Islam IS to blame (cont'd)

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
21

It seems like the position Xunzian and Felix are minimizing the power of belief to an absurd level, and basically state that our beliefs cannot overpower or overcome our animal instincts and drive, or overcome poverty and economic situations, or other extenuating circumstances, etc.

I think changing one’s attitude absolutely can overcome all these things. The evidence of such is everwhere, and an overabundance of anecdotal evidence can support this, such as stories of people who go from rags to riches, gang members to CEO’s, etc. Their economic circumstances didn’t change before their attitudes and belief systems did.

22

I understand where they are both coming from, human warfare is the result of a whole host of interacting factors, however they ignore, either because they haven’t read or have an agenda against the mass psychological, cognitive and statistical evidence that religion as an independent/unique risk factor, can influence behavior ‘negatively’ (in ways which promote war) even ACCOUNTING for other human drives/considerations.

Oh, this is IGNORED BY THEM TOO, and its annoying:

  • “Reframing Sacred Values,” by Scott Atran & Robert Axelrod, Negotiation Journal, July 2008

The evidence is there reflected in a lot of great researchers work. Atran has been doing a meta-analysis (a massive one) of pretty much all the recorded data on suicide terrorism, he’s spent years personally studying/dealing with these factions himself in the middle-east, he’s a massively educated anthropologist with this massive scope on historical and modern primitive and state religions, he understands religion in a way that most people don’t, his work being continously referenced as a landmark text on religion.

Just because you’re too lazy to go read his work yourself, or think that I am pathetic at making at arguement, there is STILL NO JUSTIFICATION to CLAIM that you are correct when moutains of scientific research provide evidence to the exact opposite conclusion.

Really, read half those articles and come back and tell me religion doesn’t play a big role. You won’t.

23

My point has been all along that the genetically based rules of aggression are primary. Religious differences are one of the many differences people fight over. Each of the differences are secondary. So a perfectly homogeneous society would be conflict free. But that is an impossibility.

As far as the Middle East is concerned, the fight is primarily because the Western Colonizers have been messing with the affairs of the locals for years. They get pissed off about that just like we would if they had been messing with us like that.

24

“Every bit as much as religion” is a funny way to state it.

Religious belief, regardless of ALL those other influences/factors influences behavior AS AN INDEPENDENT RISK FACTOR. Independently of all those things fundamentalism correlates with violent/intolerant attitudes, etc.

Religion is a unique type of in-group but its based on in-group/out-group dynamics originally evolved for other purposes, like familial relationships. Which is why its common for religious recruiters to use terminology laced in familial terms, brotherhood, blood, etc.

That doesn’t mean it doesnt’ produce fairly unique results.

25

Okay even if the fight is over X, the people blowing themselves up are almost always religious fundamentalists who live side by side with moderates of the same age, in the same city.

The fundamentalists are not statistically correlated with lack of education or poverty. Again, you’re missing it.

The people blowing themselves up over X conflict are never moderates, even if the moderates are envolved in that FIGHT. Its almost always fundamentally religious populations blowing themselves up, with religious motivation being a huge part of the explanation.

26

I’ve never denied that conflicts aren’t over SOCIAL INEQUALITIES or invading occupying forces. What I said, is that those who decide to blow themselves up OVER THE CONFLICT, are almost always fundamentalists, fundamentalists who aren’t poor or uneducated.

Religious fundamentalists, who are manipulated like others.

A fight between jews/muslims could have been caused over a lake, but IT WILL NEVER BE FINISHED UNTIL EACH GROUP, makes symbolic compromises over their religious beliefs, and material incentives alone can cause greater violence.

Its not a rational choice model here.

27

Suicide bombing is a rational tactic against a precieved threat, its not caused by poverty or lack of education, its caused by someone being dedicated to an in-group to the point that they want to protect it from an outside precieved social evil.

It can happen outside of religion, but in the middle-east most of these suicides are inspired through religions and religious recruiters/organizations but you’re right, its usually against some kind of precieved threat like a foriegn occupation

Felix, please go read some of those articles on the subject at Atran’s section on ‘terrorism’ its mainly on suicide bombing and yeah, the dozens of articles and researchers you’ll find through them provide scientific evidence that religion plays a role. A big influence.

Though i’m not claiming theres no connection to occupation, just not poverty.

28

I didn’t mention education or poverty so how am I missing “it”? That moderates don’t blow themselves up is a truism. Anybody who blow himself up is by definition an extremist not a moderate.

If all the people in the middle East are Muslims {a slight exaggeration}, then all of the Middle Easterners who blow themselves up will surely be Muslim. If anyone who blows himself up is an extremist, then all Muslims who blow themselves up will be Muslim extremists.

Moderates only remain moderates if they don’t blow themselves up. Once they do, they are viewed as radicals. The label follows the act.

The US has propped up abusive royalties and dictators for years. We have engineered the overthrow of elected governments. With other western powers, the US installed a nation of foreigners dislocating an indigenous people. We have stolen natural resources and historical artifacts. The US has invaded sovereign nations. We have forced our religion and government culture down the throats of people who never asked for it. In short, the actions in the Middle East have been sufficient to explain the violent response of the people there.

29
  • Scott Atran

sitemaker.umich.edu/satran/files … _atran.pdf

No, people could blow themselves up without being a religious fundamentalist. What I mean is that these people believe fundamentalist values and are part of fundamentalist ‘congregations’ or groups. As in they’re fundamentally religious in ways that moderates aren’t.

I’m not just stating some kind of circular arguement here, those with fundamentalist beliefs, opposed to moderate ones (religious notions) are more likely to blow themselves up, OVER A CONFLICT, they all share.

or more ikely to be violent/intolerant about the conflict.

30

Thats next to mind numbingly ignorant. We don’t find the differences between fundamentalists and moderates ONLY CONFINED to the middle-east. We find fundamentalists being more inclined to intolerance and violence over conflicts (on anything) in the nations DOING THE invading, engaging in the OCCUPATION.

Among the SAME POPULATION, whether they’re beset by SOCIAL ILLS OR NOT, people who identify with FUNDAMENTALIST BELIEFS are more incliend towards VIOLENCE, INTOLERANCE, etc.

WHETHER OR NOT the cause of the violence is religion or a occupation force the reality is the SOLUTION, the END OF THE VIOLENCE, does not come from MATERIALISTIC INCENTIVES ALONE, both parties must, have to, make symbolic compromises over their OWN SACRED VALUES.

Offer material incentives alone increases violence, only compromise to the beliefs (religious/sacred) envolved can help end many conflicts.

In that way, RELIGION EXACERBATES WAR.

Its not rocket-science and I am getting sick and tired of repeating myself to hear the same replies as if they are some type of rational rebuttal.

31

Again, the relationship between belief and action has been trivialized, with no rationale.

Additionally, nobody is denying that social or economic circumstance plays a role (or at least I’m not), but that doesn’t mean we need to ignore religion and try to resolve everything else. We can take out these conduits one at a time.

John Lennon’s song mentions religion and nationalism for a reason. We have to try to recognize all sources of conflict amongst the human race. There is no reason for cherry picking, other than the fact that people want to cling to religious belief for personal, selfish reasons, and therefore turn a blind eye to its effects.

32

In real life, between two religious parties, you either offer symbolic compromises to your sacred beliefs or a lasting peace may NEVER ARRIVE, no matter HOW MANY MATERIALISTIC incentives may exist/are offered.

Seriously, in the real world materialistic incentives to end violent political conflict, DON’T WORK, LARGELY BECAUSE OF RELIGION and the sacred values envolved in many.

In the real world, religion and sacred values play a role in promoting conflict in keeping conflict ALIVE. whether you like it or not. It exacerbates war.

33

Its not just the relationship that has been trivialized, but because they’re too busy or lazy to actually read all the articles, the endless evidence that religion plays a role is being trivialized too.

34

The tag “fundamentalist” comes after people act intolerant and violent not before. So when you say people who act intolerant and violent are fundamentalists it’s a truism. The US enacted violence in the Middle East before the violent reactions to the US ensued. If your getting sick and tired, feel free to take a break. You can have as long as you need to refresh yourself and your arguments.

35

Actually, the tag fundamentalist only means those who associate themselves with more orthodox or fundamentalist religious beliefs. When I say funadmentalist, thats all I mean, I don’t mean someone who has already commited violence or intolerance.

Fundamentalists are statistically more likely to engage in those actions, not because those actions are ‘defined’ as fundamentalist, but because a unique and independent STATISTICAL correlation exists.

Don’t tell me what I mean by the terms i’m using, especially when thats not the case.
I don’t need to refresh my arguements, you haven’t sensically replied to one point i’ve made.

Fundamentalist isn’t a term for violent or intolerant its a term for strong religious belief opposed to moderate religious belief, the point is those with ‘fundamentalist’ beliefs are more likely to be violent, intolerant and unfair, not that being violent, intolerant and unfair is the definition or a defining quality of fundamentalism.

36

Again, I am not denying that religion is a factor. If that’s all you are saying we agree. My point is that it is not the primary factor. That has been my point all along. If you had clearly argued in the debate that religion was a factor in the middle east situation albeit not the primary one I would have declared you the winner.

37

not all fundamenatlists are unfair, intolerant or violent, but my point is that as a statistical trend people who are fundamentalist are more likely to have those qualities than people with moderate religious belief, taking into account all other factors, it still emerges as an independent risk factor.

Do you even know what an independent risk factor is?

Just like unmarried and unemployment men have higher rates of violent altercation between each other, unemployment and lack of marriage are independent risk factors correlating positively with violent altercations between individuals.

In much the same way, fundamentalism is an independent risk factor influencing intolerance, violence, and etc over national, religious or ethnic conflicts.

Seriously, its not rocket science.

religion can have NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CONFLICT, but RELIGIOUS SENSIBILITIES influence people’s behaviors, EVEN OUTSIDE OF RELIGION.

Seriously, i’m not going to sit here and endlessly argue the evidence that fundamentalism is correlated with these traits INDEPENDENTLY of things like poverty. I provided a LOT of studies, I think d0rky did in his own thread, that showed EXACTLY this.

I honestly don’t believe a single person even checked one of the references.

Its a primary or huge influence among suicide bombers, which is a big influence towards a lot of the problems in the middle-east. Its a big influence/factor preventing CONFLICT RESOLUTION.

So yeah, its a factor, but since it ends any rational attempt at conflict resolution because of sacred values, its a BIG FACTOR, BIG INFLUENCE, I don’t know about primary, because I don’t know what you mean by that.

But LARGE influence isn’t an over-exaggeration. Not remotely.

38

As in people who are fundamentalist are more likely to want to solve national, ethnic or etc conflicts through violence, they are more likely to be intolerant towards other people (which alone hurts conflict resolution) they are more likely to be ethnocentric (again, not great for conflict resoltuion).

All these traits correlate with fundamentalism as an independent risk factor, accounting for poverty, social inequality and etc, fundamentalism is STILL ASSOCIATED with those negative qualities. Why wouldn’t it be?

Surely fundamentalist/orthodox religious people in the United States/Canada outside all real inequalities of the middle-east are more likely to be intolerant, prone to violent solutions (for thingsl ike the war in iraq) and etc etc etc

thats a result that holds for all fundamentalists compared to moderates. COME ON, you must understand what i’m saying here?

As in a fundamentalist whose never been violent or had to deal with social inequalities or any issue that could potentially produce intolerance would be more prone to THOSE things if they had to deal with it, than a moderate of the same location.

Its annoying needing to continously re-word my statements hoping that maybe one of the re-worded sentences will get through.

INDEPENDENT.RISK.FACTOR.

GET IT?

39

Obviously people who hold fundamentalist beliefs are fundamentalists. But what are fundamentalist beliefs?

You are equating fundalmentaism with orthodoxy. Are all who associate themselves with orthodox beliefs fundamentalists?

A person with a strong religious belief that all violence is evil that is a fundamentalist by your defintion. The Jains have such a strong belief. According to you, they are are more likely to be violent, intolerant and unfair. And yet there is no evidence of that. How do you account for that?

40

Are you trying to make me angry, or are you playing dumb for a specific reason? Fundamentalist/orthodox believers, opposed to less fundamentalist and orthodox believers.

About the Jains, I’m unfamiliar with any evidence saying they’re prone to violence, but if its consistant with A LOT OF other religions, the evidence would show that fundamentalist Jains would be more intolerant/violence prone than moderate Jains.

As in fundamentalist Muslims are more prone than moderate Muslims. Don’t pretend you don’t know what I mean by the term fundamentalist, you do, and so does everyone else.

Say a christian who believes in the bible word by word as opposed to taking it as a 100% metaphorical. Maybe that example will help.