Over 1.5 million copies sold
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
Climbing Mount Improbable
by Richard Dawkins
Print
Would the World Be Safer Without Religion?
by Gregg Easterbrook, Beliefnet.com
Thanks to Florian Widder for the link.
Reposted from:
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/103/story_10357_1.html
Faith makes people want to kill each other--but it's the best thing we've got.
Israelis and Palestinians are killing each other by the hundreds in Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza. Hindus and Muslims are slaughtering each other in India, herding neighbors into house or trains then setting them afire. Catholics and Protestants continue to kill each other in Northern Ireland. Sunnis and Shias have their arms wrapped around each other's throats throughout the Islamic world. And of course, on Sept. 11, 19 Muslims were so determined to murder helpless Christians and Jews that they were willing to die to shed the blood of other religions.
Not a terribly good reflection on faith, is it? If religion makes people want to murder each other, maybe religion is bad for the world.
Religion has certainly been bad for history. In recent decades alone, Hindus and Sikhs have been slaughtering each other, blowing up airliners and firing artillery shells into temples. In the fighting over Sri Lanka, Tamil Hindus have fired machine guns at school buses full of Sinhalese Buddhist children, and the Buddhists in turn have firebombed Hindu schools. Thousands of Chinese grew up as orphans because their Buddhist parents were murdered during World War II at the urging of Shinto priests.
Looking further back, huge numbers of Eastern Orthodox Armenians were murdered by Muslims at the turn of the century. Much of Europe's history has been a nightmare of Christian-on-Christian killing, including the 30 Years' War, in which an estimated 7.5 million people--one-third of the European population at the time--died owing to Catholic-versus-Protestant slaughter. England's history is full of Protestants murdering Catholics; France's history is full of Catholics murdering Protestants; Spain's history is full of Christians murdering Jews. Pretty much all of Europe is to blame for the Crusades, in which Christians murdered Muslims. This inventory could go on at considerable length. King Olaf Tryggvason's declaration from about the year 1000--"all Norway will be Christian or die!"--sums it up.
So is faith bad? The fact that religions preach love, but often generate violence, cannot be dismissed as a minor imperfection.
And if you talk of mere hatred--as opposed to all-out killing--the accounting is even more horrifying. Many faiths and denominations have throughout history dedicated themselves to hating other faiths and denominations. About 100 years ago, to cite one of many examples, Protestant denominations called the Pope the Whore of Babylon, while Pope Leo XIII declared Protestants "enemies of the Christian name." Sunnis and Shias have been denouncing each other since just a few years after the Prophet Muhammad died. The Eastern Orthodox church has in its past denounced Catholicism as a false religion. In 1997, a small group called the Union of Orthodox Rabbis declared that the Conservative and Reform movements of Judaism are "not Judaism at all." Intrigue among Buddhist and Shinto sects have led to much violence.
Considering this bill of attainder, it could be awfully tempting to turn away from religion as a retrograde or divisive influence. This seems to be the view in Europe, where rates of religious observance have been in sharp decline for a century. Today, just 10 percent of the citizens of the European Union regularly attend worship services of any faith; in the United States, the comparable figure is a little more than half. Europeans seem to be aware of the bloodshed that faith has cost in the past--religious killing has been comparatively rare in the United States, probably a reason observance remains relatively high--and to be saying, "To hell with it."
Killing in the name of God or belief, which shames every religion, ought to give the person of faith pause. But should it cause us to abandon faith? Would the world be better off if religion disappeared?
Some people would say yes, and since it's impossible to conduct this experiment, as faith is definitely not going away, we can't be sure. But when we observe the horror of religiously motivated violence or hatred, maybe the correct question is, Without religion would it be even worse?
What's really underlying many "religious" disputes is ethnicity, money, and national distinctions, factors that would exist regardless of whether anyone had ever heard the word "God." The fighting in Israel today, for example, is not primarily about religion--Jews, Muslims and Christians have coexisted fairly peacefully in that area for most of the last 1,300 years. Until recently, the Holy Land fighting was mainly about land, and whom it's been promised to. Palestinians hated Israelis because they viewed them as oppressors, not because they were Jews--although that hatred has turned lately to anti-Semitism. Israelis hated Palestinians because they viewed them as terrorists, not because they were Muslims--although, lately the hatred has turned anti-Muslim. If the land dispute could be resolved, the religious dispute would rapidly fade to secondary or tertiary status--though ethnic tensions pitting Ashkenazim and Sephardim against Arabs might drone on.
Similarly, the tension between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland has a religious component, but its essence is class-based and nationalist. Protestants in Northern Ireland tend to be well-off and Anglophile; Catholics, to be working class and to want the Brits out. Suppose religion vanished tomorrow morning, and these two groups divided themselves by arbitrary labels that had nothing to do with faith. Let's say one position was arbitrarily designated "Orange" and the other "Green." Do you think the conflict would instantly end? No, it would continue as before, if not worsen, since Christianity--both Catholicism and Protestantism--would no longer be present to urge each side to love its neighbor.
Similar ethnic, class, and nationalistic disputes underlie pretty much every fight that looks on the surface to be about religion. Suppose the Christian and Islamic faiths vanished. Sept. 11 might still have happened. Within the Arab world, where many resent the West, violent fanatics might have vowed to kill themselves solely on secular grounds. Indeed, it can be argued that since the mass murderers of Sept. 11 openly violated the Quranic prohibition against killing the innocent, they weren't true Muslims anyway. What they were was terrorist fanatics. And a certain number of people like this would exist in the world whether religious faith existed or not.
Men and women of all faiths must feel deeply chastened about the continuing violence in the name of religion. We ought to feel the very worst about violence, or hatred, perpetrated by those who say they believe what we believe. But this does not mean we should give up those beliefs. Rather, we must work to make belief sincere. Only then is there a chance the violence will stop.
Reposted from:
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/103/story_10357_1.html
Faith makes people want to kill each other--but it's the best thing we've got.
Israelis and Palestinians are killing each other by the hundreds in Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza. Hindus and Muslims are slaughtering each other in India, herding neighbors into house or trains then setting them afire. Catholics and Protestants continue to kill each other in Northern Ireland. Sunnis and Shias have their arms wrapped around each other's throats throughout the Islamic world. And of course, on Sept. 11, 19 Muslims were so determined to murder helpless Christians and Jews that they were willing to die to shed the blood of other religions.
Not a terribly good reflection on faith, is it? If religion makes people want to murder each other, maybe religion is bad for the world.
Religion has certainly been bad for history. In recent decades alone, Hindus and Sikhs have been slaughtering each other, blowing up airliners and firing artillery shells into temples. In the fighting over Sri Lanka, Tamil Hindus have fired machine guns at school buses full of Sinhalese Buddhist children, and the Buddhists in turn have firebombed Hindu schools. Thousands of Chinese grew up as orphans because their Buddhist parents were murdered during World War II at the urging of Shinto priests.
Looking further back, huge numbers of Eastern Orthodox Armenians were murdered by Muslims at the turn of the century. Much of Europe's history has been a nightmare of Christian-on-Christian killing, including the 30 Years' War, in which an estimated 7.5 million people--one-third of the European population at the time--died owing to Catholic-versus-Protestant slaughter. England's history is full of Protestants murdering Catholics; France's history is full of Catholics murdering Protestants; Spain's history is full of Christians murdering Jews. Pretty much all of Europe is to blame for the Crusades, in which Christians murdered Muslims. This inventory could go on at considerable length. King Olaf Tryggvason's declaration from about the year 1000--"all Norway will be Christian or die!"--sums it up.
So is faith bad? The fact that religions preach love, but often generate violence, cannot be dismissed as a minor imperfection.
And if you talk of mere hatred--as opposed to all-out killing--the accounting is even more horrifying. Many faiths and denominations have throughout history dedicated themselves to hating other faiths and denominations. About 100 years ago, to cite one of many examples, Protestant denominations called the Pope the Whore of Babylon, while Pope Leo XIII declared Protestants "enemies of the Christian name." Sunnis and Shias have been denouncing each other since just a few years after the Prophet Muhammad died. The Eastern Orthodox church has in its past denounced Catholicism as a false religion. In 1997, a small group called the Union of Orthodox Rabbis declared that the Conservative and Reform movements of Judaism are "not Judaism at all." Intrigue among Buddhist and Shinto sects have led to much violence.
Considering this bill of attainder, it could be awfully tempting to turn away from religion as a retrograde or divisive influence. This seems to be the view in Europe, where rates of religious observance have been in sharp decline for a century. Today, just 10 percent of the citizens of the European Union regularly attend worship services of any faith; in the United States, the comparable figure is a little more than half. Europeans seem to be aware of the bloodshed that faith has cost in the past--religious killing has been comparatively rare in the United States, probably a reason observance remains relatively high--and to be saying, "To hell with it."
Killing in the name of God or belief, which shames every religion, ought to give the person of faith pause. But should it cause us to abandon faith? Would the world be better off if religion disappeared?
Some people would say yes, and since it's impossible to conduct this experiment, as faith is definitely not going away, we can't be sure. But when we observe the horror of religiously motivated violence or hatred, maybe the correct question is, Without religion would it be even worse?
What's really underlying many "religious" disputes is ethnicity, money, and national distinctions, factors that would exist regardless of whether anyone had ever heard the word "God." The fighting in Israel today, for example, is not primarily about religion--Jews, Muslims and Christians have coexisted fairly peacefully in that area for most of the last 1,300 years. Until recently, the Holy Land fighting was mainly about land, and whom it's been promised to. Palestinians hated Israelis because they viewed them as oppressors, not because they were Jews--although that hatred has turned lately to anti-Semitism. Israelis hated Palestinians because they viewed them as terrorists, not because they were Muslims--although, lately the hatred has turned anti-Muslim. If the land dispute could be resolved, the religious dispute would rapidly fade to secondary or tertiary status--though ethnic tensions pitting Ashkenazim and Sephardim against Arabs might drone on.
Similarly, the tension between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland has a religious component, but its essence is class-based and nationalist. Protestants in Northern Ireland tend to be well-off and Anglophile; Catholics, to be working class and to want the Brits out. Suppose religion vanished tomorrow morning, and these two groups divided themselves by arbitrary labels that had nothing to do with faith. Let's say one position was arbitrarily designated "Orange" and the other "Green." Do you think the conflict would instantly end? No, it would continue as before, if not worsen, since Christianity--both Catholicism and Protestantism--would no longer be present to urge each side to love its neighbor.
Similar ethnic, class, and nationalistic disputes underlie pretty much every fight that looks on the surface to be about religion. Suppose the Christian and Islamic faiths vanished. Sept. 11 might still have happened. Within the Arab world, where many resent the West, violent fanatics might have vowed to kill themselves solely on secular grounds. Indeed, it can be argued that since the mass murderers of Sept. 11 openly violated the Quranic prohibition against killing the innocent, they weren't true Muslims anyway. What they were was terrorist fanatics. And a certain number of people like this would exist in the world whether religious faith existed or not.
Men and women of all faiths must feel deeply chastened about the continuing violence in the name of religion. We ought to feel the very worst about violence, or hatred, perpetrated by those who say they believe what we believe. But this does not mean we should give up those beliefs. Rather, we must work to make belief sincere. Only then is there a chance the violence will stop.
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Monday, May 21, 2007 | PermalinkComments 1 - 50 of 132 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #43248 by Jolly Wally on May 21, 2007 at 2:37 am
Anything that draws lines between us is going to be a problem. Hostility is always a consequence of humans who see themselves as part of a different teams. Religion draws deep, wide lines. Nationalism can also have this affect."Nationalism is an infantile disease, the measles of mankind" - Albert Einstein
Other Comments by Jolly Wally
3. Comment #43254 by Logicel on May 21, 2007 at 2:53 am
Men and women of all faiths must feel deeply chastened about the continuing violence in the name of religion. We ought to feel the very worst about violence, or hatred, perpetrated by those who say they believe what we believe. But this does not mean we should give up those beliefs. Rather, we must work to make belief sincere. Only then is there a chance the violence will stop.______
CJ recently posted a link to a site that tests your five bases of morality--one base being tradition. I tested very low on that one.
This author is saying that religious believers must not abandon the tradition of regarding believing in beliefs without evidence as being not only good in itself, but potentially EFFECTIVE in curtailing grievous human problems; tradition must be made to work even though he is quite honest in admitting that it does not work at present. Despite his honest recognition that religion does not do what it says to be done, he cannot embrace the possibility that this tradition needs to be replaced with a viewpoint that is rational and based on scientific knowledge. I would guess that this author would score high on the tradition base of morality.
Other Comments by Logicel
4. Comment #43258 by Logicel on May 21, 2007 at 2:57 am
Here is the link to the forum discussion regarding this test on the 5 bases of morality:http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=15021
Other Comments by Logicel
5. Comment #43261 by scooternyc on May 21, 2007 at 3:05 am
But should it cause us to abandon faith?
Since faith is based on lack of evidence, yes it should cause us to abandon it.
I'm quite fascinated by those who "believe" in god really have no good intellect when it comes to being able to explain WHY they actually believe.
Other Comments by scooternyc
6. Comment #43263 by derwent on May 21, 2007 at 3:09 am
The fighting in Israel today, for example, is not primarily about religion--Jews, Muslims and Christians have coexisted fairly peacefully in that area for most of the last 1,300 years. Until recently, the Holy Land fighting was mainly about land, and whom it's been promised to.
Hmmm... And who was it who did this "promising", I wonder?
(Incidentally, that should read "and to whom it's been promised"...[/nitpick])
Other Comments by derwent
7. Comment #43265 by bitbutter on May 21, 2007 at 3:15 am
We ought to feel the very worst about violence, or hatred, perpetrated by those who say they believe what we believe. But this does not mean we should give up those beliefs. Rather, we must work to make belief sincere.
Did i read that right? Religious belief can lead to violence so the best thing to do it to believe even more strongly?
In what sense is the suicide bombing Jihadist not _already_ completely sincere in his religious belief?
Other Comments by bitbutter
8. Comment #43270 by Adrian on May 21, 2007 at 3:21 am
This article posits an interesting thought: that even without religion, conflict would still be rampant and violence and death would naturally follow.However, it overlooks one important factor: FAITH.
With faith, there is no reasoning possible, therefore you only need to know that 'the others' have different faith, to hate them.
However, without faith, there is ample room for REASON to deflate a conflict and NEGOTIATION to resolve it.
I suggest then, that the author is wrong.
Other Comments by Adrian
9. Comment #43272 by Ohnhai on May 21, 2007 at 3:23 am
He says that we should work to make the practice of faith sincere,as if this will stop the violence...What world is he living in?
I can think of no more sincerely practice religion than Islam and that is a hot bed of the worst atrocities.
If anything we should work to make the practice of religion as insincere and as trivial as possible. Then People wouldn't care if their neighbour practised a different religion. It would make as much difference as their choice of cereal brand.
Other Comments by Ohnhai
10. Comment #43273 by Logicel on May 21, 2007 at 3:26 am
bitbutter wrote: Did i tread that right? Religious belief can lead to violence so the best thing to do it to believe even more strongly?In what sense is the suicide bombing Jihadist not _already_ completely sincere in his religious belief?
_______
Moderates like this author regard that moderate belief is different in kind--and not in degree--than the type exhibited by rabid followers of religious superstitions. They fail to see that if you regard believing without evidence as virtuous, that then allows some to go full hog and become fanatics. Moderates blame the extreme followers, and not the moderates' own embracing that belief in belief is good.
In addition, moderates think that since they regard their belief as being different in kind, that it is unfair to lump them with extreme practitioners. But the unholy glue that is binding both groups together is the nonsense that believing in non-evidential beliefs are good.
Other Comments by Logicel
11. Comment #43275 by Fanusi Khiyal on May 21, 2007 at 3:30 am
>>the Quranic prohibition against killing the innocent<<Okay, now quick question: According to the Qur'an, are non-Muslims innocent?
The answer is no.
And are there plenty of verses, entire _suras_ that command war on the unbelievers?
The answer is yes.
So, this nitwit should actually know something about Islam before writing this.
And then there's this:
>>The fighting in Israel today, for example, is not primarily about religion--Jews, Muslims and Christians have coexisted fairly peacefully in that area for most of the last 1,300 years. <<
Har har. Excuse me. The level of historical ignorance is beyond belief here.
Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal
12. Comment #43276 by bitbutter on May 21, 2007 at 3:36 am
@logicel: yes i'm sure you're right. He implies that the 9/11 attackers weren't _True_ muslims.Killing in the name of God or belief, which shames every religion, ought to give the person of faith pause.
and here he seems to demonstrate that he doesn't see extremists as belonging under his umbrella: 'people of faith'.
Other Comments by bitbutter
13. Comment #43281 by rokort on May 21, 2007 at 3:52 am
But when we observe the horror of religiously motivated violence or hatred, maybe the correct question is, Without religion would it be even worse?Yeah, let's focus on the bad and leave out the good. Again this stupid idea that morals come from religion. Because "it's the best thing we've got" he says. No, the best thing he can come up with by deliberately staying away from reason and critique. Perfect example of his mindset: blame anything instead of reflecting on your own belief.
Other Comments by rokort
14. Comment #43283 by MrEmpirical on May 21, 2007 at 4:04 am
But this does not mean we should give up those beliefs. Rather, we must work to make belief sincere. Only then is there a chance the violence will stop.
So, there is ONLY a chance that religious violence will stop if people belief more sincerely? This implies that religious violence would not end even if religion were eradicated.
And I'm sure that jihadists believe with the utmost sincerity. Moderates seem to me to be the ones with less sincere or genuinely held beliefs.
Other Comments by MrEmpirical
15. Comment #43284 by John Phillips on May 21, 2007 at 4:06 am
While the loss of religion wouldn't necessary lead to a better world, it would at least be one less irrational differentiation between groups.What annoys me most about these type of articles is the constant failure to understand that any belief based on faith makes it impossible to use reason to dissuade those who use faith to justify the worst kind of excesses. Especially when the very moderates arguing against the excesses make a virtue of having faith, only arguing over interpretation and application of the irrational.
Other Comments by John Phillips
16. Comment #43288 by pewkatchoo on May 21, 2007 at 4:15 am
This has already been covered ad-nauseum by Dawkins and Harris and probably the other 2 muskateers too. Where tensions arise for other reasons (nationalism, economic, etc.), religious difference just makes it easier to justify violent struggle. This has been proven time and time again. So a gentler faith would only stay gentle until such time as it is tested. Lump them all together, Religion, Nationalism, Political Ideology and throw them all in the dustbin of history. Other Comments by pewkatchoo
17. Comment #43291 by alovrin on May 21, 2007 at 4:26 am
I was, for a long time, dumbfounded, I couldnt for the life of me figure out why the same arguments, in virtually the same language, kept reappearing in reviews of atheistic literature by theists.Then I had my spaghetti moment, it couldn't be that simple.. could it!
Well any way my reasoning is something like this, theists convinced as they are of their total grasp of "truth" dont really pay close attention to counter arguments. They go to their websites read their literature all of which will virtually never post anything that is critical of their position, especially books as strong as those that have come out recently. They have reviewers and commentators who airly attempt to dismiss them with a wave of their metaphysical hand. Just claim the high ground and thats it, but the arguments are threadbare and long worn out. Still they trot out the same nonsense that has been trotted out before. And generally it is to tell the populace to go back about their business, nothing to see here... move along folks, the commotion is over.
That is all they ever do and all they will ever be capable of. Its not minding the flock, its immunising anyone trapped in their tuppenny maze from any outside influence.
Although I get tired of reading and hearing the same thing over and over in negative reviews of the books on the god subject by Dawkins, Spenger, Dennett, Harris, Onfray, Hitchens and the list is growing all the time. I hope this attempt does not flounder on this blind obedience and mindlessness, I give thanks to the flying spaghetti monster that this website takes the time and has the stomach to keep us all aware of what is being said positive and negative.
And praise them for their work, and hope there is patience to see a shift happen. Faith in any supernatural agency cannot solve the problems we all face, as it is inherently divisive.
Other Comments by alovrin
18. Comment #43296 by Richard Morgan on May 21, 2007 at 4:32 am
To find more stupid articles than this, you'd have to turn to Creationist science books.Other commentators have picked up on most of the rubbish written here, but what about:
Europeans seem to be aware of the bloodshed that faith has cost in the past--...--and to be saying, "To hell with it."
Wrong. Crassly wrong. Religion has largely fizzled out in Europe because it has been replaced by reason. Gregg Easterbrook may know the word "Enlightenment".
But there's more:
Would the world be better off if religion disappeared?
Some people would say yes, and since it's impossible to conduct this experiment, as faith is definitely not going away, we can't be sure.
So he quotes a part of the world where faith is rapidly disappearing, and we find that Europe has been relatively peaceful since World war II. So why talk about "impossible experiments"?
(I live in "faithless France" - the country that refused to murder Iraqi women and children to protect American oil-interests. Why am I not ashamed?)
Also, I want to make a point here that I've been wanting to make for a long time. Obviously, with or without religion(s) people would have problems with living together on this poor ol' planet of ours. But I would like to imagine that whatever the cause for ignorance and violence, rape and genocide, there would be the equivalent of a Sam Harris, a Richard Dawkins or even a Christopher Hitchens to rise up against, to noisily protest and denounce it. WHATEVER the cause.
I am quite sure that if ever atheism were used as an excuse to slaughter people, Richard Dawkins would protest just as vociferously, if not more so, because he happens to be a reasonable man, and would never tolerate so-called "reason" being used in this way.
It's been said before, but I'll say it again : at least ignoramus writers like Gregg Easterbrook are, unwittingly, doing a good job preparing the ground for reason.
Other Comments by Richard Morgan
19. Comment #43300 by Russell Blackford on May 21, 2007 at 4:40 am
Yeah, no true Scotsman would fly a commercial airliner into a city office block.Other Comments by Russell Blackford
20. Comment #43306 by Luthien on May 21, 2007 at 5:00 am
Catholics and Protestants continue to kill each other in Northern Ireland.
Oh please! "Continue"???
Protestants in Northern Ireland tend to be well-off and Anglophile; Catholics, to be working class and to want the Brits out.
The Protestants who most hate Catholics do NOT tend to be "well off", this is the greatest myth that was ever perpetuated over here. They just went to different (faith based) schools, making it easier to sew distrust and suspicion. Without religion we would have all gone to the same schools, and known that our economic conditions were identically bad.
Suppose the Christian and Islamic faiths vanished. Sept. 11 might still have happened. Within the Arab world, where many resent the West, violent fanatics might have vowed to kill themselves solely on secular grounds.
No, because who would kill themselves if they knew that this was the only life they had, rather than an afterlife full of virgins etc?
Other Comments by Luthien
21. Comment #43307 by keith on May 21, 2007 at 5:03 am
Right Gregg, I think we've seen what you've done here. By stating that "it can be argued that since the mass murderers of Sept. 11 openly violated the Quranic prohibition against killing the innocent, they weren't true Muslims anyway."So, because both the koran and the bible (sometimes) say that you shouldn't commit crimes, then the people who do murder and steal can't really be people of faith. Thus, because no crime can be commited by a true believer, a criminal can't, by definition, be a person of faith. Nice footwork.
However, the usual definition of faith is not whether you are a criminal or not, but whether you believe in one of the various gods. So, unless you wish to change the definition of your lot from 'person of faith' to 'non-criminal', I'm afraid this ruse won't work. Sorry.
Apart from all this, since the bible prohibits so many things, including working on the sabbath and taking the lord's name in vain, I suspect that there would be no true believers, by your own definition, left on god's green Earth. So, anybody here without sin? No? You Gregg? I know how you Christians hate to claim sinlessness for yourselves and instead prefer to wallow in guilt. So, the category of 'true believers' turns out to be a club with no members. What conclusions can we draw from this, and your argument? I would suggest that you are simply trying to distance yourself from the actions of your fellow believers with a little sophistry and a lot of self-deception. If that's what makes you happy mate, why not?
Other Comments by keith
22. Comment #43321 by MIND_REBEL on May 21, 2007 at 5:48 am
Religion is the cause of almost all of our problems. The 21 century will be the when progressive people stand up, and say that we're sick of all the wars in the name of religion, and we're not going to tolerate irrationality IN ANY FORM. Faith heads are so deluded they only think a perfect society can exist beyound the grave. Science suggests that humans could get along much better on earth if we'd only listen to what is rational. An example is Sweden which is 80% hardcore atheist, and also has one of the highest standard of living in the world. If the world was to become atheist, then imagine the gains we would make globally.
Other Comments by MIND_REBEL
23. Comment #43322 by Bayle on May 21, 2007 at 5:50 am
Faith makes people want to kill each other--but it's the best thing we've got.
I love when ignorant fools cling tendentiously to irrational notions. Best thing we've got--what a moron.
Other Comments by Bayle
24. Comment #43326 by Azven on May 21, 2007 at 5:58 am
Let's say one position was arbitrarily designated "Orange" and the other "Green." Do you think the conflict would instantly end? No, it would continue as before, if not worsen
This question of what would happen if all religion disappeared is often raised (usually by the theists). But as Easterbrook says, above, it will imediately be replaced by a new in-group/out-group characteristic. However, it seems to me that this is yet another example of faith. I have 'faith' that we Orange-men are better than you Green-vermin!
What is missing is critical thinking and this is suppressed during childhood by religious indoctrination. If curiosity were taught instead of religion then there might be less in-group/out-group thinking.
But I'm not going to hold my breath...
Other Comments by Azven
25. Comment #43351 by Dax on May 21, 2007 at 6:47 am
And of course, on Sept. 11, 19 Muslims were so determined to murder helpless Christians and Jews that they were willing to die to shed the blood of other religions.(Emphasis mine)
And see here, the narrow mindedness. The "other religions" that he speaks about are 'Christians and Jews'. Did he ever consider that the attackers tried to kill human beings of every religion or non-religion that exists in the US? That they did not just try to kill Christians and Jews, but human beings? Were there no other religious and non-religious people among the victims, or don't they count?
Other Comments by Dax
26. Comment #43359 by severalspeciesof on May 21, 2007 at 7:09 am
"What's really underlying many "religious" disputes is ethnicity, money, and national distinctions, factors that would exist regardless of whether anyone had ever heard the word "God."" That may be true, but religion provides fuel that wouldn't be there without it, thus giving "reason" more chance to actually be able to contain, at the very least, if not extingish, the fires.
"What God Wants, God Gets, God Help Us All." -R. Waters
Other Comments by severalspeciesof
27. Comment #43363 by alfonso on May 21, 2007 at 7:23 am
So what this guy is saying:There is a clear account of horrible historical facts of mass murdering, hatred, oppresion which is directly to blame to religion. But, I like religion, so it can't be religion. I am 'sure' this would happen all along without the word god (how do you know this?). It must be something else.
The usual white cheque to religion to be one of the greatest evils for this planet, and somehow get away with it.
Other Comments by alfonso
28. Comment #43365 by tieInterceptor on May 21, 2007 at 7:25 am
"But this does not mean we should give up those beliefs. Rather, we must work to make belief sincere. Only then is there a chance the violence will stop"Oh-key, this is how I see it.
In Spain at Christmas we tell the kids that the three magic kings come on the 6 of January to bring presents, on other countries they tell kids that Santa is comingthe 25th of September to bring presents,
It's just a bit of trivia, at the end children get presents and that is it. No adult takes that as "the" truth about present giving in the holidays.
Religion should be just that, folklore that is part of a nations history, like the type of food your country is famous for, or what historical figures you have in your books.
nothing more.
... instead for him, the solution is:
- you got to sincerely believe in Santa or (depending on you where born) the Three kings are truly real.
-Then also realise that your present bringer of choice is good spirited and nice, so you should be a nice good spirited person too.
-Ergo, do not upset the neighbour telling him his choice of present bringer is wrong. You Know yours is the right one, but you're too good spirited to displease anyone...
-you know you are right, just keep it to yourself.
-pretend the neighbour sincerely wrong believe does not offend you, smile a lot.
LIKE THAT'S GONNA WORK!
Other Comments by tieInterceptor
29. Comment #43367 by FXR on May 21, 2007 at 7:26 am
Ignorant ill informed claptrap:To say that the conflict in the North had nothing to do with religion is complete and utter twaddle.
Religion has everything to do with it.
James Craig, 1st Viscount Craigavon, as Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, is quoted as stating on April 24, 1934 at Stormont, "I have always said that I am an Orangeman first and a politician and a member of this Parliament afterwards — they still boast of Southern Ireland being a Catholic State. All I boast of is that we are a Protestant Parliament and a Protestant State."
In April 2005 the now defunct Daily Ireland newspaper revealed in an article by journalist Ciaran Barnes that Orange Order chaplain Rev Stephen Dickinson had mocked the ailing Pope John Paul II at a Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) fundraising event in a Church Hall outside Lisburn. Rev Dickinson was widely criticised for making impressions of the pontiff. Members of the audience included Lagan Valley DUP MP Jeffrey Donaldson.
When you go through Belfast there are "peace" walls 25ft high with Catholics on one side and Protestants on the other. People of the opposite religion have been hounded out of each others areas.
They were not hounded out based on who they voted for ie: DUP or Sinn Fein or whether they were rich or poor but because of their religious identification.
Recently Ian Paisley had an historic meeting with Bertie Ahearn at the site of the Battle of the Boyne. This is the battle celebrated every year by Protestants including this one to commemorate the victory of the Protestant King William of Orange over the Catholic King James. That includes rich Protestants and unemployed Protestants.
It is also emblematic of the roots of the conflict in Northern Ireland since it is the basis of the Orange Orders. The Orange Order is the biggest civil organisation in Northern Ireland and members are required to be Protestant. Even if a Catholic was a DUP voter he/she still could not join the Orange Order.
Economics have bugger all to do with member applications.
Religion is why today 97% of our schools and hospitals in the South are run by Herr Ratzinger.
The North exists because the Protestant people feared a Republic which would mean Rome rule. As things turned out their fears were well grounded.
Religion is central to the history of this entire island:
Henry II was awarded ownership of Ireland by the Papal Bull, Laudibiliter issued by Pope Adrian IV (Nicholas Breakspeare the only english pope). When he and his heirs were recognised as the lawful Kings of Ireland (1171 CE) at Cashel, it was only with the Pope's (Alexander III) approval. The Vatican in return demanded and got one penny per household per year and Henry's sword to bring the freewheeling Irish Catholics back under central Vatican control.
In the Middle Ages the Pope was the most powerful office in Europe. The Pope was more powerful than Kings and Princes. Even Henry II could not have invaded without the Pope's approval and instructions. The split caused by the Reformation put the Irish in the Pope's camp (more fool us).
Since the Pope could and had demonstrated he could order Catholics to overthrow and kill a King the seeds of the conflict were sown by religion. The Irish were never trusted by the colonists as long as they followed Rome.
Without religion there might have been the usual conflicts caused by greed and competition but so what! The wars that might have happened are not in the same league and do not justify the wars that have.
Go from there and despite valiant attempts to overcome the religious divide (United Irishmen) religion has always been the exasperating factor and chief division between people on this island.
Other Comments by FXR
30. Comment #43374 by Nina on May 21, 2007 at 7:48 am
I think religious people are saying something that we can't or won't hear. I, too, have no idea what it means "to make the belief more sincere." However, evidently the author does/did or he wouldn't have used up his word count on it.Shouldn't we find out what this means and why it is important to him? I am as frustrated as anybody else, but I'm tired of my own expressions of "what? how can anyone believe that?" which I not only do not follow up on, but also trot out again in my head at the very next religious opinion I hear. Let's at least work with people who seem willing to meet us part way.
This author went some way to be fair to our viewpoint. Let's consider that he isn't a moron, and that there is something we don't know. I hate sounding like a wimpy "can't we all get along" type, but we are all complaining so loudly that I can't hear anyone think.
Other Comments by Nina
31. Comment #43376 by Luthien on May 21, 2007 at 8:00 am
Thanks FXR, that was spot on. :-) Other Comments by Luthien
32. Comment #43378 by The Wee Flea on May 21, 2007 at 8:05 am
Nina,You are spot on. It would be good to listen sometimes.
Alvorin (no. 17) - I can see that you are dumbfounded. I'm like you - II cannot for the life of me see why the same atheist arguments appear in every book and on every thread in atheist websites. Then I had my spaghetti moment. Atheists are so convinced of their total grasp of 'truth' that they don't really pay close attention to counter arguments. They go to their websites read their literature all of which will virtually never post anything that is critical of their position, especially books as strong as those that have come out recently. They have reviewers and commentators who airly attempt to dismiss them with a wave of their 'rationalist' hand. Just claim the high ground and thats it, but the arguments are threadbare and long worn out. Still they trot out the same nonsense that has been trotted out before. And generally it is to tell the atheist populace - don't worry, we are right, all theists are idiots or cowards. That is all they ever do and all they will ever be capable of. Its not minding the flock, its immunising anyone trapped in their tuppenny maze from any outside influence. Is there anything more divisive than fundamentalist atheism?
Richard (no. 18)
"Wrong. Crassly wrong. Religion has largely fizzled out in Europe because it has been replaced by reason."
What a cute and fascinating picture of Europe. Wrong and doubly crassly wrong. Firstly religion has not fizzled out in Europe (try telling that to the Polish Catholics, the Dutch Reformed who have six MPs in the Dutch parliament, the million plus evangelicals in the UK etc). Secondly although the Enlightenment brought a greal deal of positive fruit it also brought the age of Empires, two world wars which killed over 50 million people and Stalinist Russia. Not exactly a brilliant record for Europe's elite.
"(I live in "faithless France" - the country that refused to murder Iraqi women and children to protect American oil-interests. Why am I not ashamed?)"
This would be the same France that sold weapons to Saddam? The same France that protects its own oil interests elsewhere in the Middle East?
"But I would like to imagine that whatever the cause for ignorance and violence, rape and genocide, there would be the equivalent of a Sam Harris, a Richard Dawkins or even a Christopher Hitchens to rise up against, to noisily protest and denounce it. WHATEVER the cause."
I would hope so. Although given Sam's recent pronouncements perhaps its time that Dawkins and Hitchens rose up against Harris. After all surely they cannot endores his view that there are some people who should be killed for what they believe?
"I am quite sure that if ever atheism were used as an excuse to slaughter people, Richard Dawkins would protest just as vociferously, if not more so, because he happens to be a reasonable man, and would never tolerate so-called "reason" being used in this way."
I would like to hope so - but I have my doubts. I suspect he would announce that it was nothing to do with atheism because atheism is a 'lack of belief' that causes you to do nothing.
"It's been said before, but I'll say it again : at least ignoramus writers like Gregg Easterbrook are, unwittingly, doing a good job preparing the ground for reason."
Only if you use the '1984' Alice in Wonderland meaning of 'reason'.
Other Comments by The Wee Flea
33. Comment #43382 by Philip1978 on May 21, 2007 at 8:18 am
Wee Flea/Knox/etcThe only reason "why the same atheist arguments appear in every book and on every thread in atheist websites" is because you theists obfuscate and give appalling answers like "my god did it, don't question it" to the questions we give out!
Again, I am going to ask the same question until I get the right answer
Why does it have to be your god?
Philip
Other Comments by Philip1978
34. Comment #43384 by Coel on May 21, 2007 at 8:28 am
To wee flea:Although given Sam's recent pronouncements perhaps its time that Dawkins and Hitchens rose up against Harris. After all surely they cannot endores his view that there are some people who should be killed for what they believe?
But then he didn't say that. He was exploring ideas, discussing whether it might be acceptable to kill people for what they believe (specifically, if they believed that they should kill you, it might be permissible self defence to kill them first).
As has become routine for you, you distort peoples' views and statements in order to attack them. Does that mean you can't find fault with what they actually say?
Other Comments by Coel
35. Comment #43385 by ghostbuster on May 21, 2007 at 8:29 am
Religion is more a condition of violence than its cause; however, it has been and still is the greatest manipulation tool to get people to fight, generally so the elite can get rich. The unholy alliance between religion and power has always been an historical fact, and all organized religions are hierarchal at base.Getting people to abondon yet another tool that foolishly tricks them into wars fought by the poor for the benefit of the rich can only be a good thing and then perhaps humanity can concentrate on what is really going on.
We often hear about Stalin's 23 million dead; what we rarely hear about are the many more millions dead because of capitalism's unfettered greed. No "ism" will ever work unless and until we can grasp the nature of our own minds that invent cultures and practices that sustain hierarchial societies--the conflicts between those that have, and those that don't, those that want and those that have what is wanted. God, King and Country have been the all-time favorite slogans to get people to fight, their duty to anyone of these "icons" must always be questioned. King can now be substituted by corporations, but who lies behind corporations but very rich families?
Interestingly, what Empire could never do with troops (world domination) Empire is doing quite well with corporate take-overs of land, resources, peoples, politics, small businesses, charities, educationa and science.
So, yes, driving out the one biggest delusion of humanity's need for war--God-- leaves us with the other two to contend with---King (Corporate families) and Country (nationalism).
Other Comments by ghostbuster
36. Comment #43388 by Steven Mading on May 21, 2007 at 8:40 am
Nina, there is no such thing as sincere faith. Faith is, by definition, believing something while admitting to one's self that there isn't a reasonable reason to do so. That is inherently dishonest. The phrase "sincere faith" is an oxymoron. Sincerity would be to drop a belief if you know it's not a reasonable one, rather than spread the notion that there is some other type of thinking that does not require coherent thought and yet is still legitimate. Faith is not some seperate type of rationale for belief. It's just a re-naming of rationales that fail to disguise the fact that they fail.Other Comments by Steven Mading
37. Comment #43401 by Dr Benway on May 21, 2007 at 9:25 am
Steven Mading wrote:Nina, there is no such thing as sincere faith. Faith is, by definition, believing something while admitting to one's self that there isn't a reasonable reason to do so. That is inherently dishonest.Devil's advocate here. Imagine an angel appears to you and tells you something about God. Could happen, maybe.
I'm willing to allow people faith regarding subjective experiences no one else can corroborate. However, I feel such people have a duty to recognize the lesser evidentiary status of their claims in the public sphere. They've no rational basis for insisting others take them seriously. They've only their own pathological narcissism as a basis, and that's the worst basis imaginable.
Other Comments by Dr Benway
38. Comment #43402 by BillySands on May 21, 2007 at 9:26 am
WeeFud, I too am dumbfounded that you spew the same old vomit. I'm waiting for some evidence from you.try telling that to the Polish Catholics
Yeah, they just come over to Scotland and get murdered in chapels.
Stange that Norway and Japan are all safer countries than America. People would also be better off without Weefud and his kind victimising homosexuals. Here is another question you cant answer. Why is it wrong? There must be a reason why something deserves the death penalty. I can see why rape and murder is wrong, but not consentual fudge packing. That is just one reason the world is better off without religion - incitement to hate without the need for justification
Other Comments by BillySands
39. Comment #43403 by Mango on May 21, 2007 at 9:31 am
The author says that without religion something else would take its place to cause as much or more violence. He is assuming that there is a certain amount of violence that humanity will always perpetrate -- like putting your finger in a leaky dam but a leak starts somewhere else. It's not like that. Violence can and has decreased and extirpating faith will decrease it further. Other Comments by Mango
40. Comment #43405 by bitbutter on May 21, 2007 at 9:40 am
Mango: i agree (i like the finger dam analogy). Here's something i posted from a previous thread [some people] think that - like the amount of energy in the universe - the amount of violence in the world is a constant, and if you remove one reason for fighting then another one will popup to take it's place, like wack-a-mole.
I'm not convinced. Articles like Pinker's 'a history of violence' point out that the amount of violence in the world does change. We live in an increasingly peaceful world. The amount of violence isn't a constant.
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/pinker07/pinker07_index.html
Other Comments by bitbutter
41. Comment #43412 by bitbutter on May 21, 2007 at 10:11 am
@dr benwayDevil's advocate here. Imagine an angel appears to you and tells you something about God. Could happen, maybe.
I'm willing to allow people faith regarding subjective experiences no one else can corroborate.
If a being that it seemed to make sense to call a god made himself known to me through some kind of personal revelation, i might become a theist. If i did though, it wouldn't be a question of faith. I would have been lead to the conclusion that a god exists by evidence (albeit evidence of questionable quality).
Other Comments by bitbutter
42. Comment #43415 by Fedler on May 21, 2007 at 10:23 am
If a being that it seemed to make sense to call a god made himself known to me through some kind of personal revelation, i might become a theist. If i did though, it wouldn't be a question of faith. I would have been lead to the conclusion that a god exists by evidence (albeit evidence of questionable quality).
Therein lies the dilemma. From the theist perspective, who are atheists to call into their question their "evidence"? As far as the theist is concerned, no evidence is better than personal revelation.
From the atheist perspective, how can theists logically account for their "evidence"? They can't and much more 'hard' evidence is required.
Scott
Other Comments by Fedler
43. Comment #43430 by jonecc on May 21, 2007 at 11:30 am
I've said this before in similar arguments, but the particular problem that religion presents is the way it gets passed down from parents to children. I've no idea which side my ancestors were on in the great European war of the mid-seventeenth century, but if I was from the north of Ireland or parts of Scotland (Wee Flea's part, I'm guessing from his username) I'd know full well, by which religion I'd been born into.It's not even as if the original war was really about religion - Catholic France fought on the same side as Protestant Sweden, and William of Orange invaded Ireland with the blessing of the Pope - but that hand-me-down religious identity blights the twentieth century with the labels of that benighted age.
Other Comments by jonecc
44. Comment #43443 by ridelo on May 21, 2007 at 1:02 pm
If I saw an angel appearing to me I would think it would be time to look for a psychiatrist.Other Comments by ridelo
45. Comment #43446 by lostpoet on May 21, 2007 at 1:26 pm
# 43270 Adrian wrote: "With faith, there is no reasoning possible, therefore you only need to know that 'the others' have different faith, to hate them."I certainly agree with the spirit of your post! But wouldn't you agree that the religious-minded do use a reasoning, of sorts? It seems to me that religious folk use a type of reasoning that is best described as "deferral to authority." That is, they believe what they believe because their holy book, or their holy men, or their holy teachers, or their parents told them so. Their reasoning is the ultimate "frightened child" reasoning -- "Because my Mommy and Daddy told me so!!!"
While we prefer reasoning based upon evidence, logic, and argument, they prefer reasoning based upon a simple-minded, childish acceptance of authority.
Other Comments by lostpoet
46. Comment #43471 by Azven on May 21, 2007 at 2:46 pm
My spouse once asked me if I would believe in God if an angel appeard to me. I said I wouldn't believe in God if God appeared to me.After a bit of thought I said if He appeared to me plus some other witnesses and a camera and was prepared to answer some questions and then afterwards the camera and the witnesses all agree with each other then I might have some doubts.
Other Comments by Azven
47. Comment #43476 by perkyjay on May 21, 2007 at 3:34 pm
#43263 - Derwent: Thanks for being a nitpicker about the English language. Winston Churchill is reputed to have said that "a preposition is a word that one should never end a sentence with".Other Comments by perkyjay
48. Comment #43480 by CJ22 on May 21, 2007 at 4:12 pm
Have you noticed how it's "Christians and Jews" this, "Judao-Christian" that at the moment? As long as you're capable of the mind-bending double-think neccesary for religious faith these days, and of course you're light-skinned, then you can be in the club. Especially if you have a strong lobbying power. Mormons need not apply. Other Comments by CJ22
49. Comment #43483 by mbcraig11 on May 21, 2007 at 4:44 pm
I hate this garbage where people say religion is not the sole cause of the viloence. Of course is not, how many times does it have to be said that there are many variables that lead to or contribute to the cause of violence and religion is one of them. It would be no different if we blamed money as the source of violence and conflict and some idiot wrote "if you really want to get to the heart of it, ethnicity, religion, and tribilism are the real source and so we can't blame money or financial inequities"religion is a variable that works in conjuction with other variables. what makes religion the most absurd though is that it is based on lies, or at least a lack of evidence and that is why we want to see it removed, at least have its previously respected spot in society questioned more regularly by the masses and not given a free ride
Other Comments by mbcraig11
50. Comment #43485 by alovrin on May 21, 2007 at 5:37 pm
To Wee Flea?I can see that you are dumbfounded. I'm like you - II cannot for the life of me see why the same atheist arguments appear in every book and on every thread in atheist websites. Then I had my spaghetti moment. Atheists are so convinced of their total grasp of 'truth' that they don't really pay close attention to counter arguments. They go to their websites read their literature all of which will virtually never post anything that is critical of their position, especially books as strong as those that have come out recently. They have reviewers and commentators who airly attempt to dismiss them with a wave of their 'rationalist' hand. Just claim the high ground and thats it, but the arguments are threadbare and long worn out. Still they trot out the same nonsense that has been trotted out before. And generally it is to tell the atheist populace - don't worry, we are right, all theists are idiots or cowards. That is all they ever do and all they will ever be capable of. Its not minding the flock, its immunising anyone trapped in their tuppenny maze from any outside influence. Is there anything more divisive than fundamentalist atheism?
I see you have distorted what I said. I was praising this website for collecting and posting negative reviews. I have yet to see this done on a theist website. Perhaps you can give us some examples and prove me wrong. I look forward to it.
The I/V of R Dawkins by Ruth Gledhill is a good example of striving for a meeting point. It is on this website.
Other Comments by alovrin
Upcoming Events:
Mailing List
Enter your email:
DVDs
'The Enemies of Reason: The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Voices of Reason' DVD
'Richard Dawkins: Appearances & Events 2007-2008' DVD
'Enemies of Reason' DVD
'Root of All Evil?' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
'Voices of Science' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
1. Comment #43247 by ridelo on May 21, 2007 at 2:36 am
Why would believing in fancy tales make a better world? If all believers really understood were their beliefs came from then it would no more make sense fighting over it. And they could start at working at a better and more just world.I ranked this article 'poor'.
Other Comments by ridelo