True Skeptics Cannot be Religious

[BS Investigator]

I disagree - in both cases, religion created an obstacle to Hitler and Stalin, not an opportunity. Hitler and Stalin went to great lengths (and expended enormous amounts of energy) to extirpate religion. Both ultimately failed and were eventually forced to resort to mass murder, terror and secret police tactics... all to suppress a social structure that opposed them and had enough influence to be a real obstacle to their goals.

The first people to die in both situations were religious figures that opposed the actions being taken (or proposed) by their respective leaders. Hitler eventually attempted to substitute a pseudo-religion when he failed in his efforts to destroy Christianity and Judaism in Germany; that effort failed miserably, too, so he resorted to heavy-handed terrorist tactics. Stalin simply attempted to remove religion from the equation entirely by promoting state sponsored atheism while murdering as many people as needed to eradicate religion. Of course, just like Hitler, he only succeed in driving it underground.

Further, I take direct exception to the implication of your statements; the majority of Germans and Russians did NOT support the actions of Hitler and Stalin. They were as much victimized as anyone else. To even imply that these people willingly followed these monsters because they were brainwashed by religion into "following higher authorities" is absolutely horrendous. History does NOT support your assertion in these cases, and I suggest you reconsider the implications of your position on it.

Regarding your argument about religious tradition teaching people to abandon critical thinking - nonsense. You cannot abandon something unless you have it to begin with. Critical thinking is taught; it's not some kind of instinct that people are born with and then can be deprived of. Saying that religion teaches people to abandon critical thinking is as fallacious as saying that science teaches people to abandon faith.

In fact, I challenge you to show me one single verifiable example of a critical thinker that was persuaded by religion to abandon critical thinking. Just one.

How about I cite a religious figure that understood critical thinking and used it?

St. Thomas Aquinas.

In light of your OP and most recent post, I guess I should point out that St. Thomas Aquinas is regarded as the first person to document systematic critical thinking in the middle ages.



Methinks your agenda is showing. Better hide it, quick!

You and I just disgree 100%.

First of all, I don't even know where to start with your assertion that people are born with no critical thinking abilities! Logic and reasoning are built into humans. Now granted, we are hard-wired to believe things our parents tell us (Don't touch hot frying pans), but religion only further extends these tendencies, and transfers our natural trust in our parents (our natural-selection-driven suspension of critical thinking), to "The Lord."

As far as Hitler and Stalin going to great lengths to wipe out religious leaders opposing them, that works out great, because the populations are already conditioned by the Church to suspend critical thinking in opposition to high authority figures.

In other words, the sheep were already lined up, thanks to the Church, so now all Stalin and Hitler had to do was replace religious leaders with their own authority, which is exactly what they did.

As for Thomas Aquinas, I find it amazing that he was such a great critical thinker, but did not apply those abilities to his greatest belief of all.

 

[jmercer]

You and I just disgree 100%.

First of all, I don't even know where to start with your assertion that people are born with no critical thinking abilities! Logic and reasoning are built into humans. Now granted, we are hard-wired to believe things our parents tell us (Don't touch hot frying pans), but religion only further extends these tendencies, and transfers our natural trust in our parents (our natural-selection-driven suspension of critical thinking), to "The Lord."

Interesting claim. I'm skeptical. Do you have proof of this?

In all the child psychology and development courses I ever took, no one ever suggested that people were born with critical thinking skills. Most people (excepting certain mentally handicapped ones) are certainly born with the potential ability to learn critical thinking.

Critical thinking and skepticism is a learned behavior, not an instinctive one.

As far as Hitler and Stalin going to great lengths to wipe out religious leaders opposing them, that works out great, because the populations are already conditioned by the Church to suspend critical thinking in opposition to high authority figures.

In other words, the sheep were already lined up, thanks to the Church, so now all Stalin and Hitler had to do was replace religious leaders with their own authority, which is exactly what they did.

Historical accounts and historians differ with your interpretation. I can point you to many books and other historical sources dedicated to the history of Nazism and Stalinism, all of which support my commentary. (I suspect that luchog's post is drawn from similar sources.)

Again, I must ask you for some kind of authoritative source that supports your unusual assertions, because you certainly don't reflect the mainstream view of what transpired.

As for Thomas Aquinas, I find it amazing that he was such a great critical thinker, but did not apply those abilities to his greatest belief of all.

Amazing, perhaps - but would you agree that he was a great critical thinker and skeptic (of his day) regarding just about everything else?

 

[jmercer]

As far as Hitler and Stalin going to great lengths to wipe out religious leaders opposing them, that works out great, because the populations are already conditioned by the Church to suspend critical thinking in opposition to high authority figures.

By the way - does this mean you stand by your inference that the majority of Germans supported Hitler and the majority of Russians supported Stalin?

 

[Pragmatist]

Prgamatist, thanks for your response.

I used to be a Buddhist, many moons ago. I became disenchanted because I really thought there was some actual usefulness to be had.
I really thought that it was a "map" of the mind and that the Buddah and the various teachings of others had described a way to cross the mind and reach a point of clear understanding and self-control.
In the end it seemed to me nothing more than metaphors and a lot of meditating.

Not that this is bad or wrong, it was just, well, getting me nowhere. I should have known that such knowledge could not be had so simply - it takes real hard work and real study along with age and experience.

In my opinion there is most certainly much usefulness to be had from it, but as you say (like most worthwhile things in life incidentally) you have to work at it and make a real effort. One doesn't become an expert scientist or mathematician without some very hard work to understand them for example, so I'm not sure why anyone should expect religion to be easy.

Yes and no. For intellectual thinkers such as yourself, it can seem that way. For the mass of followers it's just the stories and the rituals. Again, not a bad thing; Buddhism has to be the most moral Religion under the sun - I know of no slaughters done in the name of Buddah. That is quite something.

Which is of course absolutely true. However, that path of belief without investigation is a choice of the people concerned, not a fault of the doctrine so to speak. It's like the old adage, "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink!"

As you say - I never did "grok" this part of it all. Again, my own logical mind obviously stuffing up great information that is just too subtle for it.

A message to Religion: please call a spade a spade!

Oh I understand, it would certainly be nice if religion could be straightforward, but that is the whole problem, when you are dealing with things outside the purely rational domain, purely rational words don't help. If anything they are misleading as exemplified by certain nonsensical statements in books like the bible which are interpreted as literal truth by the intellectually challenged. Look at it this way, can someone clearly and unambiguously in straightforward words, describe a generally agreed "aesthetic value" for something like the Mona Lisa? And if not, why not? It's because art (as an example) has many subtle "meanings" on many subtle levels, most of which are individual to each person. It's the same with religion. Although ideas like karma and rebirth are also the end of result of a chain of actual logical reasoning (i.e. the skandhas, arising of notions etc) in addition to the "irrational" bits. So they're fairly incomprehensible unless you firstly formally study the whole chain of reasoning which leads to them (and it is considerable) and in addition perform the practices which are supposed to give insight into some of that reasoning.

This is the meat of it. God of the Gaps.
Sure the "realm" of the rational is not all-encompassing. But the more we discover, the more turf it covers.
That which is "outside" the rational is merely the unknown as of now. Tomorrow - who knows?
The mistake that humans make is to prematurely assign reasons for things that are unknown. Thus we have all kinds of complex metaphysics explaining the mind (Buddhism for example), UFO's (Space Aliens), Ghosts (Whatever goes bump), chance (psi etc).

All I'm trying to say is that experience that we grant to Religion (wordlessness, meditation et al) should be called what it is: unknown as of now. Why ascribe all kinds of hypothesis before the facts?

I've addressed that elsewhere. But what do we really "know"? I mean in an absolute sense as opposed to provisionally? People were convinced they knew the laws of dynamics until Einstein came and overturned some basic ideas such as space, time, mass etc. Who is to say that another Einstein won't overturn that tomorrow? It certainly appears that we know more and more things, but we have no absolute basis of comparison to say that we really do. For example, the fact that Newton's Laws are incomplete didn't prevent anyone developing useful machines before 1905. And all our modern technology could potentially be based on false models. We don't currently know and maybe will never know. Therefore the mere presence of a useful model doesn't indicate true knowledge of anything - although I agree that it is more probable that is the case than not.

The entire argument that maybe we will know certain things in the future is only an opinion based on speculation and is therefore no more "true" than anyone's opinion about religion or anything else.

A good argument - but something rings hollow.
If it were not for maps, how would we ever get anywhere? It seems the map and the experience go hand in hand. Without the map, whence the experience? And how do you guage what you are experiencing?
Sure, experience may come first, the map second and by degrees we push the edges of the world away. But, without the map, the experience is mere anecdote.

Yes - I would say that the more accurate and high-res our maps - the better we will be at surviving and mapping even further.
I reckon our maps will eventually encompass the "fuzzy" subjects like Art and Creativity and even Religion. What humans will be like at that point, I don't know - certainly unrecognizable to the insane bunch we are right now

But before anyone ever went to a particular place, the map didn't exist! The experience came first and the map is a subsequent attempt to describe it and make it easier. But true explorers don't need (or often, want) maps - half the fun is finding out for yourself. And all personal experience could be dismissed as "mere anecdote" - does that invalidate all personal experience? One could also say that science is a prime example of an endevour where the necessity of constantly checking and re-checking the "map" against the "experience" is essential. Without that, it's just speculation. The map never supplants the territory, but a person with sufficient experience of the territory doesn't need a map... Accept no substitutes!

As for the rest, that is your opinion, which of course I respect, but I am not obliged to share!

By now I am seeing that words are slippery things. When I say "logic" and "reason" I mean a large body of tools that help us to define what is real (map making tools).

But what is "real"? If anyone knew that, there wouldn't be any need for philosophy, let alone science...

Again - it's about premature assignation (sounds kinky ) Art is assigned the label irrational. Religion is too. This seems to me to be a mere device to try and explain that which is unknown.

I believe you can get pills for that... It is not a device to explain what is unknown, it's a device to try to describe some things that are difficult to describe rationally. We are so used to science and attempts to explain that we tend to lose sight of the fact that sometimes an "explanation" isn't necessary (or even possible) but a description may be useful.

Why can't we simply leave it as unknown?
I don't know where ideas come from. Will we ever know? Perhaps. I don't know right now. Is it Voodoo? Is it Shiva? Is it the self-reflecting mirror? Is it the body thetans? Is it the crystals on my forehead? Bah! Let's just drop all that and say "Search me!", and then keep searching.

Actually, that is part of what I am saying. The "need to know" is somewhat obsessive and perhaps sometimes misplaced. Sure, we would like to know, but sometimes we can't, however, that doesn't imply we can't try to make something of it. Religion is as much of a search as science is, just a different kind of search. Science looks for answers "outside" the self, religion looks for answers inside. Philosophy can't make its mind up and tries to do both! We see progress in external things and we recognise science is "right". But do we recognise progress in internal things? Even if it is there, we can't see "inside" other people (i.e. mentally) so it's difficult to prove whether there is progress or not. However, the existence of great religious teachers at least some of whom are examples of happiness, peace and self-discipline suggests that maybe internal progress is possible too.

I am definitely not a "True Sceptic" I am way to flawed for that. Inconsistent and illogical for sure!
Still, I would say that my painting does depend on some kind of eventually explainable interaction of elements that are now, or will soon be, on the map of science - no need for any other hypothesis!

Which again is your opinion which you are more than entitled to. But that doesn't make it an objective fact.

To me it's high farce. It's the Black Knight guarding the way trying to bite the legs off his opponent when he is reduced to a limbless torso.
It's a priest decrying sin, wearing stockings.

I know a man who is a very capable computer programmer. He used this logical, rational talent to write a programme to do Astrological predictions. I saw his code. He has stock phrases like "You will succeed in this." (not exact, I am trying to recall) assigned into a large array...
Words fail me. It's not the planets and the mumbo-jumbo energy. It's a bloomin' array and a random index.

Maybe it's the contradiction. The contrast. To me, when you make bold enough to play with the tools of logic and reason, you also take-on a responsibility. This is to take good care of the tools, to show them proper respect.
You can't build a house and leave the roof off.

I would agree, but you are pre-judging the issue. It's only farcical if it is untrue and of no benefit. For example, if your programmer were to write a program that did accurately predict things we would be forced to re-evaluate the opinion that it's nonsense. Of course, I think it is nonsense, but we should be open to new evidence. If you found someone running an astrology program on their computer you would probably think him a woo, right? But what if he just happens to be a skeptic testing whether such a program can make real predictions? You can't judge things solely by superficial appearances. Well, you can but that way is just woo in disguise.

I don't have much regard for priests, proclamations of "sin", churches or anything like that. Those are just trappings that people put on things. But religion itself, an internal experience, can't be judged simply by the actions of certain people. One could argue that the second atomic bomb alone, the product of science, killed more people in a single second than the inquisition did in the whole of its history. Does that make science "evil"? I'm not arguing that point, I think it's specious, I'm just illustrating that superficial arguments may seem convincing, but that is why we (hopefully) espouse critical thinking, it tells us that thinking like that is fallacious. By the way is it a sin for a priest to wear stockings? True skeptics want to know!

 

[Pragmatist]

HAhahahaa. Having a little fun with my True Skeptic label, huh?

Well, you didn't expect anyone to take it seriously did you?

 

[Pragmatist]

You and I just disgree 100%.

First of all, I don't even know where to start with your assertion that people are born with no critical thinking abilities! Logic and reasoning are built into humans. Now granted, we are hard-wired to believe things our parents tell us (Don't touch hot frying pans), but religion only further extends these tendencies, and transfers our natural trust in our parents (our natural-selection-driven suspension of critical thinking), to "The Lord."

And that of course is why no child has ever been burned by a hot frying pan etc! It also explains why all children always obey their parents.

As far as Hitler and Stalin going to great lengths to wipe out religious leaders opposing them, that works out great, because the populations are already conditioned by the Church to suspend critical thinking in opposition to high authority figures.

In other words, the sheep were already lined up, thanks to the Church, so now all Stalin and Hitler had to do was replace religious leaders with their own authority, which is exactly what they did.

As for Thomas Aquinas, I find it amazing that he was such a great critical thinker, but did not apply those abilities to his greatest belief of all.

Many of the key founders and developers of modern western Critical Thinking, all deeply religious, most of them totally critical of the church:

William of Ockham

Theologian and Franciscan!

http://www.iep.utm.edu/o/ockham.htm

The political ideas which he had already represented in Paris were now developed and adapted to the circumstances of the time. In stepping outside the range of pure theology, he never forgot that he was a theologian. The belief that John XXII. was a heretic and no true pope, that the poverty of Christ and the apostles was an article of faith, were as much a part of his fixed belief as that the State and the rights of the emperor were independent of pope and Church.

Desiderius Erasmus

A Catholic Priest!

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05510b.htm
http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/erasmus.html

John Colet

Theologian, scholar and Dean of a religious school!

http://artemis.austincollege.edu/acad/hwc22/Renaissance/readings/Sir_Thomas_More_Circle.html

John Colet, an English theologian and scholar, founded in 1510 St. Paul's School; and although this was a boys' school, Colet was most definitely influenced by the ideas of such men as Erasmus, Vives and More. Colet explained the purpose of his school thus: "The children should be taught good literature, both Latin and Greek, such authors that have wisdom joined with pure chaste eloquence, especially Christian authors who wrote their wisdom in clean chaste Latin. . . for my intent is by this school to increase knowledge and worshipping of God our Lord Jesus Christ, and good Christian life and manners in the children" (Source of above quotation misplaced, but see Hogrefe 146). Note that Colet places the emphasis on a "good Christian life," reflecting the practical emphasis of the humanists.

Thomas More

"A profoundly religious Catholic"!

http://www.d.umn.edu/~aroos/utopia.html

Through all of his success, More remained a profoundly religious Catholic. Though he had decided he could better serve his God as a lay Christian, More still followed many of the ascetic practices of monks: rising early, fasting, engaging in prolonged prayer, and wearing a hair shirt. He also was famous for his immense poverty.

Francis Bacon

A Christian, great believer in religion, supporter of the church and notable critic of atheism!

http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/ofatheism.html

I had rather believe all the fables in the Legend, and the Talmud, and the Alcoran, than that this universal frame is without a mind; and, therefore, God never wrought miracle to convince atheism, because his ordinary works convince it. It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds about to religion; for while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them confederate, and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity.

Rene Descartes

A passionate Catholic!

http://www.adherents.com/people/pd/Rene_Descartes.html

Descartes: "Descartes was a French mathematician, scientist and philosopher who has been called the father of modern philosophy. His school studies made him dissatisfied with previous philosophy: He had a deep religious faith as a Catholic, which he retained to his dying day, along with a resolute, passionate desire to discover the truth. At the age of 24 he had a dream, and felt the vocational call to seek to bring knowledge together in one system of thought. His system began by asking what could be known if all else were doubted - suggesting the famous 'I think therefore I am'. Actually, it is often forgotten that the next step for Descartes was to establish the near certainty of the existence of God - for only if God both exists and would not want us to be deceived by our experiences can we trust our senses and logical thought processes. God is, therefore, central to his whole philosophy. What he really wanted was to see his philosophy adopted as standard Catholic teaching. Rene Descartes and Francis Bacon (1561-1626) are generally regarded as the key figures in the development of scientific methodology. Both had systems in which God was important, and both seem more devout than the average for their era." [Source: http://astro.estec.esa.nl/SA-general/Projects/Planck/mplanck/mplanck.html].

You don't think your arguments are a little on the flawed side?

 

[Pragmatist]

Interesting claim. I'm skeptical. Do you have proof of this?

Don't be silly, TRUE skeptics don't feel a need to show any evidence (apparently - based on the absence of same to date) ... any more than woos do...

 

[luchog]

Excellent post, luchog. However, I would hesitate to cite atheism as the cause for the deaths; I believe the primary motivation in all cases was the permanent elimination of any possible framework that could resist the establishment and/or ongoing stability of the various regimes in question. Atheism in these cases was probably merely a tool for creating a group identity for the ruling class, rather than a motivating philosophy that led to the bloodshed.

Agreed, but more often than not, that is exactly the same for various religions. Religion is more often than not merely a justification for an action whose real purpose is socio-economic.

[/b]
Regarding Hitler; he unquestionably started out as a Christian, but eventually turned against Christianity. Hitler was fascinated by the occult and paganism; arguably, one can say that Hitler's religion centered around these things with Germany as the deity. I believe that calling Hitler an atheist is an error - although it's certainly open to debate. [/B]

He started out in the Church, but as to whether he was a Christian is a matter of debate.

In any case, the philosophy he preached in his writings was atheistic, ie, he didn't believe in any form of deity; but contained a good deal of mysticism. Not centered on Germany, but on the concept of spiritual as well as physical evolution; and the closest thing he had to a diety was his concept of the "ubermenschen", the next step in human evolution. It's arguable that he deified humanity and human potential, and certainly wasn't a pure materialist.

 

[jmercer]

Don't be silly, TRUE skeptics don't feel a need to show any evidence (apparently - based on the absence of same to date) ... any more than woos do...

Oh, silly me, indeed. I forgot that TRUE skeptics are beyond that, you're quite correct.

 

[luchog]

But on the whole the point is valid - once religion got taken out of the government equation state terror became worse, not better. And you could probably make a good case for atheist organisations having invented suicide bombing. But I am thinking of texts read long ago so I could be wrong on this.

I've never encountered this. Every example I've seen, historically, has been religious in nature. Certainly the Japanese kamikazes were religious.

[/b]What seems to be the linking factor in the religious/atheist terror examples is absolutist power. [/B]

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." -Lord Acton.

This is why, being a Christian, I'm a strong opponent of the Religious Right.

 

[jmercer]

Agreed, but more often than not, that is exactly the same for various religions. Religion is more often than not merely a justification for an action whose real purpose is socio-economic.

100% in agreement - in fact, I expanded on that issue of religion being a foil in a later post, but you put it quite nicely.

He started out in the Church, but as to whether he was a Christian is a matter of debate.

Well, in a number of his early speeches - while he was rallying people to his platform - he made the claim that he was a Christian. Of course, there's no way to tell if he meant it or not, so again, I must agree with you. It's indeed debatable.

Personally, I think he was a nominal Christian who turned against Christianity when his psychosis began to set in.

In any case, the philosophy he preached in his writings was atheistic, ie, he didn't believe in any form of deity; but contained a good deal of mysticism. Not centered on Germany, but on the concept of spiritual as well as physical evolution; and the closest thing he had to a diety was his concept of the "ubermenschen", the next step in human evolution. It's arguable that he deified humanity and human potential, and certainly wasn't a pure materialist.

Hm... I'm not sure you could classify his writings as atheistic, not really. There's no doubt he was strongly anti-Christian/Judaic; but I don't believe he actually declared that there is no deity. I could be wrong on that, though - If I am, I'd appreciate the correction... other than that one minor quibble, I find myself in agreement with you once again.

 

[jmercer]

Originally posted by Robin
And you could probably make a good case for atheist organisations having invented suicide bombing. But I am thinking of texts read long ago so I could be wrong on this.

Originally posted by luchog
I've never encountered this. Every example I've seen, historically, has been religious in nature. Certainly the Japanese kamikazes were religious.

I believe that the original "mad bombers" (they would set bombs off - not blow themselves up) were the so-called Russian Anarchists... who were intellectuals and most (if not all) were also self-professed atheists. As I recall, these people were the precursors to the Russian Revolution and were opposed the the Czarist government of the time.

So I think Robin might be on point about being able to make a good case for terrorist bombings having originated with atheists; just not suicide bombings. I should also point out that the atheistic aspect of this is incidental; the bombings were politically motivated.

 

[luchog]

Luchog,

I believe your figures are correct. However, I also believe you are misrepresenting atheism in the same way that the McCarthys did and Bushes of this world do. Atheism is mereley a lack of belief in deities, nothing more, nothing less. Without belief in a deity, most, is not all, religions and religious metaphysics become irrelevant to the atheist.

What dictators like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and others did was merely to create their own religion, with themselves as the deity, complete with rituals and places of worship. They used exactly the same methods and applied psychology, and did so deliberately, as the churces had used to obtain and maintain power for centuries. So on the surface they were anti-established-religion, because it competed for power, but in principle they acted exactly like religious fundamentalists.

No, this is definitely not the case. I nowhere claimed that atheism was responsible for the atrocities, just like I do not believe that religion is responsible for historical atrocities. I was simply refuting the assertion that those sorts of atrocities are committed only due to the influence of religion.

What causes these sorts of mass atrocities is not religion or atheism, it's conformism, apathy, and abrogation of personal responsibilty. Humans, in general, have an innate desire or need for a focal point for their existence. They also have a strong "herd instinct". A leader who is charismatic and influential enough to harness the latter by providing the former can create a powerful tool out of the masses. People in large groups act in predictable, easily understood ways.

Religion is a very good tool for providing focus and harnessing conformism. Without religion, other tools are necessary; the most common being the "Cult of Personality"; aka. a charismatic leader who claims to provide simple, effective answers to various problems, while removing the responsibility for those problems from the shoulders of his supporters. "Cult of Personality" is not the same as religion. There is no inherently superior status granted the leader, and no supernatural or transcencent properties. He is merely seen as the one who provides the answers. Historically, those best achieve the cult of personality are those who are not] inherently different from their followers; but instead are those who can project an Everyman quality, who can present themselves as "One of You".

It is the religious mindset that is the problem, not the lack of it. The willingness to irrationally, uncritically and blindly follow unsubstantiated or downright fallacious claims and concepts.

This is not a religious mindset, this is a human mindset and extends to all aspects of human life; religious, academic, and so on. It's simply laziness. A desire to avoid responsibility and to find simple, black-and-white answers to complex problems.

Religious leaders are merely good at taking advantage of this tendency; but atheists are no less prone to it than others.

Also- religion, or rather the religious mindset, prevents human progress, no more apparent perhaps than in countries that have adapted Sharia Rule. And it inevitably leads to misery and hence to conflict. Religious law largely 'works' by oppressing basic human needs - it is therefore reasonable to call religious laws inhuman.

This is also demonstrably not true. There are some religions and religious groups that are anti-intellectual, and some belief systems that actively discourage curiosity and exploration of the natural world; but these are few. Most often it's because of the worldview espoused by the religion; specifically the view of reality and nature as whimsical and inconstant.

Current science owes quite a bit to Christianity, particularly it's view of reality and nature as fixed and constant (despite what some Fundies try to claim); and subject to specific, identifiable natural laws. What we know as the "scientific method" was formalized by the Franciscan friar Roger Bacon in the 13th century. The ancient Greeks did have several philosophical schools that also postulated fixed, immutable laws of nature; their approach always included a good deal of mysticism as well (they saw the two as inherently inseperable), and investigations were generally uncontrolled trial and error, degrading into alchemy. (Bacon himself, later in life, lost his intellectual rigor and descended into alchemy as well).

As for the rest of it, the excesses of certain religious groups do not invalidate the religions themselves any more than the excesses of atheist groups invalidate atheism.

 

[luchog]

I don't know if they were atheists or not; indications for at least some of them is that they were. I agree with you that linking their actions to athiesm is an error. Their actions were chosen by them not because of their personal views on religion, but because it was the most expedient means of gaining and/or preserving power.

The same goes for many atrocities committed by various religions; the people running the show claim to be fulfilling the will of God(s), but were really motivated by a desire to gain or retain secular power. God was just an excuse; if not religion, some other vehicle would have been forced to serve, such as Communism, Socialism, Nationalism, Patriotism, etc. History is rife with examples.

Which was pretty much my point; though I didn't illustrate it quite as well as I could have.

 

[BS Investigator]

And that of course is why no child has ever been burned by a hot frying pan etc! It also explains why all children always obey their parents.

And why 3 year olds are always climbing over the edge of cliffs...

As far as children being hard-wired to believe their parents, check out Sam Harris's ideas on this subject in THE END OF FAITH.

Many of the key founders and developers of modern western Critical Thinking, all deeply religious, most of them totally critical of the church:

William of Ockham

Theologian and Franciscan!

The guy was born in 1285! Give me a break! This was before most of the scientific discoveries that would have made him think twice about how real religion was.

 

[jmercer]

The guy was born in 1285! Give me a break! This was before most of the scientific discoveries that would have made him think twice about how real religion was.

I'm still waiting for you to tell me who abandoned critical thinking because they were brainwashed by the Church. So far, I've seen seven examples of the reverse situation - religious figures that were also critical thinkers.

And while you're rounding that example up, don't forget to show me documentation for critical thinking being inborn and not learned... and, of course, support for your assertions about the German and Russian people being sheep.

 

[luchog]

I have to question whether religion was an obstacle for Hitler and the Nazis. Of course he hated Jews, but my understanding is that a lot of Christians, both Catholic and Protestant (especially those high up in the hierarchy) supported the Nazi agenda: nationalism, fighting communism (and any left-wing or labour movements), judaism, feminism, gay rights, race-mixing, etc...

I'm aware that Hitler despised Christianity (and especially Catholicism, so I hear), but would he have gotten into power without the support of Xians who shared much of his world-view?

Religion was not much of an obstacle to the Nazi regime. There was much support for it from existing Asatru/pagan groups; as well as some of the "liberal" Christian churches. Germany was not particularly Christian, it merely retained the social trappings of the religion; and was predominantly Protestant.

Himmler's own writings advocated manipulation of religion and religious tendencies; while feeling that eventually religion would die out on it's own in favour of "superior" atheist philosophies. Until then, it was useful for controlling the "lower", ignorant population.

Himmler's comments on Christianity:

"So it's not opportune to hurl ourselves now into a struggle with the churches. The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death. A slow death has something comforting about it. The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advance of science. Religion will have to make more and more concessions. Gradually the myths crumble. All that's left is to prove that in nature there's no frontier between the organic and the inorganic. When understanding of the universe has become widespread, when the majority of men know that the stars are not sources of light but worlds - perhaps inhabited worlds like ours - then the Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.

But one must continue to pay attention to another aspect of the problem. It's possible to satisfy the needs of the inner life by an intimate communion with nature, or by knowledge of the past. Only a minority, however, at the present stage of the mind's development, can feel the respect inspired by the unknown and thus satisfy the metaphysical needs of the soul. The average human being has the same needs, but can satisfy them only by elementary means. That's particularly true of women, as also of peasants who impotently watch the destruction of their crops. The person whose life tends to simplification is thirsty for belief, and he dimly clings to it with all his strength.

Nobody has the right to deprive simple people of their childish certainties until they've acquired others that are more reasonable. Indeed it's most important that the higher belief should be well established in them before the lower belief has been removed. We must finally achieve this. But it would serve no purpose to replace an old belief by a new one that would merely fill the place left vacant by its predecessor."

 

[CaptainManacles]

Anders

That was a very interesting post, however, I don't know if "religious mindset" would be the best term to use. There are plenty of things people call religions that don't really do such things, and including totalitarian communism as a religion is maybe stretching the definition. It certainly shares many of the same qualities as religion, so maybe it'd be better to call it a "dogmatic mindset".

 

[luchog]

I believe that the original "mad bombers" (they would set bombs off - not blow themselves up) were the so-called Russian Anarchists... who were intellectuals and most (if not all) were also self-professed atheists. As I recall, these people were the precursors to the Russian Revolution and were opposed the the Czarist government of the time.

So I think Robin might be on point about being able to make a good case for terrorist bombings having originated with atheists; just not suicide bombings. I should also point out that the atheistic aspect of this is incidental; the bombings were politically motivated.

An interesting fact I was not entirely aware of.

Though if we extend that to include all suicide-attack styles; there are some historically-documented incidents that predate this century.

The initiates of the radical and mystical Nizari Ishma'ili sect of Shi'a Islam, known colloquially (and incorrectly) as the "hashishim" or "Assassins"; used suicide methods, usually for assassination of influential leaders, in which case the assassins were expected to die in the attack, or to kill themselves if they were captured.

The Romans documented (leaving aside the question of accuracy of Roman historians) suicide tactics used by the Picts during Julius Ceasar's attempted conquest of the British Isles. Picts would often hurl themselves on Roman spears, thus disarming them and breaking up the tight Roman phalanxes, giving their countrymen time and opportunity to attack the Romans before they could drop the spears, draw their gladii and regroup. It was a tactic that was effective in the short term, and demoralized the Romans long enough for political upheaval to postpone the invasion. There is historical documentation of similar tactics used on much smaller scales by other groups.

Modern suicide bombers probably owe their tactics more to the medieval Assassins than any other influence.

 

[jmercer]

Religion was not much of an obstacle to the Nazi regime. There was much support for it from existing Asatru/pagan groups; as well as some of the "liberal" Christian churches. Germany was not particularly Christian, it merely retained the social trappings of the religion; and was predominantly Protestant.

Hmm... that's quite a statement, especially about the "social trappings" of religion. I must disagree with you on this while recognizing at the same time both our viewpoints are matters of opinion. (Although I acknowledge there was a substantial element of pagan beliefs retained throughout German society at that time.)

Religion became more of a problem, however, as Hitler began to implement his program of pogroms... because he began to target Christian leaders who had become popular within their towns and cities and that opposed his actions.

Himmler's own writings advocated manipulation of religion and religious tendencies; while feeling that eventually religion would die out on it's own in favour of "superior" atheist philosophies. Until then, it was useful for controlling the "lower", ignorant population.

Himmler's comments on Christianity:

These writings you've attributed to Himmler are actually from Hitler to Himmler in a private letter dated October 14'th, 1941. Link

(There are other links supporting that this quite came from Hitler and not Himmler on that date.)

No doubt at the time, Hitler didn't consider Christianity to be a problem for him. Of course, he felt that way about a great many other things those days - he was still optimistic, riding high on his successful blitzkriegs. During 1941 when this was written, Hitler was still in the process of engineering the "purging" non-Aryans from Germany; the majority of Germans had no idea of what was in store for them. Here's a timeline of events that shows when things happened and when the German public started to become aware of events.

Finally, I draw your attention to this , which describes the role of Christianity (and it's danger to Nazism) during those years.