Religion
Related: About this forumIf the religious impulse could magically be eliminated from humanity,
what would have changed in the long course of humanity's existence?
The following quote inspired this post, along with some very few responses from non-theists here which state that religion is responsible for most of the violence in history. Here is the quote:
― David Bentley Hart, Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution And Its Fashionable Enemies
https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/849387-atheist-delusions-the-christian-revolution-and-its-fashionable-enemies
As to secular governance, and as examples of secular societies with a history of massive violence, I suggest the following societies as my own examples of the author's point:
USSR,
Peoples Republic of China, and
North Korea.
All were founded as explicitly non-theistic societies where reilgion was prohibited or allowed but severely discouraged in a variety of ways.
Thomas Hurt
(13,903 posts)that all of those societies had pre-existing religious traditions and that the totalitarian gov't were not and have not been able, AFAIK, to rid their societies of religions.
I am not sure that the world has witnessed a "truly secular society".
Hitler's ideology, the Reich and the final solution did not magically arise from the ground on some date certain, but was built on a foundation of hundreds of years of antisemitism.
You might have to find that truly secular society before Hart's argument is credible.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Or is the past 300,000 years too much history to overcome?
But the phrase "truly secular society" demands or invites the question of what exactly a truly secular society would be.
But truly secular or only a veneer of secularism, the 3 examples were/are extremely violent societies. Religion is not the issue, the issue is that violence is an attribute of human society.
Voltaire2
(13,061 posts)Stalin ditched enforced atheism during WWII, reinstating the orthodox church after the German invasion. The canard of citing stalinist regimes as "what a secular society would look like" is unoriginal nonsense.
There are many examples of state imposed theocracy, so we've learned nothing much from this other than governments do lots of shitty things, and axe grinders keep bringing up the same sorry arguments.
A more interesting experiment is ongoing in western europe, in Japan, and to a lesser extent here, where religion is fading from the scene, not by government fiat, but because people have stopped believing.
If the trend continues in the developed world we may get to see what a naturally secular society is.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)This "naturally secular" society that has never actually existed. As if 300,000 years of human existence can be magically and gradually eliminated. It is fine to wish for things, but recognize that this wish exists only in the pages of speculative fiction.
Voltaire2
(13,061 posts)Eko
(7,318 posts)There are 96 secular countries out there, to pick the absolute worst and say that is representative of secular countries is laughable. Tell me how great Somalia (98% religious), Afghanistan (97% religious) and the most religious of them all, Ethiopia (99% religious.) Food for thought, "The Ethiopian government ordered a state of emergency in October 2016 that permits draconian restrictions on the rights to freedom of expression, association, and assembly. The order followed a year of protests during which security forces killed hundreds of protesters and detained tens of thousands. Authorities regularly used arbitrary arrests and politically motivated prosecutions to silence journalists, activists, and real or perceived opposition party members. Torture remains a serious problem in detention. The Ethiopian government has not conducted meaningful investigations into any of these abuses. Ethiopia is among Africas leading jailers of journalists and has little independent media. Repressive laws severely restrict the activities of nongovernmental organizations. The ruling party coalition won all 547 parliamentary seats in the 2015 election." https://www.hrw.org/africa/ethiopia
Sound great to you?
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)All 3 are probably among the poorest countries.
None of them sound good, but neither does officially non-religious North Korea or Russia or China for that matter.
Eko
(7,318 posts)France sound to you? Better than those? Ireland, Germany, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Canada or even, gasp The US?. And poor countries, are you saying that countries that are poor factor more than religion/non religion? So having money/not having money supersedes having/ not having religion? Well now, that changes everything doesn't it? Kind of makes your initial argument moot then doesn't it.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)So no, it does nothing to refute my argument which is more about the unreality of the argument that religion can be magically eliminated.
And my argument is rooted in the fact that religion has accompanied humanity for 300,000 years.
Eko
(7,318 posts)the earth is flat. Does that make it so?
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)every society on earth was hunter-gatherer. For 295,000 of those years writing did not exist, and for 4,800 of the remaining 5,000 the vast majority of people could not read.
For 290,000 of those 300,000 years all religions were either animistic or shamanistic. For about another 8,000 years polytheism was added to the mix and only in the last 3,000 years were there any monotheistic societies.
So, while I agree we've had religion a long time, the mere fact that we've had it so long proves nothing. Any description of a future society is, by definition, speculative, but it's not hard to imagine that under some circumstances, the role of religion could greatly decline or disappear, or could take some form that we wouldn't even recognize as religion, just as the ancient Romans thought Christians were atheists because they had only one god.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Namely, EVEN IF every human being who had ever lived, believed in the SAME god and the SAME religion, would that logically prove the god exists?
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)It really is a silly question.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)It's a basic logic question. Nothing silly about it. Please explain.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)You posed the question, so presumably you already have a belief and an answer.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)The answer is: No.
No matter how many people believed in a god, or followed a religion, that doesn't logically make the god (or any of the religious beliefs) real. It doesn't work that way. At one time, pretty much every human being alive thought the earth was flat. Did that make the earth flat in the past? Nope.
Same way with your god. I realize this upsets you, because it completely destroys your favorite smug "argument" that because there are so many religious believers, that must make them right. (I.e., argumentum ad populum.)
Now go ahead and try to show that I'm wrong - that the number of people who believe something logically makes that something more likely to be real.
This should be good. But I bet you won't even try.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)And you did not actually prove anything by your answer. It is merely your opinion. But if you feel that you have proven something, congratulations.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)I didn't PROVE that simply believing in something doesn't make it real.
So you believe that when everybody thought the earth was flat, that made it so, huh?
LOL
You are a barrel of laughs, gil. And what makes it even funnier is that all the laughs are directed at you.
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)Voltaire2
(13,061 posts)Eko
(7,318 posts)country than those I listed. Please.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)France:
Ask French citizens of Algerian descent about French tolerance. Go to the banlieux surrounding Paris and ask them about equality.
Germany:
Ask Germans of Turkish descent about German tolerance. I would say ask the Jews, but most of them are not their to be asked.
Netherlands:
Ask Muslim immigrants in Holland the same question. Or Google the name Geert Wilders.
Scandinavian countries also have issues with non-ethnic Scandinavians.
Canada:
Ask the First Peoples about Canadian tolerance. My father's mother was Cri. She had a bit to say about intolerance directed at First Peoples by Canadian authorities and white Canadians of English descent.
Eko
(7,318 posts)have yet, to show an even or better country that is non secular. Really, you can rail about how bad secular countries are but until you can show some non secular ones that are better all you are doing is pissing in the wind. This is where your reasoning falls apart entirely, I'm sorry, but you cant do it, can you?
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)Does something motivate you to time and time again present Russia as an atheist state when it is not? Or did you just stop paying attention to Russia in 1961?
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)nearly to the degree that the West has or comparable to the persecutions since the Communist takeover.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)And the Muslim Uighurs. I am certain that they might disagree with you.
http://religionandpolitics.org/2016/08/09/the-persecution-of-chinas-muslim-uyghurs/
https://www.freetibet.org/religious-freedom
I am certain that Tibetans and Uighurs would have much to say about the secular government of China and tolerance.
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)My post clearly referring to pre-communist China. Communist China is a secular Western import.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Meaning that secular regimes can be just as repressive and intolerant as Western religious regimes?
Agreed. So is it the Communism, the secularism, or the fact that intolerance always accompanies humanity in the form of tribalism?
And if intolerance is a human condition, should one expect intolerance to be reflected in human institutions no matter how much we attempt to eliminate it?
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)I am an old agnostic.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Intolerance has always been a human characteristic, so that must be remembered when deciding that one aspect of humanity, religion in this case, is the most important factor.
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)I have never taken the position that religion is the root of all evil. My view is that the Abrahamic faiths bred intolerance as a method of social control. Ancient polytheistic and eastern religions are generally more tolerant and syncretistic. They were also used as methods of social control, but intolerance of other faiths was not nearly as common.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)A much more polite term than many used by some here when speaking of theists.
And I was not implying that you made this claim about religion.
My view is that intolerance is an aspect of tribalism, and that aspect is present in every human society.
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)If you look at tribal societies around the world, some were friendly like the Tahitians and others were warlike such as the Apaches. It all depends on environmental and social conditions. In our modern global and diverse society, tolerance within our tribalism is something we need to learn for survival.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)intolerance for "the other", meaning those of a different tribe. This is not the same as saying that every tribe exhibits intolerance, but that intolerance is an important aspect for the tribe.
But, as you astutely noted, what served prehistoric and early humans does not necessarily serve in 2017.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)That's gilly's way of arguing dishonestly.
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)to describe the people here who have a more negative view of religion than I do and seem to drive gil crazy.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)But gil has used it and been serious.
Mariana
(14,858 posts)We're all identical and interchangeable, you see. If some other non-theist said something Gil didn't like, he holds it against you, because in his mind every non-theist must have exactly the same opinions and ideas. That's why he'll bring up real or imaginary posts by someone else, on another thread, about a different subject, as if it has any relevance to the current conversation.
Cuthbert Allgood
(4,921 posts)You have GOT to follow the marching orders sheet that comes out every Sunday. Man, some freaking people in the choir just NEED to be the soloists ALL the time.
Voltaire2
(13,061 posts)ignore the long and horrible history of intolerant religious states while focusing on your three examples of totalitarian secular states to the exclusion of the many other examples of non-totalitarian secular states, in order to evaluate the merits of a secular society.
Great argument. Holds water like a sieve.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)I suggest that you reread what I actually posted because I said nothing of the kind.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)but not goodie... Always the same examples of "atheist governments" stacked up against, well... the entirety of human history I suppose.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)would it not be logical to expect that most governments reflect that?
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Think gets me one space closer to Bingo.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)He said you used the trope.
Read.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)And the poster could respond with an example.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)I don't think you have any right whatsoever to demand others comply to your requests.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Go look.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)It was back when you were trying to drive away Mineral Man.
You also forget that you don't get internal links after it was discovered you were going back and deleting them, but I took a screenshot of your usage of it just in case.
Cuthbert Allgood
(4,921 posts)Because you sure talk a lot of smack about literature interpretation to not know that. And if you do know what it means, why did you respond with "Where did I use this phrase?"
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Where did I use the phrase angry atheist, or any such variant expressing the same concept?
Cuthbert Allgood
(4,921 posts)And it hasn't gone unnoticed that you didn't answer my question. Do you know what a trope is?
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)And so far, waiting with no actual response. Interesting, is it not?
Cuthbert Allgood
(4,921 posts)Feel free to answer the question if that isn't a correct assumption.
And, as mentioned, you are not one to be asking for links to claims. Anyone reading this group regularly knows that you rely on that trope a lot.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)And regular readers do know that such claims are regularly made by a small group here.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Instead we have certain ways our brains tend to think and analyze things.
https://www.amazon.com/Believing-Brain-Conspiracies-How-Construct-Reinforce/dp/1250008808
You never did answer me when I asked you something before, though.
Even if every human being who ever existed believed in one particular god and one particular religion, would that logically make the god real?
DetlefK
(16,423 posts)1. They are totalitarian regimes. They do not want to share power. Religion is cultural factor that is competing with them for power, so they are anti-religion.
2. Karl Marx lambasted religion as "opium for the people": propaganda that keeps them obedient.
3. The French Revolution was anti-religious, because they saw the Church as an ally of their aristocratic oppressors. (Plus, the rise of materialism and science happened in the 18th century. Being anti-religion was new and hip.)
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)as the monarchy that it replaced.
mia
(8,361 posts)Here's another take on the subject.
https://www.ted.com/talks/jeremy_rifkin_on_the_empathic_civilization
Irish_Dem
(47,131 posts)Religion was just an excuse to act out violently.
But it also promoted wonderful acts of goodness.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)it has been used to justify many types of actions.
As has patriotism, and nationalism, and other things that humans use as justification for actions.