[PLUG-TALK] why religion is the root of all evil

Ronald Chmara ron at Opus1.COM
Tue Jan 30 04:53:54 UTC 2007


I loved following this discussion, quite interesting.

My dos centavos:

On Jan 29, 2007, at 3:42 PM, glen e. p. ropella wrote:

> Russell Senior wrote:
>>>>>>> "glen" == glen e p ropella <gepr at tempusdictum.com> writes:
>> Russell> The Anglican bishop was "moderate", but he also declared his
>> Russell> belief in something patently silly, the actual bodily
>> Russell> Ascension of Jesus to heaven.
>> glen> Well, there's the rub, eh?  You claim someone's belief in some
>> glen> thing or event to be "patently silly".  A better demonstration
>> glen> of disrespect and intolerance is unnecessary.
>> Well, *I* think it's silly.
> It's unreasonable to call the idea silly, since that single idea  
> has been
> responsible for plenty of policy, strategic, tactical, and  
> doctrinal decisions
> for quite some time.

It is helpful to note that viewed through different lenses of time,  
culture, and heritage, that individuals may consider different  
statements of belief and/or fact to be of different merit.

>   It's a serious idea with serious effect, regardless of
> whether it's true.  Calling it a _silly_ idea is disrespectful of  
> the myth and
> the impact that myth has, (especially psychologically) on your  
> peers' lives.

Also note (to spin it back in glen's direction) that calling  
something a "myth" can also be viewed as distasteful or disrespectful  
to the cultures who view their history and traditions as facts, and  
are not used to hearing phrases such as "the Jesus myth". Based on  
earlier discussion, however, I think It's safe to assume that "myth"  
is being used here in the anthro sense.

> Further, it is intolerant to belittle others' ideas as _silly_ when  
> there are
> many more accurate descriptors (like, perhaps, "false" ;-).

Not scientifically plausible, undocumented, unverifiable, defies  
certain kinds of logic, etc. "Silly" is defensible in some contexts,  
and not in others. I think the FSM mythos is not only silly, but it  
is *intentionally* silly.

>> And is disrespect actually evil?
> That depends on your defn of "evil", of course.  In my lexicon,  
> "evil" is
> synonymous with "ignorance".  (Hence "original sin" is an entirely  
> valid concept
> because no one of us can know everything... we're all myopic and  
> evil and the
> only way to combat it is to keep learning till you die.)

Well, I would counter that your premise makes an argument that a) sin  
and/or evil exists, and that as you note, b) ignorance is part of  
what you call sin.

In my own personal mythos, sin and evil are non-useful labels  
rendered totally meaningless by selective and conflicting use, but I  
would count *willful* ignorance as an act of anti-social behavior,  
because it is an overt act to distance one's self from the thoughts  
and knowledge of others.

So, with that in mind...

What I think really irritates Dawkins and his companions is the  
willful ignorance that some branches of belief try to perpetuate in  
the name of protecting their belief system. If a branch of faith that  
"worshipped" the teapot had no problem with others "worshipping"  
optics and deep space exploration, and did not seek to impose their  
beliefs into every aspect of the lives or their fellow humans, the  
traction of militant atheism would vanish.

However, this has not been the case historically. Book burnings,  
*people* burnings, texts of minority faiths being physically  
destroyed by majority faiths, entire cultures being destroyed, these  
are the hallmarks of four thousand years of religious and cultural  
intolerance.

Pure science points to a different way, where *all* theories which  
can be tested, scrutinized, reviewed, and replaced are not only to be  
engaged, but *must* be engaged. However, in science, the "loser" of  
the argument is not be killed, and have their history erased, rather,  
their theories are *enshrined* for future generations to learn and  
advance from (which also keeps us from re-answering the same  
questions). In science, *learning* from the body of those who came  
before us is more important that *truth*. With religion, it's often  
quite the opposite, where *truth* is the goal, not a system of  
constantly questioning, arguing, and re-evaluating.

Would scientists seek to require the insertion of a sticker into all  
bibles used in theology classes that the bible was "only a theory"?  
How many witches have been burned in the name of science? How many  
scientists commit suicide bombings in the name of their belief? When  
was the last time you saw scientists picketing a theology school?

When it comes down to it, the whole equivocation of science with  
religion seems, to me, to be a smoke screen proffered by the faithful  
to try and rationalize not only their beliefs, but their *actions*.  
Dawkins et al wouldn't care so much about willful ignorance being  
advocated by autonomous individuals, but when willful ignorance is a  
part of societal indoctrination, and that same willful ignorance  
leads to gross and brutal victimization of not only individuals but  
whole societies? It would be inhumane to not speak out, and point out  
the gross injustices, and cruelties, being perpetuated.

And now, the third rail. The most dangerous, and brutal, combination,  
I would argue, is the *combination* of Religious belief and applying  
that belief using the tools of Science. Since, in pure Science,  
*nothing* is ever always true, and in religion, there is a perfect  
"Truth", wedding the two gives us unholy monsters like the scientific  
religion of soviet Stalin, the scientific religion of Nazi Hitler,  
and the scientific religion of Sanger's american eugenics program.  
Stalin, Hitler, and Sanger all thought they were "right", because  
they didn't understand how science works. Fear any people who think  
that both god and science are on their side, as the results will  
usually betray both.

Science is not the study of finding "right" answers. It is the study  
of finding new questions.

-Ronabop



More information about the PLUG-talk mailing list