The dangers of monolithic ideologies?

[Key]

Not the christians I know.

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

Christian have admitted that Human are Animals, in the sense that a Human is a Cellular Carbon based life form, not that they have descended from apes.

God Bless

 

[LogosRhema]

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.

A little addendum for clarification: The hypothesis is that religion can be one potential slippery slope toward a monolithic mindset but by far not the only one. The point that there was also mass murder in the name of political ideology e.g. communism is not contradicting this, it's part of the hypothesis. The question is if this is true and if it would be resonable, in order to get rid of such mindsets as a civilisation, to - preventivly - get rid of religion as well?

All acts committed outside of love, you'll see the atrocities. Some of the most grotesque monstrosities and corruption are occurring today via atheist. Its not so much one or the other, but the lacking of love and greed. Nothing new. The greed can succumb monotheist, polytheist, or atheist.

 

[eugler]

Very interessting thoughts here, thanks to everybody for contributing

@ solarflare

You absolutely hit the nail's head. The more we learn the more we realise how little we know (hence it is the same with everyone else). If you keep this thought in mind noone will be able to brainwash you in doing things that you know are wrong.

@ fschmid

I see from my pov 3 major flaws in the logic of your proposal:

1) using behavioral biology to explain such complex sociological constructs as religion and ideology is simply not valid. If you show me a primate worshipping we could try to argue this way but since that to my knowledge hasn't been observed yet, this is not working.

2) Monotheism was overwhelmed by communism and it quietly played along with facism so that is no argument either.

3) Even without the two above this thesis would not make sense. If it would, there would be no denominations and everybody would have their own personal view of god and wouldn't call himself a hindu or a christian (let alone a Protestant, Catholic, Baptist, Shivait, Vishnuit, Sunnit, Schiit, etc.). Religion would unite us while it is actually dividing us. Between your "virtual alpha-male" and the people there is a cast or class - or whatever you want to call it - commonly refered to as clergy. And the task of the clergy is to interpret scripture which is usually pretty contradictory and can be interpreted in almost any way the religious leaders see fit. These leaders are the true alpha males in your picture. The authority is theirs and it's not the authority of man but the authority of the divine. So the true "alpha male" doesn't have to explain and doesn't have to be responsible for his orders because according to him they are really god's orders. As he will point out they are clearly visible in the scripture according to his interpretation. And even if his advice lead to catastrophy the question will not be "why did he give advice that lead to catastrophy?" but "why did god punish us with catastrophy?" The relationship between cause and effect will be completely distorted. This way it can go from bad to worse.


This might be a pretty polemic way of putting it but this is what happens when "divine" power is abused. It has been abused throughout history and it is abused right now not only in the middle east but also in the US, in India, in Europe - basically everywhere. I think it is a fair assumption that it will be abused in the future. This is another way of asking my original question: If religion gives man divine authority although he is fallible, doesn't religion invite desaster?

 

[salida]

Christian have admitted that Human are Animals, in the sense that a Human is a Cellular Carbon based life form, not that they have descended from apes.

God Bless

Plants are too.

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

See secular humanism wants people to think they are animals to devalue humans. This is a social engineering feat.

 

[eugler]

Plants are too.

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

See secular humanism wants people to think they are animals to devalue humans. This is a social engineering feat.

Creationism is just what happens when people claim divine authority and abuse it. Yet this time it's for the most profane of all reasons which is to make money. I have never met any religious person of any denomination in Europe that wouldn't think Creationism is ridicoulus. Actually anyone who has passed the 6th grade would - regardless of believer or non-believer. The pope himself stated that denying the mountains of evidence for evolution is absurd and embracing evolution as part of the way god created us has been vatican policy ever since.

The Intelligent Design Movement is based on shameless lies as a federal U.S. court ruled. The first one is that there is some kind of dispute in the scientific community whether creationism or evolution is applicable. There was one but it has ended over 100 years ago when only a fraction of the evidence in favour of evolution that we have now had accumulated. At the present it is as much of a hot topic as is the question whether the earth revolves around the sun. But anyone who spends 5 minutes with honest research is bound to find that out so the fairytale goes on with ideas of demonic conspiracies of infidel scientists and so on.

I think this idea is too stupid to pose a real threat. It is just another way of releasing the simple minded of their money. And the army of pseudoscientists with their speeches, books, films and the degrees they usually made up out of thin air will continue. Many of them known Conmen, one of the most prominent ones just recently snatched right down from the stage, convicted for credit fraud and thrown into jail. But it shows what people are prepared to believe if someone they consider a religious authority says that there is an idea that is somehow threatening their faith. It is not, as any enlightend believer will tell you. Still it is somewhat shocking how many people will demonise something in the name of faith without even shallowly informing themselves about it. A good example though probably a harmless one.

 

[eugler]

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?

Sorry, I somehow missed your post. No, I don't agree for atheism is not a faith, it is the absence of faith. Atheism is as much of a faith as baldness is a haircolour. Atheists are a very diverse group, they don't regularly meet in places to not-worship and they don't discuss doctrin because there is no doctrin. There is no scripture, no higher unqestionable authority and no higher being to fight or to evangelize for. One of the main sources of atheism is individualism and the way many of them arrive at the conclusion that they are atheists is by realizing the limits of the knowledge that is there to obtain for a human being. So whenever someone tells you he understood everything about us, about the universe and about everything else there cannot be anyone more suspicious. Nobody can know that much without being aware of his own limitations. So you become an atheist, what philosophy follows from there is open to the individual, the only common ground is that there will be no personal god involved in it. You could go as far as becoming a buddhist from this point.

As I said that doesn't make you immun to a monolithic mindset but it is much harder for you to believe someone has the authority to tell you what is right or wrong. If you have to decide by yourself what is right or wrong and you have to find reasons to justify your descision it is much harder to overrule these convictions. Have you ever heard of an Atheist suicide bomber or an Atheist martyr who sacrificed himself for the Atheist faith and will be rewarded in the Atheist afterlife (that he doesn't believe in)? Have you ever heard of someone killing someone else in the name of his nameless non existent god?

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Plants are too.

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

See secular humanism wants people to think they are animals to devalue humans. This is a social engineering feat.

I would say Key was being too extensive in their analysis. Animals are more complex carbon based lifeforms than plants, particular in that unlike plants and fungi in particular, animals can clearly feel pain. Humans, like animals, can feel pain and have similar physical senses, albeit less than a cat or a dog's sense of smell or sight.

When a Christian, like Aquinas or even Augustine from what I remember, says we are animals, that is not to devalue them, it's only to reflect a relation we have to animals. We are like animals, we are not the same as animals.

And it would be counterproductive for a humanist in any sense, secular or otherwise, to devalue humans in comparing them to animals. Again, the comparison by even a secular humanist of humans to animals is not a matter of univocation or equivocation. We are analogous to animals in sharing many qualities, though obviously in this analogy we admit animals lack certain qualities humans do, like complex brain activity and the ability to make varied judgments, and more relevant nowadays, to multitask, lol.

 

[eugler]

I would say Key was being too extensive in their analysis. Animals are more complex carbon based lifeforms than plants, particular in that unlike plants and fungi in particular, animals can clearly feel pain. Humans, like animals, can feel pain and have similar physical senses, albeit less than a cat or a dog's sense of smell or sight.

When a Christian, like Aquinas or even Augustine from what I remember, says we are animals, that is not to devalue them, it's only to reflect a relation we have to animals. We are like animals, we are not the same as animals.

And it would be counterproductive for a humanist in any sense, secular or otherwise, to devalue humans in comparing them to animals. Again, the comparison by even a secular humanist of humans to animals is not a matter of univocation or equivocation. We are analogous to animals in sharing many qualities, though obviously in this analogy we admit animals lack certain qualities humans do, like complex brain activity and the ability to make varied judgments, and more relevant nowadays, to multitask, lol.

I couldn't agree more

 

[ephraimanesti]

Sorry, I somehow missed your post. No, I don't agree for atheism is not a faith, it is the absence of faith.

\
MY FRIEND,

Actually, atheism is the most basic, simple, and primitive of all religions. One worships oneself as the ultimate source of wisdom and power in the universe and rewards and/or punishes oneself according to how well one fulfills the idealized image one has created of and for oneself out of whole cloth.

The faith of an atheist is much stronger than that of any Theist in that it flies in the face of all reason, intuition, hard wiring, and common sense--in the very face of reality itself--and yet is desperately clung to and given life solely by ongoing perpetual CPR necessitated by a desperate need to remain in control of a life which has no real meaning or purpose beyond what the individual is able--through his faith in the god he is to himself--to convince himself that it has.

This atheistic religious faith can magically transform darkness into "light", ignorance into "understanding", egocentrism into "humanism", a hardened heart and closed mind into "freethinking," and moral bankruptcy into "freedom to express oneself."

And it takes more faith than i could ever hope to muster!

ABBA'S FOOL,
ephraim

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Altered for irony and reflection's sake

Actually, theism is the most basic, simple, and primitive of all religions. One worships the ultimate source of wisdom and power in the universe and rewards and/or punishes oneself according to how well one fulfills the standards of the idealized image of divinity one has created of and for oneself out of whole cloth.

The faith of a theist is much stronger than that of any atheistin that it flies in the face of all reason, intuition, hard wiring, and common sense--in the very face of reality itself--and yet is desperately clung to and given life solely by ongoing perpetual CPR necessitated by a desperate need to remain in control of a life which has no real meaning or purpose beyond what the individual is able--through his faith in the god he designed after himself--to convince himself that it has.

This theistic religious faith can magically transform darkness into "light", ignorance into "understanding", egocentrism into "humanism",a hardened heart and closed mind into "conviction and devotion," and moral bankruptcy into "following divine mandate."

And it takes more faith than i could ever hope to muster!

 

[eugler]

@ ToHoldNothing

Lol. And again I couldn't have answered in a better way

@ ephraimanesti

Your are not getting it. Atheism doesn't mean giving the ultimate source of wisdom and power another name than god, it means not believing there is such a thing as ultimate wisdom and power. How you come to the conclusion that it means to give oneself these attributes is completely nebulous to me.

 

[ephraimanesti]

How you come to the conclusion that it means to give oneself these attributes is completely nebulous to me.

Yes, it would be. The pertinent rule of thumb is: Either worship God or be god. It requires, perhaps, some soul-searching and honesty to see the personal application, but it is there for you--just as it was for me back in a day. As Bob Dylan rightly stated, "Ya got ta service somebody!."

ABBA'S FOOL,
ephraim

 

[ToHoldNothing]

God has been defined as transcendent, immanent, beyond the world, in the world, the world itself, the creator of the world, a protector of the Israelites, that which is, the ground of being, a being that is part of a larger pantheon of similar beings, three in one, 2 in one, wholly one, two parts of a whole and so many other things.

One can't be all these things at once, except by metaphorical and figurative acrobatics, so clearly the argument doesn't work, since you can't even serve all these distinct and dissonant ideas, many of which fall under the particular term "God" without contradicting yourself or violating the Biblical principle of only serving one master, as the parable goes.

 

[ephraimanesti]

Altered for irony and reflection's sake

No--altered for lack of original thinking's sake.

"TO HOLD NOTHING" indeed.

ephraim

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Who needs to hold anything themselves when everyone gives them the material they need? You seem to be missing the point. Like virtually anything someone says, you can invert the propositions slightly and they apply just as well to your own mindset, especially if it is so polarizing as yours is, seeming to have little to no compassion for any of the lost that you are called to minister to and yet you do nothing of the sort. It's counter productive and it alienates both parties more than necessary.

 

[ephraimanesti]

Who needs to hold anything themselves when everyone gives them the material they need? You seem to be missing the point. Like virtually anything someone says, you can invert the propositions slightly and they apply just as well to your own mindset, especially if it is so polarizing as yours is, seeming to have little to no compassion for any of the lost that you are called to minister to and yet you do nothing of the sort. It's counter productive and it alienates both parties more than necessary.

MY BROTHER,

Yes--it appears that you are right. Catherine Marshall, speaking of an epiphany she had in this regard, states:

"What God has showed me so far can be summed up as follows:

#1. A critical spirit focuses us on ourselves and makes us unhappy. We lose perspective and humor.

#2. A critical spirit blocks the positive creative thoughts God longs to give us.

#3. A critical spirit can prevent good relationships between individuals and often produces retaliatory criticalness.

#4. Criticalness blocks the work of the Spirit of God: love, good will, mercy.

#5. Whenever we see something genuinely wrong in another person's behavior, rather than criticize him or her directly, or--far worse--gripe about him/her behind their back, we should as the Spirit of God to do the correction needed."

She ends with,

"Convicted of the true destructiveness of a critical mind-set, on my knees I am repeating this prayer: 'Lord, I repent of this sin of judgment. I am deeply sorry for having committed so gross an offense against You and against myself so continually. I claim Your promise of forgiveness and seek a new beginning.' "

Yeah, me too.

ABBA'S FOOL,
ephraim

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Being critical of things doesn't mean you necessarily have to take them excessively so. I can be aware of my environment and such without being hypersensitive to the sensory inputs.

Sometimes correcting people happens through silence, sometimes through actions that seem beneficial, sometimes through actions that seem counterproductive. It varies by context and the understandings of the personalities involved.

 

[dobieman0488]

so you want organized religon outlawed?