Atheists & Agnostics
Related: About this forumToo good not to share...
Don't know if everyone here is familiar with theologian Karen Armstrong's ongoing efforts to absolve religion from any role in violence or terrorism (one of her worst errors is always engaging the straw man argument that somehow religion causes ALL violence, which neither I nor any other atheist I'm aware of insists), but I was just reading the comments section of an interview with her here and came across an absolute gem of a comparison:
However, religion is clearly an aggravating factor which amplifies and enables violence. There are clear reasons for this in the very basis of religions. Because religions rely on private revelation (scripture) as a source of truth, those who disagree cannot check the source, to see if the private revelation is real as opposed to just something someone made up. Since private revelation cannot be objectively tested, the only thing left is to resolve the dispute by fighting, which is what has been proven time and again over the past several thousand years.
Without religion, people have to rely on objectively testable data for their worldview. If there is a disagreement, simply repeat the test, consult those who did, etc. No need to fight. If one wants to keep an idea of a pantheistic god, then that data could be called public revelation.
Thats one, perhaps the biggest, reason why religion is violent, why reducing religion reduces violence (shown many times by studies), and why supernatural religion needs to be abandoned if we are to have a just, healthy and peaceful world. Its a lot like asking if smoking causes cancer the answer is no mutations cause cancer. But those mutations are encouraged and made much more likely if one smokes.
There are other reasons like clear verses in most Bibles, the Quran, and so on, which encourage violence. Those might be avoided with different scripture, but the supernatural basis of most religions makes the first reason unavoidable, regardless of how many counterexamples this book might list.
Well said, "Jon." Whoever you are.
Side note - I know there is a 4 paragraph limit for quoting from an article, but I'm assuming here that doesn't apply to user-submitted comments on a site. If anyone knows otherwise, just tell me.
JNelson6563
(28,151 posts)progressoid
(49,991 posts)Love the smoking/cancer analogy.
onager
(9,356 posts)Thanks a lot, that was interesting. Title refers to my poking around some "secular" websites, where criticism of Armstrong seems about the same as publicly kicking a kitten. In my cranky and worthless opinion, Armstrong is to some liberal Xians what Mother Teresa was to the Catholics - above criticism.
It helps me to remember that Armstrong started out as a conservative Catholic nun, and morphed into a mystical sort of liberal Xian. So this particular apple hasn't rolled all that far from the original tree.
As much as I loved Julia Sweeney's "Letting Go of God," her gushing over Armstrong in it annoyed me.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)have long struggled with its most evil effects and incarnations. When it comes right down to it, they have no way of showing another believer that their beliefs are wrong. Well, no way that doesn't also cast doubt on their beliefs and/or the reasoning behind them.
So what the new, untouchable heroes of the believer crew (like Armstrong and Reza Aslan) do is first refer to the aforementioned straw man argument (that religion is responsible for everything bad and that if we eliminate it, the world will be perfect), dispatch that with ease, and then just say that the people doing bad things because of their religion are actually doing it for other reasons. Rest assured, liberal believers, there is nothing wrong at all with belief. Others are just doing it wrong.
Who wouldn't embrace such an affirming message?
Plus it has the added benefit of lumping critics of religion in with the most dangerous fundamentalists - they're all unbelievers!
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Ooops!
onager
(9,356 posts)Review of Armstrong's "The Case For God." That one was supposed to be her answer to Dawkins, Hitchens, et. al.:
That tendency was really glaring in her book "Muhammad - A Prophet For Our Time." Lots of blather about justice, equality and how much Mo loved the other "People Of The Book," Jews and Xians. Little to no mention of the taxes imposed on non-Muslims and other punishments for not converting, misogyny, or the occasional massacre of really stubborn non-converters.
Still, I'm looking forward to Armstrong's future books, as she discovers more fun religions she can fall in love with. Maybe "Rev. Jim Jones, A New Appreciation" or "The Scholarly Side of the Taliban."
Also, Armstrong's bio says she is an expert in "religious affairs." But I didn't see any Armstrong works about Ted Haggard, Jimmy Swaggert or Jim Bakker...
NeoGreen
(4,031 posts)...that each of us copy this text and have it "at the ready" whenever the Religion</=>Violence discussion rears its ugly head.
Excellent post.
The concept/sentiment is very well expressed.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)And certainly not by the empty pomposity of "textual analysis" touted by the pseudo-theologians in Religion, but when people are convinced that the dictates of their religion have been handed down by a being that created and rules the universe, are they not just a wee bit more likely to take them seriously and to obey them without question, to fanatical, insane limits?
The writer also touches tangentially on the reason why there are so many religious sects, but only one science. And why no wars were fought between the Big Bangers and the Steady Staters.
NeoGreen
(4,031 posts)...are lookin' a bit sketchy...