Religion
Related: About this forumWhat Hitchens got wrong: Abolishing religion won’t fix anything
http://www.salon.com/2013/12/07/what_hitchens_got_wrong_abolishing_religion_wont_fix_anything/SATURDAY, DEC 7, 2013 05:30 AM MST
Hitchens believed atheism would end world conflict. But the world's wars are about politics, not religion
SEAN MCELWEE
Christopher Hitchens (Credit: Twelve Books)
Religion has once again become the opiate of the people. But this time, instead of seducing the proletariat into accepting its position in a capitalist society, it lulls atheists into believing that abolishing religion would bring about utopia.
It is rather disturbing trend in a country whose greatest reformer was a Reverend Dick Gregory has said, Ten thousand years from now, the only reason a history book will mention the United States is to note where Martin Luther King Jr. was born to believe that religion is the root of all evil. And yet this is what the New Atheism (an anti-theist movement led originally by Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and the late and great Christopher Hitchens) movement asserts.
The fundamental error in the New Atheist dogma is one of logic. The basic premise is something like this:
2. Religion is irrational
3. Religion is the cause of all human suffering
The New Atheist argument gives religion far, far too much credit for its ability to mold institutions and shape politics, committing the classic logical error of post hoc ergo propter hoc mistaking a cause for its effect.
more at link
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)immoderate
(20,885 posts)None of the atheists cited is quoted as saying that eliminating religion will solve all political problems. And he jousts at a dead man.
--imm
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)is just idiotic. Talk about blatant intellectual dishonesty. He could not name one atheist, alive or dead, who has ever tried to justify the conclusion "Religion is the cause of all human suffering" in that way, or in ANY way, for that matter.
Leave it to Salon. Hack magnet.
rug
(82,333 posts)"I know some religious people of all faiths that really are spiritual but religion overall has been poisonous to mankind."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218102067#post19
And right in this room.
Of, course, there's always this chestnut: "Religion poisons everything".
immoderate
(20,885 posts)Doesn't have that "exclusivity."
--imm
rug
(82,333 posts)immoderate
(20,885 posts)But you knew that.
--imm
Silent3
(15,266 posts)...is not the same as saying religion is the only form of poison, that all poisoning would end when religion is gone. That's the big unjustified leap, NOT being made by any prominent atheist, nor any other atheist that I've ever known, required for the OP to me anything more than beating on a straw man.
rug
(82,333 posts)Silent3
(15,266 posts)...is to distort what you consider a distortion even further?
rug
(82,333 posts)one objects to is patently ridiculous.
Some call it twisting words.
Silent3
(15,266 posts)...to "that to which one objects", why not just f*cking say what you mean? I've done you the courtesy of being pretty straightforward and clear about what I'm talking about, even if you don't agree.
rug
(82,333 posts)Civility is always appreciated.
Silent3
(15,266 posts)Then it ends. And you're still in error trying to connect the straw man of the OP to that unrelated bit of hyperbole, which you deflected from dealing with by continuing with more smug bullshit.
rug
(82,333 posts)The only smugness I see here is the Hitchen apologists trying to deflect what the OP stated. In typical fashion, selecting from the logical fallacies app, I see cries of "Strawman! Strawman!" "He never said the elimination of religion will cure all mankinds's evils!"
Ho hum.
Read it again. The entire thing. This is what he wrote:
He's right.
I've seen far too many of these shallow screeds to give any credence, let alone respect, to those arguments.
If you don't like it, if it makes you uncomfortable, so what. I'd have more respect for an actual argument than recycled bullshit and "Strawman! Strawman!" It reminds me of Gomer Pyle shouting "Citizen's Arrest! Citizen's Arrest!"
Silent3
(15,266 posts)It's a characterization by an anti-atheist about atheists. Even if it correctly identifies some atheists giving religion too much "credit" for the evil in this world, that still doesn't amount to any atheist saying that taking religion away would end all world conflict.
Overestimating the potency of a cause is not equivalent to identifying that cause as the sole cause of a given effect, in this case the cause being "religion" and the effect being all "world conflict".
The charge of "straw man" is being evoked simply because this is a perfectly applicable case for it to be evoked. That people are crying "straw man" frequently is not due to it being an invalid charge, but rather the frequent deployment of this invalid rhetorical technique.
rug
(82,333 posts)How much of the Mideast situation is the result of religion version nonreligious factors?
Silent3
(15,266 posts)Last edited Sun Dec 8, 2013, 10:30 AM - Edit history (2)
I think it would be easier, however, to diffuse tensions and strip away some of the self-righteous excuses given for odious behavior and blind allegiance. How you'd quantify that and test it... that's quite another matter, no matter how much influence or lack thereof you think religion has.
At any rate, plenty of atheists would agree that religion isn't the sole cause of conflict in the world. If Hitchens were alive, and in a mood not to be pugnacious just for the sake of being pugnacious, I suspect he'd agree with that too, knowing full well that power, territory, resources, and non-religious cultural conflicts are also common excuses for bloodshed.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,361 posts)and that atheist dogma is "religion is the cause of all human suffering". He, or his sub-editor, wrote "Hitchens believed atheism would end world conflict".
One doesn't point out a 'strawman' by ignoring the actual quotes, and using a less extreme part of what is under attack to say "see? What he said wasn't like that".
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I often see posts that say that all religion should go away, that the world would be a much better place were religion abolished, that religious organizations should be prohibited from providing care to the needy, that religion is at the root of almost all (if not all) conflict.
They are following the dogma of Hitchens and his ilk. Saying things like "Religion is a disease" are absolutist statements that lead to prejudice or even outright bigotry against believers.
One might argue about this author's somewhat extreme statements, but, imho, they pale in comparison to what some of the leading anti-atheists have said.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,361 posts)No, I don't think I have seen people here go to that extreme. And we're effectively anonymous people on a fairly fringe website, rather than someone getting published (and probably paid) on a website with a reputation as thoughtful - at times, at least. Still, looking him up, I see McElwee was an intern at reason.com in 2011, and for John Stossel at Fox. We can't expect much of him. He's had some crappy teachers.
rug
(82,333 posts)The meaning is perfectly clear if one wants to engage in a discussion.
"Strawman!" does not trump rhetoric, it attempts to stifle it
muriel_volestrangler
(101,361 posts)as if that was all it had said, you're now saying that the point is that making the argument that immoderate called a straw man 3 times is just 'rhetoric'.
You're moving the goalposts. After the goal was scored. Better luck next time.
rug
(82,333 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)to be problematic, or worse, might assume to be a 'good' portrayal of the effect of religion on people's behavior.
I was quite surprised to learn several (documented, referenced, sourced) things about Mother Teresa that are not flattering at all. Would have never guessed. Didn't know much about her beyond the media/pop culture portrayal.
rug
(82,333 posts)Pointing to egregious examples does not at all demonstrate his claim.Particular descriptions rarely describe the whole.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I can find not one subject that I cannot find an exception to.
rug
(82,333 posts)gcomeau
(5,764 posts)It's the equivalent of if Hitchens had said "All uranium is radioactive" and the hack article writer had then come along and said Hitchrns claimed all radiation was caused by uranium.
Religion can poison everything without being the *only* "poison". Hitchens at no time, ever, made the argument that getting rid of religion would magically solve all problems. I can think of no atheist who has ever made such a ridiculous argument.
rug
(82,333 posts)Unless you indeed believe what he said.
You're really missing the point of the article. Conveniently so.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)exaggeration and just plain lying right?
The claim being attributed to Hitchens is not an exaggeration of one he actually made. It is something that is not even in the nature off anything he ever said.
The point of the article is to argue about how wrong a claim nobody has ever made is... thus making the article basically pointless.
rug
(82,333 posts)gcomeau
(5,764 posts)I think this is where I get off. Enjoy being a juvenile.
rug
(82,333 posts)gcomeau
(5,764 posts)...you actually think having your juvenile behavior called out is an ad hominem argument.
Hint: I wasn't making an argument.
rug
(82,333 posts)Whatever you were trying to do, it was not an argument.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)Your understanding of what's going on has at least marginally improved over where it was in your last post then.
Perhaps if you keep this up we'll be able to engage in a grown-up conversation without the juvenile little games. But until then, as I mentioned before... bye.
rug
(82,333 posts)Oh, I'll just do it for you.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)gcomeau
(5,764 posts)Appeal to the bandwagon? Really?
Are you having fun playing this silly little game? Because it isn't exactly doing wonders for any attempt you may make to claim the juvenile label isn't warranted.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)"Religion poisons everything" is not the same in any way to the analog that you would require to defend the salon article: 'Everything poisonous is religious'.
rug
(82,333 posts)But let's look at the real point of the article and not this diversionary back water.
Do you think capitalist political economy or religion is the greater poison?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Personally, religion. Hard to think of an actual capitalist society. The US is a mixed market economy.
rug
(82,333 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)But there are elements of our economy (as I said, it is mixed market) that are perfectly valid and wonderful.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_corporatism
As a source of infringement on my personal liberties, I consider religion to be a much larger, more immediate threat.
rug
(82,333 posts)The U;S. economy is mixed only in the sense that there is water in shit. No one mistakes shit for water.
There is a also a very thin line between basing a political stance on personal liberties and libertarianism.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Not so, for religions. There are some that spend millions every year lobbying against things I enjoy, and claim the open right to do.
rug
(82,333 posts)Thousands of others are.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)how many corporations are suing to block it on corporate freedom grounds?
Sub 'religions' for 'corporations' and 'religious' for 'corporate' and suddenly that sentence is a knocking-on-the-supreme-courts-door reality.
rug
(82,333 posts)While others are using it as an excuse to cut workers' benefits.
You really are immersed in a parochial issue.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)It's how I work.
rug
(82,333 posts)It doesn't work.
You can complain about religion all you want on your way to fascism. Don't be upset if people find more important things to do than listen.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I stick with my assessment.
rug
(82,333 posts)there is only one group that will win.
It's the group that has always thrived on divisions.
It ain't us. Feel free to disassociate. I wouldn't want to impinge on your personal liberty.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)However, it will never happen again, as the church's power wanes, so there's that.
rug
(82,333 posts)I hope you have an alternate plan if your prediction proves false.
rug
(82,333 posts)immoderate
(20,885 posts)--imm
rug
(82,333 posts)immoderate
(20,885 posts)--imm
rug
(82,333 posts)immoderate
(20,885 posts)--imm
rug
(82,333 posts)immoderate
(20,885 posts)--imm
rug
(82,333 posts)Along with myriad less skilled imitators.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,361 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)I suppose the criticism of Hitchens must stop after his death.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)He claims they have said the religion is the root of all evil. When people make statements like "Religion Poisons Everything", that's a pretty broad and sweeping statement.
He may be jousting with a dead man, but he is also taking on his disciples.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)Hitchens may have argued religion was the single, most significant and historically consistent contributor to human suffering, but by no means did he ever claim it was the sole source of evil in the world.
Either the author is deliberately misrepresenting Hitchens or he hasn't read very much of the man's work. Neither, in my opinion, are excusable.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)You are trying to take him to task for making an "absolute" statement. I don't think he does that but Hitchens came close enough, imo.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)Sounds fairly absolute to me.
And I do not agree that taking a commentator to task for improper attributions is nit-picking. There's plenty of disagreeable things Hitchens actually said that one need not make shit up to repudiate him.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)I mean seriously
do you not think everyone can read what's written JUST ABOVE?
He claims they have said "Religion is the cause of all human suffering". Actually, he doesn't just claim they have said it
he claims they have reached it by some fucked-up steps of logic that he ginned up but which no intelligent person would ever use.
When you say "He claims they have said the religion is the root of all evil" that's not remotely the same thing, and you know it. So why would you make that claim?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)'religion poisons everything'
and
'everything evil is religious'
or 'everything poisonous is religious'.
Making the claim that the root of all evil is religion would be analogous to either of those two latter statements. It is not, in any way, analogous to the first statement.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)He does say that these anti-theist leaders say that religion is the root of all evil. I will agree that may be an exaggeration of what they have actually said, but not much of one.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)of the analogue I offered.
Something none of them are stupid enough to do.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)You're so adamant that the evil New Atheists have declared religion to be THE CAUSE of evil and want to destroy it - how about you conjure up some quotes? You know, some quotes that show your author's exaggeration (which you now admit - good job backpedaling!) isn't "much of one"?
Can you do this, or will you respond with silence and a passive acknowledgment that you have nothing to back up what you say, only assertions because by gosh you just KNOW those evil atheists want to eliminate all religion (and commit genocide to do it, too!)?
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Find any quotes from these "anti-theist leaders" proving that it's "not much" of an exaggeration yet, cbayer?
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Getting rid of religion wouldn't eliminate war. It would just make it a bit more difficult to justify and believe in
trotsky
(49,533 posts)But, it bashes the hated "New Atheists," so it's understandable why you love it and will defend it despite all its flaws.
LostOne4Ever
(9,290 posts)the author bashes a deadman over something he never said.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Countless posters have mentioned that Hitchens didn't say what this author is attacking him for saying. But that matters not to those who believe the "New Atheists" are a bigger threat to humanity than any religion.
I mean, totally, just look at how many suicide bombers act in the name of Hitchens or Dawkins...
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)How much in Iraq, if Shia and Sunni not at loggerheads?
Or shia/sunni versus Kurds? That's not just a 'political' issue.
How about in Kosovo?
Afghanistan/Pakistan?
Between Pakistan and India?
etc.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)By definition, religion is politics.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)If your point is that they are inseparable, sure, I totally agree.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)Religion is a system intended to direct, or at least influence, civic or individual behavior. Ergo, by definition religion is a political enterprise. Politics, on the other hand, is not necessarily a religious enterprise. So, you can take the religion out of politics, but you can't take the politics out of religion, if you catch my meaning.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)they couldn't stop it. They should have taken a lesson from history from the Romans who also tried it. Hitchens needs to learn the lessons of history. One of the best ways to perpetuate a religion and bring in followers is to persecute it and create martyrs.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)He's dead.
Not that it matters particularly, because--despite what the author of this hack-piece suggests--Hitchens never advocated persecuting believers in the first place. No one is. That may have something to do with all of the atheists around here screaming "straw man" every other line.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Sorry. Saying that some people are diseased simply because they have religious beliefs is pretty bad.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)The shirt addresses ideas, not the people who hold them. Do you honestly think this is an endorsement of persecution?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I think that saying that religion is a disease which must be cured is expressing hostility towards a group based on their beliefs.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)...but that doesn't mean the argument is valid. If you're going to claim Dawkins advocates persecution of believers, I think providing a direct quote would be the honest thing to do. What you're doing now is drawing flimsy conclusions from a vague quip printed on a cheap tee-shirt, a quip which relates specifically to ideas and makes no prescriptions whatsoever towards anyone who holds them.
This is a bush we've beaten around more times than I care to count. Here, conservatism is treated like a disease. Conservative ideas are met with hostility, when they are even permitted. Does this constitute persecution of conservatives? Do you really think anyone here advocates the systemic abolition of conservatism?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)When Dawkins calls religious beliefs delusions, he is calling believers delusional.
When he says faith is an excuse not to think, that he is "against" religion, says that children are being brainwashed, calls believers infantile, say that belief is just "sucking up", and that faith is "very dangerous", he is attacking religious believers. While he may not advocate persecution, his repeated attacks on believers meets the definition of persecution. He does advocate for the systemic abolition of religion.
This is a board for progressive and democratic liberals. There is a defined "other" on this board. They are not welcome here and it is permissible to freely attack them.
This board also is composed of both believers and non-believers. Were someone here to say the kinds of things about atheists that Dawkins says about religionists, that would violate the community standards. Same goes for saying those things about believers.
There is no valid comparison with conservatives on this site.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Calling an idea a delusion is NOT the same as calling a person delusional - no matter how much you really, really want it to be the case. And even calling someone delusional doesn't mean they are being called mentally ill. Smart, sane people can be delusional. It's not an insult or - as clearly you think it is - a call for GENOCIDE. Understand words and how they can be used before you start ripping into others, hmm?
Now - A_o_R made a very good point with some questions he asked. Your insistence that conservatives aren't welcome here, so we may freely attack them, doesn't address the questions at all. They are completely valid even though conservatives aren't welcome:
1) Does the criticism of conservative ideas on this board constitute persecution of conservatives?
2) Do you really think anyone here advocates the systemic abolition of conservatism?
Why won't you answer those simple yes-or-no questions? Readers can only assume that your silence means you realize what a crumbling foundation your position rests upon.
longship
(40,416 posts)Does this author really think that people are so ignorant that they cannot see through his patently straw man logic claim?
Certainly, Hitchens would not have made any such claim.
Once I saw that, there was no need to read the rest of what this person has on their mind.
In other words... Meh!
pokerfan
(27,677 posts)1. If it rains, the street will be wet
2. The street is wet.
3. Therefore it rained.
QED?
trotsky
(49,533 posts)She believes the author makes a great point, and is accurately relaying the statements of noted atheists.
I take it you disagree with her?
longship
(40,416 posts)And I don't get upset with people just because they disagree with me.
That's something a few people around here could learn.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)I await her response as well! Dialog and discussion are a good thing, don't you agree?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)what this particular group of "leaders" have said in order to make his point, I do agree with his overall point (as you probably know).
The hostility towards religion and all things religious expressed by some people is misguided. I have seen it said here that things would be much better if only religion were eliminated. Not only do I disagree with that and see religion as a strong societal asset when used correctly, I also believe it's just never going to happen.
Nice to see you longship. Hope you are staying warm.
longship
(40,416 posts)It's about 10F today. Four inches of snow on the ground. A little early for this shit.
Warm enough inside, though.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Mexico.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)but that's OK because it confirms what you want to believe.
That is unfortunate, cbayer. You keep attacking those straw men - in the meantime, I'm going to worry about what people are actually saying and doing. Like the Catholic church continuing to oppose reproductive freedom, equality of women, and LGBT rights.
You are free to view imagined versions of what a dead atheist said as a bigger threat, of course.