Philosophy Now Forum

I am no fan of Daniel Dennett and it seems that Mr. Dennett is under an all too common fallacy. The problems he describes with religion can be attributed to political ideologies, nationalism, philosophical movements, etc. The trouble is not religion. It is humanity’s intolerance of those who are different. If religion were done away with, then nationalism would be sucked into the vacuum and we’d kill over that. If not nationalism then race would be the reason we vomit cruelty all over each other. If not racism, then some stereotype or one of the myriad things that make human populations different would be used to divide the various groupings into the “good” guys and the “bad” guys. White could hate black, and the white northerners could hate the white southerners, while the black Haitians could hate the Black Dominicans, etc., etc. Human nature, not religion, is the culprit. Tolerance of difference is the answer to our problems, not burning religion at the stake. When religion is burned away, the nature that needed a burning will remain, and the stake will stand ready for the next victim. Education and tolerance are what we need. Not “education and tolerance AFTER we get rid of those damned religious people”. We need education and tolerance now on all sides of the issues. Just like the oppressed can easily be oppressors, so those preaching tolerance can very easily become the most severe of the intolerant. Religion is not some virus that is transmitted via the vector of socialization. The problem isn’t the result of an infection of the human mind; the problem is the fundamental predispositions of the human mind itself. It isn’t an invasion from without; it is a manifestation of human propensities from within the psyche. The problem is an expression of human nature period. It is not the expression of an inevitably dysfunctional and intrinsically malevolent religion. These defects can be expressed in religion or politics or cultural manifestations regarding race, ethnicity, class, etc. Isolating religion as the foe is attempting to cure a symptom while leaving the disease unchecked. It is also just as pointless. It is misguided to declare jihad against religion. It is a fundamental misunderstanding of what exactly is fueling the conflicts. Religion is belief, ideas, dogma, ideology, etc. No human civilization can or ever will exist without these things. Perhaps there can be non-theistic civilizations, but they will have their higher principles, their ideas, their non-negotiables and human nature will do with those doctrines nothing less horrific than it has managed to do with religion.

metachuck wrote:I am no fan of Daniel Dennett and it seems that Mr. Dennett is under an all too common fallacy. The problems he describes with religion can be attributed to political ideologies, nationalism, philosophical movements, etc.

I'll go along with the claim that Dennett thinks that religion is an affliction that needs a cure, and I'll go along with the idea that religion can be (to some extent) attributed to philosophical movements. However, Dennett is largely involved in philosophy of mind and science so I don't think that his ideas can be covered in such broad terms as,"nationalism" and "political ideology". Dennett is not a political philosopher as such and referencing him to political movements needs some differencing.

the problem is that as idividuals we take are identity from the event.most individuals identify with the geo location as identity.jesus told us strate not to do that.parable of the good samariton.

Ginkgo,
I was referring specifically to his assertions about religion. What he claims are the products of religion, all the horrors it has produced, I say are not products of religion but of human nature.

metachuck wrote:I was referring specifically to his assertions about religion. What he claims are the products of religion, all the horrors it has produced, I say are not products of religion but of human nature.

I agree with your thesis metachuck, well done.

The problem is indeed deeper than the content of any ideology, and arises from the properties of thought, ie. human nature.

As example, you argue for tolerance, which of course I agree with. But tolerance too can easily become just another divisive ideology, as modern political correctness culture often illustrates.

The pattern we are stuck in arises from the theory that the problem exists at the level of the content of thought. It's not really even a theory, but just an unexamined assumption that we insist on clinging to.

And so we jump from one ideology to another to another to another, on the assumption that once we find the correct ideology then everything will be fine etc. Except that it never works.

Christianity is a religion explicitly about love and peace, and it has generated many horrors, including an ongoing pattern of rhetorical violence between fellow Christians. Socialism is a wonderful highly just idea, which led to a vast network of murderous gulags. And so on...

Every ideology, however noble and sincere it might be, always divides against other ideologies, and then it subdivides internally as well. Ideology will never lead to peace, because every ideology is made of thought, an inherently divisive medium.

The atheist jihad against religion is nothing more than the very thing it is arguing against. It's more of the same old pattern, indulging in the fantasy it is something bright, shiny and new which will take us on towards the coming utopia and all the rest.

Felasco,
I couldn't have said it better myself. I agree with every aspect of your post! I love the idea that thought itself is in a sense the enemy and we will never actually reach a state where we all agree/are tolerant. It makes perfect sense.

From whence do we derive a moral imperative for "tolerance"?

Is there an aspect of the natural world that informs us why it is necessary?

Should we tolerate evil? Should we tolerate stupidity? Should we tolerate disease and defect?

What is the "object" of this talk of tolerance? To what or whom does it legitimately refer? And if not to everyone and everything, then on what basis do we exclude anything?

From whence do we derive a moral imperative for "tolerance"? Is there an aspect of the natural world that informs us why it is necessary?

Humans are a social species, and our success depends to a great degree on working together. That is the basis of all morality.

Religion is mankind's most dangerous institution, followed closely by government.

bobevenson wrote:Religion is mankind's most dangerous institution, followed closely by government.

I would agree, but again, what makes them both dangerous is human nature not the institutions themselves. Just like a gun can be used to murder or to scare off an angry grizzly bear, so are these institutions. It is the consciousness that manipulates them that is dangerous. In and of themselves they are simply ideas, inert.

Mankind is the problem not religion, even the most ardent atheist wouldn't argue with that. Man needs no excuse to be a cnut he's been doing that for 200,000 years and long before modern religion.

Religion is mankind's most dangerous institution

Sorry, no. Science is mankind's most dangerous institution.

Science is not the cause of the problem any more than religion is, but it is science that will give us the tools we'll use to exterminate ourselves.

Sorry, no: political ideology is mankind's most dangerous institution.

Science has caused no wars; and while it is the *instrument* of environmental destruction, it does not determine it's own use -- humans with ideologies do that.

Religion has killed no more than 7% of all the people who have died in wars. It ranks far behind other routine causes of war, such as economics, resources, language, 'race,' geography, militarism...etc.

Political ideology (secular) in the last century has killed more human beings than all the wars of any kind in history *combined.*

The idea that mankind can create the ideal society is by far the most dangerous force in history.

I agree that mankind is its own worst enemy because of the Fall of human nature. This spawns all the bad ideologies, actions, thoughts, inclinations, in short - Sin. Religion teaches us that this situation is only correctible (in essence, and sometimes through human agency) between two people, you and your creator. By turning away from that source of correcting (healing) you are mired in the mud.

Science gets unfairly blamed because it is only a non-sentient activity not something that acts independently on its own. Science is similar to what you do when you move into a new large home and new area. You explore, categorize, catalogue, put in boxes, decorate, build, etc..

So, face it, the problem is ALWAYS YOU, your cantankerous neighbor ( and me, of course ).

I wouldn't say religion is THE problem. Only one of the worst symptoms of the real problem.

QMan wrote:I agree that mankind is its own worst enemy because of the Fall of human nature. This spawns all the bad ideologies, actions, thoughts, inclinations, in short - Sin. Religion teaches us that this situation is only correctible (in essence, and sometimes through human agency) between two people, you and your creator. By turning away from that source of correcting (healing) you are mired in the mud.

Science gets unfairly blamed because it is only a non-sentient activity not something that acts independently on its own. Science is similar to what you do when you move into a new large home and new area. You explore, categorize, catalogue, put in boxes, decorate, build, etc..

So, face it, the problem is ALWAYS YOU, your cantankerous neighbor ( and me, of course ).

But of course, everything else is bullshit. Your religion is, obviously, the one which got it right (oddly, with no more evidence than all the other thousands of religions). And the only way to solve the problems between two humans is for a human to talk to his... creator? I got no problems with my dad if that's what you meant. And I just hope that you didn't say that we can solve the problems of humans by turning to a nonexistant being who doesn't care at all about humanity or earth. And I have this crazy idea that maybe we should solve problems by dialogue and rationally arguing. Stupid me, I'm such a goddamn sinner, that idea was probably put in me by Satan.

Sorry, no: political ideology is mankind's most dangerous institution.

Some extreme political ideologies? I agree. But in general, no. We humans are intelligent and social beings so it's natural we are interested in intellectual topics and the organization of society. It's true that some political ideologies are extremely dangerous, but most countries have abandoned such ideologies.

Political ideology (secular) in the last century has killed more human beings than all the wars of any kind in history *combined.*

What does a political ideology being secular has anything to do with it? You're probably thinking of countries like Stalinistic Russia, Communist China etc. which banned religion. I agree that a state should not ban religion and religious beliefs, moreover it CAN'T ban religious beliefs, only the declaration of being religious (and I don't think it should do that either). However, there's no correlation between religion being banned and the terrible things which happened in those countries. I'm not sure if we can consider such countries secular anyway, secularism includes equality for all religions and non-religions, non of them having any inferior or superior rights. Look at Sweden, Norway, Denmark and basically most developed countries.

In such countries terrible things happen because of batshit crazy, powerhungry leaders and oppressive political systems, mostly totalitarianism coupled with an extreme ideology like Communism, Fascism or National-Socialism.

Also, some statistical facts for those interested: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdtwTeBPYQA . Quite an interesting correlation...

Besides, Secular Humanism is one of the best things that happened to humanity, finally, after all religions.

The idea that mankind can create the ideal society is by far the most dangerous force in history.

... What?