There are many problems with religion, but religion is not the problem. Religion is, after all, a human product. In Human Nature, sociobiologist E.O.Wilson quotes Russian author Aleksandr Solzhenitzen who said "If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously commiting evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?
That is why I talk about gini as opposed to absolute wealth. There was a recent op-ed in the NYTs, that I can’t seem to find. It dealt with the idea that because the current recession is very broad, there hasn’t been a general decrease in happiness. In fact, it has been shown that most people would prefer to earn something like $50K/year if everyone around them is earning $25K/year than to earn $100K/year if everyone around them is earning $200K/year. Poverty is a relative term, after all. While there are some exceptions, human beings would rather be kings of the cesspool than kitchenworkers in the palace. Out of that very large sample of people, there are some who are willing to take drastic steps to correct those discrepancies.
Phaedrus,
Are you arguing that pagan Rome wasn’t religious? You’ll note I said the ‘Rome of Augustus’ not the ‘Rome of Constantine’. As for America, 90% of what colonists when? The Puritans? I doubt they could be considered 90% secular. Well, what about economic colonies like Jamestown? Well, given that one of the first things they built was a Church, I’m not so sure they could be called ‘secular’ either. And then there is that whole ‘using the Bible to teach reading’ that America used well into the 19th Century. America has always been noted for its piety. We were just better about not killing each other over it which, incidentally, is why fundamentalism is still en vogue in America. Europe managed to get that whole she-bang out of its blood. As for the oil states, you’ll note I listed Dubai and not Saudi Arabia . . .
Dorky,
The Disciples died for Christ . . . why would they lie? Ergo, Christ is divine. You can see where such logic leads, and that isn’t anywhere terribly interesting.
This means that they believe their cause is just. I believe that they really do believe that their cause is just. Many Americans believed the cause was just when the US invaded Iraq. It’s a cause that has resulted in the death of many thousands. The basic motivation for collective aggression doesn’t change when you demythologize it.
You’re looking for a fight where there isn’t one, Xun. What I’ve read of the demographics of the colonies indicates that as of the time of the signing of the declaration of indepenance 90% of the colonists didn’t belong to a church. I will try to find some documentation if I have time, or you can google, but I don’t really care all that much. It’s a near non-sensical thing to try to correlate religion with wealth since nearly all societies on Earth have had some type of religion. Did any of the Romans of any era really believe strongly in the gods? They didn’t really have to, so long as they followed the rituals. Religion was important to the ancient Egyptians, but according to Professor Bob Briar, even the priests of the gods didn’t have to believe in them. Priests were civil servants. You say Dubai, I say Saudi- what’s the point?
My assertion is that the radicalized Islam of certain middle eastern nations is an economic hinderance to them. But it’s only a hinderence in our opinion- they reject the Western definition of success. Certainly women have no economic opportunities and can have no wealth of their own. That’s all I was alluding to in the post you misinterpret.
I can understand what you are saying (even if we may disagree on what ‘religiosity’ entails, since I can view both a fervently believing but non-Church-going Protestant as ‘religious’ as well as a non-believing but regularly ritual performing Pagan) but more importantly, I do think that the italicized portion in the first paragraph contradicts with the thesis of your second paragraph.
Now I can agree that given the false choices between communism and capitalism/democracy, many in the ME have turned towards Islam as an interpretation of the Modern. But there are numerous examples in history of Islam and commerce co-existing in quite a healthy manner, so I’m unconvinced that the alternate goals presented by Islam are at odds with economic success – in much the same way that I feel Christianity is not at odds with economic success. After all, I think we can both agree it is difficult to become successful (economically or otherwise) when ‘the Man’ is holding you down, which is precisely how the situation is viewed by the radical Muslims we are talking about.
And, given the history of intervention in those areas, they aren’t far wrong. Why start a business when the US might invade your country for no reason? Or organize a coup to overthrow the government? Or prop up a dictator in a neighboring country and have them invade your country?
I disagree- it all goes to where you draw the line and define “religiousity” as you mention. In any event, the examples you cite don’t seem to be valid at all. But again, it doesn’t matter since you are only arguing against yourself.
Re: The piety of Augustus
Because he is incredibly famous for having been so. He was always harping on bringing back Roman values and all that – which is in no small part why he commissioned the Aeneid. Likewise, he was noted for cultivating a variety of Roman virtues (the example given here is usually his modest dress). To say nothing of his consolidating the role of Pontifex Maximus with that of the Imperial office . . .
Naturally, there were other motivations for all of those things as well. But you can see how that dovetails with my overall thesis.
Re: Examples
Do explain further. Tsk, tsk. Philosophy was born of agon and through agon it progresses. I’m all for synthesis, I thrive on it. But in order for that to happen, well, you know.
I think some people absolutely do commit what we in the West would call evil acts due to their religion. Certainly it’s all wrapped up in sociology and psychology, too, but it’s a powerful thing to be told that God commands and condones a certain act. Obviously poverty will lead to crime too, but killing someone simply because they believe in a different Sky Daddy is part and parcel to belief for fringe sects.
Still, I’m not fond of that particular argument. Certainly religious extremism is dangerous, but my main opposition to theism isn’t that I feel it’s harmful but that I think it’s untrue. To each his own.
I’m with Phaedrus in that my disagreement with theism is that I think it is wrong, not that I think it is ‘bad’. I think it is an inert ideology with respect to good/bad.
Re: Which deity . . . is theism necessary for piety? Most Pagan and ancient religions (I’m trying to think of an exception, but I can’t right now. There probably is one though) are orthoprax as opposed to orthodox. But with respect to which gods, a hole host of them. PM was the highest cleric in the land and presided over all manner of feasts and sacrifices. He was also noted for taking care of his penates. Granted, they weren’t his penates since he was a pleb, but let’s not worry about that one too much. Given the varied nature of how religiosity is expressed, I tend to think that an in situ approach is best. And other Romans commented that Augustus was a devout Roman. Good enough for me
I haven’t really seen anybody address my argument, that the shape that violence takes amongst the poor can be shaped by religious belief, and lead to horrific results. People aren’t blowing themselves up for a national or societal cause.
Even if a suicide bomber’s goal is different than that of a gang member, their goal is religion-based.
I don’t understand what relevance this has.
Phaedrus - you seem to take a Dawkinian stance on the matter. All he cares about is what’s true. I agree with you, I think psychology and sociology have something to do with it, but if religion is even one part of the equation, can you see why people would want to remove it?
Is the shape of the violence important if we are trying to stop it? Wave a magic wand and remove Islam from the world and nationalism and pan-Arabism will surely take its place. The recent glut of suicide bombings has more to do with both the increase in the availability of potent weapons as well as suboptimal conditions regarding those using them.
Again, look at the Tigers. Or the Shining Path.
It was relevant because your argument is, “X claims Y is his motivation for action Z. Ergo, Y is true.” I don’t think that reasoning is sufficient.
There are many problems with religion, but religion is not the problem. Religion is, after all, a human product. In Human Nature, sociobiologist E.O.Wilson quotes Russian author Aleksandr Solzhenitzen who said "If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously commiting evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?
That said, religion has been used to justify aggression motivated by nationalism, or ethnocenticism or for that matter egotism. When that happens religion is complcit in the evils committed in its name.
Abso-fucking-lutely the shape of violence is important. If a religious belief would motivate a person to build a nuclear weapon and detonate it in a crowded city, when without it they’d beat up or kill their neighbor instead, I’d say it becomes extremely important. If there was a nationalist belief that caused somebody to build a nuke, then I’d be critical of that belief system as well. But to say one will inevitably replace the other and cause the same kind of actions, is ludicrous.
Wait, do you think I believe “Y” is true simply because it’s their motivation for “Z?” As in, the 72 virgins are real because it’s somebody’s motivation for blowing themselves up?
Or are you saying that just because they claim “Y” is their motivation, doesn’t mean “Y” is actually their motivation? If that’s what you’re saying, then I simply can’t make the assumption that their actual motivation is different than what they’re saying. Do you?
So are you arguing that some people commit atrocities in the name of religion, but are conscious of the fact that it’s actually due to nationalism? Or are you saying they are unwittingly committing these acts due to nationalism, but think it’s because of their religious belief?
I think Xun took a mighty swing at this and did a decent job of making his case… but in the end we can’t argue that ideas don’t matter… our entire species progresses today by the ideas and the knowledge we gain. Societies are shaped on ideas and those societies shape the minds of the next generation which build on those ideas or tear them down… it’s a tangled web… but ideas definatly play a part in the tapestry and few play a larger part that religious ideas, historically.
No one fights for “god”… much less dies for “god”… That’s a naive view to take… BUT people vote for god, people vote for people who vote for god… people build stuff to glorify god, they use religion as a messure of value and goodness, such that they will rally to a leader who seeks to bring about religious ends, rather than mundane/material ones. People use the figures in their holy texts and various prophets as role-models for their children, and themselves… so while religion might not be such a powerful motivation to go out and kill yourself, it will shape your reactions and your values so as to determine what exactly WOULD motivate you to kill yourself and take a bunch of people with you. While the drive may be poverty or an injustice, the reaction of blowing up innocent people along with yourself is religious, the reaction to kill the doctor who killed the fetus is religious, the reaction to block stem-cell research is relgious… these reactions and these triggers are not inherent reactions of human kind… they are developed… they are determined by the beliefs and value systems we adopt via our social situation, which in turn is often heavily influenced by religion!
