So, if everyone held the same views, it wouldn’t end group aggression and dehumanization, but the best way to combat group violence is for everyone to adopt your non-religious views on diversity and tolerance? You don’t see a contradiction here?
I believe that group aggression and dehumanization are rooted in basic human drives which once were advantageous to human survival, but now have become counter to it. Our culture must help us ameliorate and channel these instincts in less destructive ways. I believe that the dehumanization that enables atrocities is stimulated by any difference between groups, not just religious differences. If religious differences could be eliminated (which is probably not possible, given the tendency to schism in any large congregation), the group hatreds would still be triggered by tribal, national, racial, etc., differences. Therefore, I think society needs to focus on recognizing and discouraging incitements to us-them thinking and dehumanization. Those incitements include hate talk of all kinds, not just religious.
You went on to say
Essentially, you’ve just restated what Harris and Hitchens and Dawkins and humanists everywhere have been saying for centuries: the best way to combat out group violence is to make everyone a member of the in group. This is obvious. The problem with radical Islam, as a point of view, is that it absolutely refuses to become part of the in group. The problem isn’t that we haven’t made the offer, the US has a large muslim population. It is that that offer has been rejected.
The same is true of Jerry Falwell style Christianity, of course. They’ve been offered a seat at the table of human fellowship, and they’ve declined.
I do not believe it is possible to make everyone a member of the in group. I think the best we can hope for is to get all groups to respect the rights of other groups to coexist peacefully. There are radicals in every group who insist on taking an aggressive stance towards others. My observation has been, however, that the large majority of Muslims in western countries, like the vast majority of all people everywhere, want to live in peace and to have their human rights respected. Most people, even those in fundamentalist sects, are only motivated to wage violence when they have become convinced that they are being deliberately mistreated by another group.
You continued:
And the reason for this, as the “new atheists” keep trying to point out, is that some philosophies are conducive to joining with others in human solidarity, with fostering tolerance, and some just aren’t. Some cultures are better than others at building a strong, liberal, diverse society. Which means that if you have a goal of lower group violence, some cultures are objectively better at reaching that goal.
Agreed, but I’m not convinced this is because of religion. While there are a lot of passages inciting dehumanization and violence against others in the Koran, there are also such passages in the Old Testament, and both books also contain contradictory injunctions. I believe that most Muslims, like most Christians and Jews, manage to overlook the most egregious hate talk. I also note that Muslims who live in oil-rich countries are pretty satisfied with their lives and unwarlike despite their philosophy. The fact that some cultures are better at creating an open, diverse society than others does not justify violating the basic human rights of the others. That would be to be a contradiction of its own premise. And the freedom from oppression because of what you believe is a basic human right. I believe our sanctions should be directed towards behaviors (eg. abuse of human rights or incitement to violence) not towards beliefs.
Science has something to say about the probabilities concerning “God’s” existence, as it does about the probable existence of many other types of “something”.
Riley thanks for this summary clarifying your point.
I think one problem is the philosophical detour into what it means to “know” something, which gets the theological discussion off in a corner. In the courtroom {at least in books and on TV} they use “beyond a reasonable doubt” rather than absolute certainty—otherwise a lot of juries would be stuck in this same quandary.
Like you say, Dawkins is certain beyound a reasonable doubt that folks are mistaken about the existence of God—he has examined the evidence, and finds it unconvincing.
Science has something to say about the probabilities concerning “God’s” existence, as it does about the probable existence of many other types of “something”.
Riley thanks for this summary clarifying your point.
I think one problem is the philosophical detour into what it means to “know” something, which gets the theological discussion off in a corner. In the courtroom {at least in books and on TV} they use “beyond a reasonable doubt” rather than absolute certainty—otherwise a lot of juries would be stuck in this same quandary.
Like you say, Dawkins is certain beyound a reasonable doubt that folks are mistaken about the existence of God—he has examined the evidence, and finds it unconvincing.
Yes, and whether you agree with Dawkins’ conclusion or not, there are definitely claims and arguments being made that can be examined by science and scientific reasoning; so it is right and scientific for people to be examining those claims and arguments.
Here’s another analogous example to the NOMA issue:
The question of “God” is like the question of extra dimensions.
100 years ago, one might well have argued that science should have nothing to say about the question of extra dimensions, not even in principle, because by definition, extra dimensions are outside of our realm of detectable existence --- (i.e. they are in different magisteria). Today however, using the scientific evidence, we can say with a great degree of confidence that in fact a fourth dimension of space exists. In another decade (assuming the Large Hadron Collider lives up to speculated potential) we might even get to the point where a 10th dimension of space can be reasonably inferred from scientific evidence --- something entirely inconceivable just a century ago. Moreover, in doing so, science would have something to say about the likelihood that there might exist an 11th dimension of space --- like the “God” hypothesis, it might be concluded that an 11th dimension of space is highly highly improbable.
At least one of the lessons to be learned I think is this: if there is a something that has an impact on our universe, no matter how indirectly it might impact our universe, you can’t rule out the possibility that science might have something to say about it. To argue now that science should have nothing to say about the question of “God” is not unlike the argument that science should have nothing to say about the question of extra spatial dimensions - both arguments are “arguments from ignorance”.
… if there is a something that has an impact on our universe, no matter how indirectly it might impact our universe, you can’t rule out the possibility that science might have something to say about it. To argue now that science should have nothing to say about the question of “God” is not unlike the argument that science should have nothing to say about the question of extra spatial dimensions - both arguments are “arguments from ignorance”.
Anything with an “impact on our universe” can and should be brought into the scientific method. I like the analogy of dimension. Certainly science has produced many things through discovery that someone 500 years earlier would not consider possible (unless God willed it ). The beauty and complexity of organic chemistry - which has now melded with biology - is another example of how much fascination nature has in store for the inquiring mind.
Thanks for the link.
I did not see his debate with Hitchens, but based on all of the links provided throughout this thread I still don’t see where all of the emotion against this guy comes from.
I like your comments, but I don’t understand the following sentence:
I appreciate that Hedges believes that comity and tolerance are higher goods than truth (seeing as he appears to be an atheist as well, in a wishy washy way), and that is surely the mark of a humane (rather than utopian) social order, but there is a real barrier to mutual respect if one’s interlocutor believes in fairies.
I think of comity and tolerance as being consequences of seeing the truth of our common humanity with all its built-in irrationalities and contradictions, in combination with any moral goals that aim to lessen human misery. Surely belief in any purely rational utopian social order is the delusion. How can we achieve any given Good without understanding the reality we are dealing with?
I do not believe it is possible to make everyone a member of the in group. I think the best we can hope for is to get all groups to respect the rights of other groups to coexist peacefully.
That would make us all members of the same in group. That’s sort of what “in group” means, as opposed to “out group”. When a group of people agree to play nice together, they’re an in group.
Some philosophies, such as jihadism or radical Islam or apocalyptic Christianity or stalinism, preclude playing nice with others. Pluralism is great, but it is a point of view, and not everyone respects your right to be a pluralist. The new atheists are on your team, not the jihadi team.
Agreed, under your definition of “in group.” As to whether the “New Atheists” are willing to “play well together” with religious believers who also believe in tolerance and are willing to accept (even be friends with) those of us who are not religious, I will go back and read their books more closely. My first, admittedly patchy, reading left me with the distinct impression that they are not. Thanks for your comments.
Some philosophies, such as jihadism or radical Islam or apocalyptic Christianity or stalinism, preclude playing nice with others. Pluralism is great, but it is a point of view, and not everyone respects your right to be a pluralist. The new atheists are on your team, not the jihadi team.
This is more of the same old neocon ‘they hate us for our freedoms’ bullshit.
In the absence of British/French/US imperialist interventions over in the Muslim world over the past century, there would be no ‘jihadism’, in this sense, nor would ‘political Islam’ as a movement ever have found a significant social base.
Some philosophies, such as jihadism or radical Islam or apocalyptic Christianity or stalinism, preclude playing nice with others. Pluralism is great, but it is a point of view, and not everyone respects your right to be a pluralist. The new atheists are on your team, not the jihadi team.
This is more of the same old neocon ‘they hate us for our freedoms’ bullshit.
In the absence of British/French/US imperialist interventions over in the Muslim world over the past century, there would be no ‘jihadism’, in this sense, nor would ‘political Islam’ as a movement ever have found a significant social base.
Again, your propaganda is ludicrous. First of all, you believe, as I do, that some philosophies play well with others and other philosophies don’t. For example, you seem to believe that humanism doesn’t play well with others. That’s a point of view that declares that some philosophies are objectivly better than others.
Secondly, I never claimed that anyone hated us for our freedoms. That’s an obvious strawman. What I said was that the new atheists (who are not philosophically committed to this “imperialism” that you keep ragging on about) are different from Jihadists. The origin of jihadism is not an issue, merely its behavior and philosophy.
Third, Islam has never had separation of church and state. For its entire history, it has been a political religion, with political and relgious power tightly bound together. There is no historical tendency of Islamic countries to become secular, or for Islam to become secular. Jihadist activity has been a constant for 1400 years, with or without imperialism.
So even if you were right, which you aren’t, you wouldn’t be making a relevant point; and even if your point was on target, which it isn’t, it would apply equally to both of us. That is to say, you are a neocon to exactly the extent that I am, if my statement is representative of the neocon point of view.
Bu the real story with the middle east is a story of cultural conflict. Imperialism, military victory, does not inevitably lead to the situation we see in the middle east. The Japanese have been able--even after being nuked--to surpass the west in several technological areas (robotics comes to mind) as well as cultural ones (Yoyo Ma comes to mind). How is it that they were able to shift gears so easily from Dictatorship to Democracy, and the Arab world has not?
Agreed, under your definition of “in group.” As to whether the “New Atheists” are willing to “play well together” with religious believers who also believe in tolerance and are willing to accept (even be friends with) those of us who are not religious, I will go back and read their books more closely. My first, admittedly patchy, reading left me with the distinct impression that they are not. Thanks for your comments.
As far as I know, no new atheist has suggested curtailing any behavior that doesn’t involve coercing people into participating in religious activities against their will. All of them have, at some time, worked with relgious people on some common cause. So I’m not sure where you get your idea that Dawkins, for example, isn’t willing to live in a pluralistic society where people are free to believe in religion if they desire to do so.
As far as I know, no new atheist has suggested curtailing any behavior that doesn’t involve coercing people into participating in religious activities against their will. All of them have, at some time, worked with relgious people on some common cause. So I’m not sure where you get your idea that Dawkins, for example, isn’t willing to live in a pluralistic society where people are free to believe in religion if they desire to do so.
Part of the problem with this discussion is lumping these guys together under one label, implying that they all think the same thing. Actually, I was thinking of Sam Harris’s THE END OF FAITH, in which we find passages like these:
I hope to show that the very ideal of religious tolerance--born of the notion that every human being should be free to believe whatever he wants about God--is one of the principal forces driving us toward the abyss.
.........
We are at war with Islam. It may not serve our immediate foreign policy objectives for our political leaders to openly acknowledge this fact, but it is unambiguously so. It is not merely that we are at war with an otherwise peaceful religion that has been “hijacked” by extremists. We are at war with precisely the vision of life that is prescribed to all Muslims in the Koran, and further elaborated in the literature of the hadith, which recounts the sayings and actions of the Prophet. A future in which Islam and the West do not stand on the brink of mutual annihilation is a future in which most Muslims have learned to ignore most of their canon, just as most Christians have learned to do. Such a transformation is by no means guaranteed to occur, however, given the tenets of Islam.
........
It appears that one of the most urgent tasks we now face in the developed world is to find some way of facilitating the emergence of civil societies everywhere else. Whether such societies have to be democratic is not at all clear. Zakaria has persuasively argued that the transition from tyranny to liberalism is unlikely to be accompanied by plebiscite. It seems all but certain that some form of benign dictatorship will generally be necessary to bridge the gap. But benignity is the key--and if it cannot emerge from within a state, it must be imposed from without. The means of such imposition are necessarily crude: they amount to economic isolation, military intervention (whether open or covert), or some combination of both.
). The beauty and complexity of organic chemistry - which has now melded with biology - is another example of how much fascination nature has in store for the inquiring mind.
