The dangers of monolithic ideologies?

[98cwitr]

Hi everybody,

I am writing this because I have a sincere concern about religion in general. This is not meant in a deprecative way, I'm simply curious about different perspectives of different people. In the end, the best way to grow as a person is to compare your conclusions with those of other people. So here it goes:

Looking back it seems the worst atrocities commited in history were always commited when people are convinced that their doings are completely and utterly right. On this basis their conviction usually gives them a feeling of superiority based on a variety of different factors from race to ideology to the belief in their own one true god/scripture and so on. Closely related is the notion that there is something called good and evil in the world. And as long as a person can claim to fight for the "good" side, there seem to be no limits in what dreadful deeds can be done to defend the good (of course this is an oversimplification yet look around what terrible things are done by "good people" to keep "evil" at bay). These thought patterns seem to be prevalent in many political ideologies e.g. facism and communism as well as any radical movement of the religious side.

From my point of view the whole basis of this can be boiled down to an even simpler paradigm which is "There is just one truth and I know exactely what it is". This is one of the most dangerous convictions a person can have especially if this truth is dictated by someone higher up in the system (be it a religious, spiritual or political leader). This is usually the case because any individual on its own will have a hard time reaching this conclusion without being told the "ultimate truth" and being reinforced by its peers. While this doesn't necessarily lead to catastrophy, it has huge potential of doing so. And as history shows it has done uncountable times in the past.

Being an atheist and being content with contemplating the various "truths" people have come up with around the world as well as my own personal version of it, I can't help but worrying about religion. It seems to me that there is a huge potential of misleading otherwise well meaning people to whatever end religious leaders deem correct. This is more relevant than ever because in the modern times we live in we have aquired an ability which before was only credited to god - the ability to end all live on this little planet. The conclusion comes to mind that if we as a species want to become a truly enlightend and peaceful civilisation - without wiping each other out in the process - one of the grand obstacles we have to overcome is religion. And just so that I am not misunderstood, I don't want to imply that the means for this could be violence because violence in general cannot be the path to any such goal.

I don't mean to offend anyone, I'm just genuinly interessted in what believers think of this idea - controversial as it is. Maybe there is even someone who could free me of such worries. I'm looking forward to an interessting discussion.

this is the danger of ideology in general. Thankfully, if you place your ideals in the peace of Christ, you don't have to worry about hurting others.

 

[salida]

Hi everybody,

I am writing this because I have a sincere concern about religion in general. This is not meant in a deprecative way, I'm simply curious about different perspectives of different people. In the end, the best way to grow as a person is to compare your conclusions with those of other people. So here it goes:

Looking back it seems the worst atrocities commited in history were always commited when people are convinced that their doings are completely and utterly right. On this basis their conviction usually gives them a feeling of superiority based on a variety of different factors from race to ideology to the belief in their own one true god/scripture and so on. Closely related is the notion that there is something called good and evil in the world. And as long as a person can claim to fight for the "good" side, there seem to be no limits in what dreadful deeds can be done to defend the good (of course this is an oversimplification yet look around what terrible things are done by "good people" to keep "evil" at bay). These thought patterns seem to be prevalent in many political ideologies e.g. facism and communism as well as any radical movement of the religious side.

From my point of view the whole basis of this can be boiled down to an even simpler paradigm which is "There is just one truth and I know exactely what it is". This is one of the most dangerous convictions a person can have especially if this truth is dictated by someone higher up in the system (be it a religious, spiritual or political leader). This is usually the case because any individual on its own will have a hard time reaching this conclusion without being told the "ultimate truth" and being reinforced by its peers. While this doesn't necessarily lead to catastrophy, it has huge potential of doing so. And as history shows it has done uncountable times in the past.

Being an atheist and being content with contemplating the various "truths" people have come up with around the world as well as my own personal version of it, I can't help but worrying about religion. It seems to me that there is a huge potential of misleading otherwise well meaning people to whatever end religious leaders deem correct. This is more relevant than ever because in the modern times we live in we have aquired an ability which before was only credited to god - the ability to end all live on this little planet. The conclusion comes to mind that if we as a species want to become a truly enlightend and peaceful civilisation - without wiping each other out in the process - one of the grand obstacles we have to overcome is religion. And just so that I am not misunderstood, I don't want to imply that the means for this could be violence because violence in general cannot be the path to any such goal.

I don't mean to offend anyone, I'm just genuinly interessted in what believers think of this idea - controversial as it is. Maybe there is even someone who could free me of such worries. I'm looking forward to an interessting discussion.

Religion isn't the only area where barbarism has occurred. Politics has killed people like communism.

In this world there will always be opposing worldviews-thus, what it really boils down to is the fight against good and evil. As a christian we are to be the salt and light in all areas of our life and stand up for our values. Yes, there has been christians in name only who have murdered others (I don't mean self defense)-but these are phonies. Just like there are muslims who are radical terrorist and those who don't want sharia law and hate terrorism.

 

[salida]

We arn't animals. Animals can't make moral decisions. This type of evolution is a fraud.


(Where the atrocities really are)
What About Atrocities That Have Been Done in the Name of Religion?
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/atrocities.html

 

[solarwave]

I agree that claiming to have absolute truth can do great harm and that it would be better if there weren't fundementalist religious people.

I think the best thing to do is for everyone to be able to accept how little we know. Even if we believe our religion is more correct than others we need to be able to say that we still fall far short of fully understanding, even St Paul accepts this.

It seems to me that the more a learn the more I realise how little I know so a broad understanding I think is important to this, but as well as this being taught to think for ones self.

So I don't think it is religion that is the problem, it is the certain way people believe their highest beliefs and this doesn't just apply to religion.

 

[ephraimanesti]

@ ephraimanesti

The fact that you are only able to imagine these two scenarios doesn't mean that there are only two. 500 ago years people couldn't imagine that the earth is spinning and the notion was considered ludicrous. 150 years ago it was completely unimaginable that people would one time communicate the way we are right now. 80 years ago people couldn't imagine that the universe is bigger than our own galaxy, turns out there are over a hundred billion galaxies in the observable universe and I don't think any person could even get close to imagine what this number means. There are more things between heaven and earth than you and I have dreamt of in our philosophies my friend.

MY FRIEND,

The idea that the Universe in all its wonder and complexity could create itself through the purposeful actions of inanimate materials is pretty far fetched--even for atheists in their desperation and great need to have it so in spite of all the evidence to the contrary. It takes far more faith to be an atheist supporting the unsupportable than it does to be a Christian supporting the obvious.

ABBA'S FOOL,
ephraim

 

[aiki]

Well I somehow thought if I ask what people think of this idea they would get that it is an idea.

And I asked questions that challenged the logic of some your ideas and you defaulted to "I'm just toying around." A convenient way of avoiding having to answer hard questions.

Of course I could have started every sentence with maybe or perhaps but thats not how you present a thesis.

A thesis? Is that what you were presenting? From what you've been saying it sounded more like you were intending a hypothesis.

And once again the good and evil thing. You are making it pretty easy for yourself. You consider these things as evil because you were brought up to do so (as we all were).

You aren't answering my questions. Do you think rape and torture of children is evil?

If you would have been brought up a Maya 500 years ago you wouldn't consider it evil to cut open a living human being's chest to rip out his heart.

Oh? How can you be so sure? Do you think a person doing such a thing to another human being never had any compunction about what they were doing? Do you think a person can go directly to cutting out human hearts just like that, without any qualms or pangs of conscience? I don't think so. There is an indoctrination, an overcoming of natural empathy and conscience by the persuasion of contrary beliefs, that must occur before one can do such a thing. Even the Mayan priest joyfully cutting out human hearts once knew that such a thing was evil.

You would consider your victim lucky for the honour of being a sacrifice to your god and you would feel good about yourselve.

This kind of reasoning is necessary for the overcoming of one's natural revulsion to doing such things. No one just picks up a knife and happily cuts out someone else's heart for no reason. We all recognize on a gut-level that such an act is evil in the extreme. As a result, one must over-ride one's instinctive awareness of the evil of such an act by the kind of reasoning you suggest above.

If you would have been brought up in medieval europe you wouldn't consider it evil to submit a women to unspeakable torture for days and burn her alive at the stake.

But she would! And you can bet she did her best to make that clear - just as her torturers would if she was tormenting them and burning them at the stake! All the bizarre reasons we give for doing evil fall away when we are ourselves the victim of the same evil.

You would be glad and consider this as an act of compassion to relieve the witch from her horrible existence. You would actually consider yourselves as a very good and moral human being.

You are aware, I hope, that not all who lived in that time thought witch burning was right. Who are you to say I wouldn't have been one of these objectors?

And so would I and probably almost everybody else brougth up there and then.

I'd prefer it if you spoke just for yourself.

Deeds are not good or evil exept in the mind of people.

If this is so, then there is no actual good or evil. According to what you've just said, I could, without provocation or reason, belt you in the face, and cut off your leg and when you complained of my ill treatment of you I could simply respond, "Its all in your perspective. Its not actually bad what I've done to you; its just from your perspective it seems that way. In my mind I feel I've done something quite good."

Foggy terms like this can be twisted to justify more or less anything.

"Good" and "evil" are not "foggy" in the least. The circumstances under which these terms are applied, however, may be.

Deeds are right and wrong and they are for a reason not because somebody said so.

Well, now you're contradicting yourself. You just said above that deeds are not good or evil except in one's mind. So, which is it? Are deeds actually right or wrong, or are good and evil merely a matter of perspective?

And then of course there is this thing about skale I mentioned but apparently you chose to ignore that.

I ignored it because you didn't say enough about it to warrant a comment.

About the semantics there are different interpretations of the word agonstic and atheist. I use one of the rather common ones but I already explained what I mean by it.

It seems pretty obvious to me that what you are calling atheism is actually agnosticism.

Atheism is as much of a choice as not being convinced by any idea and its evidence is a deliberate choice of not wanting to believe in it.

In view of the fact that there is good, reasonable evidence in favor of God's existence, the atheist does indeed choose to believe in spite of that evidence. He does exercise faith in the unprovable idea that God doesn't exist - even against evidence to the contrary.

If your not convinced by something then you are not convinced by something, that has nothing to do with choice.

LOL! This is silly. It is so obviously wrong what you've said right here that I can't bring myself to argue against it. LOL!

Theism on the other hand - and I'm sure we can agree on that - is based on faith and not on evidence. Here there is truly a choice to make.

Are you still "toying around" here? It sure doesn't sound like it. The fact is, there is plenty of excellent evidence for God. Go on YouTube and search for William Lane Craig. Or check out these websites:

Welcome to Ravi Zacharias International Ministries
Stand to Reason: Stand to Reason: Equipping Christian Ambassadors with Knowledge, Wisdom, and Character.
Reasonable Faith:

You'll see.

I can hardly believe you actually think faith in God is based on faith and not on evidence. Wow.

Selah.

 

[98cwitr]

We are animals.

Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Primates
Family: Hominidae
Genus: Homo
Species: H. sapiens
Subspecies: H. s. sapiens

We are this way because we share common DNA sequence traits with other animals. Our morality is based on the proper function of our cerebral cortex. To prove my point further, if you study psychopathy, you will understand that even humans can be amoral, so your "outlook" is rather moot. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopath I might even reach as far as to say that a mother bear protecting her newborn cubs from a fox is a pretty moral act if you ask me.

 

[Martinius]

Looking back it seems the worst atrocities commited in history were always commited when people are convinced that their doings are completely and utterly right. On this basis their conviction usually gives them a feeling of superiority based on a variety of different factors from race to ideology to the belief in their own one true god/scripture and so on....

From my point of view the whole basis of this can be boiled down to an even simpler paradigm which is "There is just one truth and I know exactly what it is". This is one of the most dangerous convictions a person can have especially if this truth is dictated by someone higher up in the system (be it a religious, spiritual or political leader). This is usually the case because any individual on its own will have a hard time reaching this conclusion without being told the "ultimate truth" and being reinforced by its peers. While this doesn't necessarily lead to catastrophy, it has huge potential of doing so. And as history shows it has done uncountable times in the past....

I don't mean to offend anyone, I'm just genuinely interested in what believers think of this idea - controversial as it is. Maybe there is even someone who could free me of such worries. I'm looking forward to an interesting discussion.

Your ideas are only "controversial" because they hit the bullseye. Any student of history, politics or religion could point to many, many examples to support your thesis. The controversy is that you include religion as one of the offenders. But that is no surprise as history (and the bible) demonstrate from ancient times to our own day. What is shocking to me is how so many who claim to be Christian think and act in total rejection of Jesus and his commandments while rationalizing that they are performing the will of God. Amazing.

Also, Communism, Fascism, atheism and other such ideologies may not be "religions" as we usually define that term, but they ARE beliefs or ideologies, and can have a hold on people as strong as faiths based in God can. So I think you make a valid point about the negative and often disastrous effects of monolithic ideologies.

The problem for humans may be that we want to be grounded in some form of certainty; we dislike the "unknown". We give God (or whatever we worship) a substance and attributes that make it appear like us (but with superhuman perfection), not for any valid reason but because it makes us feel more secure. Would you confidently worship a god that was a shapeless blob or resembled a space alien with tentacles?

The next step is to claim some type of exclusive connection and/or understanding of God. We see that with Christian (and other) faiths constantly. While Jesus said He came to bring salvation to ALL, each faith wants to limit who can be saved to only those who think like them, who are part of that chosen group. As you say, that too often leads to horrific actions by those who claim uniqueness and superiority.

There was an infamous Crusader who, when told that many of the residents of the town they were about to attack were Catholic Christians said: "Kill them all; God will know His own."

That is an attitude that has been all to prevalent in our history. Yet we are told and should believe that each and every one of us is created and beloved by God. Countries, cultures, governments and yes, even religions, have condemned themselves by not understanding and following that basic premise.

 

[E.C.]

@ EC

Interessting stuff. I again agree with you on your final statement but still atheism is not the driving force. Marx already clearly stated religion as an instrument of control that had to be annihilated, the "opium for the masses" as he called it. Still there was no discussion about philosophy or theology, the communist doctrin sees religion from the beginning as a competitior for absolut control over the peoples minds. Its not the believers that were evil but the people that gave the church influence over the masses i.e. priests. The murders commited were not as class even less as faith/race motivated as they are commonly believed to be (with the exeption of the Kulaks for the first and the Kosaks for the latter). The murders were completely arbitrary. The purpose of them was to be the weapon of terror which is also an essential part of communist doctrine. During the first two years there were simple killing quotas stating how many people had to be shot by the local Tscheka every day, regardless of who they were and what they believed in. I remember a passage where the Tscheka people in some district one day were too lazy to come up with an excuse to shoot people so they simply went to the local hospital and killed everyone there, doctors, nurses and patients. There was a copy of a note from Lenin personally about this incident complaining about the lack of creativity in finding excuses. Those Tscheka people were mainly criminals released from the prisons during the revolution and day labourers drifting around on the countryside starving like everyone else. None of them knew what they were doing this for execept for plunder and rape. Basically none of them were convinced bolschevics or communist - hardly any of them knew what these words meant - and non of them were asked wether they belonged to any denomination or if they were atheists.

My argument is not that atheism is the solution to all problems but the idea that one of the main problems for us as a civilisation is a certain monolithical mindset and that theism is one of the paths that easily can lead to it.

The point which I am making is that even in Atheism there is a monolithic mindset. Even in Atheism is killing made for the purposes of more Atheism.

All of your critiques about theism can be said about Atheism. Do you agree?

 

[ebia]

So I'm gonna put the question in the most naive way possible: If there is a supreme all loving, all forgiving, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent creator and all existence is according to his plan how come this place is so messed up?

if several of those words are meaningless the question isn't answerable on it's own terms - for much the same reason that Zenos paradoxes operate.

The bible, like most faiths, does have an answer to the real underlying question "why doesn't God just wipe out evil"- it does so with a story. Playing word games with inherently flawed Greek words doesn't get anyone anywhere

 

[salida]

No, humans are not animals but agnostic and athiest scientists like that dream. Fancy scientific jargon doesn't prove anything. We are created in the image of God not animals.

http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-6-humans-images-of-god-or-advanced-apes

http://creation.com/furry-little-humans

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Christians have admitted that humans are animals, but have also qualified that humans have capacities and natures above that of irrational animals, namely rationality, judgment and volition. Aquinas and Augustine both come to mind, I believe.

 

[fschmidt]

eugler, as a fellow atheist, let me explain why monotheism is the best safeguard against atrocities. Like most primates, humans naturally organize into groups surrounding an alpha-male. The alpha-male dominates and the others instinctively follow. The purpose of God is to serve as the virtual alpha-male for the members of the religion. This means that no other member of the religion can be the alpha, and so cannot get the kind of devotion that alphas get. If you look at the kind of devotion given by religious people to their God, saying things like "lord", etc., you can see typically supplicating behavior common among primates toward alpha-males. By having this position occupied by God, one prevents the likes of Mao, Stalin, and Hitler rising to such absolute power. While Christians have certainly committed their share of atrocities, it was never as a result of ruler worship that can be found in non-religious cultures. So if you want to avoid atrocities, be a religion supporting atheist like me.

 

[Beechwell]

eugler, as a fellow atheist, let me explain why monotheism is the best safeguard against atrocities. Like most primates, humans naturally organize into groups surrounding an alpha-male. The alpha-male dominates and the others instinctively follow. The purpose of God is to serve as the virtual alpha-male for the members of the religion. This means that no other member of the religion can be the alpha, and so cannot get the kind of devotion that alphas get. If you look at the kind of devotion given by religious people to their God, saying things like "lord", etc., you can see typically supplicating behavior common among primates toward alpha-males. By having this position occupied by God, one prevents the likes of Mao, Stalin, and Hitler rising to such absolute power. While Christians have certainly committed their share of atrocities, it was never as a result of ruler worship that can be found in non-religious cultures. So if you want to avoid atrocities, be a religion supporting atheist like me.

I would very much question your assertion that human societies center around alpha-males. Certainly that is no behaviour I commonly encounter.
But in any case, the problem with a god as "alpha-male" would be that (if the atheistic position is correct*) it would only be the hollow shell of one. So - even if religious tradition and sacred texts provide a guideline - it can be filled with a lot of different ideas, including problematic ones.
Judging by the history of both Christianity and Islam absolutistic religions don't saveguard against people performing atrocities. They may have a better track record than some other ideologies with a claim to absolute truth, but it is not exactly fantastic either.

I think the main problem isn't specific ideologies or religions, but rather the approach to one's own world-view as "absolute truth" (which we probably all have a tendency to). That is what justifies ideas like "the end justifies all means".



*Actually, even if not, my point is still valid, since divine messages are always communicated through humans with no obvious authority, and are never entirely agreed-upon in large religions.

 

[oi_antz]

I would very much question your assertion that human societies center around alpha-males. Certainly that is no behaviour I commonly encounter.
But in any case, the problem with a god as "alpha-male" would be that (if the atheistic position is correct*) it would only be the hollow shell of one. So - even if religious tradition and sacred texts provide a guideline - it can be filled with a lot of different ideas, including problematic ones.
Judging by the history of both Christianity and Islam absolutistic religions don't saveguard against people performing atrocities. They may have a better track record than some other ideologies with a claim to absolute truth, but it is not exactly fantastic either.

I think the main problem isn't specific ideologies or religions, but rather the approach to one's own world-view as "absolute truth" (which we probably all have a tendency to). That is what justifies ideas like "the end justifies all means".



*Actually, even if not, my point is still valid, since divine messages are always communicated through humans with no obvious authority, and are never entirely agreed-upon in large religions.

I think here you are demonstrating the distinction between Christians who follow the word of Jesus (who did communicate a divine message with authority), and humans who follow the word of their fellow man (who are inherently fallible, and even admittedly!). It's become quite clear to me that Jesus never incited hatred toward any group of people, yet Christians can become quite smug in their beliefs that they know the better way to live (consider "God hates f*gs" and "bomb the abortion clinics"). These people believe in their pastor's teaching and totally overlook the teachings of unconditional love, tolerance and turn-the-other cheek which are the true teachings of Christianity as Jesus taught. I'm pretty sure the pastors who incite this hatred are more to blame than the sheep who follow them, because the followers believe that their pastor is the current living representation of Christianity on earth, but for each Christian who comes to know Jesus as a personal savior and friend, we know that when someone presents an opinion it needs to be scrutinized according to the true teaching of Christianity which is firstly established by Jesus and secondly by His apostles, and gradually over time has been corrupted as even Jesus predicted:

Matthew 13
22 The seed falling among the thorns refers to someone who hears the word, but the worries of this life and the deceitfulness of wealth choke the word, making it unfruitful. 23 But the seed falling on good soil refers to someone who hears the word and understands it. This is the one who produces a crop, yielding a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown.”

So many Christians have bought into the message of their pastor, but have not actually studied the Bible for themselves! If you do truly seek to know what Jesus taught you'll quickly come to realize that nothing of the sort of hatred you describe could ever transpire from a Christian who is truly devoted to Jesus instead of their fellow man. I'd challenge you if you disagree, do you see anything in what Jesus taught that incites such hatred and fear that raised the issue of this thread? Do you think there is anything in Jesus' life that would suggest He would be likely to drop an a-bomb if He had the chance?

 

[Beechwell]

I think here you are demonstrating the distinction between Christians who follow the word of Jesus (who did communicate a divine message with authority), and humans who follow the word of their fellow man (who are inherently fallible, and even admittedly!). It's become quite clear to me that Jesus never incited hatred toward any group of people, yet Christians can become quite smug in their beliefs that they know the better way to live (consider "God hates f*gs" and "bomb the abortion clinics"). These people believe in their pastor's teaching and totally overlook the teachings of unconditional love, tolerance and turn-the-other cheek which are the true teachings of Christianity as Jesus taught. I'm pretty sure the pastors who incite this hatred are more to blame than the sheep who follow them, because the followers believe that their pastor is the current living representation of Christianity on earth, but for each Christian who comes to know Jesus as a personal savior and friend, we know that when someone presents an opinion it needs to be scrutinized according to the true teaching of Christianity which is firstly established by Jesus and secondly by His apostles, and gradually over time has been corrupted as even Jesus predicted:

I quite agree with you actually. I'd be tha last to criticize the original teachings of Jesus of Nazareth (well, most of them, anyway), but I think that they - like any other ideas - are prone to corruption by men.
Where we probably disagree is that in my opinion there is no sure way to tell when an idea is corrupted or bad, except by comparing them to your own inner moral frame of reference (wether God-given or the rationalization of inherited behaviour), and to those of other people.
Reading the scriptures is all good and well, but how can you be sure that they are devoid of any bad or corrupted ideas already? And if you accept the Christian scriptures alone are the basis for that is good and true, then how can you blame someone who in the same vein accepts some scriptures that condone murder and bloodshed as good and true?

 

[oi_antz]

I quite agree with you actually. I'd be tha last to criticize the original teachings of Jesus of Nazareth (well, most of them, anyway), but I think that they - like any other ideas - are prone to corruption by men.
Where we probably disagree is that in my opinion there is no sure way to tell when an idea is corrupted or bad, except by comparing them to your own inner moral frame of reference (wether God-given or the rationalization of inherited behaviour), and to those of other people.
Reading the scriptures is all good and well, but how can you be sure that they are devoid of any bad or corrupted ideas already? And if you accept the Christian scriptures alone are the basis for that is good and true, then how can you blame someone who in the same vein accepts some scriptures that condone murder and bloodshed as good and true?

Yes, you raise a good point. Christians should seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit when we read, thereby hearing what God says. We can all take a scripture and interpret it to support our own agenda, though when we read the Bible we should be looking to see what God meant to say rather than what we want God to say. "Twisting the word to suit our needs" if you like. I always advise people to forget their expectations and pray to God for revelation when they read. This is why it is recommended to read the New Testament first, as the Old Testament provides support for what we have read from the New Testament, but the Old Testament by itself can set us on the wrong path because we have omitted the most crucial part of history: Christ. It was Jesus who established the religion of Christianity, so we should begin by scrutinizing what HE said. Once we have established that what He said was "good" and "perfect", there is no other human according to Christianity who is perfect besides Jesus and this sets the standard for our interpretation of the rest of the Bible. Although the whole of the Bible is considered to be the perfect word of God, it must be read and understood within the context that Jesus established. So reading the whole Bible should be done within context of what Jesus has taught, and you have allowed yourself the open door to consider that Jesus might have not been 100% correct, I suggest you look for evidence of that and if you can find it, bring it to discussion.

 

[fschmidt]

I think the main problem isn't specific ideologies or religions, but rather the approach to one's own world-view as "absolute truth" (which we probably all have a tendency to). That is what justifies ideas like "the end justifies all means".

There is no connection between "absolute truth" and "the end justifies all means". Absolute truth has dominated Western culture since Plato, but not Eastern culture. And there has been no difference in rate of atrocities. I think Mao is the atrocity winner of history, having caused more misery than any other person in history. And he didn't come from an "absolute truth" culture.

(And just for the record, I am a relativist along the lines of Protagoras, which should be obvious from my posts.)

 

[Beechwell]

So reading the whole Bible should be done within context of what Jesus has taught, and you have allowed yourself the open door to consider that Jesus might have not been 100% correct, I suggest you look for evidence of that and if you can find it, bring it to discussion.

What I meant was that I disagree with some of Jesus' teachings (like the one about not remarrying a divorced women); I don't see how one can show moral teachings to be more or less "correct".

There is no connection between "absolute truth" and "the end justifies all means". Absolute truth has dominated Western culture since Plato, but not Eastern culture. And there has been no difference in rate of atrocities. I think Mao is the atrocity winner of history, having caused more misery than any other person in history. And he didn't come from an "absolute truth" culture.

Maybe "absolute truth" as a poor choice of words. "Inability to question ones own convictions" would probably be a better wording. And you are certainly right that it isn't the only factor here, but i do think it supports an attitude to put other considerations (like the well-being of other human beings) behind a "righteous cause".

Also, I'm not exactly an expert on eastern philosophies, but I doubt that they are less shaped by "absolute truths". The religions may not, but looking at ancient China, it seems to me they had a very clear and unquestioning outlook on the role of their civilization and every human's place in it.

 

[salida]

Christians have admitted that humans are animals, but have also qualified that humans have capacities and natures above that of irrational animals, namely rationality, judgment and volition. Aquinas and Augustine both come to mind, I believe.

Not the christians I know.

True, some christians believe we came from apes but that doesn't mean its true.