Ch. 4 - Some minds on religion

Chris OConnor · Posted: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:01 pm Post subject: Ch. 4 - Some minds on religion

Please discuss Ch. 4 - Some minds on religion within this thread. ::115

George Ricker

Author's note:

This chapter talks about the impact of religious ideas on some minds. Does religion produce a mind-set that lends itself to manipulation and extremes of behavior? While most religionists don't fall victim to the extremes discussed in this chapter, is it not the case that the bad thinking induced in some minds by religious impulses can drive out the good? Should that have implications for our approach to religions in general?

George

http://www.godlessinamerica.com

"Godlessness is not about denying the existence of nonsensical beings. It is the starting point for living life without them."

Godless in America by George A. Ricker

MadArchitect

1. The claim that some evils absolutely depend on religion is historically dubious. One need only point to the terrorist activities of atheist anarchists, particularly in Revolutionary Russia and post-World War II Eastern Europe, the latter of which is harder to dismiss as an example of quasi-religious communist ideology. It’s also notable that most of the examples of religious extremism that you’ve cited have a heavy political component. Before anyone accuses me of attempting to exonerate religion altogether, there have been plenty of examples of people performing atrocities in the name of religion without any apparant political connection. But the fact that political ideology plays such a prominant role in so many of what we take as instances of religious violence, added to the fact that the same sorts of violence have been perpetrated by staunch atheists, both with and without an overt political connection, ought to be sufficient to dispel the notion that religion fosters a sort of immorality that would not exist without it.

The two examples of infanticide you mention are almost certainly indicative of mental illness, so I find them difficult to take seriously as a critique of religion. Religion has obviously shaped the content of the delusions suffered by the two women, but the biological nature of mental illness makes it almost certain that they would have had some form of violent delusion anyway. These women were, in all likelihood, a mortal threat to their children with or without religion. Likewise, while you did not cite the example of two brothers, one a pastor of some Protestant congregation, who beat a child with heavy branches several years ago, I think it’s worth noting if only to suggest that the same principle applies. Given the story as it was reported, I see no particular reason to suppose that the brothers woul qualify as mentally ill or impaired, but there does seem to have been a sadistic impulse independent of any involvement they had in religion. All three of these examples seem to illustrate the principle that the religious component in many instances of bizarre violence often serves to obscure to the casual observer the fact that other factors -- many genetic or otherwise biological -- would serve to make violence a part of the assailant’s constitution regardless of their religious background.

Specific case studies have even suggested that many already troubled people turn to religion as a means of moderating their impulses. That’s a problematic phenomenon: while many of them do have initial successes, and while some of the less troubled may effectively suspend their troubling impulses indefinitely, those for whom the impulses are ultimately overwhelming are usually only delaying a more overt manifestation. In the meantime, they can be embroiling themselves in circumstances that only complicate the situation. In some significant portion of cases of child molestation among Catholic priests, for example, the offenders were men who joined the priesthood in part as a way of controlling homosexual and pedophiliac impulses. (Incidentally, let me clear that I’m not calling homosexuality immoral or indicative of mental illness; nor do I mean to imply that homosexuality and pedophilia go hand in hand, so to speak. I’m merely noting that the social stigma still attached to homosexuality has made it a subject of the desire to suppress or control one’s sexual inclinations.) The results were likely worse in the case of those who succeeded for some time in controlling their impulses, because that allowed them to fly under the radar of those who might otherwise have monitored their behavior more closely; in some cases, it no doubt resulted in their promotion to positions that would ultimately channel and facilitate the catastrophic outbreak of those impulses along certain avenues. All of which speaks to a need within religious groups -- and specifically in any religious tradition that stresses “redemption”, since that has an obvious appeal to the troubled type -- to be particularly cognizant of the circumstances they create.

I am, however, willing to grant, to some degree, your criticism of examples of moral outrage bordering on and leading to violence; specifically, the hostile opposition to “abortion clinics” (which are often multi-use clinics or women’s health organizations that include an abortion component) and attempts to have certain forms of expression (like the Harry Potter books) restricted or banned. There does seem to me to be a social or political (not to mention economic) element to both of these, but it’s certainly less overt than in the case of, say, Rabin’s assassination. Yet, to generalize these as indicative of religious thought is taking the argument farther than I think is necessary. They’re mostly indicative of a trend in Judeo-Christian thought which says it’s the place of religious groups to shape the entire society. But it’s important to note that a trend like this is not something that spontaneously appears in religious circles: it’s the result of specific historical circumstances and of the kind of social development that takes place in all cultural modes.

George Ricker · Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2007 9:39 am Post subject:

Mad: Methinks thou doth protest too much. I titled the chapter "Some minds on religion" because I wanted it to be clear the contents referred to what may happen to some people under the influence of religions. The statement there are some evils that depend upon religion for their existence refers specifically to the actions of those who murder others, and usually themselves in the bargain, in the belief their actions are in the service of a god. It should be self-evident that such a basis for action is unique to religious belief. Now I think that's clear from what I said and the context in which I said it.

Nowhere do I indicate that such behavior is a characteristic of many or even most religious believers. Nowhere do I indicate that people may not find other rationales for visiting murderous violence on people. Nowhere do I indicate that religious belief is the only reason people may find for doing bad things to other people.

It's likely the two cases of women murdering their children are examples of mental illness as you note. Whether the illness was exacerbated by some misguided religious impulse is problematic. I simply cited the cases as examples of ways in which religious belief may influence human behavior. It's entirely possible the women would have been a threat to their children without the religious beliefs attributed to them. It's also possible the threat might not have been so lethal. I don't think we have enough information to make that determination.

I don't doubt for a moment that religious belief can sometimes mitigate mental illness or, at least, provide some temporary relief. However, I also think there are times when religious belief exacerbates such conditions and makes them worse.

George

MadArchitect · Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2007 9:12 pm Post subject:

George Ricker · Posted: Wed Oct 03, 2007 1:23 pm Post subject:

Mad: Where the claim of motive is the only factor that differentiates one violent act from another, then I have to wonder if there's really any benefit in drawing a distinction.

Here's a quote from the chapter in question:

"All fanatics are dangerous. Religious fanatics are especially so because they believe the 'Truth' they claim has the sanction of a deity and therefore cannot be challenged by mere mortals. The thousands of victims of the events of Sept. 11, 2001, were some of the more recent additions to a long line of human beings who have been sacrificed to such 'Truth' by those who will permit no deviation from it." (p. 45)

You may think there's no benefit in drawing the distinction. I do. Once a person claims to be committing violent acts on behalf of a "God," then any attempt at rational discourse is doomed to failure. Such actions are not a direct consequence of religious belief, since most religious believers don't behave in such abhorrent ways, but such actions are, in my view, dependent upon such belief, else they lose their rationale.

Now, you may well claim that people who act in that fashion are insane. Would you extend that to state that all people who claim to communicate with a deity also are insane? If not, how do you distinguish between the two? Once you've allowed for the existence of any sort of deity, how do you know which version is correct?

George

MadArchitect · Posted: Fri Oct 05, 2007 4:27 pm Post subject:

George Ricker · Posted: Sat Oct 06, 2007 8:38 am Post subject:

Mad: We believe one way or another, and there is no one, obvious, objective criteria for arriving at a belief.

But this is what I find puzzling. Having taken that position, how is it that you didn't understand that what I would present in this book would be my beliefs on the subjects of atheism, gods, religions, etc. You seem to be saying, on one hand, that all anyone can ever offer are their own beliefs on a given subject, but on the other hand, I'm somehow at fault for not making it clear--which I think I did--that what was contained in my book was my view of the issues under consideration.

George

George Ricker · Posted: Sat Oct 06, 2007 9:09 am Post subject:

Mad: The same appears to be true when people claim to be committing violent acts on behalf of an ideal (eg. "democracy", capital R "Reason"), on behalf of an identification (eg. patriotism, nationalism, class solidarity), or simply on behalf of themselves.

At the risk of beating this dead horse beyond all recognition, I have to ask this.

Do you honestly think it's as easy to persuade someone to fly a jet plane loaded with human beings into a building populated with many more human beings, knowing he or she would not survive the experience, on behalf of a political (or some other) agenda as it is to persuade a religious believer to take such action, believing it was the will of the deity that person worshipped?

I think religious belief adds a whole new dimension to the possibilities.

George

Niall001 · Posted: Sat Oct 06, 2007 1:53 pm Post subject:

Dissident Heart · Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:30 am Post subject:

George Ricker · Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 6:46 pm Post subject:

Niall: Well the Tamil Tigers never seemed to have any problems. Indeed, they've used the tactic more than anyone, but it just didn't get any coverage because Sri Lanka doesn't count in the western media. I know that (supposed?) experts like Robert Pape claim that it is nationalism rather than religion that motivates suicide attacks. He argues that they are motivated by strategic secular goals.

I must confess, I hadn't really considered the Tamil Tigers at all. As you say, Sri Lanka doesn't count in the western media ((and shame on the western media for that and lots of other omissions). So all of this is by way of saying, I'm going to have to get back to you on this one. I've been doing some other things and haven't had time to pursue the matter. But I will.

George

MadArchitect · Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:08 pm Post subject:

You had some specific questions about why I responded to the book the way I did, and out of courtesy I want to address those, but if you're position really is that the book is only meant to represent your beliefs, then I'm not sure there's any middle ground for discussion beyond that.


	FORUMS	ABOUT	BOOKS	VIDEOS	ADVERTISE	LINKS	BLOGS	DONATE	CHAT	CONTACT