Is it really Islam's teachings that make Musllims violent?

[Angra Mainyu]

Then give us cases where it was enforced. Surely evidence of widespread Muslim persecution of non-Muslims would be excellent support for the OP overall... What are you waiting for?

I already did, plenty of times, and I already told you, that's your responsibility, not mine.

But you want more?

How about the following one?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Youcef_Nadarkhani

The accusation of apostasy was because he was allegedly born into Islam, and then converted to Christianity. In the end, he served prison time, and ended up convicted of attempting to convert Muslims. He is a Christian.

This one was a Muslim as an adult, but then converted:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Rahman_(convert)

He was released on a technicality due to a lot of international pressure.

How about a man who claimed to be God, and was for that reason hanged?

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...997877608?nk=ea27ea8ed421a7c1395df5a10184cd16

How about executions of gay people?
There is nothing in the law that says it applies only to Muslims (which would still be abhorrent).

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/sep/07/iran-executes-men-homosexuality-charges

But of course, for some reason that does not count?

Maybe it's because only apostasy charges count? But I already provided evidence of apostasy cases (and much more), and I'm including other charges because it's surely more evidence of Islamic violence. But I suppose for some reason, you will say it's not. It can't be Islam. It must be something else.

Or maybe that's just the government, not ordinary Muslims, right? So, it must be political. But when lynch mobs do it, then that's just the fringe, regardless of mob size, right? But when millions support punishment for apostasy and adultery, maybe they are only talking about self-identified Muslims?
Or perhaps it's something else - it's always something else. It can't be Islam. It's just a matter of logic, right?

Yes, I think that the motivation to stone adulterers to death is not based on their religious beliefs. It's a cultural belief local to certain areas. Which is why it appears in so many different religions, and why it isn't carried out by so many Muslims.

It appears in so many religions? You mean counting extinct religions, or even counting religions that changed so that it no longer applies? Sure, some religions copy the codes of other religions.
But how do you think the idea of killing adulterers comes into their heads? Is it not because of their religious indoctrination? Are they perhaps told that adulterers should be stoned because, say, it's the local custom? Or because they deserve it, as intuitively apprehended?
It is far more likely that they come up with the idea because they're told that there is a hadith or two that establishes the death penalty, plus some Sharia rules regarding how to carry it out?

For example:
Source: http://islamqa.info/en/101972

It is not permissible to shed the blood of a Muslim who bears witness that there is no god but Allaah and that I am the Messenger of Allaah except in three cases: a life for a life (murder), zina of one of who is previously-married (adultery), and the one who changes his religion and forsakes the jamaa’ah.

That's usually interpreted as establishing the death penalty.

But still, I ask: how do you think they are told or come up with the idea of stoning adulterers - or killing them in general?

No, it isn't. The evidence is that people actually carry them out. If the hadith says kill X, and all the scholars agree it says kill X, and X is not in fact killed, has the writing made anyone more violent? You're arguing that we can say that a religion makes people violent without any violent acts taking place. That's nonsense. There has to be a violent act, or it isn't violence. You've not given any cases where this occurs, and certainly none where it can be said to be common, widespread, or a feature of the practice of the religion as a whole.

Those are examples of Muslims supporting punishment for apostasy of non-Muslims, in cases in which the non-Muslims in question hadn't self-identified as Muslims as adults. That was further evidence about your self-identification case.
But if you're only going to accept evidence from actual punishments, then for that matter you may as well reject the entire poll on the grounds that the people responding were not actually punishing anyone, but only saying they supported it.

So, the examples I posted in which Muslims discuss the matter on-line and endorse the classification that gets many non-Muslms classified as Muslims and punished as apostates are evidence in support of the hypothesis that the support for the punishment for apostates expressed in the poll is not limited to punishment of people who self-identify as Muslims - something I have already shown beyond a reasonable doubt anyway.

Now, if you're asking for examples of actual punishment of non-Muslims for apostasy, sure. That is something you should have researched on your own before promoting your defense of Islam, but now I provided some examples above. Bomb#20 provided examples too. Plenty. I also provided examples of punishments for sorcery, and blasphemy, against Muslims and non-Muslims alike. You can and should find more.

By the way, violence does not require actual enforcement of the death penalty. A threat that forces people to shut up is violence. Flogging or canning people to later "spare" them is violence. Imprisoning them under an accusation of apostasy and after months or years of imprisonment letting them go on a technicality (lack of evidence, not enough witnessess, or whatever) is violence.
And of course, the actual killings that do happen sometimes are violence.

If that were true, my answers would make no sense, and further discussion would not only be pointless, but actually impossible. If you really believe that I'm not being rational, then trying to reply to me is an irrational act. Your call.

No, that does not follow.
A philosopher may - for example - make irrational probabilistic assessments of a number of events (e.g., the resurrection of Jesus) without any explicit logical errors (there might be errors in his failure to update probabilities properly), and at the same time very rationally check the arguments of his opponent for errors, and find them. It's not that they're going to be irratinal about everything and all the time.

That aside, your claim that if I believe that you're being rational, it's irrational of me to respond to you, is both unwarranted and false false. There may well be good reasons to respond, like:

1. If a person is irrationally assigning probabilities to the observed events, that does not mean they cannot be persuaded. For example, if they give the observations that count against their views far less weight than they should, then that might be compensated by just coming up with far more evidence than ought to be required.
2. If a person is being irrational in a debate and is not persuaded, that does not mean they won't eventually - month later, perhaps - come back, and read the debate while being rational, or irrational to a lesser degree, and be persuaded.
3. This is not a private debate between you and me. There are readers who might be persuaded. Now, as it happens, I don't think I have a good chance of persuading many present-day readers, partly due to a tl;dr problem, but I might be able to persuade a few. Or maybe one or two odd future readers.

I could name more reasons (in fact, there are others), but I'd rather leave it at that, for reasons you might or might not guess, and since I've already shown that your claim of irrationality does not follow.

 

[ApostateAbe]

I think it's beyond question that Islamic terrorism really is a thing and it's a problem? My question is:

Is Islam really more violent than other religions and is it really the philosophy/theology of Islam that is the problem?


I've read the Koran (and the Bible). I think the Koran and the Bible are interchangeable. If the Koran manages to make Muslims violent, then surely the Bible should make Christians just as violent? Baghavad Ghita has got even more war in it. It's partly pro-war propaganda IMHO. Why aren't Hindus murdering fashion designers who print the face of gods on sandals?

Here's the case I'm making; it's not the teachings of Islam that is the problem, it's the economic and political situation of the people who live in "the Muslim world". If religions would switch around between continents I'm convinced whatever religion they had in the Middle-East would be the problem child. Whatever it says in those religious texts, they would have been picked apart and twisted to justify suicide bombing. Case in point. First recorded use of a worn suicide bomb was by Christians (fighting Muslims) in Gozo 1551.

If you disagree and you think that it is the content of the Koran that is the problem, why?

Sam Harris has argued against this point at length, and he has done it well, in my opinion. The general argument is that any general perspective of the universe and humanity that people strongly accept is a perspective that is likely to affect actions, for better or for worse, for more violent or less violent. We kinda take it for granted that politics can be a motivational force for violence. Why not religion? And religions really do differ. A specific point that Harris made: there is a passage in the Bible that says, "Do not suffer a witch to live." Had this passage not been in the Bible, and instead it said, "Witches are OK, no need to burn them or anything crazy like that," there is little question that it would have saved thousands of lives in Europe. Modern Christians take the Old Testament to be irrelevant, updated with Jesus. This attitude really has made a very big change for the better. Islam is not like that. Almost every Muslim, liberal or not, accepts the Koran as both literal and infallible. There are backward passages in the Koran, and liberals reinterpret them, but it is not easy when the backward conservative interpretations are especially plain. It takes difficult exegetical dances to be a liberal Muslim who fits into a society with freedom of expression and freedom of religion. It is little trouble on the other hand to be a conservative Muslim who accepts the prima facie interpretations of the Koran, backward for today but not so backward at the time it was written. They also tend to accept the Hadiths which are even more problematic.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Here's a friend of mines new Facebook picture



But he's about as liberal Muslim as you can find. He's an atheist. To him religion is nothing but ritual, tradition and which dishes to serve at holidays.

I didn't post it to make a point. I just thought it was a funny picture.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I think it's beyond question that Islamic terrorism really is a thing and it's a problem? My question is:

Is Islam really more violent than other religions and is it really the philosophy/theology of Islam that is the problem?


I've read the Koran (and the Bible). I think the Koran and the Bible are interchangeable. If the Koran manages to make Muslims violent, then surely the Bible should make Christians just as violent? Baghavad Ghita has got even more war in it. It's partly pro-war propaganda IMHO. Why aren't Hindus murdering fashion designers who print the face of gods on sandals?

Here's the case I'm making; it's not the teachings of Islam that is the problem, it's the economic and political situation of the people who live in "the Muslim world". If religions would switch around between continents I'm convinced whatever religion they had in the Middle-East would be the problem child. Whatever it says in those religious texts, they would have been picked apart and twisted to justify suicide bombing. Case in point. First recorded use of a worn suicide bomb was by Christians (fighting Muslims) in Gozo 1551.

If you disagree and you think that it is the content of the Koran that is the problem, why?

Sam Harris has argued against this point at length, and he has done it well, in my opinion. The general argument is that any general perspective of the universe and humanity that people strongly accept is a perspective that is likely to affect actions, for better or for worse, for more violent or less violent. We kinda take it for granted that politics can be a motivational force for violence. Why not religion? And religions really do differ. A specific point that Harris made: there is a passage in the Bible that says, "Do not suffer a witch to live." Had this passage not been in the Bible, and instead it said, "Witches are OK, no need to burn them or anything crazy like that," there is little question that it would have saved thousands of lives in Europe. Modern Christians take the Old Testament to be irrelevant, updated with Jesus. This attitude really has made a very big change for the better. Islam is not like that. Almost every Muslim, liberal or not, accepts the Koran as both literal and infallible. There are backward passages in the Koran, and liberals reinterpret them, but it is not easy when the backward conservative interpretations are especially plain. It takes difficult exegetical dances to be a liberal Muslim who fits into a society with freedom of expression and freedom of religion. It is little trouble on the other hand to be a conservative Muslim who accepts the prima facie interpretations of the Koran, backward for today but not so backward at the time it was written. They also tend to accept the Hadiths which are even more problematic.

Women tend to draw the short straw in every society. To take your example. I strongly doubt religious texts has any influence in making people murder women for witch craft. Witch-hunts and and witch-burnings went in waves. Whenever there was societal instability it inevitably lead to witches being burned. That tells us there's a lot stronger forces at play than mere religion. Also, that passage in the Bible is a pagan hold-over. Witches were burned in antiquity as well. It was an ancient pagan tradition that got worked into Christianity. As so much else.

What this tells me is that it is misogyny at the root of this practice. Probably not religion. Misogyny was at the root of the pagan practice of witch burning as well. And it was at the root of the Christian practice of witch burning. And in post-Christian Sweden, we've stopped burning women at the stake. But we still have misogyny. Women in Sweden still earn less than men for the same work performed.

And why was the ancient and medieval world so barbaric as to burn them? The same reason fascist governments terrorise it's populations with rampant cruelty. To make people scared and happy it's not them. To make sure there's always somebody a bit further down the totem pole who has it worse than them. What makes Sweden different than medieval times is the extent of our misogyny. Not that fact that we have misogynous cultures. ...and today, you can't blame shit on religion in Sweden. Sweden is virtually completely free from religion.

I like Sam Harris. He's clever. But I think he has a tendency to draw too strong conclusions from mixed data. But I guess, this entire thread is me having a problem with Sam-Harris-type argumentation against religion.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Togo,

No, the evidence that it's religiously motivated is based both on factors such as the sources people accept as authoritative, and more importantly observations of their behavior when they engage or provide support for violence - what seems to drive them. And what seems to drive them is, in many, many cases, religion - that includes plenty of the cases under consideration.

And just to reduce the chances misunderstandings, I'm talking about whether the sources say what the believers say. For example, if someone says they accept the Quran as authoritative, and they support cutting off the hands of thieves, that indicates a religious motivation. But of course, there are other pieces of evidence that might either give more support for that hypothesis, or reduce it (like another more likely motivation).

Incidentally, on the issue of cutting off the hands of thieves, that it in the Quran.
Also, it's supported by 81% of Sharia supporters in South Asia, and 57% in Middle East and North Africa, according to the poll report.

Moreover, the apostasy question in the poll was about the punishment that should be imposed on a person who leaves Islam to join another religion.

As it happens, the poll report was wrong. The question didn't even require that they join another religion, which makes my point even stronger if possible.
Source:

http://www.pewforum.org/files/2013/04/worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-topline1.pdf

Note however that 'apostasy' is the not the same as 'leave the religion'. It is a rebellion or renouncation against the religion implying critical opposition to the religion thereafter.

Actually, the question on the poll is:

"Q92b: Do you favor or oppose the following: the death penalty for those who leave the Muslim religion?"

 

[ApostateAbe]

Sam Harris has argued against this point at length, and he has done it well, in my opinion. The general argument is that any general perspective of the universe and humanity that people strongly accept is a perspective that is likely to affect actions, for better or for worse, for more violent or less violent. We kinda take it for granted that politics can be a motivational force for violence. Why not religion? And religions really do differ. A specific point that Harris made: there is a passage in the Bible that says, "Do not suffer a witch to live." Had this passage not been in the Bible, and instead it said, "Witches are OK, no need to burn them or anything crazy like that," there is little question that it would have saved thousands of lives in Europe. Modern Christians take the Old Testament to be irrelevant, updated with Jesus. This attitude really has made a very big change for the better. Islam is not like that. Almost every Muslim, liberal or not, accepts the Koran as both literal and infallible. There are backward passages in the Koran, and liberals reinterpret them, but it is not easy when the backward conservative interpretations are especially plain. It takes difficult exegetical dances to be a liberal Muslim who fits into a society with freedom of expression and freedom of religion. It is little trouble on the other hand to be a conservative Muslim who accepts the prima facie interpretations of the Koran, backward for today but not so backward at the time it was written. They also tend to accept the Hadiths which are even more problematic.

Women tend to draw the short straw in every society. To take your example. I strongly doubt religious texts has any influence in making people murder women for witch craft. Witch-hunts and and witch-burnings went in waves. Whenever there was societal instability it inevitably lead to witches being burned. That tells us there's a lot stronger forces at play than mere religion. Also, that passage in the Bible is a pagan hold-over. Witches were burned in antiquity as well. It was an ancient pagan tradition that got worked into Christianity. As so much else.

What this tells me is that it is misogyny at the root of this practice. Probably not religion. Misogyny was at the root of the pagan practice of witch burning as well. And it was at the root of the Christian practice of witch burning. And in post-Christian Sweden, we've stopped burning women at the stake. But we still have misogyny. Women in Sweden still earn less than men for the same work performed.

And why was the ancient and medieval world so barbaric as to burn them? The same reason fascist governments terrorise it's populations with rampant cruelty. To make people scared and happy it's not them. To make sure there's always somebody a bit further down the totem pole who has it worse than them. What makes Sweden different than medieval times is the extent of our misogyny. Not that fact that we have misogynous cultures. ...and today, you can't blame shit on religion in Sweden. Sweden is virtually completely free from religion.

I like Sam Harris. He's clever. But I think he has a tendency to draw too strong conclusions from mixed data. But I guess, this entire thread is me having a problem with Sam-Harris-type argumentation against religion.

It is not so much that I disagree with your arguments, but I think the arguments lend themselves better to an intermediate conclusion on the matter. It is not that religion has NO influence on violence, but that religion was a WEAKER influence on violent behavior than the influences of politics or genes or tribalism or whatever. The position that religion has NO influence on behavior related to violence is simply not a plausible claim, though it seems to be popular among progressive thinkers. Are you with me on this point?

 

[DrZoidberg]

Women tend to draw the short straw in every society. To take your example. I strongly doubt religious texts has any influence in making people murder women for witch craft. Witch-hunts and and witch-burnings went in waves. Whenever there was societal instability it inevitably lead to witches being burned. That tells us there's a lot stronger forces at play than mere religion. Also, that passage in the Bible is a pagan hold-over. Witches were burned in antiquity as well. It was an ancient pagan tradition that got worked into Christianity. As so much else.

What this tells me is that it is misogyny at the root of this practice. Probably not religion. Misogyny was at the root of the pagan practice of witch burning as well. And it was at the root of the Christian practice of witch burning. And in post-Christian Sweden, we've stopped burning women at the stake. But we still have misogyny. Women in Sweden still earn less than men for the same work performed.

And why was the ancient and medieval world so barbaric as to burn them? The same reason fascist governments terrorise it's populations with rampant cruelty. To make people scared and happy it's not them. To make sure there's always somebody a bit further down the totem pole who has it worse than them. What makes Sweden different than medieval times is the extent of our misogyny. Not that fact that we have misogynous cultures. ...and today, you can't blame shit on religion in Sweden. Sweden is virtually completely free from religion.

I like Sam Harris. He's clever. But I think he has a tendency to draw too strong conclusions from mixed data. But I guess, this entire thread is me having a problem with Sam-Harris-type argumentation against religion.

It is not so much that I disagree with your arguments, but I think the arguments lend themselves better to an intermediate conclusion on the matter. It is not that religion has NO influence on violence, but that religion was a WEAKER influence on violent behavior than the influences of politics or genes or tribalism or whatever. The position that religion has NO influence on behavior related to violence is simply not a plausible claim, though it seems to be popular among progressive thinkers. Are you with me on this point?

Hmm... I'd say it's impossible to measure. There's simply no way to separate out the potential religion related violence to other types of violence. There's always been a strong correlation between the strength of religiosity (number of evangelicals) in an area and violent crime, especially murder. Of course the root cause to both of them is poverty. So blaming the murders on religion is silly. I'd say there's a similar kind of thing going on here.

Case in point. Egypt has among the lowest murder rates in the entire world. There's been plenty or research made on this. The researchers are baffled. We don't have any single persuasive explanation as to why that would be the case. Religion in Egypt isn't much different than Islam anywhere.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate_by_decade

The relative violence of any culture will of course be down to a variety of factors. I just think that religion isn't likely to be one of them. I see religion mostly as whatever clothes are part of a youth sub-culture. It's mostly music and dance that defines them. But they are separated easily because of the clothing. Lot's of values are attributed to the youths in the subculture. But nobody would think that thought that any of those values sprung from what clothes they were wearing. I hope that analogy wasn't confusing.

 

[ApostateAbe]

It is not so much that I disagree with your arguments, but I think the arguments lend themselves better to an intermediate conclusion on the matter. It is not that religion has NO influence on violence, but that religion was a WEAKER influence on violent behavior than the influences of politics or genes or tribalism or whatever. The position that religion has NO influence on behavior related to violence is simply not a plausible claim, though it seems to be popular among progressive thinkers. Are you with me on this point?

Hmm... I'd say it's impossible to measure. There's simply no way to separate out the potential religion related violence to other types of violence. There's always been a strong correlation between the strength of religiosity (number of evangelicals) in an area and violent crime, especially murder. Of course the root cause to both of them is poverty. So blaming the murders on religion is silly. I'd say there's a similar kind of thing going on here.

Case in point. Egypt has among the lowest murder rates in the entire world. There's been plenty or research made on this. The researchers are baffled. We don't have any single persuasive explanation as to why that would be the case. Religion in Egypt isn't much different than Islam anywhere.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate_by_decade

The relative violence of any culture will of course be down to a variety of factors. I just think that religion isn't likely to be one of them. I see religion mostly as whatever clothes are part of a youth sub-culture. It's mostly music and dance that defines them. But they are separated easily because of the clothing. Lot's of values are attributed to the youths in the subculture. But nobody would think that thought that any of those values sprung from what clothes they were wearing. I hope that analogy wasn't confusing.

I don't deny that it is difficult to measure, but do you really think that religion likely has absolutely NO effect on violent behavior of a society? Not even a weak effect?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Togo,

Here is a new one from Egypt, where it seems religious persecution has been strong at least since Morsi took office (if not before, after the toppling of Mubarak), and has continued after he was deposed (and if you look at the poll, you will see that 74% want Sharia to be the law of the land, and 55% of all Egyptian Muslms want Sharia to apply to everyone, not just Muslims)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And Assad is not a Shi'ite, nor is he attempting to impose a Shi'ite interpretation of Islam on Syria. Indeed, the whole reason Iran backs Assad is because he is rabidly oppose to the kinds of Islamist movements that have been menacing Iran for the last two decades. In other words: Iran backs Assad as a check AGAINST Islamism.

You're treating Islamism as monolithic. It comes in multiple competing flavors.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Hmm... I'd say it's impossible to measure. There's simply no way to separate out the potential religion related violence to other types of violence. There's always been a strong correlation between the strength of religiosity (number of evangelicals) in an area and violent crime, especially murder. Of course the root cause to both of them is poverty. So blaming the murders on religion is silly. I'd say there's a similar kind of thing going on here.

Case in point. Egypt has among the lowest murder rates in the entire world. There's been plenty or research made on this. The researchers are baffled. We don't have any single persuasive explanation as to why that would be the case. Religion in Egypt isn't much different than Islam anywhere.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate_by_decade

The relative violence of any culture will of course be down to a variety of factors. I just think that religion isn't likely to be one of them. I see religion mostly as whatever clothes are part of a youth sub-culture. It's mostly music and dance that defines them. But they are separated easily because of the clothing. Lot's of values are attributed to the youths in the subculture. But nobody would think that thought that any of those values sprung from what clothes they were wearing. I hope that analogy wasn't confusing.

I don't deny that it is difficult to measure, but do you really think that religion likely has absolutely NO effect on violent behavior of a society? Not even a weak effect?

Yes, I do. Because of what I think religion is. I don't think religion is a source for anything that religious people do. I think it's the reverse that is going on. Various practices and culture evolve independently. First they are adopted by people, then religion is shaped to fit those practices. As if religion is an infinitely shaped jumpsuit that can become whatever clothing the wearer wants it to be. Religion as en empty space for projection. Yes, I agree that this is a pretty radical interpretation. I know few hold this. But this is where I'm leaning nowadays. I know really good arguments against my arguments. I just don't think they're very persuasive.

I see only one potential source of religious violence, and that lies in the identity. If two groups of people are religious and in conflict. What they identify as will have an impact on how well they will draw in outsiders into that conflict. Mujahedin travelling to Syria for example. But then again, ethnic or national identity ALWAYS trumps religion. always. We all know by now that the Crusades were 99% about money and territory. The crusaders, primarily, wanted to get rich. Which makes me believe that religion might not be even be a source of violence in these cases. Not really.

Anybody using the Bible as an excuse to do something wanted to do it anyway. Blaming it on the Bible is just a way to avoid having to take responsibility for it.

 

[dismal]

I don't deny that it is difficult to measure, but do you really think that religion likely has absolutely NO effect on violent behavior of a society? Not even a weak effect?

Yes, I do. Because of what I think religion is. I don't think religion is a source for anything that religious people do. I think it's the reverse that is going on. Various practices and culture evolve independently. First they are adopted by people, then religion is shaped to fit those practices. As if religion is an infinitely shaped jumpsuit that can become whatever clothing the wearer wants it to be. Religion as en empty space for projection. Yes, I agree that this is a pretty radical interpretation. I know few hold this. But this is where I'm leaning nowadays. I know really good arguments against my arguments. I just don't think they're very persuasive.

I see only one potential source of religious violence, and that lies in the identity. If two groups of people are religious and in conflict. What they identify as will have an impact on how well they will draw in outsiders into that conflict. Mujahedin travelling to Syria for example. But then again, ethnic or national identity ALWAYS trumps religion. always. We all know by now that the Crusades were 99% about money and territory. The crusaders, primarily, wanted to get rich. Which makes me believe that religion might not be even be a source of violence in these cases. Not really.

Anybody using the Bible as an excuse to do something wanted to do it anyway. Blaming it on the Bible is just a way to avoid having to take responsibility for it.

Doesn't it follow from this logic that religion has no effect on anything?

Should we shut the website down?

 

[ApostateAbe]

I don't deny that it is difficult to measure, but do you really think that religion likely has absolutely NO effect on violent behavior of a society? Not even a weak effect?

Yes, I do. Because of what I think religion is. I don't think religion is a source for anything that religious people do. I think it's the reverse that is going on. Various practices and culture evolve independently. First they are adopted by people, then religion is shaped to fit those practices. As if religion is an infinitely shaped jumpsuit that can become whatever clothing the wearer wants it to be. Religion as en empty space for projection. Yes, I agree that this is a pretty radical interpretation. I know few hold this. But this is where I'm leaning nowadays. I know really good arguments against my arguments. I just don't think they're very persuasive.

I see only one potential source of religious violence, and that lies in the identity. If two groups of people are religious and in conflict. What they identify as will have an impact on how well they will draw in outsiders into that conflict. Mujahedin travelling to Syria for example. But then again, ethnic or national identity ALWAYS trumps religion. always. We all know by now that the Crusades were 99% about money and territory. The crusaders, primarily, wanted to get rich. Which makes me believe that religion might not be even be a source of violence in these cases. Not really.

Anybody using the Bible as an excuse to do something wanted to do it anyway. Blaming it on the Bible is just a way to avoid having to take responsibility for it.

You are far from alone, but I do think it comes off as an implausible perspective when viewed from the perspective of someone who was religious. It would be plausible if adherents did not sincerely believe the religion. Like, maybe they only pretend that heaven and hell are real and they secretly realize that death is the end. Then, religion has no influence on significant behaviors. I come from a religious background (per "Apostate" in my username), and I can absolutely guarantee you that religious people absolutely believe what they claim to believe. It is not always with the certainty they claim, and their actions do not always line up with their claimed beliefs, but there is no doubt: their claimed beliefs approximate their actual beliefs. And, their beliefs really do affect their actions.

So, the way I see it, religion is never the only influence on behavior, but religion (and ideologies of any sort) are a part of the system. Take away the religion, and behaviors change, for better or for worse, but no change is unlikely.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Yes, I do. Because of what I think religion is. I don't think religion is a source for anything that religious people do. I think it's the reverse that is going on. Various practices and culture evolve independently. First they are adopted by people, then religion is shaped to fit those practices. As if religion is an infinitely shaped jumpsuit that can become whatever clothing the wearer wants it to be. Religion as en empty space for projection.

So you really don't think it matters if the holy text says to kill witches or to befriend them? You don't think it matters if holy text says to kill infidels? You think it is moot that holy text speaks against homosexuality, and doesn't speak against slavery?

 

[DrZoidberg]

Yes, I do. Because of what I think religion is. I don't think religion is a source for anything that religious people do. I think it's the reverse that is going on. Various practices and culture evolve independently. First they are adopted by people, then religion is shaped to fit those practices. As if religion is an infinitely shaped jumpsuit that can become whatever clothing the wearer wants it to be. Religion as en empty space for projection. Yes, I agree that this is a pretty radical interpretation. I know few hold this. But this is where I'm leaning nowadays. I know really good arguments against my arguments. I just don't think they're very persuasive.

I see only one potential source of religious violence, and that lies in the identity. If two groups of people are religious and in conflict. What they identify as will have an impact on how well they will draw in outsiders into that conflict. Mujahedin travelling to Syria for example. But then again, ethnic or national identity ALWAYS trumps religion. always. We all know by now that the Crusades were 99% about money and territory. The crusaders, primarily, wanted to get rich. Which makes me believe that religion might not be even be a source of violence in these cases. Not really.

Anybody using the Bible as an excuse to do something wanted to do it anyway. Blaming it on the Bible is just a way to avoid having to take responsibility for it.

Doesn't it follow from this logic that religion has no effect on anything?

Should we shut the website down?

I'll back peddle a bit. I don't think specific religious teachings has any effect on anything. But this idea that faith should be respected and not questioned has poisoned the public discourse. As soon as anybody says "but I don't have to justify it. It's my faith" all debate goes stupid really fast. As long as we're giving the religious an ability to opt out of having to justify their beliefs and actions religion is a problem. But only because of this cultural quirk regarding religion.

My basic argument is that a religiously based opinion is exactly the same as any opinion. Religion is simply thrown into the mix so that the faithful can cheerfully turn off their brains and not have to justify anything. But that religion was NEVER the source of the opinion. ...or that's what I'm alleging at least.

 

[dismal]

Doesn't it follow from this logic that religion has no effect on anything?

Should we shut the website down?

I'll back peddle a bit. I don't think specific religious teachings has any effect on anything. But this idea that faith should be respected and not questioned has poisoned the public discourse. As soon as anybody says "but I don't have to justify it. It's my faith" all debate goes stupid really fast. As long as we're giving the religious an ability to opt out of having to justify their beliefs and actions religion is a problem. But only because of this cultural quirk regarding religion.

My basic argument is that a religiously based opinion is exactly the same as any opinion. Religion is simply thrown into the mix so that the faithful can cheerfully turn off their brains and not have to justify anything. But that religion was NEVER the source of the opinion. ...or that's what I'm alleging at least.

But I think what you are saying is whatever I do in the name of religion I would have done anyway. This means religion has no effect on anything I do.

The great question this raises to me is why you think so many people have an innate aversion to bacon. I think we can all agree bacon is pretty damn good.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Yes, I do. Because of what I think religion is. I don't think religion is a source for anything that religious people do. I think it's the reverse that is going on. Various practices and culture evolve independently. First they are adopted by people, then religion is shaped to fit those practices. As if religion is an infinitely shaped jumpsuit that can become whatever clothing the wearer wants it to be. Religion as en empty space for projection.

So you really don't think it matters if the holy text says to kill witches or to befriend them? You don't think it matters if holy text says to kill infidels? You think it is moot that holy text speaks against homosexuality, and doesn't speak against slavery?

A holy text would never say "befriend witches". All cultures that have ever existed are more or less misogynistic. So it'll never happen. Killing infidels is just another way of justifying xenophobia. All cultures are more or less xenophobic. All cultures are more or less homophobic. Nearly all cultures that have ever existed have had some form of slavery. All these things are just normal things in any culture. None of these practices come from religion. Nobody can prove it, but I'd say chances are pretty good that these practices are all older than any religion, and were incorporated into religion because they were already social and cultural norms in the regions from whence those religions sprung.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I'll back peddle a bit. I don't think specific religious teachings has any effect on anything. But this idea that faith should be respected and not questioned has poisoned the public discourse. As soon as anybody says "but I don't have to justify it. It's my faith" all debate goes stupid really fast. As long as we're giving the religious an ability to opt out of having to justify their beliefs and actions religion is a problem. But only because of this cultural quirk regarding religion.

My basic argument is that a religiously based opinion is exactly the same as any opinion. Religion is simply thrown into the mix so that the faithful can cheerfully turn off their brains and not have to justify anything. But that religion was NEVER the source of the opinion. ...or that's what I'm alleging at least.

But I think what you are saying is whatever I do in the name of religion I would have done anyway. This means religion has no effect on anything I do.

Sure. But the same can be regarding rules used for social control. A lot of the religious rules regarding sex are just behaviours parents typically don't want their children to engage in. So they become stressed extra much. Especially when stern grandmothers glare at the priest during sermons.

The great question this raises to me is why you think so many people have an innate aversion to bacon. I think we can all agree bacon is pretty damn good.

People are pretty bizarre when it comes to what foods they will or won't eat. I love weird foods. A couple of times I've had the opportunity to eat various larvae cooked in a variety of ways. Even fly larvae. It's always tasted great. Super healthy to. I've had everything from tarantula, to dog, to cockroach, to crayfish, various weird weeds, and fungi. All great. Well... not cockroach. That shit's nasty. I do think that religiously motivated rules against food is often just down to random whims people had that got propagated. And people are normally naturally averse to unfamiliar foods. So once a rule like this gets started I have no problem seeing how it can spread in a culture, and eventually be adopted by whatever religion is dominant in the area. I was raised a vegetarian. At 21 I'd had enough of the carrots. I wanted to learn what all the fuss was about. It was very hard for me to teach myself to eat meat. It took years for me to get used to it. Initially it was just weird to eat. Fun weird. But still mostly weird. Not good. But now I love it.

Religious rules against various foods could also be sensible. Like trichinia being a real problem for pork in warm climates. Likewise, shellfish is dodgy if you're not living on the sea. But sometimes religious rules against foods are just damn idiotic. Like the Greenland Vikings (probably) religiously motivated rule against eating fish. A bizarre rule considering that everything but fish was in short supply.

 

[bilby]

So you really don't think it matters if the holy text says to kill witches or to befriend them? You don't think it matters if holy text says to kill infidels? You think it is moot that holy text speaks against homosexuality, and doesn't speak against slavery?

A holy text would never say "befriend witches". All cultures that have ever existed are more or less misogynistic. So it'll never happen. Killing infidels is just another way of justifying xenophobia. All cultures are more or less xenophobic. All cultures are more or less homophobic. Nearly all cultures that have ever existed have had some form of slavery. All these things are just normal things in any culture. None of these practices come from religion. Nobody can prove it, but I'd say chances are pretty good that these practices are all older than any religion.

The biblical injunction against witches had nothing to do with misogyny. The idea that a witch is necessarily (or even commonly) female is a more modern invention.

At the time the KJV was produced, far more men than women had been accused by Christians of being witches.

Accusing women (particularly midwives) of witchcraft, as protectionism for the professions of exclusively male physicians, did not become sufficiently common to cement the witch=>woman relationship in the minds of the general public until about a century after the KJV.

The injunctions against witchcraft in the Bible were aimed at (mostly male) non-Christian miracle claimants.

/derail

 

[dismal]

People are pretty bizarre when it comes to what foods they will or won't eat. I love weird foods. A couple of times I've had the opportunity to eat various larvae cooked in a variety of ways. Even fly larvae. It's always tasted great. Super healthy to. I've had everything from tarantula, to dog, to cockroach, to crayfish, various weird weeds, and fungi. All great. Well... not cockroach. That shit's nasty. I do think that religiously motivated rules against food is often just down to random whims people had that got propagated. And people are normally naturally averse to unfamiliar foods. So once a rule like this gets started I have no problem seeing how it can spread in a culture, and eventually be adopted by whatever religion is dominant in the area. I was raised a vegetarian. At 21 I'd had enough of the carrots. I wanted to learn what all the fuss was about. It was very hard for me to teach myself to eat meat. It took years for me to get used to it. Initially it was just weird to eat. Fun weird. But still mostly weird. Not good. But now I love it.

Religious rules against various foods could also be sensible. Like trichinia being a real problem for pork in warm climates. Likewise, shellfish is dodgy if you're not living on the sea. But sometimes religious rules against foods are just damn idiotic. Like the Greenland Vikings (probably) religiously motivated rule against eating fish. A bizarre rule considering that everything but fish was in short supply.

Yeah, sure, degustibus non es disputandum and all that.

But in the modern day there is no particularly logical reason to shun bacon. Many Jewish people I have known do not. There is not something hardwired into their tastebuds that makes bacon taste bad. But many jews do shun bacon. I think there is more than correlation there. I think there is causation.