Tools, science, philosophy. Those that are not harmful, anyway. Well, anything can be harmful when misused. Therein lies a problem.
One thing I have a very hard time enjoying in any way, shape, or form is religion. Religion is too harmful; it could be interesting if it weren't taken too seriously.
Yet I remind myself, as with anything, it is only a tool in the hands of a person. The way that person uses it determines whether it causes harm or not.
It's just that I almost never run across a person wielding religion who doesn't remind me of a drunk teenage boy with an AK-47 and a 6-foot high stack of 7.62X39 in little 20-round boxes, a pile of loaded magazines; sitting there looking at an abandoned field filled with unbroken glass jars, a couple of boxes of old, sweaty dynamite, and a rusted out car, and a couple of crows.
And I'm usually a crow.
Still, I would never dream of using the force of The State to tell someone what they can believe, or preach. As long as they don't use those beliefs to create "laws" it is none of my business- beyond excusing myself from their presence when they start. And I would never try to use The State against them even when they don't return the respect. In that case, however, I will not hold my tongue.
.
Lots of religious people are very nice. Lots of non-religious people are very nasty. It's counterproductive to be throwing religious people into the category of enemy by default. It's collectivist thinking and it is an example of "Divide and Conquer". The ruling class loves it when people do this.
ReplyDeleteThat subset of religious people who really are your enemy, would still be your enemy if they weren't religious.
One of the best things I ever did in my life, was give up on hatred of religious people BECAUSE they were religious. Best for me, as well as for them. Hatred is a very corrosive emotion. It often does not serve my aims. However I understand it does have it's place.
(This post was written about a week ago; long before the comment defending religious people that you posted yesterday.)
ReplyDeleteIt is collectivist thinking on my part. Yet, those thinking patterns are shaped by experience. And bad experiences tend to burn themselves into the brain. If you have 3 or 4 Siths attack you over the course of a year, you'll remember them while not remembering the 20 Siths who walked past without doing anything. And, you'll also remember that it was Siths and not jawas who did the attacking. That may not be "fair", but it is the way things work. If you are a Sith and you see another Sith attacking someone, you might want to stop the attack if it will bother you that you'll have to deal with the consequences of other people's actions.
Lots of religious people may be very nice- but around here most of them justify pretty hideous actions with their religious beliefs. Even my very nice religious family members.
They might not kick in your door personally, but their religious beliefs seem to make them big fans of the State kicking in your door if you are suspected of doing something their religion says is wrong. Or even things like smoking pot or being an "illegal alien" that they manage to "interpret" into their mystical book's list of "sins".
People use their religion as an excuse to do all sorts of horrible statist things, and justify even more horrible statist things they want the State to do on their behalf.
I'm sure they would probably still support horrible statist things whether they were religious or not, but they'd be forced to find some other weapon to use against their victims in that case. They couldn't pretend to have God on their side, like they do now.
I do understand that people CAN be religious without being bad- it's just that here in this particular part of the Bible Belt, there is a lot more truly sanctimonious behavior than I have seen other places where I've lived. Even the "criminals" here are religious.
I have lived other places where religious people "kept it in their pants". They had deeply-held beliefs that you could see in their actions, or that they would tell you about if you asked, but they didn't try to hold you down and shove it down your throat at every opportunity, and didn't turn every single conversation into an opportunity to preach to one another- assuming that you are one of them.
I don't "hate" them, or anyone. Well, during an attack I may hate the attacker, regardless of why he is attacking. The religious people who don't use their religion as a weapon don't attract my attention or irritation. And really, it isn't the religious people I don't like- it is religion. It most certainly isn't because they are religious- it is because of the things they do and support in the name of their religion. I can only judge their religion by their actions (besides what I know from being raised deeply immersed in it).
They can do that if they wish, and I can write a blog saying that their religion is disgusting. It's better than blowing up in their faces, I think.
I'd like to make a few observations-forgive the length, but I think it will be worthwhile.
ReplyDeleteIsn't religion just philosophy that believes in singular truth?
It seems to me that your issue with religion has less to do with belief in supernatural or creator beings, and more to do with the notion that the religious view their morality as the only possible truth, and that often they are compelled to prosecute that "truth" with force. Would you agree?
Certainly religion has been, and is, used as a mechanism of control-but so has science, and especially secular philosophy-in fact the most brutal regimes ever to exist twisted secular science and philosophy to justify their evil(the atheist states of the USSR and Mao's China-and to a lesser extent, Hitler.)
I would argue that ANY philosophy that claims to define "objective" morality(or ethics if you prefer) is itself both a religion and ultimately a looming justification for violence, including "ZAP."
Case in point: Perhaps you recall, the person who coined the term 'ZAP'(he did not develop the concept, but no matter)once threatened-in writing-physical violence(killing)against a group of people who were discussing a piece of his work on an internet forum, and planned to use a version of it. He claimed he was being stolen from, and justified threatening violence and death based upon his supposedly objective interpretation of libertarian philosophy.
I see little difference between his outlandish threat and the generation, and use of, 'laws.'
While the above is an extreme-and possibly(likely?)staged for publicity-example, the concept of equating property violation with physical violence is common-I see it all over the place.
Property is a subjective cultural concept, physical violence is an objective reality. How can objective ethics be based upon subjective criteria?
How do you reconcile this? Doesn't non-aggression have, by necessity, exceptions?
For my part, I really don't think the concept of non-aggression was ever intended to be an objective morality, rather it ought to be thought of as a subjective ideal-a guiding principle. Something to strive for, rather than something to comply with. We all reach our own specific definition of it, and apply it to real world situations based upon our own judgement-i.e., it is subjective. There is, rather demonstrably, plenty of room for debate.
I think much of the objective aspects that we commonly see-within both libertarianism and communism, to use extremes-are the contribution of aggressive atheists-such as the man above, and most certainly Ayn Rand(though its roots are in Hegel and Marx.)
Objective morality is comforting, and provides a pat excuse for otherwise unconscionable acts-such as Rand's espoused belief in the propriety of murdering Native Americans and Arabs for land and resources, Stalin and Mao's murdering of millions to build utopia, Hitler's belief in killing "parasites",a Baptist blowing up an abortion clinic, the "religious criminal" above, or a grumpy old man threatening to shoot a bunch of kids who worship(ed) him for...worshiping him.
Every one of those people believed that they were "right." No, not just right, they believed that it was totally impossible for them to be wrong(or at least their followers believed such-who knows what Stalin or Ayn Rand actually believed.)
I submit that even if(a biiiiig "if") there is such a thing as an objective morality-none of us would be capable of accurately defining it, we would only be able to subjectively interpret it. Rather like we could never determine the reality of "god".
Just my thoughts, I'm glad you made the post since I've never quite completed that thought before now.
"Isn't religion just philosophy that believes in singular truth? "
ReplyDeletePartially, but I don't think that's quite whole picture.
"...It seems to me that your issue with religion has ... more to do with the notion that the religious view their morality as the only possible truth, and that often they are compelled to prosecute that "truth" with force."
Pretty much. I don't care what delusions a person may nurse as long as they don't use that as justification for coercion. I think it is harmful to believe you have to appease the faeries, but as long as you don't force others to go along, or force them to pretend your actions are based upon reality, you are only harming yourself.
"Certainly religion has been, and is, used as a mechanism of control-but so has science, and especially secular philosophy..."
Philosophy isn't a science. Science hasn't ever controlled anyone, other than show that X will happen if you do Y, whether you like it or not. Some people don't like that and resent reality, but it doesn't change it.
The tyrants didn't use science; they used a philosophical interpretation of a misunderstanding of some scientific discoveries. In fact, science would have shown them they were wrong, if they had used it.
Control freaks will use whatever is at hand to justify their aggression. Hitler wasn't an atheist. And, for that matter, neither were the Soviets or Maoists. They just swapped a supernatural god for a governmental one. No difference, really.
"I would argue that ANY philosophy that claims to define "objective" morality(or ethics if you prefer) is itself both a religion and ultimately a looming justification for violence, including "ZAP.""
I don't think a philosophy is the same as a religion. Philosophies are not "handed down from a supernatural being", as religions claim to be. I can accept that someone who comes up with a philosophy could be flawed and not live up to it. I have never seen a religious person accept that their god behaves monstrously.
"...the person who coined the term 'ZAP'(he did not develop the concept, but no matter)once threatened-in writing-physical violence(killing)against a group of people who were discussing a piece of his work on an internet forum, and planned to use a version of it. He claimed he was being stolen from, and justified threatening violence and death based upon his supposedly objective interpretation of libertarian philosophy."
Yep. Humans are flawed. And he would have been guilty of violating the ZAP had he done so, and might have been anyway by threatening to do so.
"I see little difference between his outlandish threat and the generation, and use of, 'laws.'"
I see a huge difference. With "laws" the initiator of violence is immune to any justice/restitution. He would not have been. Were I called upon to arbitrate this case, I would have probably found against him, even though I consider him a friend.
(to be continued...)
(...continued)
ReplyDelete"Property is a subjective cultural concept, physical violence is an objective reality. How can objective ethics be based upon subjective criteria? "
Property isn't subjective, but there are some disagreements (around the fringes) as to what constitutes property. Violence in defense of property is not a violation of the ZAP. If it were, there would be no point making anything. Or doing anything. But you'd better be absolutely certain you actually OWN that which you are violently defending. If property weren't real, I could just walk in to your house and set up. I could eat everything in your refrigerator and clean out your bank account because there would be no such thing as theft.
"Doesn't non-aggression have, by necessity, exceptions? "
So far I have found none.
"Something to strive for, rather than something to comply with."
I suppose that is what I do. If I were to find a situation where I thought it was "necessary" to violate the ZAP, and I thought the consequences were worth it and I was willing to face them, I would probably do what I "needed" to do. But, I would know there was a reason to judge my actions.
"I think much of the objective aspects that we commonly see...are the contribution of aggressive atheists... "
And I think if you weighed the corpses of the dead you would find more killed by people for religious excuses than all the rest put together. Seriously, until you have lived in a place that is as deeply religious as this area, you might believe "aggressive atheists" are the greater danger. I have never personally met an aggressive atheist who can hold a candle to the aggression of a religious person who thinks god is on his side. Not even close. If god is directing you, you can do no "wrong".
"Objective morality is comforting, and provides a pat excuse for otherwise unconscionable acts"
Which is why I find morality rather disgusting, preferring ethics instead. Morality waffles, depending on what your particular in-group believes. Ethics doesn't shift around. It is wrong to steal. It is wrong to attack someone who is not attacking or stealing.
"Rather like we could never determine the reality of "god". "
Oh, I think we not only can, but have. And it doesn't come out well for the believers. Which is why they may be getting so aggressive.
But back to the original topic, I'm not really talking about actual evil monsters, I am talking about normal people who are mostly decent, until they rely on their religion to tell them that it's OK to bully people who don't share their beliefs. It's not as newsworthy as the bigger stuff, but is a lot more common and probably hurts a lot more people.