Crusades: Darwinian?

[Pooja]

Lastest thoughts:

1. compared to america and the middle east, europe is extremely secular today.

2. just a few hundred years ago, europe was awash in religious fervor

3. contrast modern europe to the crusades, when hundreds of thousands- possibly millions- poor christian zealots ("peasants crusade" led by Peter the Hermit) died while on their way to (or in) the holy land (jerusalem). Treasure-seeking knights and lords also perished, but not in nearly the same number as those who went recklessly for salvation (see Edward Peters, "the first crusade") This is significant, b/c there weren't too many people to begin w/ back then.

4. in the middle east (during the crusades), there was a drafted army - "religious" people were just as likely to die as "secular" people.

5. Scientists have isolated a gene "responsible" for one's succeptiblity to religious idealism. (am trying to find link right now)

conclusion: the crusades had the effect of "weeding out" a tremendous number of religous zealots, thus paving the way for a more secular, englightened europe.
I don't know enought about the middle east to draw conclusions there--but I DO know that they drafted their army (random selection would null darwinian secularization).

question: do you thing this is to far-fetched? Or does it have some merit? why?

[bluebell]

Interesting. I suspect you'll never know if you're right or not, but definitely food for thought.

The genetic basis for religiousness was based on a twins study. I vaguely recall seeing it on a BBC documentary, may have been about identical twins separated at birth.

Edit: I posted too quick. Pooja, some questions (I'm not a history geek and I can't be bothered googling): what's the timing of the crusades vs mass migration to America?

And if your premise is correct, do you reckon the monastic (celibate) life could also have reduced the gene pool in Europe compared to Nth America?

Would be interested to hear more details (dates etc) on this.

[hereandnow]

Lastest thoughts:

1. compared to america and the middle east, europe is extremely secular today.

2. just a few hundred years ago, europe was awash in religious fervor

3. contrast modern europe to the crusades, when hundreds of thousands- possibly millions- poor christian zealots ("peasants crusade" led by Peter the Hermit) died while on their way to (or in) the holy land (jerusalem). Treasure-seeking knights and lords also perished, but not in nearly the same number as those who went recklessly for salvation (see Edward Peters, "the first crusade") This is significant, b/c there weren't too many people to begin w/ back then.

4. in the middle east (during the crusades), there was a drafted army - "religious" people were just as likely to die as "secular" people.

5. Scientists have isolated a gene "responsible" for one's succeptiblity to religious idealism. (am trying to find link right now)

conclusion: the crusades had the effect of "weeding out" a tremendous number of religous zealots, thus paving the way for a more secular, englightened europe.
I don't know enought about the middle east to draw conclusions there--but I DO know that they drafted their army (random selection would null darwinian secularization).

question: do you thing this is to far-fetched? Or does it have some merit? why?

As to the question of religion and genes a book length discussion of the issue is Why God Won't Go Away by Newberg. The subject is also mentioned in The God Delusion by Dawkins and Breaking the Spell by Dennett.

Some argue that as children we look at parents/authority believing their every word. There's validity to this thought. However, at the same time, many children are exposed to religion and are thus unaware of the difference between parents and preacher/rabbi/priest.

Science is openly confronting religion here in the states and it's about time. Religion should be put to the same tests as any other supernatural claims.

[firch]

I voted no on account of the colonisation of America having taken place after the crusades so they should be genetically similar to europeans. Take the US where you have a very religious region in the south and other areas which are much less so like the north east - presumably genetics can explain that (no jokes about inbreeding please). Personally I think it's just the heat or rather just the hot air.

[Pooja]

like bill maher said, "too many people die defending the first fairy tale they learned. Wait, did I say too many? I meant not enough."

(I totally paraphrased that, and probably botched it)

[Pooja]

I voted no on account of the colonisation of America having taken place after the crusades so they should be genetically similar to europeans. Take the US where you have a very religious region in the south and other areas which are much less so like the north east - presumably genetics can explain that (no jokes about inbreeding please). Personally I think it's just the heat or rather just the hot air.

THere's not denying that the heat has something to do w/ it!
The first colonists to come to America did not come over for "practical" reasons (more land, prosperity, etc..), but rather, they came over for religious reasons (in europe, believers of their "favorite fairy-tale" were being persecuted in one way or another).
Thus, perhaps the crusades didn't completely weed out the zealots. Some of those zealots came to america to "worship in peace". Many early settlers died from dysentery/cholera/typhoids/everything, and the ones who survived started successful churches and parishes.
This movement to america made europe just a little more secular.

*I understand that this arguement is reductionist, and that there are more complicated factors at play here. This is just theorizing for fun.

[hereandnow]

like bill maher said, "too many people die defending the first fairy tale they learned. Wait, did I say too many? I meant not enough."

(I totally paraphrased that, and probably botched it)

Actually your version is superior.:)

[Rajah]

Take the US where you have a very religious region in the south and other areas which are much less so like the north east - presumably genetics can explain that (no jokes about inbreeding please). Right.

Like Boston Catholics or the Amish.



I'm beginning to suspect something more than "genetics" is at play.

[Lateralus]

I believe this is more about culture than genetics. I seriously doubt there is a "religion gene". The concept is too complex.

[nfinityi]

Like any theory which sounds... sound, there's truth to be taken from it. Idk how much, but I voted yes.

[Rajah]

5. Scientists have isolated a gene "responsible" for one's succeptiblity to religious idealism. (am trying to find link right now)


I believe this is more about culture than genetics. I seriously doubt there is a "religion gene". The concept is too complex.Not much of a link, but here's the first (http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7147) I found.

[C.J.Woolf]

Many Europeans emigrated to the US for religious freedom, so there may be a self-selection factor. I don't how big a factor it is, though. I know of English, Scots, Germans, and French Huguenots, but there were many more who emigrated for economic reasons (Irish, Italians, etc.).


Science is openly confronting religion here in the states and it's about time. Religion should be put to the same tests as any other supernatural claims.
I agree, but one question nags me: If religion is discredited, what shall replace religion in the lives of those who depend on it now? I see the situation as like Iraq after Saddam Hussein was taken out. If you can't fill the vacuum, something else will, and that something else might be worse than what you destroyed. The fundamentalist freakout we're seeing in the US now is a sort of insurgency against reason.


Edit: Crossposted with Pooja and others.

[Lateralus]

Interesting. I'm still not sold, though. I wish it were as simple as genes, but I still have my doubts.

[Pooja]

Many Europeans emigrated to the US for religious freedom, so there may be a self-selection factor. I don't how big a factor it is, though. I know of English, Scots, Germans, and French Huguenots, but there were many more who emigrated for economic reasons (Irish, Italians, etc.).


I agree, but one question nags me: If religion is discredited, what shall replace religion in the lives of those who depend on it now? I see the situation as like Iraq after Saddam Hussein was taken out. If you can't fill the vacuum, something else will, and that something else might be worse than what you destroyed. The fundamentalist freakout we're seeing in the US now is a sort of insurgency against reason.


Edit: Crossposted with Pooja and others.

you're right in saying that more recent immigrants did come for economic reasons.
But I meant that the earlier immigrants, from england/france/germany setup the foundations of the US, to be very religion-friendly.

And you bring up a great point in the second paragraph.

*Maybe we can build vomitoriums, and stage gladiatorial combats in football arenas? With dancing slave girls too. (as the romans did)...

*or legalize drugs--

*or devote more resources (away from iraq) towards science, education, and the improvement of the average citizen's welfare.

*Make cookies free

[LongSilence]

Hmmm, I think the main issue with your conclusion is the number of centuries between the launching of the Crusades and the effective decline of European 'religiosity'. In particular, even though countless fanatics did even indeed die throughout the course of the First, Second and the Third Crusades [the grand-scale Holy Land ones] its pretty clear that there were more than enough zealots to rise to take their places.

I would however say that the failure, and especially the deviance of the later Crusades [i.e. the Jew-killing one] aided in the decline of the absolute power of the Papacy. However, this can also be attributed to the talented power-grabbing of the European monarchs. The "failure" of the Catholic Church to deal with the emergence of Protestantism and the subsequent creation of denomination after denomination that followed changed the face of European politics. To take England as an example, one could argue that the amazingly effective work of Henry VIII in exploiting the balance of power between Monarchy and Church granted his country freedom from the influence of the Pope which, in turn, enabled Oliver Cromwell to implement a revolution that was importantly, while extremely religious, populist in nature.

The power structures of Protestantism were very different. Without a recognizable leader to unify all people behind it lent far more scope for regular people to choose their own methods of worship. This led to significant further schisms and the pivotal detachment of politics with a consistent religion. When a religion begins to tolerate internal change, or at least a great deal of effort is required to combat it, it logically has to become more tolerant of external change. Thus, Christianity began to watch as its societies changed [from the very beginning the fact that Christianity would allow new converts to largely continue with their old ways of life could only encourage great diversity among Christians]. The Church was compelled by circumstances and certain historical figures to relinquish its power over society and therefore was less 'necessary' to people wanting to be a part of society. Whats more, Europe has had such a culturally rich history and is indeed split up into very diverse nations that it lent its people so much opportunity for ready exploration and choice when it came to choosing a way of life. America lacks this. An American cannot so readily call upon the cultural heritage of the Ancient Greeks, rather he is encouraged to remember the Puritan Forefathers who left Europe precisely because they wished to found a new nation based on their beliefs. Islam has largely had only its two factions whose philosophical differences are minimal compared to those of Christians.

In the end, I could even begin to argue that this was all helped by the 'tolerance' inherently written into the Christian philosophy. When people are allowed, and perhaps even encouraged by Jesus' own revolutionary attitude in his time, to question a regime it can only lead to people being encouraged to make their own choices- a factor which can only help to whittle down the number of religious people given the number of people who are willing to readily accept what is given to them. Nonetheless, the whole thing was a slow and steady process tied up with many different social, political and economic movements.

My point really just is- the conclusion doesn't feel satisfactory because it seems like there are so many other causes to take into consideration.

Edit: I mean, if you want to go that far to ascribe it to Darwinism- why not suggest that Christianity declined as the fervent lost their lives due to the in-fighting between Catholics and Prostestants who would often execute those unwilling to convert to their side [Martyrs under Bloody Mary]? And throw in those executed in French Revolution too, though, unfortunately, the political and social effects of these events seem far more significant than any 'naturally selective' process. After all, since when has seeing a fellow man die on account of his religious fervour inspired another to say to himself 'Ah, maybe it would be a good idea to relinquish that trait of mine for the sake of my own survival.'?

[Ferrus]

Except Europe remained predominately religious for some years following the crusades (till at least 1914, maybe even 1970's). It should also be noted that the number of Europeans going on the crusade was just a tiny factions of Europe's population anyway. Also, are genes so easily isolated as to make one 'religious' - there is probably a set of genes that gives one religious proclivities, but it is more a matter of probability.

And of course you say America is awash with religious feeling - but aren't the forebears of Americans the same as the Europeans?

Ascribing something as hermenutically involved as culture to simplistic genetic determinism is preposterous.

[Hermione]

Not only do I have little doubt about this, I'm not even sure dna testing for the recessive gene is so necessary when I can just look around and sort them out fairly clearly. I would be very interested however, to find out from a behavioralist stance, if all zealots carry the gene or if some are just in the form of participation mystique caught up like in mass hysteria. I have yet to see a fanatic be reasoned with to any degree, much like the antisocial personality types I have had the consternation of dealing with a couple of times.

[Dr. Haight]

2. just a few hundred years ago, europe was awash in religious fervor. Just a quick note.

"Religion" in the European Middle Ages was used as a tool for governing large, sprawled communities during a time of weak governments in need of stability and organization. In modern times, control via "Religion" is more complex, diverse, and less effective.

[SensEye]

I don't think your theory is likely to hold much water. Here are the problems I see with it.

1) I'm not sure I buy into the concept that a tendancy towards religious idealism is genetic.

2) Even if it is, I'm not sure how this would play out in cultural development. What I am saying is I don't see other genetic predispoistions leading to cultural outcomes, although I admit I have never really looked into it.

3) I suspect the motivations for the crusades and such where primarily political and religion is just one of the tools used to manipulate the rank and file. It's hard to convince people to die for the enrichment of the Catholic church or to increase some king's sphere of influence, but if you convince them it's God's will, different story. It manipulation of people via propaganda. Religion just happened to be a useful vehicle at the time. Today, you have the military industrial complex convincing people to die. If you tell them it is to increase corporate profits they aren't going to do it, if you convince them their 'freedom' is at risk, off they go. Same activity, different vehicle.

I suspect the secularization of Europe is due to a myriad of reasons, but I don't think culling of a religion gene is one of them. I almost wish it was though. ;)

[Dr. Haight]

3) I suspect the motivations for the crusades and such where primarily political and religion is just one of the tools used to manipulate the rank and file. It's hard to convince people to die for the enrichment of the Catholic church or to increase some king's sphere of influence, but if you convince them it's God's will, different story.Yes, and the first Crusade - 1099, if I remember correctly - was organized by the Pope/Catholic Church, for the reasons you mentioned, and was made up of people that were given amnesty for their crimes, debts, etc., as payment for joining the Crusade. Hence, the first Crusade was essentially a massive group of criminals seeking relief from their past and fortunes for their future - via pillaging, and so on.

If you add religious propaganda to that, it's a very powerful motivator.

[xNTP]

Lastest thoughts:

1. compared to america and the middle east, europe is extremely secular today.

2. just a few hundred years ago, europe was awash in religious fervor

3. contrast modern europe to the crusades, when hundreds of thousands- possibly millions- poor christian zealots ("peasants crusade" led by Peter the Hermit) died while on their way to (or in) the holy land (jerusalem). Treasure-seeking knights and lords also perished, but not in nearly the same number as those who went recklessly for salvation (see Edward Peters, "the first crusade") This is significant, b/c there weren't too many people to begin w/ back then.

4. in the middle east (during the crusades), there was a drafted army - "religious" people were just as likely to die as "secular" people.

5. Scientists have isolated a gene "responsible" for one's succeptiblity to religious idealism. (am trying to find link right now)

conclusion: the crusades had the effect of "weeding out" a tremendous number of religous zealots, thus paving the way for a more secular, englightened europe.
I don't know enought about the middle east to draw conclusions there--but I DO know that they drafted their army (random selection would null darwinian secularization).

question: do you thing this is to far-fetched? Or does it have some merit? why?

I don't think the genetic component is really significant. One, I don't think we really understand genetics to say what a "religious fervor" gene is, and how it works. Two, even without genetics, you still weed out zealots and fanatics.

The second point is that I would be cautious of calling anything more enlightened than anything else. I know what you mean by this, and I know what I'm saying is also controversial, but personally, I would avoid value judgments in scientific discussion. It makes perfect sense without this part.

Neither of those are really attacks on your observation, though, which seems pretty sound and straightforward, as far as I can tell.

[LongSilence]

Yes, and the first Crusade - 1099, if I remember correctly - was organized by the Pope/Catholic Church, for the reasons you mentioned, and was made up of people that were given amnesty for their crimes, debts, etc., as payment for joining the Crusade. Hence, the first Crusade was essentially a massive group of criminals seeking relief from their past and fortunes for their future - via pillaging, and so on.

If you add religious propaganda to that, it's a very powerful motivator.

well, that might be exaggerating it ever so slightly. It's not like the Europeans opened up all their prisons and let the criminals go. Going on Crusade would get you a sort of absolute forgiveness of sins but wouldn't do all that much for you in a legal court. The largest contingents were made up by enterprising noblemen who would go to get away from being taxed [especially to be exempt from the hefty "crusade taxes" newly implemented] bringing with them their retinues. The lower classes might be more attracted by the idea of a 'guaranteed pass into Heaven' but in the end not everyone who wished to go could just up and leave. Funding [and even surviving] the journey there was a very strenuous task.

And thats not even going into the tremendous feats of perseverance and religious devotion that the participants of the successful First Crusade displayed.

[hereandnow]

I don't think the genetic component is really significant. One, I don't think we really understand genetics to say what a "religious fervor" gene is, and how it works. Two, even without genetics, you still weed out zealots and fanatics.

The second point is that I would be cautious of calling anything more enlightened than anything else. I know what you mean by this, and I know what I'm saying is also controversial, but personally, I would avoid value judgments in scientific discussion. It makes perfect sense without this part.

Neither of those are really attacks on your observation, though, which seems pretty sound and straightforward, as far as I can tell.

We don't know but we can postulate and if you've read any of the material it's an intriguing possibility. Obviously much more work has to be done to confirm or to discard the idea. Recall that it was unthinkable that humanity could split an atom or that a heart/lung transplant could actually occur. We now know a great deal more than we used to know. The problem here, imo, has less to do with science and more to do with a sense of respect that religion has been afforded without reciprocity. Science wants to inquire about religion and for some this is a subject best left alone. It won't be left alone any longer.

Pooja: great thread!

[HilbertSpace]

I'm working on a similar idea for a paper right now, so I wanted to make a couple of observations.

I think that the genetic component is a good intuition, but that it won't end up holding water. There's a very strong possibility that religion does indeed have a physiological component for at least some people (see, for instance, Ramachandran's work in disorders like temporal lobe epilepsy), which might have a genetic basis, and it may be that this sort of thing exists on a continuum (i.e., has sort of a bell curve distribution, which would be appropriate for a complex trait).

However, I believe that humans in particular (and other animals, but to a lesser extent) have behavior that is determined, or at least constrained, by conceptual as well as genetic structure. The conceptual structure can also act as a sort of handle (that is, give rise to a behavior we might classify as a phenotype) for selection to act upon, and so we would expect to see the same sorts of dynamics in beliefs at the cultural/social level that we see in genes at the population level. Dawkins, for example, believes that religion propagates like a virus - compromising the fitness of its host in order to ensure its own survival and spread. I think this is an overly negative view, but at the same time I think it's at least partly correct, and that it shows how ideas can be thought of in terms of an evolutionary framework.

One thing that I think your model needs to incorporate when comparing Europe to the US is the political history. In European nations, religions have had historically strong ties to governments - entire nations were (and to some extent still are) associated with one sect of Christianity or another. The political history of Europe has, in the general case, been less stable than that of the US, especially for the larger/more powerful nations (with the transition from monarchical to constitutional systems), and so the religions, which had tied themselves to the monarchical governments, were also dealt a blow. This is especially the case when the post-monarchical governments were explicitly secular.

In addition, you also had the rise of communist/fascist governments in Europe, which have many of the dogmatic/messianic properties of Christianity/Islam. If there is something in human psychological or physiological makeup or social structure that makes people susceptible to this sort of belief system, it is entirely possible that what appears to be secularization is actually more like conversion. One possible indicator of this dynamic is the active suppression of religious infrastructure.

Finally, I would suggest to you (or anyone seriously working on these questions scientifically rather than simply crafting polemics) to take a descriptive rather than a normative approach. If nothing else, religions serve as a vector for the transmission of normative ideologies which change over time. Even if the goal is to decouple the systems, it is our obligation to first understand, and then possibly make recommendations. To go into a study believing that religion is something that is being evolved away from is to draw your conclusion prior to gathering and analyzing the data, and to fall into the same trap that I believe Dawkins finds himself in.

Like I mentioned, I'm working with some similar ideas for a paper of my own, and I can try to update you as I progress, if you're interested.

[hereandnow]

Like I mentioned, I'm working with some similar ideas for a paper of my own, and I can try to update you as I progress, if you're interested.

Keep me posted HS.

[Dr. Haight]

well, that might be exaggerating it ever so slightly. It's not like the Europeans opened up all their prisons and let the criminals go. I didn't say they did. But thanks for the clarification.

[Kami]

conclusion: the crusades had the effect of "weeding out" a tremendous number of religous zealots, thus paving the way for a more secular, englightened europe.
I don't know enought about the middle east to draw conclusions there--but I DO know that they drafted their army (random selection would null darwinian secularization).
America was colonized after the crusades, thus one would think America should have less religious zealots, right? I know that it was founded by the Puritans, but those were a tiny minority compared to all the colonists and immigrants of all colors who came here.

Not all of Europe is so secular. Look at Eastern Europe - after half a century of atheistic socialism, the people have decided to make up for it with intense religious revival - this applies to both Catholic and Orthodox nations. It's not as bad as in Middle East, but still.

Finally, I very much doubt that there is any gene responsible for religious idealism.

[Theodoret]

Problem with this theory is that there was rather a lot of religious-motivated strife in Europe long after the Crusades. For example:

The Reconquista
The Expulsion of the Moors
The French Wars of Religion
The Anglo-Spanish Wars
The revolt of the Spanish Netherlands
The overthrow of Mary Queen of Scots by the Presbytarians.
Calvin in Geneva
The Hussite revolt
The witch-hunts of the 17th century
The English Civil War (although actually spread to include Scotland and Ireland)
The Thirty Years War
The English 'Glorious Revolution' overthrowing the Catholic James II

I'm sure there are others that I've missed out. I was reading a book about the founding of the Natural History Museum in London the other day, and there were many political and scientific wrangles even then that were highly religious in character. For example Richard Owen, along with a Church of England bishop humiliated and effectively expelled a Scottish scientist from London academia because he was a Lamarckian (supported an early theory of evolution). That was in the mid Nineteenth Century.

[Larkin]

Then as today, The religous zealots do all the saber rattling, but the ones doing the fighting are the ones that just need a job.

The secular europe of today is a europe that has finally come to its sences.

the US has a ways to go yet.

To Pooja,
I suggest you get a copy of "World lit by fire" by william manchester. (Printed 20 years ago and still in print) Books on medieval history can be incredibly boring but this one is very interesting. it overlooks the lives of the aristocracy and focuses on the peasent class. They were the ones subject to the whims of the church and rulers.
during these years europe was beset with annual famines and people kept a close eye on their children not because they would be molested, but because they might be kidnapped and eatened. you could see where the fable of Hansel and Gretal might have come from.

[LongSilence]

How'd it go in the end pooja?

[Pooja]

How'd it go in the end pooja?

How'd it go? I don't know. I had no plans to right a paper on this- it was just a theory I had in a moment of madness. I guess if thoroughly analyzed (in a way only INTx's can :wub: ), it seems a bit shoddy. Ah well... [insert witty and appropriate quote in latin].

[Toonia]

like bill maher said, "too many people die defending the first fairy tale they learned. Wait, did I say too many? I meant not enough."

(I totally paraphrased that, and probably botched it)Here's a really wacky idea... Maybe we shouldn't want everyone dead who thinks differently than we do. Whoa! I don't think that's been done before.

[Jennywocky]

Here's a really wacky idea... Maybe we shouldn't want everyone dead who thinks differently than we do. Whoa! I don't think that's been done before.

You'll think differently once they set your house aflame. (mua ha ha)

[Toonia]

You'll think differently once they set your house aflame. (mua ha ha)Admittedly snarky of me, I admit. I just get really tired of the attitude of some 'atheists' that they are a higher life form or something when in reality they are just self-righteous, irrational pricks like the rest of us bottom-feeders. Seriously. Ideas can be better w/o the individuals holding the ideas being superior. Wishing people dead reveals the superiority complex that is not about the ideas. People generally have blind spots. They are rational in certain ways, but are seriously short-circuited in other ways. I'm guessing Bill Maher and even dear old Darwin had their moments of stupid, and vigilante crusader had moments of important insights.

[Lurker]

Toonia gets tough. :p

[LongSilence]

Hey, it just proves that they themselves have their own intrinsic longing to bolster their own view of the world and the beliefs they attach to it by suggesting, if not outrightly shouting, that how other people see the world is less right, if not completely wrong [or simple-minded, stupid, sheepish, intolerant, inconsiderate etc]. Thus they end up behaving, and possibly 'being', just like the people they believe they are fighting against. This is most particularly shown when they argue that the more moderate and tolerant deists and theists are worse than the fanatics because they don't 'truly believe' in what their religions are saying. This proves, as ever, that if man can find a way to be hypocritical, he will walk backwards along it.

And pooja, I just assumed you might be thinking of writing a paper on it since the OP was worded similar to that other thread you made about a paper you were actually writing. However, It was a nice interesting thought, but probably best you didn't write this one ;).

[joft]

i'm sure the bill mahr crack was just a joke, and i don't see why anyone is taking offense at it or at this thread. first, a theory saying that genetic propensity for religion was selected against by religious wars isn't making any normative judgments in itself.

second, even if the belief that atheism is superior is inferred by people reading the post because they know Pooja's an atheist, that doesn't equate atheists to all other people who believe their worldviews are "more correct." it's not impossible for it to be the case that atheism actually IS more correct. nor is it difficult to look at the cumulative effects of religion for mankind and compare it to the cumulative effects of atheism (and don't give me that Hitler, Mao, Stalin bullshit- the fact that any of them might have been atheists is a non-sequiter)

moreover, it's hypocritical to suggest one shouldn't consider ones own beliefs to be superior, because everyone considers their own beliefs superior in some way (otherwise they would have different beliefs), including the person making the suggestion. "moderates" or agnostics or whatever are just passive aggressive about it. "oh no I don't think my beliefs are superior, they're just my little old humble ideas and they're probably wrong anyway... i just hope whoever is right in the end won't hold it against me for being honest and admitting i don't have the answers..."

[hereandnow]

I just get really tired of the attitude of some 'atheists' that they are a higher life form or something when in reality they are just self-righteous, irrational pricks like the rest of us bottom-feeders.

Please explain how an atheist is irrational. If by atheist you mean someone who looks at the current data and concludes that there is no way to prove the existence of God. Further, if you believe the opposite, could you cite something other than "faith" as the reason so that we may then discuss the rationality of religion as it relates to the term rational.

[Toonia]

Please explain how an atheist is irrational. If by atheist you mean someone who looks at the current data and concludes that there is no way to prove the existence of God. Further, if you believe the opposite, could you cite something other than "faith" as the reason so that we may then discuss the rationality of religion as it relates to the term rational.Atheists are irrational when they throw temper tantrums, or when they make destructive choices just like everyone else. There are also irrationalities embedded into many 'rational' systems of thought. They are not more rational in every way from someone who is not an atheist. The attitude of throwing out an entire person because they hold an irrational belief is narrow minded. I'm only addressing the superiority complex issue, not the ideas. Can you see that distinction?

And of course the Bill Maher thing was a joke. He is all about entertainment and sensationalism.

[hereandnow]

Atheists are irrational when they throw temper tantrums, or when they make destructive choices just like everyone else. There are also irrationalities embedded into many 'rational' systems of thought. They are not more rational in every way from someone who is not an atheist. The attitude of throwing out an entire person because they hold an irrational belief is narrow minded. I'm only addressing the superiority complex issue, not the ideas. Can you see that distinction?

And of course the Bill Maher thing was a joke. He is all about entertainment and sensationalism.

Understood.

[Jennywocky]

And of course the Bill Maher thing was a joke. He is all about entertainment and sensationalism.

No, Toonia, you're SO wrong -- he's just as real as Rush Limbaugh and Bill O' Reilly! :mad:

[demagogic_schizoid]

nor is it difficult to look at the cumulative effects of religion for mankind and compare it to the cumulative effects of atheism (and don't give me that Hitler, Mao, Stalin bullshit- the fact that any of them might have been atheists is a non-sequiter)

athiest commits a murder - his athiesm is irrelevant

religious person commits a murder - blame it on religion

[hereandnow]

athiest commits a murder - his athiesm is irrelevant

religious person commits a murder - blame it on religion

Religious person commits murder - blame it on the person

Atheist commits mureder - blame it on the person

[ajblaise]

athiest commits a murder - his athiesm is irrelevant

religious person commits a murder - blame it on religion

an atheist rarely commits murder because of his atheism, while a religious person who commits murder is more likely to do so because of his/her religion, or with religion having to do with the act.

just look at history.

[Toonia]

an atheist rarely commits murder because of his atheism, while a religious person who commits murder is more likely to do so because of his/her religion, or with religion having to do with the act.

just look at history.People commit murder to obtain power. The pretext is merely packaging for the same instinctual drive.

Couple of questions.
1. How does the fact that humans first developed the capability to destroy the planet during a time when many ideologies were turning towards atheism? The Cold War further developed this in its entirely political standoff involving an atheistic country. I'm not suggesting there is a relationship to atheism and destruction, but use the example to show it is not solely the domain of religious thinking. Personally I'll take a few maniacs with swords over annihilation of the species.

2. Since humans developed capabilities to avoid predators, isn't there an instinctual imperative to create imaginary predators to control population sizes? Religion evolved in the first place for a reason. It appears to have provided advantages or it would never have come into existence in the first place. What are the advantages of the natural evolution of religion and what will happen if and when that is removed?

[demagogic_schizoid]

an atheist rarely commits murder because of his atheism, while a religious person who commits murder is more likely to do so because of his/her religion, or with religion having to do with the act.

just look at history.

So when you kill people for a belief which incorporates athiesm, it's because of the specific belief, not the athiesm?

But when you kill people for a belief which incorporates religion, it's because of religion itself and not just the specific beliefs?

seems like double standards to me aj.

[HilbertSpace]

1. How does the fact that humans first developed the capability to destroy the planet during a time when many ideologies were turning towards atheism? The Cold War further developed this in its entirely political standoff involving an atheistic country. I'm not suggesting there is a relationship to atheism and destruction, but use the example to show it is not solely the domain of religious thinking. Personally I'll take a few maniacs with swords over annihilation of the species.


Both are the product of scientific and technological advances, I would say. There's a very famous quote to the effect that science didn't make the belief in God impossible, but that it made disbelief possible.



2. Since humans developed capabilities to avoid predators, isn't there an instinctual imperative to create imaginary predators to control population sizes? Religion evolved in the first place for a reason. It appears to have provided advantages or it would never have come into existence in the first place. What are the advantages of the natural evolution of religion and what will happen if and when that is removed?

This is a topic under investigation right now. I wouldn't automatically assume that religion exists because of a selective value for humanity - that's putting the conclusion before the study. I suspect that there is (or was historically) selective value in certain aspects of religion, but a counter-argument exists saying that religion can be self-perpetuating. This is not entirely outside the realm of consideration because it's certainly possible that at least extreme forms of religious phenomena (anything from suicide attacks to monastic or otherwise chaste lifestyles) must compromise the reproductive success of the individual adherents. A counter-counter argument can be made if you can prove some kind of group selection, maybe, but this is why research needs to be done.

[HilbertSpace]

So when you kill people for a belief which incorporates athiesm, it's because of the specific belief, not the athiesm?

But when you kill people for a belief which incorporates religion, it's because of religion itself and not just the specific beliefs?

seems like double standards to me aj.

I don't think I would blame it on atheism, or on religion per se. However, I do think that there is something in the fact that we do not generally see Tibetan Buddhists blowing themselves up on school buses.

So maybe not necessarily religion treated in the broadest sense, but I don't think it's intellectually dishonest to speculate that some aspects of some belief systems are used to justify violence.

[ajblaise]

People commit murder to obtain power. The pretext is merely packaging for the same instinctual drive.

Couple of questions.
1. How does the fact that humans first developed the capability to destroy the planet during a time when many ideologies were turning towards atheism? The Cold War further developed this in its entirely political standoff involving an atheistic country. I'm not suggesting there is a relationship to atheism and destruction, but use the example to show it is not solely the domain of religious thinking. Personally I'll take a few maniacs with swords over annihilation of the species.

2. Since humans developed capabilities to avoid predators, isn't there an instinctual imperative to create imaginary predators to control population sizes? Religion evolved in the first place for a reason. It appears to have provided advantages or it would never have come into existence in the first place. What are the advantages of the natural evolution of religion and what will happen if and when that is removed?

1. There were atheist-dominated countries that have been very violent, but it looks like this had to do more with nationalism and militarism, not atheism itself.

2. Cancer, aids, retardation...none of these provide advantages, yet all are in existence. but religion does provide advantages...in the large scale mostly for elites throughout history that wanted to have more control over the masses.

[ajblaise]

So when you kill people for a belief which incorporates athiesm, it's because of the specific belief, not the athiesm?

But when you kill people for a belief which incorporates religion, it's because of religion itself and not just the specific beliefs?

seems like double standards to me aj.

no and no, although i don't like how you worded those questions.

i'm just saying that religion has been a motivating factor in a lot more deaths than atheism has, and if an atheist kills someone, he's more likely than a religious person to have not killed because of his atheism. surely you will agree with this. right?

and, what is a belief that incorporates atheism?? name a few.

[Toonia]

This is a topic under investigation right now. I wouldn't automatically assume that religion exists because of a selective value for humanity - that's putting the conclusion before the study...That makes sense. Religious belief is so varied, complex, and persistent that it seems overly simplistic to dismiss it all in one fell swoop.


and, what is a belief that incorporates atheism?? name a few.Nihilism? I guess what I wonder is this: what is a reason an atheist would not support killing people who hold a religious belief? If that never has and never could happen, why not? Without accountability to something beyond humanity, a belief that religious thinking is the scourge of the earth, wouldn't it be logical to support destroying religious people? What is the reasoning that would support valuing life regardless of belief, from an atheist perspective?

There are atheist based countries who have concluded on killing theists. Is this simply nationalism and unrelated to atheism when it was the act of believing in a deity or gathering for worship that was punishable by death? Could someone explain why that is being dismissed?

[demagogic_schizoid]

I don't think I would blame it on atheism, or on religion per se. However, I do think that there is something in the fact that we do not generally see Tibetan Buddhists blowing themselves up on school buses.

So maybe not necessarily religion treated in the broadest sense, but I don't think it's intellectually dishonest to speculate that some aspects of some belief systems are used to justify violence.

I don't disagree with any of this. Some religions, some ideologies, some economic systems, have caused more harm than others. However I wouldn't blame any single crime on an abstraction - there are indirect factors which contribute to making a society or an individual particularly predisposed to employing or accepting inhumane acts, yes...but unlike joft and ajblaise seem to be doing, I wouldn't personally blame any single crime on an abstraction (although I do acknowledge the need to take the context into account)....even one specifically motivated by hatred of religion such as Spanish communsts in the Civil War raping and killing nuns...it wasn't "athiesm" which made them do it, it was a specific ideology which motivated them, not athiesm as a whole, and within that it was only a specific interpretation of that ideology, and above and beyond that it was their own human flaws which led them to act this way and not any "belief" in itself; to blame a human crime on an abstraction such as athiesm or religion seems to be a simplification, and a path certain to lead to generalisations and lots of dead-ends...for example ajblaise says:



i'm just saying that religion has been a motivating factor in a lot more deaths than atheism has

Now, I'm going to play devils advocate, because like I say, I do not blame "athiesm" for a single death. But let's look at communism...more people have been killed in the name of this ideology than in the name of any other. So if I was acting as the "prosecution" here, I would say that communism as preached and practiced by the 20th centuries most efficient murderers was incompatible, by their own admission, with religion...it was (is) specifically athiest...therefore this ideology, as it did exist, could not have existed had its followers retained their faith in God...because one excludes the other...therefore the acceptance of Marxist communism, the variety which was the excuse for more of history murders than any other, was dependent on the acceptence of athiesm, it was specifically athiest in its aims...now if I was the prosecutor playing you, ajblaise, at your own game, I would argue that this is proof that athiesm is bad for hmanity - after all if you say that killing people in the name of one religion besmirches the concept of religiopn itself, then surely killing people in the name of one belief with athiesm at its core besmirches athiesm as a whole.

But of course I would not argue this, because the trouble with using history as "proof" is that it only proves itself, it doesn't answer any "what ifs"...what if those communist murderers had retained their faith...would they have killed less people? I can't prove this...I can't even suggest it...perhaps Stalin could have easily, in a parallel universe, adapted his murderous impulses to a theistic ideology...or perhaps it was ideology, and specifically athiest communism, which turned him into a murderer...I don't pretend to have the answers to these questions...it's beside my point here anyway.

So you see you can't expect me to believe that these murders inspired by particular religious beliefs were not simply the actions of perverted minds or ideologies which were destined to pervert any belief they apropriated, and could just have easily adapted to an athiest framework....once again ajblaise you confuse correlation with causality and present it as proof.

[ajblaise]

I don't disagree with any of this. Some religions, some ideologies, some economic systems, have caused more harm than others. However I wouldn't blame any single crime on an abstraction - there are indirect factors which contribute to making a society or an individual particularly predisposed to employing or accepting inhumane acts, yes...but unlike joft and ajblaise seem to be doing, I wouldn't personally blame any single crime on an abstraction (although I do acknowledge the need to take the context into account)....even one specifically motivated by hatred of religion such as Spanish communsts in the Civil War raping and killing nuns...it wasn't "athiesm" which made them do it, it was a specific ideology which motivated them, not athiesm as a whole, and within that it was only a specific interpretation of that ideology, and above and beyond that it was their own human flaws which led them to act this way and not any "belief" in itself; to blame a human crime on an abstraction such as athiesm or religion seems to be a simplification, and a path certain to lead to generalisations and lots of dead-ends...for example ajblaise says:




Now, I'm going to play devils advocate, because like I say, I do not blame "athiesm" for a single death. But let's look at communism...more people have been killed in the name of this ideology than in the name of any other. So if I was acting as the "prosecution" here, I would say that communism as preached and practiced by the 20th centuries most efficient murderers was incompatible, by their own admission, with religion...it was (is) specifically athiest...therefore this ideology, as it did exist, could not have existed had its followers retained their faith in God...because one excludes the other...therefore the acceptance of Marxist communism, the variety which was the excuse for more of history murders than any other, was dependent on the acceptence of athiesm, it was specifically athiest in its aims...now if I was the prosecutor playing you, ajblaise, at your own game, I would argue that this is proof that athiesm is bad for hmanity - after all if you say that killing people in the name of one religion besmirches the concept of religiopn itself, then surely killing people in the name of one belief with athiesm at its core besmirches athiesm as a whole.

But of course I would not argue this, because the trouble with using history as "proof" is that it only proves itself, it doesn't answer any "what ifs"...what if those communist murderers had retained their faith...would they have killed less people? I can't prove this...I can't even suggest it...perhaps Stalin could have easily, in a parallel universe, adapted his murderous impulses to a theistic ideology...or perhaps it was ideology, and specifically athiest communism, which turned him into a murderer...I don't pretend to have the answers to these questions...it's beside my point here anyway.

So you see you can't expect me to believe that these murders inspired by particular religious beliefs were not simply the actions of perverted minds or ideologies which were destined to pervert any belief they apropriated, and could just have easily adapted to an athiest framework....once again ajblaise you confuse correlation with causality and present it as proof.

alright i'm going to try and make this really simple:

the 72 virgins you get in muslim heaven, that one piece of scripture probably motivated several people to blow themselves up. do you disagree?

or in the old testament where it says to kill homosexuals, that piece of scripture probably motivated several people to go out and kill homosexuals who wouldn't have done it otherwise. disagree?

now that is more than correlation, that's causation, or at least partial causation.


there is no crazy scripture or bible that goes along with atheism, it just means you don't believe in god. so you can't really attach any killings with atheism itself, unlike many of the major religions.

[ajblaise]

That makes sense. Religious belief is so varied, complex, and persistent that it seems overly simplistic to dismiss it all in one fell swoop.

Nihilism? I guess what I wonder is this: what is a reason an atheist would not support killing people who hold a religious belief? If that never has and never could happen, why not? Without accountability to something beyond humanity, a belief that religious thinking is the scourge of the earth, wouldn't it be logical to support destroying religious people? What is the reasoning that would support valuing life regardless of belief, from an atheist perspective?

There are atheist based countries who have concluded on killing theists. Is this simply nationalism and unrelated to atheism when it was the act of believing in a deity or gathering for worship that was punishable by death? Could someone explain why that is being dismissed?

atheism simply means a lack of belief in god. you can't directly attach any act of violence to it.

but christianity and islam instruct people to behave violently in many situations, so i can attach many acts of violence to it.

take the witch hunts, if the bible never talked of witches, they wouldn't have been killed.

[Pooja]

alright i'm going to try and make this really simple:

the 72 virgins you get in muslim heaven, that one piece of scripture probably motivated several people to blow themselves up. do you disagree?

.

If I were a contemporary of Mohammed's, I'd have jumped on that reliogion-starting wagon, and made my own religion that has 73 virgins. And I'd advertise... what do you think about "billboards" on the sides of desert caravans?
Also, why did Mo choose 72 as the number of virgins to have in heaven? Why not a trillion? Or at least a hundred... And why virgins? Wouldn't he have gotten better results if he mixed it up a bit? Like, throw in a couple milfs or trannies to spice it up. Silly Mo...

note: If I stop posting now, it's b/c I was blown up

[ajblaise]

And why virgins?

why not virgins? although they wouldn't be virgins for long, so 72 definitely isn't enough.

[Toonia]

atheism simply means a lack of belief in god. you can't directly attach any act of violence to it.So are you saying that you can't attach any act to it whether violent or benevolent? Or are you saying that specifically violence cannot be connected to an absence of belief in a god?

[ajblaise]

So are you saying that you can't attach any act to it whether violent or benevolent? Or are you saying that specifically violence cannot be connected to an absence of belief in a god?

well i've never heard a killer say he did what he did because he doesn't believe in god, but i'm sure it could happen.

and i'm sure not believing in god could be a small factor in deciding to kill.

so yes i do think you can sometimes connect atheism to violence, just 10000x less so than connecting a specific religion to violence.

[Toonia]

well i've never heard a killer say he did what he did because he doesn't believe in god, but i'm sure it could happen.

and i'm sure not believing in god could be a small factor in deciding to kill.

so yes i do think you can sometimes connect atheism to violence, just 10000x less so than connecting a specific religion to violence.What confuses me about this topic is that there are so many statements in religious texts that say things to the effect... Love your enemies, do good to those who spitefully use you, etc. What happens so often with religions is that there is a seer who is an advocate for greater peace and harmony than exists in the concrete world at the time they live, people follow the seer, then eventually distort and mold their teaching to fit back into the context of primal conflicts and domination. There is a theory that wars throughout history are actually fought over the acquisition of energy sources.

Even in the Middle East where we have the prime example of violence connected to religion, consider the tribal history and that the conflict is, underneath it all, a fight over territory. Religion is used as a pretext to define one's 'right' to the territory. Allah as the all-powerful advocate, is a weapon in the arsenal of domination. People use god for their purposes, not the other way around. In most (if not all) instances of religion tied to violence, god is simply a way of exaggerating personal power and rights. I am suspecting that there are other means by which personal power can be exaggerated, but religion has placed large numbers of people on the same page so to speak and so has been effective.

Question: Do you hold the position that if religion were removed from the Middle East that the violence would cease? Or lessen? Either way I suppose it is a theory that cannot be tested. Is religion the driving force behind or a convenient packaging for violence?

[demagogic_schizoid]

atheism simply means a lack of belief in god. you can't directly attach any act of violence to it.

but christianity and islam instruct people to behave violently in many situations, so i can attach many acts of violence to it.

take the witch hunts, if the bible never talked of witches, they wouldn't have been killed.

When the Bible talked about witch-craft it was referring to pagan beliefs, which obviously, as Christianity was a conquering religion in Europe, it feared. So we have one group, identifying itself with certain ethnic groups, trying to wipe out another. one belief representing specific groups trying to wipe out another. This can happen without religion. Just because religion happened to be the dominant way of explaining the world at the time doesn't mean you can lay these crimes at the door of religion itself. The ideology which has inspired more murders than any other for these very reasons described above is communism, or Marxist-leninism and Maoism perhaps. These ideologies were specifically athiest. You could argue that the belief that heaven can be created on earth, that the only God is humanity, which goes against the teachings of the 3 big western religions, is directly tied to athiesm, and that this belief inspired both Nazism and Communism, the past centuries two biggest killers.

So yes, if you want to blame certain crimes on "religion" as a whole, then you can blame other "crimes" on athiesm as a whole.

[Lateralus]

the 72 virgins you get in muslim heaven, that one piece of scripture probably motivated several people to blow themselves up. do you disagree?
Show me the scripture, please.

[LongSilence]

second, even if the belief that atheism is superior is inferred by people reading the post because they know Pooja's an atheist, that doesn't equate atheists to all other people who believe their worldviews are "more correct." it's not impossible for it to be the case that atheism actually IS more correct. nor is it difficult to look at the cumulative effects of religion for mankind and compare it to the cumulative effects of atheism (and don't give me that Hitler, Mao, Stalin bullshit- the fact that any of them might have been atheists is a non-sequiter)

Relax, my point was really being addressed towards pooja: it was more related to what toonia had just been talking about. Now, here's a few points for you- No, it's not impossible that atheism is actually more correct. Did i ever say it wasn't? However... since you felt the need to say that it'd be pretty fair if you follow it up by saying precisely the opposite. Moreover, the question of whether Hitler, Mao, and Stalin were atheists is rather irrelevant, yes, but the fact their regimes were constructed so isn't. Their absolutist regimes would not tolerate the potential for dispute that religions may have offered. Throughout history the religious have been some of the most powerful and effective enemies of absolutist governments, when of course those governments haven't been ruled predominantly by the Church themselve.s



moreover, it's hypocritical to suggest one shouldn't consider ones own beliefs to be superior, because everyone considers their own beliefs superior in some way (otherwise they would have different beliefs), including the person making the suggestion. "moderates" or agnostics or whatever are just passive aggressive about it. "oh no I don't think my beliefs are superior, they're just my little old humble ideas and they're probably wrong anyway... i just hope whoever is right in the end won't hold it against me for being honest and admitting i don't have the answers..."

Ok, I said, or at least meant, nothing what you construed. I was talking about people's attitudes towards others with alternative beliefs. Of course everyone thinks their beliefs are better but it doesn't mean they have to believe everyone else should automatically start adopting them too. Issues arise when someone get it into his head that the world would be a better place if everyone dropped their own beliefs and began accepting his... And he starts to get actively aggressive about it.

[Toonia]

Ok, I said, or at least meant, nothing what you construed. I was talking about people's attitudes towards others with alternative beliefs. Of course everyone thinks their beliefs are better but it doesn't mean they have to believe everyone else should automatically start adopting them too. Issues arise when someone get it into his head that the world would be a better place if everyone dropped their own beliefs and began accepting his... And he starts to get actively aggressive about it.Atheism as an absence of belief in god is different from atheism as a reaction against theism. There are many ways the two intersect but the difference is seen in the way the it is oriented towards theism. When atheism (like certain aspects of the 'new atheism') parallels theism in its sociological role of unifying thinking through tactics that do not appeal to reason, then it is a different critter altogether. I suppose one could argue that old habits die hard, so that theism is at first the necessary model for atheism in sociological contexts? Or is it that the sociological drives are based on instincts and motivations that run deeper than religion or atheism?

[Mr. Beef]

Lastest thoughts:

1. compared to america and the middle east, europe is extremely secular today.

2. just a few hundred years ago, europe was awash in religious fervor

3. contrast modern europe to the crusades, when hundreds of thousands- possibly millions- poor christian zealots ("peasants crusade" led by Peter the Hermit) died while on their way to (or in) the holy land (jerusalem). Treasure-seeking knights and lords also perished, but not in nearly the same number as those who went recklessly for salvation (see Edward Peters, "the first crusade") This is significant, b/c there weren't too many people to begin w/ back then.

4. in the middle east (during the crusades), there was a drafted army - "religious" people were just as likely to die as "secular" people.

5. Scientists have isolated a gene "responsible" for one's succeptiblity to religious idealism. (am trying to find link right now)

conclusion: the crusades had the effect of "weeding out" a tremendous number of religous zealots, thus paving the way for a more secular, englightened europe.
I don't know enought about the middle east to draw conclusions there--but I DO know that they drafted their army (random selection would null darwinian secularization).

question: do you thing this is to far-fetched? Or does it have some merit? why?


Here is probably the biggest flaw I see in this theory: Some of the highest percentages of nonreligious population in Europe are in countries that did not participate in the crusades. Countries like Sweden, Estonia, Czech Republic, Finland, Germany, Netherlands have very low religious percentages. Even though France and England do as well, the fact that these other surrounding countries that did not participate in the crusades are largely nonreligious makes me very skeptical that the crusades had a significant role in this. It appears as though there is some other underlying cause that is killing religion in several neighboring countries in Central and Northern Europe. Also, the crusades occurred around 800 years ago, yet religion persisted just as strongly in Europe up until 100 years ago or so. I don't have the statistics to back it up, but I seriously doubt that there was much change in percentage of religious vs. nonreligious people in Europe during that 700 year period. Atheism and agnosticism are a relatively recent idea. If they had a significant genetic basis in Europe, as you claim, they would have appeared only a generation or two after the crusades. Also, I don't know how well the supposed gene correlates with religiosity, or the number of casualties incurred in the crusades, but I highly doubt that these would account for a significant number of the percentage of nonreligious people in Europe today. I think that if anything this increase in agnosticism/atheism is due to the freedom of thought allowed in some European countries. Also, the US might be following Europe: http://humaniststudies.org/enews/?id=281&article=0. I think it's a trend among more developed and liberal nations, basically. Not some byproduct of a series of small wars that happened several hundred years ago.

[LongSilence]

One significant issue is the sheer number of sizeable obstacles in place that prevent any such discussion really getting down to having two people really answering the base question of "How do you see Humanity and the world he lives in?". More often than not people discussing this aspect of 'philosophy' [even mentioning the word religion can start it in an entirely different direction] will be talking or at least thinking about different things, purely because there are so very many issues that can automatically come into play. In my ideal discussion both parties would begin laying down what they think about the concept of 'Order' in the Universe and what mental resources and knowledge they draw on when they relate the concept to questions like "Why do things so 'connected'?", "Why should Life exist?" and "What 'thoughts', if any, do you think an 'entity' might have if stripped of all of its preconceptions and internal desires?".

As far as I can personally imagine many people will largely ignore such questions and fall back on good, simple answers like 'things are as they are' or 'they were made as they are'. As it is, the questions don't necessarily relate to our own existences at all. But for others the questions might linger. And they might easily relate the answers to our own existences too. We, as creatures, can notice that there are things without life, there are things with life and there are us who appear to be things with both life and awareness of our own 'being alive'. It takes only simple conjecture to propose that their might be some thing that is, according to our own definitions, both not alive and also aware. Or perhaps there is just some 'entity' out there that has more knowledge or perception of the connections between 'things' in the universe than we have, just as we seem to have more perception than the animals.

This is some of the thinking that religion, at its core, proposes. Of course, this thinking can be undoubtedly countered by a more scientific approach that attaches our perception of our own awareness with our particular possession of electrically-charged brain matter and that is very unwilling to assume of other variations that do not possess such matter. In my mind, this is what 'Atheism' as an absence of belief in god should concern itself with. Once we have dealt with such questions and any ensuing discussion that entailed we can certainly move onto Religion's progression from its use as a philosophical tool to a often applied social one.

This is where 'atheism', as a reaction against theism, begins to make its say. After all, who could object to people merely philosophizing about existence [well, as long as they don't do it to death...]? We can start to talk about people with 'higher knowledge' offering up answers to others who wish to listen and how such people control the ways that people get together to participate in communal rituals and activities, not to mention how they behave in the rest of their lives. We can discuss the benefits of people getting together to celebrate the 'connectivity' of life and the harmony of people observing how things work best together in the world, and how mankind can appreciate, mimic or perhaps turn away from what he sees in nature. And then we'd get onto how it all relates to our complex modern system and how such mimicry or repression can be bad as well as good for contemporary people.

[ajblaise]

When the Bible talked about witch-craft it was referring to pagan beliefs, which obviously, as Christianity was a conquering religion in Europe, it feared. So we have one group, identifying itself with certain ethnic groups, trying to wipe out another. one belief representing specific groups trying to wipe out another. This can happen without religion. Just because religion happened to be the dominant way of explaining the world at the time doesn't mean you can lay these crimes at the door of religion itself. The ideology which has inspired more murders than any other for these very reasons described above is communism, or Marxist-leninism and Maoism perhaps. These ideologies were specifically athiest. You could argue that the belief that heaven can be created on earth, that the only God is humanity, which goes against the teachings of the 3 big western religions, is directly tied to athiesm, and that this belief inspired both Nazism and Communism, the past centuries two biggest killers.

So yes, if you want to blame certain crimes on "religion" as a whole, then you can blame other "crimes" on athiesm as a whole.

DS, you're really reachin. unlike the bible and koran, atheism doesn't preach violence. you can't really blame violence on atheism.

and those violent atheist nations, that's just correlation, i'd blame nationalism and militarism. but with religion, especially the ones that preach violence, that causation/partial causation.

and communism isn't even inherently atheistic, not that it matters. ever head of the christian communists/socialists?


here's a challenge. someone reads in the bible where it says to kill homos, they do it. now give me a similar situation where atheism causes people to kill.

[C.J.Woolf]

Here is probably the biggest flaw I see in this theory: Some of the highest percentages of nonreligious population in Europe are in countries that did not participate in the crusades. Countries like Sweden, Estonia, Czech Republic, Finland, Germany, Netherlands have very low religious percentages.
[OT] Interesting list, because none of those countries were part of the Roman Empire (except possibly the Netherlands and the Czech Republic), so Christianity came later to those countries. Is there more paganism left over in their cultures?

[ajblaise]

Question: Do you hold the position that if religion were removed from the Middle East that the violence would cease? Or lessen? Either way I suppose it is a theory that cannot be tested. Is religion the driving force behind or a convenient packaging for violence?

depends on how it's removed, but if the ME were to look more like secular turkey, that'd be great. however leaders would just use nationalism instead of religion to rile up the masses against israel and america. but losing religion would mean losing a valuable tool to get the masses to do what elites want.

[Stoned_Rider]

Wouldn't he have gotten better results if he mixed it up a bit? Like, throw in a couple milfs or trannies to spice it up. Silly Mo...

Well he did also include "young", "beautiful", and "pearl-like" boy-servants. :highfive:


Show me the scripture, please.
You would have to take it to the Islam/Middle-East subforum. Feel free to start a thread about it there.



Question: Do you hold the position that if religion were removed from the Middle East that the violence would cease? Or lessen? Either way I suppose it is a theory that cannot be tested. Is religion the driving force behind or a convenient packaging for violence?
For starters, Palestinian moms would not be so excited about sending their sons out to blow themselves up. People would not be travelling all the way to Iraq and Afghanistan, leaving everything behind, just to blow themselves up. Yes, I believe that violence would considerably lessen.

Anyway, the thing about atheism is that there is no holy scripture we can refer to. The average atheist lives by their own personal moral code and principles (if any), and accepts and assumes full responsibility for whichever acts they decide to commit. With religion it's an entirely different story.

[ajblaise]

Show me the scripture, please.

everyone knows about the 72 virgins thing, look it up yourself bro.

[Lateralus]

everyone knows about the 72 virgins thing, look it up yourself bro.
It's a simple request. There's a reason I'm asking for you to show me the scripture. When you try to find it, perhaps you'll begin to understand why.

[demagogic_schizoid]

here's a challenge. someone reads in the bible where it says to kill homos, they do it. now give me a similar situation where atheism causes people to kill.

I don't believe "athiesm" causes people to kill, I said that all along. I just don't agree that "religion" does either.

Also, if you read my post I had not denied that some socialists or communists can be religious, but Marxist-leninists, Maoists or Stalinists cannot, and Marxist-leninism,Maoism and Stalinism were the ideologies that inspired more murders in the world than any other. Now I ask you, when Spanish communists were raping nuns in the civil war, was this, by your criteria, not because of their atheism? I mean, they wouldn't have done it if they were religious would they? Yes, simply not believing in God doesn't turn you into a murderer, but then neither does believing in God. It depends how you interpret your specific set of beliefs.

[ajblaise]

I don't believe "athiesm" causes people to kill, I said that all along. I just don't agree that "religion" does either.

ok, so a person reads the OT where it says to kill homos, he then goes out and kills a homo.

that would be a case of a religion motivating or helping cause someone to kill. there's no way you can disagree with that...

[demagogic_schizoid]

ok, so a person reads the OT where it says to kill homos, he then goes out and kills a homo.

that would be a case of a religion motivating or helping cause someone to kill. there's no way you can disagree with that...

no, but your original post was:


an atheist rarely commits murder because of his atheism, while a religious person who commits murder is more likely to do so because of his/her religion, or with religion having to do with the act.

just look at history.

[ajblaise]

no

i'm glad you finally came around.

[Limey]

It's amazing to me just how much the mention of the crusades seems to come up lately, especially in relation to the fact that the US is currently fighting a war/Occupying a nation illegally after an illegal war, whatever you want to call it.
I can't recall spending more amount of time than the requisite half hour history lesson from high school even thinking about it.

It obviously really bothers eastern religion and mind set, especially of the Islamic faith.

I'm FROM England, where that sucker got rollin' and I have to say on behalf of my people that no-one gives a SHIT!
for the Most part, people there have abandoned religion altogether - fuck the census, everyone thinks they're Caucasian (or states they are) on those things anyway - Religion in the UK is pretty much represented by agnosticism these days.

And yes, the crusades were pretty retarded, but the debating point is, It certainly changed the present, didn't it surely prevent us all from speaking Mongolian, Mandarin, Persian? etc etc I could go on.

Wouldn't it be that these "crusades" (A terrorist action?) were the equivalent, modern day World war comment like, "well we'd all be speaking German, wearing ledehosen, eating sausages right now" comment?

All the more reason not to care about them, I say - we seem to have won, deal with it, I would say to anyone east of the Urals that obviously still has a chip on their shoulder about it.

Crusade deux "the return" ??
If necessary? FUCK YEAH - I'd send my son

Just because a current event illegal war (or was it? - was it a pre-emptive roughing up?) looks like a mistake or blunder - I wouldn't say that pretty much most of the people in western culture (Western Europe (or is that all of Europe now? (wink) (another debate) , North America, Australia South Africa etc believe that their way of life, is the truth and the correct way of life.

..Just because they feel that way, it doesn't mean that they will accept so much as a challenge to that way of life - and unfortunately, like tectonic plates these cultures will clash since, "challenge" is now interpreted by the "West" to mean anything or even anyone that rejects the export of that way of life. "Eat your fucking McDonalds, put on your Mickey hat and say cheese"

When we see these fundamentals challenged, it ultimately will lead to a full on clash when neither side will back down and conservatism (the true meaning, not the bullshit republican party version) pushes back against "cultural development" or what is perceived as westernization.

My conclusion:
The Crusades, any "war" since and the current conflicts can NEVER be signed off as a few religious zealots and some Darwinian "weeding out".

These Rivers run much deeper than some idiot groups man made god on either side. This is about self preservation. If my nation leads me to believe that your way of life threatens my way of life then you are my enemy. This, as Goerring pointed out in Nuremberg is the easy part,

"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

So, as we watch history repeat itself and the world spin gently out of time, isn't putting this down to religious extremism a little naive?

It's not for god/gods - that shit is for when you need an excuse, can't you see that? I thought this was the well accepted norm among the people that iNtuitively Think?
Why are we mixing religion with megalomaniacal world domination?
Focus on the religion? That's like the fifty foot view, the picture is much bigger than that, with a cast of billions and an unlimited budget and modern real life slaves to make it happen.

The worst part, (and this'll twist your noodle) we've done it several times already - they just had different and more grandiose names for it, and the victors varied by region, we're also long overdue for another one ! - it used to be perpendicular to epoch development, made a slingshot, discovered black poweder, dropped an Atom bomb on a city etc
but Now, we made "THE bomb" except that wasn't enough so we made them faster, smaller in size, bigger in power we put them on boats, planes submarines and in thr ground - now we're talking about advanced posion, plague, epedemic.
These things could make the gulf wars look like a tizzy at pre school in the sand box if shit really went down - there would be such massive power unleashed that half the planet could be dead within hours and the rest poisoned a few weeks later.

Religions and interpretations of the interpretations of man made gods come and go (Native American religion anyone? - shit we didn't even give that one a name!)
But this conflict has always been here, it's human nature, which trumps religion and flouts it's writings at the same time.

I guess you could say that I couldn't disagree more that the crusades were any different to anything that were done is being done or will be done by the "west" and not to be signed off as some historical religious retards who deserved a Darwin award for being fundies.

There is no right and wrong side, there is no black or white, logic gate IF or any such thing is this debate, there is the fact that this has happened before and will happen again, regardless of religion, whatever that means to the subjective audience you happen to be addressing.

[nom4d]

1. compared to america and the middle east, europe is extremely secular today.

2. just a few hundred years ago, europe was awash in religious fervor

3. contrast modern europe to the crusades, when hundreds of thousands- possibly millions- poor christian zealots ("peasants crusade" led by Peter the Hermit) died while on their way to (or in) the holy land (jerusalem). Treasure-seeking knights and lords also perished, but not in nearly the same number as those who went recklessly for salvation (see Edward Peters, "the first crusade") This is significant, b/c there weren't too many people to begin w/ back then.

4. in the middle east (during the crusades), there was a drafted army - "religious" people were just as likely to die as "secular" people.

5. Scientists have isolated a gene "responsible" for one's succeptiblity to religious idealism. (am trying to find link right now)

conclusion: the crusades had the effect of "weeding out" a tremendous number of religous zealots, thus paving the way for a more secular, englightened europe.
I don't know enought about the middle east to draw conclusions there--but I DO know that they drafted their army (random selection would null darwinian secularization).

question: do you thing this is to far-fetched? Or does it have some merit? why?






1. okay
2. okay
3. okay
4. okay - support link please? giving benefit of the doubt, not my area
5. so...? if you can provide the link that would be great. but I'm not sure what a gene for suceptability to religion does here. same effect of genes to lead and genes to follow

Conclusion: some merit, but there have been many good points raised about the validity of the concept of religion dying out in europe as a result of the crucsades since they were very religious up until lately. Also, how do you deal with the notion that the secular countries of europe (and areas of the US) have higher crime rates (violent and otherwise) IN GENERAL rather than the more religous areas of the country (bible belt, etc).


Zealotry takes many forms, not just religious. The big flaw here is that you are trying to create a direct link from religion to war. Okay, religion has been present in 100% of all wars. Either "my god ordered it" "my god is better than your god" "my god hates you" "my god hates your god" "help me my god" "hey god prove you are better than their god", etc. Okay. I can't argue. I would speculate that true atheists (absolutely no belief in the supernatural, afterlife, intelligent design, any notion of god, any notions of ethics (since they are taught by all religions I have ever heard of), etc) are extremly rare and could just as easily be considered zealots in their own right. Also, I would not underestimate the power of the huddled masses to be lead and directed by someone who is charismatic.

It breaks down because a) not all wars are fought for religious reason -- in fact, I was told by my history prof, my english prof, and my anthropology prof (on seperate occasions at 2 different schools) that all war ever really boils down to is food --- b) lets look at other factors present in all wars - weapons, people, orginization, leaders, money, food, water, land


You are trying to draw a direct link from A to Z without even considering all the other letters of the alphabet that had to come between to get there.

[Mr. Beef]

Interesting list, because none of those countries were part of the Roman Empire (except possibly the Netherlands and the Czech Republic), so Christianity came later to those countries. Is there more paganism left over in their cultures?


Scandinavian countries were less affected by the spread of Christianity. The lack of strongly established organized religion could be one reason why they are less religious today. But some of the other countries (Czech Republic and Estonia) were communist states for a while, and communist states are atheist. That's probably why there's a lack of religion there today.

[Pooja]

Scandinavian countries were less affected by the spread of Christianity. .

Sweden didn't even become "officially" christian until the 17th century, when it started fining people for [doing something strange to goats] performing a pagan ritual.

Denmark was the first scandinavian country to convert to christianity; most probably because of the geographical proximity it shares to the Lutheran-ized countires, and it's close relationship w/ england over centuries.

Norway and Iceland may as well be thought of as one country- and their religous policy was heavily influenced by fickle kings (cough*Harold Finehair*cough). And they "officially" converted shortly after Denmark, but before Sweden.

To the point now: The people who "found Jesus" before the official conversion dates were often vikings who had exposure to foreign lands and customs, and were influenced by them. THese vikings often married saxon or frankish women, and settled down w/ them in mainland europe. As a result, they put themselves out of the (modern) Scandinavian gene pool. The people left in Scandinavia are those who did not migrate south. Those who migrated south were usually converted to christianity before the migration (missionaries were sent by the boat load (speciifically told to target the vikings), especially by charles the bald. And they promised land in france in return for conversion. [See: normans])

[Ferrus]

Sweden didn't even become "officially" christian until the 17th century, when it started fining people for [doing something strange to goats] performing a pagan ritual.

Denmark was the first scandinavian country to convert to christianity; most probably because of the geographical proximity it shares to the Lutheran-ized countires, and it's close relationship w/ england over centuries.
Erm, what? All were effectively Christian by the 11th century. There may well have been vestiges, but these were almost always couched in Christian terms anyway. As for Luthereanism, by the time Luther was born paganism had died almost everywhere, even in the fastnesses of Estonia.

[Pooja]

Erm, what? All were effectively Christian by the 11th century. There may well have been vestiges, but these were almost always couched in Christian terms anyway. As for Luthereanism, by the time Luther was born paganism had died almost everywhere, even in the fastnesses of Estonia.

"The Gutalagen (an early Swedish law book) officially in use until 1595, but in practice until 1645, stated that performing bl?ts was punishable by a fine.[2]"

from source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianization_of_Scandinavia#Christianization_of_Sweden

*that's why I said "official"

[Ferrus]

Yes but that does not suggest that Christianity was made official then. What made Christianity 'official' in the middle ages was when the monarch adopted it. Thus the early 7th century is when Kent was officially made 'Christian', when Aethelbert converted though the actual people of that kingdom may have remained pagan for sometime.

[Pooja]

Yes but that does not suggest that Christianity was made official then. What made Christianity 'official' in the middle ages was when the monarch adopted it. Thus the early 7th century is when Kent was officially made 'Christian', when Aethelbert converted though the actual people of that kingdom may have remained pagan for sometime.

monarchs were fickle. One would adopt it and then worship thor for awhile... and then die screaming "i love jesus!", and then the monarch after him would be pagan, and hte one after that christian...and so on an so forth. Even within the same family. They would try and persuade people to believe as they did, but once the next monarch took over, well you get the idea.

[Ferrus]

Not by the 12th century. Societal pressures ensured any monarch would lose his throne if they abjured Christianity, as Penda of Mercia's career suggests, or indeed what happened to Lothar in the 'Middle Kingdom' of Francia after he supposedly dealt with pagans.

[C.J.Woolf]

...by the time Luther was born paganism had died almost everywhere, even in the fastnesses of Estonia.
Paganism was dead as a religion, but it's possible that it continued to influence the culture. Look at customs like the Christmas tree, a pagan symbol; and Easter rabbits, eggs, and chicks, pagan fertility symbols.

[Limey]

Was I like, the guy who got up on the soap box and started foaming at the mouth in this thread?

I feel like the highlander when the kurgen wanted to be the only one to fight McLeod.

Neither agreement nor argument, what do you have to do to virtually grab someone (in an internet context) and give them a brain rattling shake.

Moot I tell ya MOOT!



MOOT!

:devil: moot

[Niffer]

Not a "religion" gene, but a gene that makes you all...follower-y and loyal like t3h wolf packs could be possible.

LOL they died. pwnt. So I guess it could be Darwinian.

[prplchknz]

I doubt there's a religious gene, but perhaps a gene that makes some indviduals more likely to go with whatever's popular. Like what ever religion is popular in their community/culture that's what they're going to believe more then likely. I don't know if I like the idea of finding genes for every little thing, sound like another excuse for people to be assholes. "Sorry He has faulty genes" I still don't like the whole "I have a chemical inbalance, so it's alright for me to act this way" Not saying everyone is like this but we've all met the people who are. Now back on topic, I doubt there's a religious gene, but I wouldn't mind reading more on the possibility of it.

[demagogic_schizoid]

1. compared to america and the middle east, europe is extremely secular today.

So where did most Americans come from?

[Ferrus]

Paganism was dead as a religion, but it's possible that it continued to influence the culture. Look at customs like the Christmas tree, a pagan symbol; and Easter rabbits, eggs, and chicks, pagan fertility symbols.
Absolutely, but only heavily disguised under Christian symbolism and given Christian imports. But, alas, this is irrelevant for suggesting that the crusades have an evolutionary effect. I think it is evident that they did not.

[Dom]

Lastest thoughts:

1. compared to america and the middle east, europe is extremely secular today.

2. just a few hundred years ago, europe was awash in religious fervor

3. contrast modern europe to the crusades, when hundreds of thousands- possibly millions- poor christian zealots ("peasants crusade" led by Peter the Hermit) died while on their way to (or in) the holy land (jerusalem). Treasure-seeking knights and lords also perished, but not in nearly the same number as those who went recklessly for salvation (see Edward Peters, "the first crusade") This is significant, b/c there weren't too many people to begin w/ back then.

4. in the middle east (during the crusades), there was a drafted army - "religious" people were just as likely to die as "secular" people.

5. Scientists have isolated a gene "responsible" for one's succeptiblity to religious idealism. (am trying to find link right now)

conclusion: the crusades had the effect of "weeding out" a tremendous number of religous zealots, thus paving the way for a more secular, englightened europe.
I don't know enought about the middle east to draw conclusions there--but I DO know that they drafted their army (random selection would null darwinian secularization).

question: do you thing this is to far-fetched? Or does it have some merit? why?

I don't think so, mainly because I don't think a gene that may be linked to suspectibility to ideology (I can't beleive it is specifically religous ideology) means that everyone had it, or has it, it's most likely to be a combination of genes anyway and so Iit seems to neat.

The arguement is interesting though, if you add in the wars of religeon and the deaths in the reformation etc, maybe the Europeans did cull religon out of themselves...

I rather doubt it thought, there was enough of these genes left to convince large numbers to believe in facism or Socialism in the last century, so I think the behaviour still exists. If the behaviour is geneic at all.

[squirrel]

Also, why did Mo choose 72 as the number of virgins to have in heaven? Why not a trillion? Or at least a hundred...

I recall hearing somewhere that saying there are 72 of something is (was?) the Muslim equivalent of us saying there will be fifty or a hundred of something... i.e. it's just an arbitrary, large number.

[Pooja]

I recall hearing somewhere that saying there are 72 of something is (was?) the Muslim equivalent of us saying there will be fifty or a hundred of something... i.e. it's just an arbitrary, large number.

interesting... I'll have to ask the Paki side of my family about that.

[Ferrus]

Anyway, the actual Arabic word could mean 'angels' - or as some Muslim scholars have suggested, 'raisin'.