abolish it?
In the context of this argument , you must prove the benefit in order to prove me wrong.
I've already taken the things that are commonly stated as the benefits that religion provides
(answers to the unanswerable questions, helps you to be a better person, morality, sense of community etc etc) and specified why I think they are either redundant or not true.
Based on your reasoning no one would ever be able to express a view that something is harmful and should be stopped.
I could say something like "The chinese form of government is wrong and I dont know why the people dont do something about it and china would be better off with a democracy"
Have I written of the chinese? Have I abolished the communist party? Have I made a power play?

Where did I say injustice and bigotry was okay?
When you said why single out religion , you imply that religion does some bad stuff, other stuff is bad too so we can ignore it about religion (also commonly known as the Vatican defense to paedophilia). That's not a statement that you think it's ok, its that you shrug your shoulders when religion has a causal relationship and point to other problems.

You mean, made up stuff like numbers? Or moral concepts? Or philosophical concepts like what counts as valid "reasoning"? As a liberal religious person, I think "religious stuff" carries transformative truth.
No I mean stuff like the stories about jesus have been added years later and the gospels heavily edited and changed.(for e.g. forgiving the adulteress or tracing the path of births from Adam to Jesus). What is the point of attributing views and actions to Jesus when you have no way of knowing whether they are true/fictional? You might as well worship Superman.
You'll have to explain what you mean by "transformative truth".
 

Some forms and expressions of religion are vastly superior to some forms of secularity;
for example? Note that the expression must be religious in order to be compared against its secular equivalent. What is forms of secularity? secularity is the absence of religion. What forms does it have?

Huh. So what makes a person 'religious'?
For me? You must have an element of supernatural. If you merely believe that Jesus was a man who taught good stuff(though you dont really know whether he taught it) - then you could say the same about the Buddha or Gandhi or Mandela or any other great person. I'd ask why call yourself Christian and not anything else?

No, you're just writing off billions of human beings as less intelligent, moral, and perceptive than you are, based on an arbitrary category. Which is the essence of discrimination.
For this one topic of religion. Just as I'd say creationists are less smarter than me on that topic. Just as homophobes are less moral than I on that topic. You'd have to prove how my views actually affect my behavior to prove discrimination. Or you are expressing a view that by me merely having a view that religion is a net negative is the essence of discrimination. In which case I'd have to reconsider just how liberal you actually are.

If someone who wants to abolish religion says that people like me are not 'real' religious people because he defines religion to include all that he holds in contempt yet he apparently approves of something about CS's sketch,
words have meaning. If you dont believe in something supernatural I dont see how you are religious. If all you mean is some human taught some good things, then by that definition I'M religious and a polytheist and surely you see the silliness in calling someone like me religious.

that's a power play too
Expressing an opinion is a power play? Criticising any group of people (lets say scientologists or members of fred phelp's church) is a power play?


and all of these people can be fine people, admirable in many respects.
Which I have not denied. Whats more I have a higher opinion of such people since I believe they would retain their fineness without religion whereas you probably believe they wont(and if you dont believe that then why is the fineness or admirableness being raised in a discussion about religion).
 

Deepak,

Just to clarify --

Throughout the comments here you object to what at one point you called 'anti-atheism.' And you object when people make assumptions that nonbelievers are inferior when all they know about them, is that they are a nonbeliever.

As it happens, I agree with you that this is wrong, and I call it 'discrimination.' If all you need to know about someone to judge them inferior is that they are atheist, you are discriminating. If you categorize ALL atheists as inherently more evil because they are atheist, this is discrimination. It is literally pre-judging, prejudice, if all you need to know about someone to know he or she is inferior to you, is that he or she is a nonbeliever. If you can sit comfortably back in your armchair and say, "Ah, well, at least I am better than all atheists," this is discrimination.

I have a neighbor who left our church when we voted to ordain gays. Later on she insisted to me she was not a homophobe, because, and I quote her, "gays recruit children." In her mind, gay = child molester. I brought up the science, and she said the science was inconclusive and liberals were misusing it. I asked about various gay couples we knew at church, and she said she didn't think THEY were "recruiting children," but their lifestyle made being gay more socially acceptable, and so that was not good either. She didn't think she was a homophobe because she thought gays were a threat to a better world. Therefore, in her mind, she was justified in saying that it is wrong to be gay.

This is the same line of reasoning you've been employing against religious people. You are making claims that you're not discriminating because religion is uniquely evil. How is different from a religious person saying it's not wrong to think all nonbelievers are, say, less moral because they think atheism inherently makes one less moral?

I think both blanket condemnations are wrong, and yes, discriminatory, just as my neighbor (who insists she is not a homophobe) does indeed discriminate against gays, does prejudge all gays, by thinking they all enable crime, whether or not an individual gay person actually commits that crime. And she dismisses all evidence that might threaten her idea that being gay means being or enabling child molesters.

It seems to me you have a strong sense of justice and empathy for the oppressed, and I admire that. What I'm saying is: aim your fire.

I encourage you to speak up against hypocrisy, closed-mindedness, irrationalism, abuse of power, and yes, discrimination -- all of which occurs in AND outside of religion.

I would also encourage my neighbor to speak up against child abuse rather than assuming that all gays either enable or commit it.

For what it's worth!

-- pew sitter
 

Sorry guys. For various reasons, I haven't been following this thread and, worse, I haven't been watching the spam trap, which caught a couple of posts, which I've now restored.

Without catching up with all that's gone before, I think pew sitter's last point is very cogent.
 

@Anonymous
This is the third time I feel that the subject is being changed(to Aim your fire) since I still dont know your explanations for
a. Why do you feel religion provides a benefit to people(that wouldnt be there anyway)
b. Why do you feel a religious society is "sometimes" better than a secular one (people are still free to do/believe whatever they want)
In any case
For any disagreement including the one we are having, you obviously think you are right and I am wrong. This might be because you think Im not smart enough, or Im biased or misguided or something. Whatever the reason you think you are slightly better off than me for this topic anyway. If say a whole group of people say gnu atheists believe as I do - then you probably think you are better of than them for this issue, it still doesn't make it discrimination. So Im not sure why you keep bringing it up, that criticising a set of people is discrimination or that i think that they are in general "inferior".

Were I to discuss the merits of having a democracy v/s a communist system would you think that I'm making any claims about the kindness or niceness of indvidual communists? Similarly when we talk about religion it usually refers to
a. The belief in theistic God i.e. one who interacts with our world inspite of the fact that there is no evidence to justify this belief. In addition to a whole lot of supernatural phenomena that religion encourages for which there is no evidemce
b. A system that promotes belief in authority whether that be in the form of a book edited thousands of years ago or an organized church.
c. A set of ritual and practices that encourages people to draw up lines between us and them.
Are these unique to religion? maybe not but thats besides the point isn't it?

What I'm saying is: aim your fire.
Take an example. Creationists interpret the bible literally. Creationism is bad. You could for example point out that the literal interpretation is not the only possible interpretation, point to a bunch of people who dont interpret the bible literally and keep mum about why some Gospel writers feel the need to trace Jesus's lineage to the allegorical Adam.
Or you could like me follow this to the logical question about how reliable and trustworthy the bible is (not very). Then think about how useful it is for humanity to give some special relevance to this book(not much).
However once you criticise the bible , it is treated the same as criticising Christianity(which it probably is) which in turn is treated the same as criticising Christians(which it is only in one way) which in turn is treated as the the same as being a homophobe.
Also how is it that you dont follow your own advice?
 

Deepak,

Apparently we both feel the subject keeps being changed. All along I've said I thought you were employing a double standard when it comes to religion, and I've been providing my reasoning for why I think so. You don't find my reasoning convincing. So here we must disagree.

For some reason you also seem to think it is my job to convince you or to prove to you that 'religion' is good or beneficial, which is a question to me that doesn't even make sense. 'Religion' is so broad a category as to be useless, as others here have already pointed out. Your description of what you think counts as religion doesn't make sense to me either. Others here have already pointed out problems with your reasoning on this as well.

And finally, you are convinced that 'religion' poses a threat to making the world a better place. Plenty of other people on this and other threads have offered reasons why they think you might question your reasoning process about religion, and you've rejected everything so far.

I don't think I have anything to add to what others have already said here. You also reject my reasoning on double standards, and I really have nothing more to add there either. If you're genuinely curious about why people might think religion is beneficial, or why people might question your definition of religion, or what constitutes a double standard, there are thousands of books out there that discuss these matters at great length and with many footnotes. You could investigate for yourself.

But no one is responsible for convincing you of anything or for changing your mind or for providing reasoning you think is knock-down. Your mind and how you use it is your responsibility. Nobody else has any control over what others personally find spurious or convincing, or over what topics others are willing to question, revisit or investigate further.

I'm not responsible for writing at length to you about 'religion,' to your satisfaction. I'm not responsible for changing your mind, or my neighbor's mind, for that matter; and like I said earlier, the fact that people disagree with me doesn't keep me up at night.

I'm only responsible for stating my own mind and for providing reasoning I think is sufficient without being redundant. Which I've already done. :-D

-- pew sitter
 

All along I've said I thought you were employing a double standard when it comes to religion, and I've been providing my reasoning for why I think so.
But by your reasoning criticising any system (e.g. communism or republican policy) is the same as discriminating against communists or republicans. That is absurd in my opinion and in addition I find that such charges are made only when the target is religion.

it is my job to convince you or to prove to you that 'religion' is good or beneficial,
Only in the context of the original argument being made to Chris. In any case I merely wanted to see what case you make.

there are thousands of books out there that discuss these matters at great length and with many footnotes. You could investigate for yourself.
That's a great answer. Remind me to point you to some gnu works whenever you respond to me.

Your mind and how you use it is your responsibility.
Did I imply it wasn't. You chose to respond to me - I chose to ask you to state why you have certain beliefs. you preferred to compare my views to homophobia and "the essence of discrimination". Thats your choice.
 

2015-12-18keyun
chanel bags
ugg boots sale
oakley sunglasses wholesale
ugg boots outlet
air max 90
nike running shoes for men
uggs boots for women
uggs on sale
ugg boots
hollister kids
ray-ban sunglasses
hollister jeans
air force 1 trainers
true religion jeans outlet
louis vuitton outlet
michaek kors outlet
cheap uggs sale
ugg boots outlet
jordan 11s
louis vuitton handbags
coach outlet
jordan 11 concord
instyler
gucci outlet
nike huarache white
ray ban outlet
coach outlet online
tory burch outlet
ugg outlet store
uggs for chea
cheap ray ban sunglasses
canada goose
oakley store
coach outlet online
michael kors outlet
abercrombie & fitch
coach outlet
toms outlet
ray bans
fitflop clearance

 

timberland outlet
oakley sunglasses
arizona diamondbacks jerseys
nike free run
canada goose
coach factory outlet
fitflops sale
puma shoes
cristiano ronaldo jerseys
cheap jordans
cc20180723
 

goyard handbags
adidas ultra boost uncaged
yeezy boost 350 v2
cheap nba jerseys
calvin klein outlet
nike cortez men
goyard bag
yeezy boost 350
stephen curry 5
kobe 11

 

hermes birkin
yeezy boost
supreme
curry shoes
lebron james shoes
off white shoes
kyrie 4
yeezy boost 500
yeezy 700
pandora jewelry

 

stephen curry shoes
nike sb dunks
yeezy
lebron 17
cheap jordans
lebron shoes
moncler
supreme clothing
supreme clothing
russell westbrook shoes