Originally posted by Digi
Someone who is a "4" can easily dismiss a "10" as wrong and extremist, but I have rarely, if ever, seen someone truly scrutinize the "4s" contribution to the "10s". Or rather, the lower numbers providing a cultural climate that allows more extreme versions of the same faith to take root.
I'm not sure that logic works. By mere existence, a moderate contributes to an extremist?
So, the existence of any individual atheist supports the anti-religious policies of the USSR or CCP?
Like, the fact you or I are atheists contributes to the oppression of Christians in China?
Speaking specifically of Islam, it is often the moderates who are most vocal and provide the most support to secular society when confronting extremists.
I guess it depends if you see extremism as a result of believing certain things or whether it is a characteristic of certain individual's psychology... I don't think eliminating moderates would do anything but embolden the extremists. Hell, in that scenario, there is nobody left to argue their interpretation of scripture, in the same way that Christopher Hitchens and Osama Bin Laden believed the same interpretation of Islam (one not believed by the vast majority of Muslims around the world).
Originally posted by Oliver North
I'm not sure that logic works. By mere existence, a moderate contributes to an extremist?So, the existence of any individual atheist supports the anti-religious policies of the USSR or CCP?
Like, the fact you or I are atheists contributes to the oppression of Christians in China?
Speaking specifically of Islam, it is often the moderates who are most vocal and provide the most support to secular society when confronting extremists.
I guess it depends if you see extremism as a result of believing certain things or whether it is a characteristic of certain individual's psychology... I don't think eliminating moderates would do anything but embolden the extremists. Hell, in that scenario, there is nobody left to argue their interpretation of scripture, in the same way that Christopher Hitchens and Osama Bin Laden believed the same interpretation of Islam (one not believed by the vast majority of Muslims around the world).
I'm speaking institutionally. It's why I made a caveat for theists who are largely removed from institutionalized religion. No meaningful influence can be exerted individually. Atheists aren't immune to contributing to extremism, but atheism is much more of an individual thing for most. It's also one of the reasons I tend to avoid endorsing atheist groups.
There's also spheres of influence. I'm reasonable. A religious organization here isn't meaningfully influencing one half a world away. But there are smaller socio-economic pockets where it's harder to extricate various groups and their influence upon one another. Most would probably be within their town, or region, occasionally state or country.
I think, to be absolutely honest, we can't isolate the variables, because we're working with sociological ideas that are thousands of years old, and have never existed in a culture without widespread institutionalized religion.
Your point about psychological factor is also well made, and I can't say I have a definite rebuttal to it. A variation on the nature/nurture argument, no doubt.
But I can't shake this overarching idea. If Jed T. Hillbilly is an adamant racist, but exists in a society that is largely tolerant of race relations, he's not going to speak out against it as much. But if the town has a KKK chapter, he'll be much more actively racist. And if it's in the middle - say, a rural town that harbors some racist tendencies - he's going to feel emboldened to pronounce his racism more fully but won't start a KKK chapter on his own. It's herd mentality, or social dynamics. It's the same reason one of my old friends (a term used loosely here) will use the word n*gger liberally, but never in front of anyone he's not friends with. It's not accepted.
And if there isn't anyone saying "Jesus is Lord" along with a few hundred others each week, there won't be anyone saying "Jesus is Lord, and anyone who says otherwise is going to Hell." And there's several degrees between those statements, I understand that. But it's a severity thing again.
*entirely hypothetical scale:
2 - I believe in the divinity of Jesus, but others are welcome to believe what they like.
4 - Jesus is Lord.
6 - Jesus is Lord, and I wish those poor lost souls would come back to the flock. They're missing out on true happiness.
8 - Jesus is Lord, and those poor souls have turned their back on their God.
10 - You're going to burn in Hell for your beliefs.
I don't think 10 exists (again, institutionally, on a large scale) without a certain amount of the population being 4, 6, or 8. A few lonely bastards would think it, and it would fester far away from the harsh gaze of societal enlightenment.
It's also a clever way to package the idea that I think the world would be better off without religion, which sounds more nefarious than how I'm presenting it here. Evil would still exist, extreme opinions would still exist. I don't think for a second that religion is the only breeding ground of such bile. But it's still a large one. Doing away with religion would do away with a lot of both good and bad, and much of it would be replaced in other forms. But I do think there's some kernel of truth to the otherwise cliche "Good men will do good, and evil men will do evil. But for a good man to do evil, that takes religion." I have a hard time finding anywhere else where someone will do evil and think that they are right. There are self-serving assh*les, there are people who don't care about morality, there are people whose education makes them incapable of seeing the consequences of what they do, there are psychologically bent nutjobs, there are a hundred different reasons to do evil. But religion is pretty much the only way I've found where the person actually believes they are doing good.
Maybe I'm wrong. I'd love to see a cogent explanation of a variable or influence I'm not accounting for. Maybe you have it and I'm just not seeing it yet.
Originally posted by Digi
Someone who is a "4" can easily dismiss a "10" as wrong and extremist, but I have rarely, if ever, seen someone truly scrutinize the "4s" contribution to the "10s". Or rather, the lower numbers providing a cultural climate that allows more extreme versions of the same faith to take root.
For instance, it was an almost dishonest and underhanded group of 8's-10's that got the preface in the Book of Mormon to say "the lamanites were the primary ancestors of the Native Americans" when that was both controversial and debated at the time of its release. About 17 years later, our 1-4 people finally got that changed in our preface. It says something like, "are part of the ancestry of the Native Americans" instead of the factually incorrect "primary ancestor" statement.
There are many other examples (slavery, black's holding the priesthood, you know the drill) where our 1-4's have been an excellent moderating source for more positive change against our extremist views.
However, I don't foresee the "gays can get married" idea ever being allowed in our church as it is a fundamental canon belief that the family unit is mother-father-children. 😐
If I'm off base and got wrong with what you were saying there, feel free to call me an idiot. 🙁
Originally posted by Digi
*entirely hypothetical scale:
2 - I believe in the divinity of Jesus, but others are welcome to believe what they like.
4 - Jesus is Lord.
6 - Jesus is Lord, and I wish those poor lost souls would come back to the flock. They're missing out on true happiness.
8 - Jesus is Lord, and those poor souls have turned their back on their God.
10 - You're going to burn in Hell for your beliefs.
Imma 3.
3 - I believe in the divinity of Jesus. Many people would be happier if they practiced a positive faith but not necessarily Christianity; others are welcome to believe what they like.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I may be misinterpreting what you're saying but the 1-4s in Mormonism are the ones that have gotten most of the positive changes to occur within the LDS Church.For instance, it was an almost dishonest and underhanded group of 8's-10's that got the preface in the Book of Mormon to say "the lamanites were the primary ancestors of the Native Americans" when that was both controversial and debated at the time of its release. About 17 years later, our 1-4 people finally got that changed in our preface. It says something like, "are part of the ancestry of the Native Americans" instead of the factually incorrect "primary ancestor" statement.
There are many other examples (slavery, black's holding the priesthood, you know the drill) where our 1-4's have been an excellent moderating source for more positive change against our extremist views.
However, I don't foresee the "gays can get married" idea ever being allowed in our church as it is a fundamental canon belief that the family unit is mother-father-children. 😐
If I'm off base and got wrong with what you were saying there, feel free to call me an idiot. 🙁
This is all well and good, and I have no reason to doubt you, but it actually doesn't address my point imo. 1-4's softening the evil in the church is just that, a lessening of evil. It makes it less reprehensible, but in and of itself doesn't justify the presence of either 8-10's or 1-4's.
There's a term in sports called Value Over Replacement. Essentially, it looks at a player's performance relative to the league average at his position, and occasionally takes into account salary, to see if that player is being overpaid, underpaid, or is in a reasonable contract relative to the rest of the league. A player can be above average and still be a bad deal.
Pointing to the good done in religion isn't enough to justify it alone. We have to see what it would have been replaced with. I look at Mormonism and I see racism and bigotry that was institutionalized for decades, that also isn't entirely stamped out, and could be brought up again pending a reinterpretation of the texts of a particular sect. I see a group that does some good, and that has made a lot positive change, but whose value over replacement (in this case, if it hadn't existed) is probably pretty neutral. And I see an institution where the 8-10's wouldn't have existed in such influential numbers at any point in its history if it hadn't gained such traction in the first place.
1-4's can indeed moderate the extremes, and change them in some cases. Viewed internally, they can be a positive influence. But it ignores the fact that all of them, 1-10's, compromise an organization that has allowed for the development and influence of the 8-10's. And the influence can still be felt - Mormonism is still dealing with the fallout of many of the ideas you mention. And, as you say, they may never reform on certain others.
That may seem harsh. It is. I'm learning that this isn't a popular opinion, even among non-religious.
Originally posted by -Pr-
I'm not even on that list 🙁
It was a hypothetical list. I don't want anyone trying to peg themselves on an arbitrary scale I made up for an example. But if you're not in those distinctions, I'm probably not talking about you in my current critique of religion.
Originally posted by Oliver North
you don't feel that sweeping generalizations of potentially billions of people sounds a little fundamentalist in itself? I mean, it is the extremists in general who spend their time decreeing who is or isn't part of their religion, what there religion does or does not support, or brandishing accusations of evil. Moderates, like Pr, would tend to be more interested with what their faith means to themselves, not sticking their noses into other people's personal relationship with the divine.
I agree. Proving that only religion will cause good people to do evil things.
I feel quite comfortable telling billions they are foolish when they are doing foolish things.
Do you let the numbers against what you say shut you up?
If you do then you would be a coward so why would you suggest I do the cowardly thing and allow my speech to be silenced just because many do not agree?
Regards
DL
Originally posted by Digi
Greatest I Am isn't stating his case well at all. But I do think there's a nugget to be gained from his train of thought. Allow me to try...My sister is Catholic. She fully supports gay marriage as non-sinful behavior. While trying to be as PC as possible, the Catholic Church still officially recognizes homosexual acts as sin.
Now, does my sister believe that interpretation? No. But she supports an organization that believes it, and that bases their doctrine and policies around it. In this case, I'd definitely say there's a level of personal responsibility to be associated with this kind of tacit endorsement.
Of course, Catholicism isn't the biggest culprit here. I use it only for a convenient example.
Second point: first of all, the videos GIA posted are evangelical extremists. Things like the Jesus Camps are the extremist exception, not the rule, and not a damnation of moderate Christianity. But there's a deeper problem that relates to such extremism. For such extremism to exist, it must be within a culture that will allow it to function and thrive. Now let's say that Joe Christian is at a 4 on "severity" of belief. The Jesus Camp people are a 10. And an average member of Joe's church congregation is a 6 or 7. In an institution where faith is rewarded, and faith despite evidence or even in the face of evidence is praised, for something as delusional as the Jesus Camps to gain traction, they must exist in a culture that will allow more moderate levels of the same factors to go unquestioned. Because the beliefs are no less ridiculous, and the articles of faith and doctrine are largely similar between Christian denominations. The only difference is severity.
Someone who is a "4" can easily dismiss a "10" as wrong and extremist, but I have rarely, if ever, seen someone truly scrutinize the "4s" contribution to the "10s". Or rather, the lower numbers providing a cultural climate that allows more extreme versions of the same faith to take root.
The exception I could see to all of this is someone to whom belief is almost entirely internalized. As soon as you're part of the larger religious movement - in any form - imo you're part of the extremism problem.
Is your first an offer to ghost write for me? I have actually been looking for such.
Thanks though for expanding the thinking in an eloquent way.
Regards
DL
Being Canadian, I like to promote Canadian ideas.
FMPOV, all religions began the same basic way and this clip is an analogy for them all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06jF1EG8o-Q
Regards
DL
Originally posted by Digi
This is all well and good, and I have no reason to doubt you, but it actually doesn't address my point imo. 1-4's softening the evil in the church is just that, a lessening of evil. It makes it less reprehensible, but in and of itself doesn't justify the presence of either 8-10's or 1-4's.There's a term in sports called Value Over Replacement. Essentially, it looks at a player's performance relative to the league average at his position, and occasionally takes into account salary, to see if that player is being overpaid, underpaid, or is in a reasonable contract relative to the rest of the league. A player can be above average and still be a bad deal.
Pointing to the good done in religion isn't enough to justify it alone. We have to see what it would have been replaced with. I look at Mormonism and I see racism and bigotry that was institutionalized for decades, that also isn't entirely stamped out, and could be brought up again pending a reinterpretation of the texts of a particular sect. I see a group that does some good, and that has made a lot positive change, but whose value over replacement (in this case, if it hadn't existed) is probably pretty neutral. And I see an institution where the 8-10's wouldn't have existed in such influential numbers at any point in its history if it hadn't gained such traction in the first place.
1-4's can indeed moderate the extremes, and change them in some cases. Viewed internally, they can be a positive influence. But it ignores the fact that all of them, 1-10's, compromise an organization that has allowed for the development and influence of the 8-10's. And the influence can still be felt - Mormonism is still dealing with the fallout of many of the ideas you mention. And, as you say, they may never reform on certain others.
That may seem harsh. It is. I'm learning that this isn't a popular opinion, even among non-religious.
It was a hypothetical list. I don't want anyone trying to peg themselves on an arbitrary scale I made up for an example. But if you're not in those distinctions, I'm probably not talking about you in my current critique of religion.
There is nothing offensive about it and it seems like the truth, to me. I would say that the moderate and liberal Mormons actually made changes that were emphatically 1-4 stuff/ideas. So it is not quite what you say. It is undoing the crap from the 8-10s and making new stuff that is the reflection of the 1-4's. That's the opposite of just coming to a middle ground. And some of the long-standing and tolerated stuff from the 8-10s is being cracked down upon (such as the gay-hate or race-hate. That has never been supported in an official capacity by Mormons and has always been officially taught against).
I wonder if Mormons will change their idea on "bodies" if we are ever able to transfer our brains to a computer? If we could digitally simulate drugs, then what would be the harm in doing digital drugs? 😄
Originally posted by DigiSteven Weinberg, Jewish physicist. Figures. 😛
"Good men will do good, and evil men will do evil. But for a good man to do evil, that takes religion."
Originally posted by DigiI'd include politics. But (organized) religion would be numero uno. Wave the [insert name of Holy Writ here], yell devotedly, and voilà: divine license to kill.
But religion is pretty much the only way I've found where the person actually believes they are doing good.
Originally posted by Mindship
Steven Weinberg, Jewish physicist. Figures. 😛I'd include politics. But (organized) religion would be numero uno. Wave the [insert name of Holy Writ here], yell devotedly, and voilà: divine license to kill.
It's really hard working with such aphorisms, because they rarely take into account the nuances needed to actually make a defensible argument. Hopefully I provided enough justification outside the quote, that its inclusion is warranted.
Politics is an interesting one. I think a lot of it is more self-serving than we think, and that a lot of the evil is done knowingly. I'm sure a few rogue outliers actually believe they are right when they're oppressing people. But then again, much of that political oppression in the name of righteousness has its roots in religion. There are less than ideal political ideas, but they aren't evil. Nearly anything I'd define as politically immoral - oppression, legislated prejudice - has some foundation in religion. At least in current American politics. It may not have always been so.
There's also more subjective things in politics. Both sides of, say, a controversial health care bill believe they are "right." But I don't see that as something we can define as inherently moral or immoral.
I'd argue that authority and thus oppression doesn't really stem from religion, but religion shares the same issue that government have when it comes to dealing with power. They both establish their influence through the manipulation of speech, pretty much censoring and imposing ideas through their communication. It all comes down to that, the ability to speak, it's all marketing -a fundamental part of any marketing campaign is opacity, this is also the inner work for most human corruption-.
Marketing works on ideals, it presents and idea and presents its morality, but you never get to question nor oppose those concepts because its a one-way street of built-in cultural sense. Without cultural weight there cannot be oppression in the sense we're trying to set here.
Originally posted by Digi
I don't think 10 exists (again, institutionally, on a large scale) without a certain amount of the population being 4, 6, or 8. A few lonely bastards would think it, and it would fester far away from the harsh gaze of societal enlightenment.
well, to be clear, what you mean by "societal enlightenment" is really "societal norms". And you are right, if the societal norms don't include some degree of a particular ideology, it is unlikely that more extreme versions of that ideology would flourish (even though they don't particularly flourish anyways).
But I think the crux of our disagreement is that imho removing religion merely changes the things extremists are extreme about and which behaviours or groups of people they target. The issue to me is much more about the psychology of people who become extremists. Something like a low tolerance for ambiguity and a high need for primary control might produce an extremist in any context. It isn't something that is fed by the people with higher tolerance or lower need for control, it comes down to how individuals are able to make sense of themselves in the world. A moderate Christian isn't facilitating the extremist one in any way other than maybe allowing for the extremist to be a Christian, rather than some other type of extremist.
I have more broader issues with wanting the end of religion, but here specifically, it seems like targeting specific individuals with specific cognitive strategies that promote extremist thinking would be far more effective than removing religion.
Originally posted by Digi
"Good men will do good, and evil men will do evil. But for a good man to do evil, that takes religion." I have a hard time finding anywhere else where someone will do evil and think that they are right.
Love would fit that definition... so would war... it really depends on what you want to call evil, no? If you go by the harm principle, all that would be required is the individual actor being self-justified in their actions, even if all outside observers didn't agree.