Religion poisons everything - Hitchens

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:
[b]
Oh, Cueball, you are such a cute little empiricist.

When it suits you.[/b]

---

Well you see saying that meaning is context dependent is not the same as saying there is no meaning, as in [i]truth[/i] is defined contextually not that "anything can be true".

The discourse, so to speak, has defined limits, and since the discourse has defined limits, potential meanings are likewise limited.

For example, the word "example" is not an example of an absolute potential since no two things are exactly alike, (for if they were they would be the same thing) but is really an example of a likening that we define mutually, not an absolute as in a "truth", but it is from the mutuality of the context through which the functional meaning of the "example" is derived as an absolute potential, even though neither of us may have access to an awareness of the absolute "example", though it is completely understandable why one would work so hard at fooling oneself that one has an example of a bucket, as opposed to a sieve when one is trying hard to believe the "example" does not leak even as one is furiously bailing out ones boat.

[ 03 November 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Noah_Scape:
[b]Ok, so I guess you are going to force me to get into the philosophy.

I don't think we can presume to know the "mind of god", even if you accept that god is omniscient.[/b]

---

As pointed out above, it's not about knowing the mind of the (hypothetical) God. What it's really about is this: If God knows everything, s/he knows what you will do in the future. You couldn't do otherwise, or else God would be wrong, which is inconceivable. Some try to escape this by talking about God as being outside of time, and seeing it all as an eternal present, but I don't think that escapes from the problem- because what we think of as the future is already [i]there[/i], and thus we have no actual control over how it turns out.

quote:

---

[b]What about the idea that god simply created nature, including evolution and all it's tactics of "survival of the fittest", so that earth [etc] could operate as a 'self-improving' system where the "thinking" life-forms were responsible - as in live-or-die, by their choices? [I use the term "thinking" as opposed to simply "conscious" because many animals are now shown to be "conscious" of themselves]

And, if "thinking humans" make bad choices, they too can be wiped out [no predestiny there]. Animals not responsible for global warming will become extinct due to the changes, and humans may or may not all be wiped out due to global warming.

There is, therefore, no "predestination", by definition, for believers. An all-knowing god might just be running an experiement here, to let us find out if we are worthy of continued survival.[/b]

---

But this all-knowing God would already know the outcome of the experiment, otherwise s/he wouldn't be all-knowing. See above.

quote:

---

[b]PS - I am concerned that some religious people believe that global warming is not a responsibility of humans because it was predestined to happen because we were certain to use fossil fuels in our ascension to a technological world, then why bother to try to reduce emissions. Whatever happens is what is supposed to happen, global warming will be a good thing; "don't mess it up with that environmentalism stuff". Is that the kind of "pre-destiny" you are talking about?[/b]

---

No doubt many do believe this. Indeed, my point is that those who believe in an omniscient God, but [i]don't[/i] believe in predestination, are fooling themselves.

[ 03 November 2007: Message edited by: Agent 204 ]

Religions just like everything else "self-correct." I give you "the reformation."

Empiricism is as fine an altar as any to pin one's hopes on, and I do not begrudge you it.

But I'm afraid you are conflating the purposes of religion and the purposes of science. As if one looks to religion in order to figure out when to cross the street. Clearly, as the fundamentalist streak that criminally runs through too many of America's academic institutions demonstrates, when the twain mingle, trouble beckons. But such metaphors as "looking both ways" fail when applied to contradictions like desire, social relations and history. It's no accident that the word paradox contains religious etymology.

In fact, it's rather paradoxical for an empiricist to employ metaphor or analogy at all, because such rhetorical stunts are in themselves religious in that they attempt to explain the inexplicable through, say, parables? Catechisms? Science fiction authors? It's when such exploratory explanations acquire a universal (or shall we say catholic?) character that they in fact begin to speak volumes about human nature. Sure, I'm being somewhat hypocritical since religion is not exactly for me, but I don't see the point in running it down, or attempting to disprove it "rationally." As a matter of fact, I think such attempts rather neurotic.

Wow. [img]eek.gif" border="0[/img] Wait just two days, a thread like this grows like a bacteria culture. Which can [i]evolve[/i]. *snicker, snort*

Seriously, though, the thing that has always bugged me about religion is that I or someone will point out how amazingly effective it is at stopping a working mind by providing a ready-made, turn-key solution to circumscribing a person's reasoning faculties so all they have to do is "follow the dots" without having to analyze the moral code they've essentially adopted wholesale. Then, the invariable rejoinder is made, "but it's helped [i]so[/i] many people! I saw my father/grandpa/neighbor/whoever in the pits of despair and hopelessness and religion turned that person around!"

As if that excused the excesses committed in the name of religion. As if that excused the free pass politicians get when they invoke religion to cover their ass regarding the latest lame-brain thing they said or did.

We don't give Communists a free pass when they try to gloss over Stalin's excesses and don't acknowledge the very real weaknesses in the power structure of a Communist state that allows for this sort of thing to happen, so they often get a good belly laugh when they insist that "it was just an aberration". As they should.

So why do religionists like Jerry Falwell, etc, get a free pass from their blatantly hypocritical behavior? I think it's because of the unconscious attraction to wealth that people tend to have. Even nonreligious wealthy people tend to get a free pass on behaviors that would get a poor person locked up for several months if not years; in addition I think religious people don't like to think that they could be just as hypocritical under the right circumstances and so when you combine religion and wealth, it's no wonder a sorry excuse for a human being like Jerry Falwell, caught with his trousers around his ankles, nonetheless was able to shove his misdeeds under the rug and continue spreading the manu-- ah, word of God, while raking in the dough. (If you think he really means to spread the Good Word as anything but a cover for getting money, tax-free when he can get it, I have a bridge to sell you.)

Apologies if any of the above has been hashed over already. [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]

[ 03 November 2007: Message edited by: DrConway ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:
[b]
What did Luther "correct"? Church corruption? The idea that we didn't need anyone between the congregation and god to explain the scriptures? The violence of the Inquisition? Did Luther seek to take out the scriptural references that lead to any of the abuses of the Catholic church? [/b]

---

No he did however neuter the imperial power of the HRE by creating an ideological framework that allowed the northern states of Europe to establish ecclesiastical power seperate from the Roman Catholic Church, and so become indpendent states.

The power of the HRE/Papal axis was an abuse of the Catholic church.

And in fact later Protestants in the form of the Quakers (society of friends) did operate by the principle that there need not be an interlocutor between a person and god.

[ 03 November 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Well, as far as Hitchens and his anti-Islamic rant are concerned, I think the only thing I can say is that its resurgence of Islan in Asia and the Middle East as [i]the movement of resistance[/i] has everything to do with the failure of the left to catalyze resistance effectively when in opposition (Yasser Arafat), or to live up to its promise when in government (Nasser, Hussien. Ghadafi) or even to avoid militarist imperialistic ventures (the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the repression of the national movements in the Caucuses during the Russian civil war, the Socialist-Zionist invasion of Palestine).

After all of that, when looked at in the light of the economic exploitation and direct occupation by the forces of the west, on top of its support for quasi-fascist regiemes such as the one in Saudi Arabia, are you really suprised that people of the Muslim countries are rejecting the failed western modernist-rationalist movements in favour of home grown ideologies that hold out some hope of a measure of self-determination?

Hitchens would do well to look at the truly horrific toll of human suffering exacted in the name of so called secular rationalist humanism, whether it be socialist, or capitalist before casting stones. Lets name a couple of the culprits: Pol Pot; Henry Kissenger. How about Hitchens himself and his well know support for the destruction of Iraqi civilization.

Should I mention the GULAG?

Lets face it, we can bitch about the inquisition, but the hard cold fact is that mass killing only really became efficient when it was rationalized. Rationalism has a lot to answer for.

Frankly there is nothing at all "humanist" about the militarist colonialist ventures that Hitchens feels that it is his [i]privilege[/i] to promote.

[ 03 November 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

No he did however neuter the imperial power of the HRE by creating an ideological framework that allowed the northern states of Europe to establish ecclesiastical power seperate from the Roman Catholic Church, and so become indpendent states.

---

But that was very much a case of "out of the frying pan and into the fire." The ideological framework for the vast majority of the populations of those northern countries didn't improve their day to day existence.

In fact, Luther quite turned his back on the peasants revolt he helped inspire:

quote:

---

Whosoever can, should smite, strangle, and stab, secretly or publicly, and should remember that there is nothing more poisonous, pernicious, and devilish than a rebellious man... the Gospel does not make goods common, except in the case of those who do of their own free will what the apostles and disciples did in Acts IV. They did not demand, as do our insane peasants in their raging, that the goods of others - of a Pilate and a Herod - should be common, but only their own goods. Our peasants, however, would have other men's goods common, and keep their own goods for themselves. Fine Christians these! I think there is not a devil left in hell; they have all gone into the peasants. "

---

Being immersed in a Protestant culture, we are familiar with the excesses of the Inquisition. Catholic sources claim it was not as vicious as Protestant historians have claimed over the years. Probably true. It's probably also true that it was worse than current Catholic historians claim it was.

But Luther did nothing to correct this abuse of the Catholic church. Protestants were avid witch hunters, and between their denominations, not scions of the concept of tolerance.

Indeed, many of the Protestant sects went on to be quite fascistic. Some of them came to the U.S., and we hear the echos of their beliefs in todays American Evangelical movements.

Protestantism also introduced a rather nasty concept, that the righteous would be materially rewarded in [i]this life.[/i] The rich, apparently, have God's favour. They rule by divine right.

As far as the independence of northern European states, you may be correct. But it could also be that Luther forestalled a greater revolution, and a greater independence.

the Atheist Who Came in From the Cold? :
[url=http://tinyurl.com/2ubea6]http://tinyurl.com/2ubea6[/url]

What [i]I[/i] don't like are the religious people who think having a religion gets them a free pass on things nonreligious people get a hard time over.

Politicians hide behind their religion(s) when it's convenient to do so.

Workers who have nonstandard religious holidays get to book a day off work even if they never intend to actually celebrate the occasion. Atheists don't get Atheist's Day Off.

Religious individuals caught with their mitts in the cookie jar justify their misdeeds on whatever convenient twist of religious doctrine they can come up with. I'm reminded of the guy who beat his wife and in all seriousness got up in court and quoted the exact phrase in the Bible that appears to validate his position. (Never mind that on an ethical level, hitting someone else who hasn't done anything to you just plain isn't nice)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Noah_Scape:
[b]
I don't agree with your attack Cueball, I feel strongly that "rationalism" has NEVER had it's chance to work, and that so far, in every case, religion poisens everything. [not that Hitler didn't also]. [/b]

---

Well, fisrt of all I deliberately avoided mentioning Hitler, because I know that there are numerous people promoting this line that the Nazi's were in essence religiously motivated, and so stuck to other comparisons, such as Stalin, who was clearly anti-religious. And Soviet Communism was rationalist in evert fiber of its ideological structure.

This even though disagree that Nazism was essentially a Christian religious movement. I think it was a modernist rationalist movement, and certainly it went through a great deal of effort to "scientifically prove" its racialist ideology through socio-biology and the fledgling science of genetics. There is as much cult of the scientific in National Socialism as there are appeals Germanic religious folklore.

Really I think that this analysis of National Socialism amounts to conspiracy theory, of the kind that infects much of the religion is the root of all evil camp, in that it finds facts to fit the thesis of its predeterimined conclusion.

Religions are everywhere, so we can conveniently lay the poison challice at their feet, and say there is the proof of the crime.

But again, that was not the example I chose, and the fact that there are plenty more examples out there, without needing to invoke Hitler certainly indicates something all by itself.

As for the idea that "rationalism has not had a chance to work," this is a excuse is available to any ideologist. It could easily be made by any religiously minded humanist who might claim, things would be much better were everyone to obey the "ten commandments." I mean, really think how many problems would be solved if people simply obeyed gods injunction not to kill?

It was Ho Chi Minh who famously opined, when asked about wether or not he thought a classless society was possible, that 'Christians had been preaching peace on earth since the death of Christ and it had not happened yet.'

The reality though, is that much killing has been done by quite sincere rationalist humanists civilizers of the unwashed and backward, presumptuously holding forth the belief that their enlightement was uniquely suited to govern all men and women.

quote:

---

Are you just going to ignore the fact that Bush uses religion to give his invasions of Arab nations credibility? And that "let the world burn" [to hurry the 2nd coming] is a reality in political circles today?

---

But herein lies the true dilemma, rationalist fundamentalists like Hitchens are on side with the religious wackos!

So, in terms of the external political reach of the "western" states, the religious fundamentalist wackos agree with the rationalist fundamentalist wackos that Islam is essentially bad, albiet for different reasons, and as such this means that an effective policy to extend western hegemony can be enacted, under the flag of religion and/or the flag of rationalist humanism.

By supporting this world view, rationalist fundamenatlist wackos like Hitchens do nothing by reinforce and empower the ruling religious elite in the US, by signing on for the main policies they espouse. This is especially true of Hitchens, whose latent xenophobia is obvious in that he finds a comfortable alliance with the Christian right, whose forms and traditions are apparently less noxious than those of the external enemy religion which he finds particularly backward as it does not obviously hail from the humanist tradition which is based on European Christian morality.

His catergorization of Nazi Germany as a religious regieme, is precisely designed to invoke WW2, as a quasi religious conflict in order to assert a moral precedent in todays war on terror, where we must accept an alliance with the Christian Right embodied in the USA, and what it stands for against the backward heathens, even though he completely ignores the fact that the regieme in power today in the US, is not the secular liberal humanist elite of Franklin Delano Roosevelt Democrats.

[ 05 November 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Has anyone previously commented on Christopher Hitchens' challenge to theists?

First, can you name one immoral action that can be committed by an atheist but not by a religious person?

Second, can you name one immoral action that can be committed by a religious person but not by an atheist?

I really like this challenge because it seems fairly obvious that the former question is very difficult to answer and the latter question is very easy.

And not only is there no doubt that he considered HIMSELF to be a Christian, but the church to which he belonged considered him a Christian, too, and helped him as much as they could.

But I wouldn't draw conclusions from that about all Christians, or even all Christian churches - or even all Christians who belong to Hitler's church. I know from experience that there are an awful lot of progressive Christians who dissent from within troglodyte churches. I used to be one of them.

[Edited to change "would" to "wouldn't" - just slightly affects the meaning of the post!]

[ 19 November 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]

Haven't read much of this thread, but I just wanted to point out that Hitchens recently released a compilation called: The Portable Atheist: Essential Readings for the Nonbeliever."

It has essays or extracts from books by 47 authors (including Dawkins, Harris, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Warraq, McEwan, Dennett, Sagan, Russell, Orwell, Einstein, Freud, Goldman, Twain, Darwin, Marx, Mill, Hume, Lucretius etc.)

I am far from finished it, but so far I would have to say that I prefer it over "god Is Not Great" which says a lot, as I am big fan of it too.