Why I've started to believe that religion is actively dangerous

[Martinus]

Can't speak for Confucianism, and nobody can speak for Druidic faiths, but lumping "Greek rationalism", with Roman polytheism is a mistake.  In fact, Grumbler's question to his students is misguided.  It's not a "reward after death" religion vs "reward in life" religion but striving for cosmic justice vs simply subservience to a powerful other.  Polytheistic Gods are portrayed by and large as unjust.   They reflect tribal chieftains and cultural stereotypes of a pre-civilized world.  People lived in a world where tyranny and petty corruption were rampant.  In an urban society such as classical Greece, People didn't want bandit gods who robbed, murdered, raped, and ate people. They wanted just laws, laws that all men must obey.  Greek Philosophy is in large part an attempt to solve this deficiency. When Christianity came along it fit nicely into the groove that the philosophers had made.  "Reward after death", is only one side of the coin.  The other is side is that wicked are punished for their crimes.  In a world where criminal justice was extremely lacking, the knowledge that a corrupt magistrate or cruel master would be eventually held accountable for their crimes was comforting.  The question should be "why did Orthodoxy replace Orthopraxy in Europe and the Near East".

I don't think this analysis is correct. What you are describing is the development of theology and ethics from ancient to classic times that just occurred generally and does not differentiate Christianity from other contemporary faiths. The Christian god, as portrayed in the Old Testament, is just as unjust, arbitrary and brutal as Zeus - and it's not like the Hellenic philosophy was waiting for Christianity to come along before it could feed its ethical teachings into religion - there were many other religions and religious or mystery movements during the classical period that made the same leap as Christianity did - Mithraism, the Eleusian and the Orphic mysteries, Neopythagoreans etc. So your argument does not explain why Christianity was the one to succeed and not the others.

Judaism is more ritual centered then Christianity but less so then traditional Greek paganism.  The Israelites likely started out polytheistic, shifted towards henotheistic and eventually monotheistic.  The books in the Bible seem to allude to it.  I disagree with the notion that Old Testament God is a cruel as Zeus, there is no stories of Yahweh raping women, eating people, turning people into bugs or whatever.  I think you miss the most salient point about Judaism, that it is a religion of law.  There is a whole bunch of laws regarding what is good and bad, what pleases God and what displeases him.  Figures in the Bible are often described as "Righteous" and are praised for adherence to the law.  This is uncommon amongst the Greeks.  Their heroes are heroes not because of innate goodness, but they can kill things.  While Zeus has a few general rules such as being hospitable, not boasting that you are better then the gods, avoiding eating peoples brains and few others, that's not his primary vocation.  He's much more whimsical and unpredictable.  If Yahweh is like working for a hard task master working for Zeus is like working psychotic meth head carrying a pistol.

The Greeks wanted Zeus to be just and fair.  You can find the desire in a lot of Greek writing such as Hesiod.  He just never filled that role.

I'm not certain that these other religious cults were "making the same leap" as Christianity at the same time.  This uncertainty is in no small part due to lack of knowledge of these cults.  A major element of the mystery cults was the fact they kept their secrets well.  It doesn't help they were often persecuted.  I'm not convinced that Mithraism was realistic competitor of Christianity.  The early Christians were often out in the open preaching and happily being martyred.  The Initiates of Mithras hid in caves.  Again, it's hard to know what they actually believed and how their religion was practiced.

I would say that Neoplatonism was something of a competitor, that was partly absorbed by Christianity and Manichean may have been as well (but again not much is know of that religion).  Neoplatonism presumed a single all powerful God and Platonism and Aristotle were similar.  In this sense they paved the way for a monotheistic religion like Christianity.

Like Neoplatonism, all of these religions and cults were tending towards monotheism, despite having roots in polytheism - that's my point in fact. Judaism was unique, back in the Old Testament era, in that it was monotheistic (although there are researchers who argue that early Judaism was polytheistic, only that Hebrews decided to follow one god out of many, but did not believe the other gods did not exist). Christianity was not unique in that it was monotheistic or propagated a belief in a just God - everybody else during that period did something similar.

I would also question whether Judaism being a religion of laws translated into Christianity's success - if anything, I think Christianity (unlike Judaism) gained a wider appeal because it significantly downplayed the "laws" part, replacing it with the Commandment of Love.

If I were to haphazard a theory why Christianity succeeded initially, it's because it was in fact millenarist and populist. All other religions and cults I mentioned were fairly elitist - Mithraism appealed to the army, Neoplatonism and Neopythogoreism required a significant education to process its concepts; Eleusian and Orphic mysteries were, as the name implies, mystery cults, working like freemasonry today. They all were based on self-perfection through gnosis, contemplation, insight, the "autonomic" salvation etc. They were like today's yoga or transcendental meditation classes - clearly, not something for the poor. So they appealed to middle and upper classes.

Early Christianity, on the other hand, promised a complete destruction of the existing world order within the lifetime of the current generation, and "heteronomic" salvaton. It's a little wonder it appealed to the masses.

[grumbler]

Public policy drawn solely from science has already proven to be a dangerous road.

When and where?

Raz doesn't distinguish between science and pseudo-science.  He often tries to use the latter to discredit the former.

[grumbler]

Can't it just be the natural progression?  Things start out sub-optimal until they get optimized.  Better life on earth is disprovable, so religions making disprovable promises are going to be phased out in favor of religions that can keep hope alive for as long as one is alive.

Buddhism had a definite rise and fall in China in the late 1st millennium.

[grumbler]

Sounds like a "No True Scotsman" argument.

They said communism was based on science.  If you get to disregard Marx, I get to disregard Inhofe as not being a true Christian.

Marx made no effort to disprove his thesis.  So, it cannot be scientific  What's your basis for rejecting Inhofe's Christianity?

[The Brain]

Is Inhofe intelligent enough to be religious? Signs in the OP point to no.

[frunk]

If we state that Christianity is the result of reading the Bible it's pretty clear that Inhofe isn't remotely Christian.  It wasn't a matter of looking at what the entire gospel says, just an outright declaration of the truth of Christian thought with no evidence.  Just because someone claims their belief is based on Christianity doesn't mean it is.

Look - Inhofe's claim is stupid.  But lots of people have believed in stupid ideas for lots of stupid reasons.  Just because someone has believed in a stupid idea, it doesn't invalidate the entirety of whatever their justification.  The idea of the division of powers isn't invalidated just because some racists used "state rights" to justify racism.  Science isn't invalidated just because some people used it as a justification for eugenics.  And religion isn't invalidated because some people try to use it as justification for ignoring global warming.

I'm not sure why it should matter to me if Inhofe is Christian or not.  I'm sure it matters to you, but that's not the primary problem.  He considers himself religious and his beliefs to be religiously motivated.  He may not be a Christian but would you say he wasn't religious? 

Religion has no method of being verified like science.  I can claim something is scientific but unless someone somewhere else (preferably many someones in many other places) can replicate the result it isn't anything of the sort.  Religion isn't invalidated because of idiots like Inhofe, but it also isn't validated by someone else being good.  It's a potentially powerful and unpredictable motivator of people, but it's the specific purpose towards which it is bent that matters.

[grumbler]

Is Inhofe intelligent enough to be religious? Signs in the OP point to no.

I think the issue isn't/shouldn't be whether Inhofe is a moron, religious moron or not, but whether his casting of the issue in religious terms causes others to support his position.  That, I think, is the danger that Berkut referred to.  Individual religious nutcases are always going to be with us, just like individual non-religious nutcases.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

  I disagree with the notion that Old Testament God is a cruel as Zeus, there is no stories of Yahweh raping women, eating people, turning people into bugs or whatever.

you must have missed the sending of plagues, turning people into salt, flooding the world, commanding genocide-bits then. Old Jahweh is not a nice guy, not one bit.

[crazy canuck]

You understand that Marx's assertion that his theory was scientific was pure rhetoric right?

The communists seemed to believe it though.  They were quite clear that the march of human history had been "proven" to lead to communism.

Yes. But it was pure rhetoric.  There was nothing scientific about it.  The belief that something is scientific (or for that matter faith that something exists) does not make it so 

Sounds like a "No True Scotsman" argument.

They said communism was based on science.  If you get to disregard Marx, I get to disregard Inhofe as not being a true Christian.  Inhofe is definitely representative of the literalist religious nutbars who believe intelligent design is science.

I am not saying Marx was not a communist. 

[Martinus]

  I disagree with the notion that Old Testament God is a cruel as Zeus, there is no stories of Yahweh raping women, eating people, turning people into bugs or whatever.

you must have missed the sending of plagues, turning people into salt, flooding the world, commanding genocide-bits then. Old Jahweh is not a nice guy, not one bit.

I am also not sure whom Zeus did rape - unless you apply the modern definition - in which case making Mary pregnant at the age of 13 must also count as statutory rape.

[PDH]

Pfft.  Religion is not actively dangerous, it's a tool, like a hammer or a screwdriver or an alligator.

[Berkut]

You understand that Marx's assertion that his theory was scientific was pure rhetoric right?

The communists seemed to believe it though.  They were quite clear that the march of human history had been "proven" to lead to communism.

Yes. But it was pure rhetoric.  There was nothing scientific about it.  The belief that something is scientific (or for that matter faith that something exists) does not make it so 

Sounds like a "No True Scotsman" argument.

They said communism was based on science.  If you get to disregard Marx, I get to disregard Inhofe as not being a true Christian.

This argument makes zero sense.

It doesn't matter whether or not Communism is "based on science" or not, unless you are actually making an argument that we should in fact be really worried about the dangers of science. Are you making such an argument? I didn't think so.

If we were talking about this when Communism was a thing to be worried about, I would have zero issue with a thread entitled "Why I am starting to think Communism is actively dangerous".

I sure as hell would not respond that it isn't because religion is dangerous as well.

The thing is Beeb - you making this argument is in fact a concession that my point is correct. If your responses to my noting that religion can be dangerous is to note that something else can be dangerous as well, then...ok. I certainly was never arguing that religion and people like Inhofe or suicide bombers are the only dangerous ideologies.

[Berkut]

If we state that Christianity is the result of reading the Bible it's pretty clear that Inhofe isn't remotely Christian.  It wasn't a matter of looking at what the entire gospel says, just an outright declaration of the truth of Christian thought with no evidence.  Just because someone claims their belief is based on Christianity doesn't mean it is.

Look - Inhofe's claim is stupid.  But lots of people have believed in stupid ideas for lots of stupid reasons.  Just because someone has believed in a stupid idea, it doesn't invalidate the entirety of whatever their justification.  The idea of the division of powers isn't invalidated just because some racists used "state rights" to justify racism.  Science isn't invalidated just because some people used it as a justification for eugenics.  And religion isn't invalidated because some people try to use it as justification for ignoring global warming.

I'm not sure why it should matter to me if Inhofe is Christian or not.  I'm sure it matters to you, but that's not the primary problem.  He considers himself religious and his beliefs to be religiously motivated.  He may not be a Christian but would you say he wasn't religious? 

This is the crux of the issue.

Beeb can say he isn't "Christian" based on his own definition of Christianity, but that is largely lost on those of us who are neither religious or Christian. It is like Muslims saying ISIS is not Muslim. Whatever.

There is no doubt that HE thinks he is Christian, and there is no doubt that he is religious, and there is no doubt that his actions, behavior, and as he is a politician, his stance on specific policy issues is motivated by his faith. Whether he is wrong (or ISIS is wrong, for that matter) about what his religion actually informs about those behaviors is largely uninteresting to me, and completely irrelevant to my argument. He can be the best Christian ever, or the worst, and it makes no difference at all.

[viper37]

because i don't think there's been a single case where religion has literally caused someone to suicide bomb. there are always other factors at play, from peer pressure to insanity to poor upbringing to self (or not) victimization issues, etc. aside from serving as a classification of people, i don't think religion causes much.

You are correct.  Except that religion teaches their followers to obey without question or God will not be pleased.
-You can't have abortion!
-Why?
-Because it's a sin!
-Why?
-Because God tells us so!  End of debate.

There's this absolutism in religion where "we" are right, and the others are obviously wrong, without requiring any kind of proofs other than your sincerely held beliefs, even worst, when facts&science contradicts a religious position (the Earth orbiting around the Sun, not the opposite), religions are extremely resistant to any kind of change or contradiction.  The people freed themselves of their religion before it was pushed toward evolution, like any kind of big organization.

[viper37]

Weird given that, as Marti has pointed out many times, heterosexuals flaunt their sexuality in public on a daily basis.

We have all the rights, you don't! 


I just don't see it that way.  I show pictures of my goddaughter to other people, yet, it has nothing to do with sexuality.  I often talk about my young nephew and his love for tractors and ATVs, again, it has nothing to do with flaunting my sexuality in public, since I had nothing to do with their conception.  If I had kids of my own, I'd likely show pictures of them to some people and talk of their accomplishements, I just don't see it as anything like a gay pride parade with guys dressed as if it was Halloween parading in the streets of a tolerant city just to piss off the few homophobic people that are left