…and this is a 
Is religion rational?
Category: Godlessness
Posted on: September 17, 2007 1:00 AM, by PZ Myers
Andrew Brown suggests that we shouldn't suppose that religious belief is irrational, and I'm going to have to agree in part with him. I think theology is actually an exercise in reason — it is an activity that has engaged some of the greatest minds of the ages, and it is a sophisticated and elaborate logical edifice. It is a towering skyscraper constructed of finely honed girders of deductive logic, and I can appreciate how so many people respect it and admire it and want to protect it. I can also see how those who have dedicated much effort to working closely on the craftmanship of the structure are aghast at the idea that anyone should fail to see the work of the mind invested in it.
Step outside of it, though, and one sees immediately that flaw intrinsic to deductive logic: it's only as good as the premise on which it is built. That magnificent skyscraper is tottering atop a flimsy foundation bobbing precariously in quicksand — it's no surprise that many of the godly are frantically gesturing those obnoxiously inquisitive atheists away with such an air of desperate concern. A few pokes have made the structure wobble and sway, and if enough of us get together, we could push it all right over. All those exquisite arguments and detailed apologetics resting atop the rotting corpse of of god-belief … it would be such a shame if something happened to it, wouldn't it?
Unfortunately, what collapses relatively easily with our nudging and poking and pushing is the fancy brickwork rising above the ugly foundation, not the foundation itself. And that foundation is worshipped by the unpleasant mass called fundamentalism, and the fundamentalists are also pushing at the theological structure — they'd like to replace it with their own bizarre (but also internally rational) construction. That should worry us, because there's also another reason religion is rational. It's an unpleasantly cynical, nasty reason, and I'm shocked that Andrew Brown would bring it up. Religion is politically useful as a tool for terror. What could be more intimidating than the idea that you can be tortured or executed for merely thinking heresy?
Superstitious nonsense makes perfect sense if your purpose is to demonstrate how powerful you are. Power can be demonstrated in many ways; forcing your opponent to agree to something untrue is one of the more common ones. But organised religions can do better than that. They can demonstrate their political power by forcing victims to agree something that couldn't possibly be true and this is a much more effective demonstration, as any tyrant knows.
I had no idea Brown had such a Machiavellian mind, but I think he's right, that this is one factor we can't forget. When Michael Servetus was burnt at the stake, there might have been a taint assigned to him for disagreeing with Galen's ideas about anatomy, stuff that was empirically testable and could fall before the evidence, but the real guilt and the real crime was for daring to doubt the absurd Christian trinity — and the message was that you could suffer an agonizing death for refusing to accept a ridiculous bit of dogma.
It's powerful stuff, that religious fear.
If it is true that appeals to the sacred are among the most effective political technologies mankind has ever stumbled on, no Darwinian should expect them to be replaced by less effective pieties.
Demolish the calcified, gilded hulk of Catholicism, for instance, and who knows what screaming fierce fresh horror might replace it? This has to be a concern for the atheist movement, but we can't cease our criticism for worry about the possibility that new fanaticisms could arise in a religious vacuum. We have to work to establish a positive secularism so there is no vacuum, but we also have to take a tack that Brown seems to neglect: we could construct an environment in which piety is no longer effective. We modern evolutionists do not see individuals as determined by intrinsic factors or tracking one path to optimality, after all, but by interactions between our own capabilities and the world around us. The fitness of traits are entirely context-dependent: we can build environments in which the old reliance on dogma is detrimental.
This is one reason some of us "New Atheists" are not compromising our attack on religion (I know some of the delicate and sensitive souls out there will quail at that thought — that we must attack religion — but outright opposition is what I encourage). We aim for a post-theistic world in which the religious rationale is recognized as a toxic pathology that diminishes the legitimacy of an argument, and that includes the humble homilies of the Christian moderate. It's not that their conclusions are necessarily wicked, but that they promote a mode of thinking that can be so easily subverted to manufacture those frighteningly effective ancient pieties.
Our goal should be ambitious: to shape the culture and change the world. We can admire the scattered bits of rational architecture that have arisen from the flawed bases of religion … but what if all of humanity were building on the bedrock of naturalism and reason, instead of that quaking vapor of god-belief? We could reach so much higher!
Politics
Comments
A magnificent structure built in the middle of a fetid swamp of falsehood and terror?
Posted by: Brian English | September 17, 2007 1:27 AM
Bravo PZ! You've thoroughly brightened my day. Again.
Posted by: Jason | September 17, 2007 1:28 AM
Good Lord, PZ. Do you ever sit back and really consider how utterly ridiculous you sound sometimes?
"We aim for a post-theistic world in which the religious rationale is recognized as a toxic pathology..."
We must ATTACK those religious nuts!!! Yeah...charge!
Are you for real? Take off those combat boots, big guy! Replace them with that pair of slippers ya got by your bed there... cuz you're just dreamin'.
Your choir boys have apparently been giving you far too much attention because you're having delusions of grandeur.
Bear in mind that atheist regimes have never proven to be particularly peaceful or prosperous, so chill out.
Posted by: FtK | September 17, 2007 1:32 AM
When an ignorant creationist like FtK whines at me, I am reassured that I'm on the right track.
Posted by: PZ Myers | September 17, 2007 1:35 AM
Atheistic regimes? Name one. Atheism is disbelief in god. How can you form a system on a lack of belief? Communism was based on a positive belief in some corrupted Marxist theory. Nazism likewise based on positive beliefs of a fascist, catholic backed nature. Grow up Ftk.
By the way religion has had many cracks at it and all it manages is totalitarian states.
Posted by: Brian English | September 17, 2007 1:37 AM
When I am tempted to become mesmerized by the brainpower spent on erecting the magnificent edifice that is theology, I remind myself that a lot of smart people can speak Klingon.
They even wrote dictionaries about it.
But you know, it's still made up!
Just because a subject has lots of information written about it and just because it's internally consistent doesn't mean it's real, or true.
Posted by: Jeff Hebert | September 17, 2007 1:43 AM
Bear in mind that atheist regimes have never proven to be particularly peaceful or prosperous, so chill out.
Bear in mind that humans have never proven to be particularly peaceful or prosperous, so chill out.
Now, let's return to our plans for world reason. There are 4 lights!
Posted by: JP | September 17, 2007 1:44 AM
Thank you, for another well reasoned attack on the would be technocrats. Yes we do so need to attack religion and create a world where it at worst would be a minor and quaint phenomena
We atheists do not claim to be perfect FtK, we just want to create a world where the arguments are based on reason and evidence not millennium old fairy tales.
Posted by: Natasha Yar-Routh | September 17, 2007 1:48 AM
Far from it for me to be the grammar police but I believe "ignorant creationist" is redundant.
Posted by: Onkel Bob | September 17, 2007 1:52 AM
Been reading your blog for a while, and this is my first comment.
How are we, the atheist minority, going to achieve such a feat? I've spent much time wondering if this is at all possible, and I've come to the conclusion that the only way religious taint will be removed is by an entire restructuring of our education system. The more education, the more one realizes that the idea of a deity is total and utter nonsense.
However, it also seems as though the less educated might benefit from religious belief. Religion gives them "meaning" and "reason" for getting up and out of bed everyday, to go and do their remedial work, fueling our economy and keeping the wheels of industry turning. Sad as it may sound, it's true. Religion came about as simply a controlling of the masses, and it's still around for that very reason.
I'm not arguing with you at all. I hope that someday religious "thought" and "reasoning" will be wiped from the planet (yes, a somewhat strong ideal), but with this also comes a loss of culture...
Posted by: Joanna | September 17, 2007 2:02 AM
"When an ignorant creationist like FtK whines at me, I am reassured that I'm on the right track."
When an arrogant biologist like PZ responds to my comment, I know I've hit a sore spot.
PZ - honest questions here....
Do you *really* believe that your goal to put a stop to religious thought is wise? Do you realize how nasty that fight could ~potentially~ become at some point? Do you *really* think that you can succeed? Have you not learned anything from religious wars throughout history? How is a battle between theists and atheists any different that a religious war...both are fighting for their faith beliefs.
Why all the hatred? Why such intolerance for those who who don't agree with your conclusions? Isn't religious intolerance something you are always complaining about?
Why aren't you striving to *not* make the same mistakes that various religious groups of people have made in the past? Wouldn't the wise route be to consider tolerance rather than annihilation?
Do you even realize that you sound like a high priest for atheism at times?
This is the most bizarre place to visit...you all mope and complain about religion incessantly, but then you turn around and display the same *exact* attitudes that you condemn.
Posted by: FtK | September 17, 2007 2:09 AM
Ftk, how is atheism a faith? I'm sincerly interested in how you construe lack of belief as belief.
Posted by: Brian English | September 17, 2007 2:11 AM
King: Listen, lad: I built this kingdom up from nuthin'. When I started
here, all of this was swamp! Other kings said it was *daft* to build a
castle in a swamp, but I built it all the same, just to show 'em! It
sank into the swamp. SO, I built a second one! That sank into the
swamp. So I built a *third* one. That burned down, fell over, *then*
sank into the swamp. But the fourth one......stayed up. And that's what
you're gonna get, lad: the *strongest* castle in these islands.
Son: But I don't want any of that! I'd rather...
King: Rather what?
Son: I'd rather...just...live somewhere else?
(With apologies to Monty Python, but at least I didn't let him sing!)
Posted by: BT Murtagh | September 17, 2007 2:17 AM
BT Murtagh I was thinking of the same skit when I read PZ's words.
Posted by: Brian English | September 17, 2007 2:20 AM
Quote: Do you realize how nasty that fight could ~potentially~ become at some point? /Quote
So i guess we should never do anything if it might be nasy. remind me that we should never defend ourselves in a fight, and that cops are a pointless idea.
Really, that's something you consider a good argument?
Yeesh.
P.S. I know no html, can ya tell?
Posted by: catofmanyfaces | September 17, 2007 2:39 AM
FtK: "This is the most bizarre place to visit...you all mope and complain about religion incessantly, but then you turn around and display the same *exact* attitudes that you condemn."
There's that infernal internalization again. So sorry all this complaining hurts your personal feelings so.
And what is that you're doing? Why, if it isn't Gripe, Mope & Complain.
Posted by: Arnosium Upinarum | September 17, 2007 3:00 AM
FTK
You can be annihilated simply by someone demonstrating that your beliefs are unfounded and potentially destructive? Wow, conservative Christians are more allergic to reason than I'd thought.Posted by: Anton Mates | September 17, 2007 3:07 AM
FtK, I think the difference between PZ and most religious zealots is that when PZ talks of attacking he means `arguing and protesting' rather than `stoning to death and/or burning at the stake'.
Similarly, there are no atheists in atheist Summer camps training as Warriors of Atheism, you know (cf. Jesus Camp)?
Posted by: DrFrank | September 17, 2007 3:23 AM
However, it also seems as though the less educated might benefit from religious belief. Religion gives them "meaning" and "reason" for getting up and out of bed everyday, to go and do their remedial work, fueling our economy and keeping the wheels of industry turning.
I thought it was Santa Claus that gave them meaning. You know, work hard and be a good little boy / girl all year, and you will get presents at Christmas.
Posted by: Deborah | September 17, 2007 3:35 AM
At times i almost pity the theologians. So much time and energy spent defending and trying to explain....nothing.
"Demolish the calcified, gilded hulk of Catholicism, for instance, and who knows what screaming fierce fresh horror might replace it? This has to be a concern for the atheist movement, but we can't cease our criticism for worry about the possibility that new fanaticisms could arise in a religious vacuum."
Actually for me it's not a concern. Look at the other parts of the world where there's very little religious belief. Has anything big and horrible come along to replace that belief? Not really. Some of them have gotten a little newage-y but that's hardly on the same level.
Also, i'd avoid using words like "attack" as much as possible. Not for the concern of anyone's feeling but just because i think it feeds the persecution complex a lot of christians seem to have.
Posted by: Brian W. | September 17, 2007 3:48 AM
God and Santa aren't all that different. Santa is a political tool used by parents to gain the obedience of children. God is a political tool used by authorities to gain the obedience of adults. It makes me wonder if there isn't some psychological need in some individuals to be ruled over and told how to think. Barnum was right, though, people want to be fooled.
Posted by: uknesvuinng | September 17, 2007 4:01 AM
How about the small matter of a religious war involving swords and guns and people being killed, whereas the current atheist onslaught involves arguments and evidence and ideas being killed? Can you *really* not see the difference?
Posted by: Stephen | September 17, 2007 4:03 AM
PZ wrote:
If I get your metaphor, and I'm not sure I do, then I think you're kidding yourself on two counts, PZ:
1) There is no single structure to topple over, there are millions of towers, some better constructed than others. Even if you're just talking about the writers of some mind numbing apologetics you've got Thomas Aquinas who isn't like Paul Tillich who isn't like C.S. Lewis, who isn't Terence Penelhum...
2) Each of those towers is resting on something deeply arational (or even irrational) and deeply emotional (the denial of death).
The foundation for Christianity is the Bible. Discredit the Bible and all you've got left is an amorphous deism where God has left no instructions. All they'll have is common sense and reason to guide them. It didn't do badly for Thomas Paine and Voltaire.
In addition to Biblical criticism you should also try and encourage skepticism and critical thinking in people rather than to try and simply "convert" them to atheism. Both debunking the Bible and demonstrating critical thinking can be done at the same time.
On that point I agree. We want to rob the priesthood of its assumed authority to speak for God.
Think about all the things we believe without enough questioning because no one else around us questions them. I pretty much assumed our elections were fair and not rigged until someone made a big stink about Diebold in Ohio in 2004. Now I don't know. Our culture, only a generation ago, gave us very little questioning of religion. Now the environment has changed.
Posted by: Norman Doering | September 17, 2007 4:07 AM
About belief in general (Santa Claus, the Toothfairy, etc, etc). If you didn't know, this is an adaptation of Terry Pratchett's The Hogfather.
Posted by: Joanna | September 17, 2007 4:08 AM
I think sometimes "new atheists" go too far, and I think this is a prime example of it. I cannot see that atheism/secularism/etc... can or will displace religious thought. Why? While we may be born atheists we're also born rather dumb about reality. People born today are little different than those born 40,000 years ago. And early in our life our sense of wonder can more easily accept that our own human spirit - natural though it may be - is more easily associable to abstractions akin to imaginary friends than the natural reality we have come to realize exists.
Thus our religiosity is a quite natural aspect which ties our human social structure to a common belief which holds that society together. On a tribal basis that belief bonds disparate families together. It is a social aspect which likely was useful to man as tool to unite peoples together for purposeful ends. You can see that in the ancient Egyptian culture. Unfortunately as PZ proffers:
"...a toxic pathology that diminishes the legitimacy of an argument, and that includes the humble homilies of the Christian moderate. It's not that their conclusions are necessarily wicked, but that they promote a mode of thinking that can be so easily subverted to manufacture those frighteningly effective ancient pieties."
This is also seen in Egypt with Akhenaton who demanded allegiance to one god and Roman rulers who outlawed certain beliefs demanding that the Roman Pantheon only be worshipped. Which is why we atheists cannot also be seen as likened to them.
Still there is that aspect of fundamentalism inborne in either Christianity or Islam. I'll state outright however that I prefef Christianity to Islam, simply because there is a greater capacity for love to be the expression of that religion. Still, the holy books of either are both ultimately apocalyptic, which is the bane of those religions and the cause of any problems stemming from those religions. Moderatism in either religion is easily turned into something worse, and it usually originates from a need for personal power - thus televangelists or Dobsonistic ministries.
For those reason I promote what might be called a "kinder atheism" - spiritual atheism. I always explain it as man is a spiritual animal, to be spiritual is a natural phenomena in man which religions have falsely determined to be indicative of greater "spirits" or gods. And yet I would hope that spiritual atheism is understanding of the human condition which results in religious beliefs. And thus tolerant of moderate religious belief.
Eh.... something like that....
Posted by: Lynn David | September 17, 2007 4:08 AM
As to the trinity, here is Ambrose Bierce's definition in his "Devil's Dictionary".
"The Trinity is one of the most sublime mysteries of our holy religion. In rejecting it because it is incomprehensible, Unitarians betray their inadequate sense of theological fundamentals. In religion we believe only what we do not understand, except in the case of an intelligible doctrine that contradicts an incomprehensible one. In that case we believe the former as a part of the latter."
Bierce also has a related definition, this time to "redemption".
"Deliverance of sinners from the penalty of their sin, through their murder of the deity against whom they have sinned. The doctrine of Redemption is the fundamental mystery of our holy religion, and whoso believeth in it shall not perish, but shall have everlasting life in which to try to understand it."
Posted by: bernarda | September 17, 2007 4:19 AM
There are many occasions upon which rationality has provided great advances for civilization, especially when it convinced the religionists to go along: Ending of slavery, creation of modern republican democracy (chiefly in the U.S.), laws against spousal abuse, laws against cruelty to animals, laws against child abuse, laws on central banks and monetary systems, laws requiring clean water and setting up the mechanisms to deliver it to citizens, laws setting up sanitary sewers and sewage treatment, conservation laws.
We don't need to predicate a call for reason on the destruction of faith. But we do need to resist calls against reason that are predicated on the irrational preservation of faith. Reason will support the good things faith facilitates; it's fair to insist people of faith also support good things that reason facilitates.
Posted by: Ed Darrell | September 17, 2007 4:33 AM
"The Trinity is one of the most sublime mysteries of our holy religion. In rejecting it because it is incomprehensible,"
It's not incomprehensible so much as logically incoherent. If the trinity is correct then the law of identity is violated and maths and everything else in the universe no longer is useful. It's belittles humanity to suggest that just because you can believe the impossible makes you anything else than dishonest. Believing without sufficient evidence and logic is lying.
Posted by: Brian English | September 17, 2007 4:35 AM
There are 4 lights!
Yep, quite definitely 4 lights. Not 5. :)
Posted by: Dunc | September 17, 2007 5:30 AM
It isn't merely a persecution complex, in the sense of it all being in their heads, though. The whole of reality genuinely is against them - because they insist on believing so many falsehoods. However, they prefer to ignore the greater part of that opposed reality and to pretend instead that it's just other humans who are against them.
Posted by: SEF | September 17, 2007 5:39 AM
FtK, do you really think PZ wants to kill or oppress you?
No. He wants to laugh at you, loudly, and in public, and he'd like us all to join.
Oh, how brutal!!!1! How intolerant!!eleven!
Surely you aren't projecting.
Eh, no, they didn't. They included every deity they tripped over into their pantheon (often, but not always, equating them with some of their own). They lived in constant low-level fear that somewhere there might be a god they had, out of ignorance, failed to worship and who was going to punish them. The only religions that were banned were so for pragmatic political reasons: Christianity made proper respect to the Emperor impossible, or so they thought, so it could have fueled sedition. I forgot what the second banned religion was. I think the druids in Gaul were oppressed for fomenting sedition, too.
Huh?
What do you mean? I am not spiritual. Tolerant, yes (I'm only an agnosticist), but not spiritual.
(And BTW, "phenomena" is the plural of "phenomenon".)
All over the First World, and then some!
It has, after all, a well-known liberal bias.
Posted by: David Marjanović | September 17, 2007 6:57 AM
"Demolish the calcified, gilded hulk of Catholicism, for instance, and who knows what screaming fierce fresh horror might replace it?"
All PZ Myers has to do is to turn a phrase, and I fall in love all over again.
Posted by: Encolpius | September 17, 2007 7:43 AM
Still waiting for that from the religious, FtK
Posted by: MAJeff | September 17, 2007 7:46 AM
Re: Comment #30 (SEF) - There are a significant number of fundamentalist Christians who are absolutely certain (in that smug "I know I'm right, so I don't even need to bother considering any other points" way) that any part of reality in conflict with their revealed reality is the work of Satan trying to lead them astray. By believing thus, they construct themselves a nice little logic-proof house to live in. (Satan is apparently very talented, too - he integrates his deceptions so seamlessly into the universe that the only way to tell the difference is to rely on the writings of some ancient farmers and shepherds.)
Posted by: Anthony | September 17, 2007 7:51 AM
It's always good fun to ask how exactly we're supposed to tell that the writings of said ancients are not themselves one of Satan's deceptions. Never really got a coherent answer to that.
Posted by: MartinM | September 17, 2007 7:54 AM
Wow, last night I saw Jonathon Wells talking about how we couldn't be closely related to chimps because since there are only four components of DNA, we are 25% related to anything, he used the example of daffodils and today we have For the Kooks spreading her love and tolerance all over the place. I suppose that we should just be glad that she isn't posting links to abortion photos again.
Do you *really* believe that your goal to put a stop to religious thought is wise? Do you realize how nasty that fight could ~potentially~ become at some point?
FtK, remember when John Lennon said that the Beatles were bigger than Jesus and the death threats started rolling in? Were you saying that it could become nasty in that way? Another Waco? What about your buddy Eric Rudolph? There's already Michael Korn.
Posted by: Mena | September 17, 2007 7:59 AM
Don't we already have an example of what happens when there is a dogmatic religious vacuum: witness the new agers. Holistic alternative medicines, out of body experiences, yoga, etc. More unsubstantiated crap! Eventually the more intolerant memes will take over the more tolerant memes and a new framework will take root in the masses.
It just seems like humans are incapable of deducing spirituality as an amazing and powerful artifact of the brain. Science and reality based knowledge are not a cure - plenty of those advancing these new myths are well versed in science.
Posted by: Doug | September 17, 2007 8:08 AM
While being firmly on PZ's side in general, he does from time to time send us to look at some whacky fundamentalist sites. For some reason his phrase:
"Our goal should be ambitious: to shape the culture and change the world."
very much reminds me of them. It could have almost been lifted from one!
I have nothing against shaking the tree of religion to drop a few atheists out, but if we are to make real progress towards a less religious society, maybe we should look to see how mainly non-religious states have acheived this. The communists (anti-religion)to some extent failed and religion is now rampant where it was banned. Sweden seems to have been successful, and I suggest the way to address this is: 1. Education and 2. a balanced welfare state so people have a sense of blonging to a society which they are part of and that will look after them. This sense of belonging lowers their need to glomb onto some group that promises them inclusion amidst a ceremony of singing, kneeling and debasing themselves before an entirely imaginary being.
Posted by: sailor | September 17, 2007 8:12 AM
Doesn't support the contention.
Doesn't support the contention.
I mean, c'mon, you're not even trying to create the impression that you've given this some thought. You could make the same points, equally validly, for phrenology, numerology, and alchemy.
Posted by: Caledonian | September 17, 2007 8:17 AM
As I've been told by many a (self-professed) good Christian, if it was rational it wouldn't be faith.
Posted by: Rob Jase | September 17, 2007 8:21 AM
And with this, your journey to the Stupid side of the Force is complete.
Posted by: Caledonian | September 17, 2007 8:21 AM
That just adds (an imaginary) Satan to their list of supposed persecutors. It doesn't really detract from the fact of everything still being against them and not merely the humans they choose to accuse of that (or even at all in the manner they accuse it!). They are only adding a fictitious level of indirection to their reality denial in order to aid their reality ignorance.
It's rather like the dishonest UK government packaging ("framing"!) many thousands of signatures against hospital closure as being only one protest vote. That gives them a singular "Satan" which they can more conveniently ignore rather than deal with the fact of the large number of individual people who are actually opposing their proposals.
Posted by: SEF | September 17, 2007 8:22 AM
We keep hearing that religion arose as people innocently tried to understand the world around them.
If this has any truth to it, then why don't we see religious behavior in other mammals?
I suspect religion arose from the discovery that children, once they've begun to use language, are easy to fool.
People with kids are often amazed (and amused) at the crazy things a child can be made to believe.
Want to make your kids go to bed early? Tell them there are monsters under the bed who will eat them if their feet touch the floor. Or tell them about the monsters in the closet who will eat them if they get out of bed.
Want to keep your kids from straying too far from the house? Tell them the woods are haunted by dead people. Or tell them about the boogeyman who eats children.
Kids are easy to control by lies. We can scare them away from doing what we don't want or con them into doing what we do want, all the while sparing us from ever having to reward the kid for doing our bidding. As cheap dirty tricks go, it can't get any cheaper.
We have Santa Claus who will bring you gifts for being a good child all year long, or Your Loving God who will burn you in hell with fire and brimstone, searing your skin and eyes and lungs, torturing you with unimaginable pain (which we will happily describe for you in lurid detail) for all eternity if you don't do what we want.
My theory is that the world's religions are the results of lying to children that got out of hand. As the lies accumulated, the contradictions exploded exponentially, requiring 'transcendence' -- illogical logic, sense that really makes no sense -- to explain the flaw away as they got discovered, and that's what we call theology.
Posted by: Rose Colored Glasses | September 17, 2007 8:41 AM
PZ: "That magnificent skyscraper is tottering atop a flimsy foundation bobbing precariously in quicksand..."
JC: "But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand."
Hmmm. Is PZ channelling or plagiarising?
Posted by: Kiwi Dave | September 17, 2007 9:05 AM
Religion came about as simply a controlling of the masses, and it's still around for that very reason.
I'm going to take exception to this. I see absolutely no evidence to suggest that religion originated as a means to control people.
Posted by: Graculus | September 17, 2007 9:07 AM
Spirituality isn't even all that powerful an edifice. At its base, all it is is the refusal to admit that one's childhood superstitions, which are nothing more than the result of developmental egotism, are false. The child-brain is limited in that it cannot comprehend the idea of people and objects outside of itself and unrelated to it, because of this it understands the world by making everything personal, and part of that requires granting inanimate objects personality and purpose. Most people begin to abandon this way of thinking around the age of 9; what religion does is tell people its ok for them to continue that egotistical and superstitious mode indefinitely, in certain respects. In a real, psychological sense religion is stunting. There isn't some ingrained need for "spirituality"(what the hell does that even mean anyway?); just the developing mind's inability to grasp a reality outside of itself, and a handful of evolutionary artifacts like fear of the dark, fear of large predators, respect for the opinions of people older and bigger than you ect. ect.
Religion is merely the tradition of generally useless people taking advantage of this phase to guarantee themselves a place at the table with a bare minimum of work.
As to FtK, what, you want a shooting war? Really? Good luck finding us. Nice to know a person like you, who entertains the idea that in the end the best way to deal with an atheist is to kill them, is raising two innocent children to take the same approach towards dissent in their own lives. It must make you proud of yourself to be so bloodthristy, I mean, thats what Christ was all about, right? Nice to see a believer who really takes the tenets of their faith seriously.
Posted by: Julian | September 17, 2007 9:19 AM
Caledonian, #39:
Uh, yes, you could. Those things were exercises in reason. They were equally wrong, of course. Doesn't make them any less logical in their conclusions.
Alchemy, like religion, is wrong in its basic assumptions. Logical arguments only assure you of going from correct assumptions to correct conclusions. You can have a sophisticated, elaborate logical edifice and still be completely wrong. I'm not sure why you feel there is some sort of conflict here.
This, however, you are quite correct on. PZ, that was a bad, bad comment. That sort of crap is heard *regularly* from creationists and other woos. Hell, there's even a Doggerel about it. You're better than that. T_TPosted by: Xanthir, FCD | September 17, 2007 9:30 AM
I thought FTK got de-vowelled ages ago?
And in response to her question, the way you combat religion is with education. Education and religious belief are diametrically opposed. The more you have of one, the less you have of the other. The fundamentalists know this and that is why they are so determined in their attacks on high school science classes. They know full well that the more science education a person has, the better their "woo immune system" works.
Posted by: Boosterz | September 17, 2007 9:51 AM
1) There is no single structure to topple over, there are millions of towers, some better constructed than others.
Worse, they aren't simply static towers. Religion is an organic structure with both reactive defenses and internal developmental cycles -- more like a forest than a city.
For an example of the developmental patterns, I like to point out the cycle between the Promethean and Jovian themes; The former represents the "natural origin" of religion, in that it arises from the ecstatic experience among the population. Any "personal experience of the divine/occult" feeds into this theme. The Jovian pattern shows up when the shamans start gathering into a priestly heirarchy with its own politics, and eventually make common cause with the secular rulers. The fun part is that they cycle back and forth: As a Promethean cult grows, it starts to aquire more organization, and/or political ties. As a Jovian temple builds power and enforces unity, it starts to pass judgement on personal experiences of faith -- but since these comes from individual ecstatic experiences, a fair number won't fit the mold, and the attempt to suppress them triggers a Promethean schism.
(I have a much longer discussion of this on file, but I've already put older versions in other comment threads on Pharyngula and elsewhere, so I'll skip it this time. Damn, but I 've gotta get around to starting my own blog....)
Posted by: David Harmon | September 17, 2007 10:05 AM
I'm actually stuck on a few inter-related points regarding "the evils of religion". The main one is the issue of the evils done (by/in the name of) religion. Is religion really the guilty party here, or is it tribalism is general? The same tools that are used for cult programming are also used by other, non-religious groups. Is this driven by conditioning (ie, since we are taught to be Believers, we are conditioned to be malleable) or is it underlying instinct? I suspect that the "rational" society requires not just the dismantling of religion, but also of the nation-state.
I'm not sure, but I suspect that in the US, if you said that you were committed to the abolition of the nation-state, you'd probably get a lot more (frenzied) opposition than if you simply said that you wanted to abolish religion. But I'm not sure how one can (rationally) commit to one idea and not the other.
Posted by: IanR | September 17, 2007 10:11 AM
"If this has any truth to it, then why don't we see religious behavior in other mammals?"
Well we may not see animals praying and going to church but they do engage in superstitious behavior. Like the experiment where the pidgeons would be in front of a machine that would dispence food at random times. The pidgeons would develop elaborate dances thinking that doing that is what made the food appear. That's essentially the same as thinking that prayer causes any changes in the world.
Posted by: Brian W. | September 17, 2007 10:16 AM
WRONG. Universities were originally founded as religious institutions - there was so much silly dogma that people couldn't learn more than a tiny fraction of it without making a special effort.
Posted by: Caledonian | September 17, 2007 10:17 AM
"If this has any truth to it, then why don't we see religious behavior in other mammals?"
Well we may not see animals praying and going to church but they do engage in superstitious behavior. Like the experiment where the pidgeons would be in front of a machine that would dispence food at random times. The pidgeons would develop elaborate dances thinking that doing that is what made the food appear. That's essentially the same as thinking that prayer causes any changes in the world.
Posted by: Brian W. | September 17, 2007 10:18 AM
"If this has any truth to it, then why don't we see religious behavior in other mammals?"
Well we may not see animals praying and going to church but they do engage in superstitious behavior. Like the experiment where the pidgeons would be in front of a machine that would dispence food at random times. The pidgeons would develop elaborate dances thinking that doing that is what made the food appear. That's essentially the same as thinking that prayer causes any changes in the world.
Posted by: Brian W. | September 17, 2007 10:20 AM
FtK is too entertaining to disemvowel.
She's also proof of why framing is pointless.
Posted by: Steve_C | September 17, 2007 10:21 AM
If prayer is superstition, what's responsible for the inability of most people to acknowledge the scientific definition of 'natural'?
Posted by: Caledonian | September 17, 2007 10:22 AM
It's true that that there is an "internal logic" to religion, given that premises upon which it is built. And since these premises involve untestable, non-material supernatural beings, good luck in getting past them.
I recently challenged a local minister to declare that the genocide committed in Canaan by the Israelites (see the Book of Joshua) was just as much an atrocity as the 20th century Holocaust. One would think that if one of the two events was immoral, then the other event would have to be considered immoral, too. As it turns out, one would be wrong to think that way.
In part, here's the reply that I received from the minister.
"So, what about the slaughter of the Canaanites? I have spent much time (and participated in organized conferences) on this subject."
"My only answer is that the issue is more spiritual than moral, but here we have a huge epistomological disconnect between us, since you seem to insist on an empiricism that is limited to the 5 senses. I see the physical battles as a visible manifestation of an unseen, modified dualistic, spiritual, cosmological war."
Well, what can you say to that? Really, how dare I insist on sticking to the material world when comparing historical events. What was I thinking? Of course, the genocide in Canaan was different. Once you understand cosmological war, it all makes sense. I'm sure that the screaming children of Canaan were comforted in their agonies by the thought that they were just victims of an "unseen, modified dualistic, spiritual, cosmological war." As they say in the Godfather, "it's not personal".
Posted by: Steve | September 17, 2007 10:23 AM
1) There is no single structure to topple over, there are millions of towers, some better constructed than others.
Worse, they aren't simply static towers. Religion is an organic structure with both reactive defenses and internal developmental cycles -- more like a forest than a city.
For an example of the developmental patterns, I like to point out the cycle between the Promethean and Jovian themes; The former represents the "natural origin" of religion, in that it arises from the ecstatic experience among the population. Any "personal experience of the divine/occult" feeds into this theme. The Jovian pattern shows up when the shamans start gathering into a priestly heirarchy with its own politics, and eventually make common cause with the secular rulers. The fun part is that they cycle back and forth: As a Promethean cult grows, it starts to aquire more organization, and/or political ties. As a Jovian temple builds power and enforces unity, it starts to pass judgement on personal experiences of faith -- but since those come from individual ecstatic experiences, a fair number won't fit the mold, and the attempt to suppress them triggers a Promethean schism.
(I have a much longer discussion of this on file, but I've already put older versions in other comment threads on Pharyngula and elsewhere, so I'll skip it this time. Damn, but I 've gotta get around to starting my own blog....)
Posted by: David Harmon | September 17, 2007 10:36 AM
My sister-in-law uses dirty tricks with her kids, too. She tells her hard-to-control five-year-old that he shouldn't do certain things, because there are spiders over there.
Depending on the week, he's the youngest of either four or six kids, so I tend to cut her some slack. There's at least some possibility of there actually being spiders over there. Not so much for Santa.
Posted by: obscurifer | September 17, 2007 10:38 AM
First, thanks PZ, great way to start the day reading such a fine post.
Second, FtK, your question "Do you *really* think that you can succeed" reminded me of all the bad sci-fi, evil overlord type movies I've seen. You can practically here Darth Vader mouthing your words. Yes, fighting the death grip religion has on so many humans is hard, but so are most things worth fighting for.
Third, once more FtK, how is it you seem to read PZ's writings here all the time and yet have no idea of what he believes or what he's talking about?
Posted by: Dahan | September 17, 2007 10:41 AM
Just to let you all know, FtK has posted the infamous clip of Dawkins being "stumped" by the creationists asking about increases in information, etc. There's a whole lot of smug self-congratulating going on over there. In case you're curious and would like to comment over there:
http://reasonablekansans.blogspot.com/
Posted by: oxytocin | September 17, 2007 10:55 AM
I nearly risked trying to post the chimpanzee waterfall link earlier but couldn't quite be bothered with the trauma. I've seen the pigeon thing before but never had a decent link for it (ie ideally a non-blog permanentish-URL one!). It gets mentioned in subsequent studies (again of limited availability) though. Eg this excerpt.
Posted by: SEF | September 17, 2007 11:05 AM
Sorry about the double-posting. Note to self: When the SB server claims something wasn't posted "due to a server error", go back to the comments and check for myself.
Posted by: David Harmon | September 17, 2007 11:09 AM
While I feel fundamentalist religion has a strong negative impact on our world, I also feel that new fanaticisms arise on a nearly daily basis. Dislodging one fallacious set of easy beliefs makes room for another. New Age cultism exists everywhere... and many of these dress themselves in the trappings of so-called "science." I think that organized religion might be judged as a form of superpower, much like the '70s and '80s US and USSR. In this, the enemy is big and obvious and all-consuming. If you are set up to topple the USSR, you must deal with the power vacuum that will exist afterward... as well as the fact that being the sole remaining superpower (the way the US is now) makes that superpower a target for everyone who is jealous.
The real problem that needs to be addressed is not just fighting religious fundamentalism. As long as there is some belief system which pertains to be the truth which happens to be easier to acquire than the actual truth, fundamentalism is going to exist. There is nothing to say that the enemy of reason tomorrow isn't a bunch of wrong-headed, self-avowed-atheists who believe in some New Age, aliens-come-to-earth garbage.
The real problem that needs to be addressed is to make the actual truth more easy, interesting and more relevant to survival and simple livelihood than the falsehoods, superficial comforts and nonsense that masquerade as truths. Someone can rail against religion all they want, but they will be facing the same fight again and again, as fiercely, ad infinitum until this problem is solved. Otherwise, there will always be a different free-energy minimum for the majority of the population to sink to which is not acceptance of the truth. In my experience, it takes tremendous effort and determination to gain the truth, but it takes no effort at all and is ten times as comforting to believe in a seductive, pretty lie.
Posted by: viggen | September 17, 2007 11:14 AM
Pope "Benedict" is a fraud.
The Catholic church is a fraud.
God is a fraud.
People who fall for the religious crap spewed by Catholics are frauds.
The scary thing is not what would happen if we remove religion from our lives, it's that we invented it in the first place.
Posted by: CalGeorge | September 17, 2007 11:22 AM
Caledonian,
you know full well that indoctrination is not the same thing as education. Also, if education and religion are not diametrically opposed then explain to me why religiosity declines the further up the education ladder you go? At the "bottom floor" religiosity is about 90% or so, when you get to the "elite" levels of education religiosity drops off to less then 10%. I'm sure someone remembers the study I'm talking about and has a link to it.
Posted by: Boosterz | September 17, 2007 11:28 AM
Well, I salute the work of the new atheists. Not because they knock over the tower (they can't) or because they can expose a rotten foundation (they can't) and not because all of them working together can accomplish anything resembling a threat to Christianity (they can't) or even a threat to exiting doctrine (possibly they can, but so far they haven't come close, seemingly lacking the intellectual muscle needed for the task) but because they have rightly pointed out a true dichotomy: people are either believers or atheists. The more atheists you get to self identify as such, the better for all of us.
What you perceive as increasing the number of atheists, I recognize as decreasing the number of pretenders.
Posted by: heddle | September 17, 2007 11:30 AM
So what we're basically talking about is founding the Federation from Star Trek, but without the Vulcans to show us how its done.
Faced with dismantaling all the world's religious institutions, I'm inclined to think that inventing and testing a warp engine would be a lot simpler.
Posted by: Sean | September 17, 2007 11:30 AM
About that comment about New Age stuff springing up in the vacuum left by organized religion departing...
Sure, it's silly, but I see it as preferable. Not because it's any less ignorant, but because you don't have New Agers knocking at your door with flyers and trying to influence the education system...
and you never will.
Because New Agers are only loosely organized. They don't have dogma or conventions or a Papacy. You can't get them to agree on much, and they don't have deities to hold over their kids heads. They don't disfellow their members (or dismember their non-members) as other religions do. In fact, while they are hotbeds of superstition and weirdness, they are hardly "religions" in the classical sense.
The problem with religions is not just that they're silly and ignorant. It's that they've gained power to spread their silliness and ignorance, and that they make it their mission to destroy other modes of thought, even if it means killing people.
Whoever pointed out the difference between PZ's knocking down religion by argument and Christianities habit of killing people who disagree (even as recently as Dr Slepian) is absolutely right. And since religion DOES have the mission to obliterate all thought besides their own (especially fundamentalist and evangelical Christianity) this IS a war, a war declared by the religious right. We're not at a point where we can sit passively by certain that we have the right of things. Science and rational thought are under attack.
This isn't even a sensible attack, but one based on emotions. There is no real reason being use