Atheists & Agnostics
Related: About this forumWhat does it take to blame religion?
An oldie but a goodie from Jerry Coyne.
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/04/04/what-does-it-take-to-blame-religion/
...
Granted, evil actions often stem from a complicated nexus of faith and secular factors. But I wonder about this: if people say that the root causes of evil in this world are things like xenophobia, politics, colonialism, and the like, why wouldnt you place faith among them? After all, to many people faith is far more personal, far more important, than politics. Many Catholics go to church weekly; many Muslims pray five times a day and read only the Quran. Many people say that their faith is the most important thing in their lives. And, as I said, people consider it far more insulting to criticize their faith than their politics. Given this, why wouldnt faith be responsible for some awful things? Why is it alone excused from being an impetus of evil? We all know the reason: belief in belief.
...
So I offer a tentative suggestion to identify situations in which religion is responsible for evils. Its this:
Would those acts have still been committed had there been no religion?
RussBLib
(9,666 posts)Why is faith alone excused from being an impetus of evil? It isn't. Certainly not in my world. Plenty of right-minded people see that devout faith (be it Islam or Christianity, etc) can cause conflicts with other faiths, or conflicts with non-believers.
Those who would excuse the belief system from being a first cause most likely have some vested interest in thinking that way.
I don't yet understand Coyne's reference of a "belief in belief," unless he means something to the effect that, since the majority of the 7 billion or so humans on Earth at this time are believers in some form of religion, then belief gets a collective "pass" so to speak. Perhaps only when the majority of humans on Earth possess a scientific or rational thought process would we no longer have a "belief in belief"? Maybe not.
I've just started reading Coyne's latest book, Faith vs. Fact.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Daniel Dennett talks about that in his book on priests that don't believe but still preach. A notion that believing is somehow good for people even tho' you know it's not true.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Great concise summary.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Belief_in_belief
nil desperandum
(654 posts)progressoid
(50,748 posts)Iggo
(48,271 posts)edhopper
(34,836 posts)that it is not because of religion, cause some stuff and some other stuff.
Lars39
(26,232 posts)Last edited Mon Jul 13, 2015, 10:14 AM - Edit history (1)
It's always God's will for the innocuous stuff, yet God doesn't give babies cancer. Oh, I "just don't understand how it works."
My rebuttal: you can't have it both ways, giving credit for the blessings but not the curses.
I've been beating myself up thinking I should have just walked away and said nothing, but that has only seemed to let the brainwashed take over.
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)So, there you have it.
Lars39
(26,232 posts)Babies with cancer are results of sin or just shit that happens to the unblessed.
My BP is up from their alternate universe crap.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Because sin is just offending god. In really weird ways too.
Major Nikon
(36,900 posts)No matter what happens it's all god's "will" and comparatively we are all like ants who will never be able to understand the will of people. Then they go on to promote their dogma, often by the force of government, based on the will of god.
Kinda funny how that works.
Lars39
(26,232 posts)<shudder>
mr blur
(7,753 posts)Goodbye to you.
mr blur
(7,753 posts)Somebody on the internet said something rude.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Say it ain't so!!! Wow, just wow!