Ghanaian woman burned to death for being a 'witch' | World news | The Guardian
This terrible inicedent was carried out by several people including a Christian pastor and several apparently otherwise ordinary people.
This just goes to show that if you believe in a paranormal deity and supernatural evil you are a very short step away from this type of behaviour. Most liberal theists might try to disagree with me, but if they do hold such beliefs all it takes is a change in their personal or social circumstances or a charismatic leader and their god and religious beliefs will be invoked to explain it and drive their actions to rectify it. It matters not how liberal the theist is, how westernised or civilised they think they are, if they truly believe evil is affecting their lives they will take the actions they believe to defeat it.
To paraphrase something I've heard; Good people will do good things and evil people will do evil things but for good people to do evil things, it takes religion.
"To paraphrase something I've heard; Good people will do good things and evil people will do evil things but for good people to do evil things, it takes religion."
ReplyDeleteA fallacy thoroughly disproved by the results of the Milgram experiment where it was demonstrated that ordinary people will do "evil" things so long as they are instructed to by an "authority figure" (in the case of the experiment a scientist)and feel that they will not be held accountable for their actions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment
No religion required in order for "good" people to administer what they believed to be lethal levels of electricity to another human being. Surely an "evil" act in anybody's book?
I do agree to some extent. I did not mean to imply that religious belief was the only trigger for such behaviour. The Milgram experiments do show that it is possible for people to carry out extreme levels of punishment if they believe they are being ordered to do it.
ReplyDeleteBut isn't a god the ultimate authority figure?
"I did not mean to imply that religious belief was the only trigger for such behaviour."
ReplyDeleteReally? There seems to be little room for ambiguity in the phrase: "Good people will do good things and evil people will do evil things but for good people to do evil things, it takes religion."
It is quite clear that according to this statement religion is the only thing that causes "good" people to do "evil" things.
It doesn't say "one of the things that can cause good people to do evil things is religion" does it?
So why repeat such a fallacy in the first place?
Is it a fallacy? I made it clear it was a paraphrase of someone else and I have now said that I accept that religion is not the only driver of 'evil' acts. There has been enough non-religious leaders/dictators to show that it is more ideological beliefs that drive normally good people to do bad things.
ReplyDeleteBut in this case it is not a fallacy to point out that the ideology is a religious and likely Christian one.
It seems fairly clear that a religious belief, possibly one supported by scripture such as 'Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live' and deliver by a charismatic person was the driver of this heinous act.
"Is it a fallacy? I made it clear it was a paraphrase of someone else and I have now said that I accept that religion is not the only driver of 'evil' acts."
ReplyDeleteIn which case it clearly is a fallacy since you accept that things than religion can cause "good" people to do "evil" things.
In the case of the Milgram experiment all it required was a person in a lab coat telling them to "proceed with the experiment".
"In the case of the Milgram experiment all it required was a person in a lab coat telling them to "proceed with the experiment"."
ReplyDeleteIt was more than that, as you have already stated it was an authority figure.
Every body responds to authority as these experiments show. Most cases of 'good people doing evil' things will relate to them following a charismatic but immoral figure.
Unfortunately for religion, it has more authority figures that claim to be passing orders from the ultimate authority figure.
Just to clarify a point, are you suggesting that religion was not a major driver of this murder, which I believe is incorrect, or just pointing out that in other cases it isn't, which I have never disagreed with?
"It was more than that, as you have already stated it was an authority figure."
ReplyDeleteIt was someone whom the subjects perceived to have authority. In fact it could have been anyone in that labcoat saying "continue with the experiment".
"Every body responds to authority as these experiments show. Most cases of 'good people doing evil' things will relate to them following a charismatic but immoral figure."
Yes, but not necessarily a religious figure, therefore the statement "for good people to do evil things, it takes religion" is, by your own admission, a fallacy.
Why can't you accept that?
"Just to clarify a point, are you suggesting that religion was not a major driver of this murder"
No, I have made no observation on this particular murder at all. The only point that I have made is that he generalisation that you repeated in your blog that "Good people will do good things and evil people will do evil things but for good people to do evil things, it takes religion" is a fallacy that is easily disproved by the results of the Milgram experiment.
For some reason you seem to be able to accept that this statement is not true and that there are other causes of "good" people doing "evil" things but not that this makes this generalisation fallacious.
Very strange.
"It was someone whom the subjects perceived to have authority. In fact it could have been anyone in that labcoat saying "continue with the experiment"."
ReplyDeleteTotally agree and that makes my point that religious leaders/pastors are perceived as authority in moral conduct. This story doesn't say if the pastor arrested was the ringleader but his presence must have added authority to their 'claim they were trying to exorcise an evil spirit from the woman'
Clearly in this case, to me at least, (perhaps not to you?), religious belief was a large factor in horrifically murdering this woman as a witch and it was carried out by apparently otherwise normal people.
"Very strange."
Not really. It was not my generalisation, and I don't see it as a fallacy because it is generally true.
It would only really be a fallacy If it had been specifically stated that nothing other than religion can cause normal people to do bad things - saying as much as clearly nonsense and I have not. But clearly these semantics are important to you.
"Not really. It was not my generalisation, and I don't see it as a fallacy because it is generally true."
ReplyDeleteOf course it is a fallacy. The statement "Good people will do good things and evil people will do evil things but for good people to do evil things, it takes religion" is falsified by a single instance of a "good" person doing an "evil" action that hasn't been inspired by religion.
"It would only really be a fallacy If it had been specifically stated that nothing other than religion can cause normal people to do bad things"
But that is exactly what it does say: "for good people to do evil things, it takes religion".
That statement is not qualified or limited in any way.
It doesn't say "for good people to do evil things, it often takes religion" or "for good people to do evil things, it usually takes religion" or "for good people to do evil things, it typically takes religion" or even "for good people to do evil things, it takes religion or some similar ideology reinforced by an authority figure".
It is quite clear and unambiguous: "for good people to do evil things, it takes religion", i.e. the only thing that makes "good" people do "evil" things is religion.
This is clearly a fallacy.
Why, in the face of the evidence that this statement is false, do you have such trouble admitting it?
"That statement is not qualified or limited in any way."
ReplyDeleteAgreed, but it was in a blog not a legal document. In all this I have never said that religion is the only trigger, just paraphrased a statement that is generally true.
"Why, in the face of the evidence that this statement is false, do you have such trouble admitting it? "
Because it is only false if you insist it was used as statement of undeniable fact, and ignore that in a blog it was a generalisation.
I define a 'fallacy' as a something that is deceptive, misleading, or erroneous. My use of the statement you insist is fallacious was not used to deceive or mislead, and is only erroneous if it was used as an undeniable statement of fact, and not as a generalisation.
If you have read it in the initial post as a claim of fact, I apologise but there is plenty evidence in subsequent posts to you, including my agreement with the results of the Milgram experiments, that this was never the case
But it wasn't presented as a generalisation (like some of the modifications that I gave previously) it was presented as an absolute: "for good people to do evil things, it takes religion".
ReplyDeleteAs you were paraphrasing the original quote anyway and you recognised that it wasn't absolutely true then surely it would have been more honest to represent this in your blog rather than presenting this in a way that suggested that this was an absolute?
"for good people to do evil things, it often takes religion" is not fallacious.
"for good people to do evil things, it takes religion" is fallacious.
Why can't you be honest enough to admit this?
"Why can't you be honest enough to admit this?"
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure I have ever denied it. You seem more intent in semantics rather intended meaning. Do you really think that I meant the statement an an absolute? It worries me that you might because it means you believe that I see religion as the worlds only evil which makes everything I have said to the contrary a lie.
I will say again, I do not believe that religion is the only thing that makes people do evil things. Though in the case above it may have been.
I still maintain that what I have said was not fallacious because it could only be so if I did believe that religion was the either only cause or intended to deceive and mislead readers that it was.
For you to maintain it is fallicious, you must believe that my intention was different from what I think I have already clearly stated and demonstrated.
So it boils down to semantics. I do not disagree with your interpretation of what can cause outwardly normal people to do heinous things, but I disagree that my post was intended to be fallacious because most readers, present company excepted apparently, would see that to paraphrase someone else was was not claiming an absolute, and there was no intention to mislead.
If fact if there was an intention to mislead, which you seem to be claiming, it was a fairly lame attempt that a child could see through by simply naming one non-religious person who has acted immorally - and there are many to choose from.
"Do you really think that I meant the statement an an absolute?"
ReplyDeleteIt is given as an absolute: "for good people to do evil things, it takes religion", so why should it be taken to be intended as anything other than an absolute? It is quite easy to turn it into a qualified statement, if that is what one wishes to do, as I have already demonstrated.
"I will say again, I do not believe that religion is the only thing that makes people do evil things."
If that is the case why did you say "Good people will do good things and evil people will do evil things but for good people to do evil things, it takes religion" in your blog entry?
Clearly an unambiguous statement that only religion can cause "good" people to do "evil" things.
So why say it when you know it to be untrue?
The statement "for good people to do evil things, it takes religion" is clearly a fallacy.
You accept that it is easily disproved so why can't you accept that it is a fallacy?
"It is given as an absolute"
ReplyDeleteOf course it is. Mights, maybes and sometimes make poor prose. But if that is the way you took it, I have already apologised so I don't intend to again.
"You accept that it is easily disproved so why can't you accept that it is a fallacy? "
Because, as I have already said, a fallacy is something that is intended to deceive or mislead and no matter how often you insist it is a fallacy, it does not fit the definition I use. The intention of the piece was to highlight the inherent problem with uncritical religious belief and the atrocities that can be an outcome. You seem unconcerned with this.
Your 'fallacy' is an addendum and the observation of another that to my mind fitted in the case of this report. You can of course continue to disagree with what you think my meaning and intention was but to what point? Only I truly know my own mind and you seem determined not to accept it.
"Of course it is. Mights, maybes and sometimes make poor prose."
ReplyDeleteSo you accept that it was written in an absolute sense despite the fact that you knew that this wasn't an absolute.
Yet you claim that it wasn't your intention to give the reader the impression that this was an absolute and therefore this wasn't fallacious, but how was your reader to know that what was expressed an an absolute wasn't to be taken as an absolute?
As I have said previously, since you were paraphrasing anyway, surely it would have been more honest of you to make a further change that made it absolutely clear that it doesn't always require religion in order to make "good" people do "evil" things?
"So you accept that it was written in an absolute sense despite the fact that you knew that this wasn't an absolute."
ReplyDeleteIs this news to you? I accepted that much in my response to your very first comment. Remember 'I did not mean to imply that religious belief was the only trigger for such behaviour'?
"how was your reader to know that what was expressed an an absolute wasn't to be taken as an absolute?"
Unfortunately I assumed any readers would be intelligent enough to see this, as I believed that even a child would not take any claim stating nothing other than religion causes bad things could be true in every case.
"surely it would have been more honest of you to make a further change that made it absolutely clear that it doesn't always require religion in order to make "good" people do "evil" things?"
Perhaps I should, and perhaps I should also not over estimate the intelligence of any readers.
"Unfortunately I assumed any readers would be intelligent enough to see this, as I believed that even a child would not take any claim stating nothing other than religion causes bad things could be true in every case".
ReplyDeleteYou say that now, but those of us who frequent religious discussion boards, as I know you do from time to time, see this very phase, or similiar, trotted out with depressing regularity and no sense that it isn't intended to be taken absolutely until the writer is challenged with the truth.
Then we generally find the writer either backpeddling (as was the case here) and claiming that despite how it was written it wasn't intended to be an absolute statement or trying to shift the goalposts by claiming that any other inspiration for "evil" behaviour is a quasi-religious ideology reinforced by quasi-religious authority.
I wouldn't be surprised if I could find an example of you having used this phase without qualification elsewhere previously, only to have the truth exposed. I certainly won't be surprised to find you using it without any sort of qualification in the future. It seems to be a favourite amonst certain atheists who refuse to drop it even after it has been comprehensively disproved.
To claim that you can write something in an absolute sense but not expect it to be read as such is disingenuous in the extreme. As is the suggestion that only the unintelligent will interpret that which has been written as an absolute statement to have been intended to be taken as an absolute statement.
Dishonest, dishonest, dishonest.
Sorry Anonymous but you are wrong, wrong, wrong.
ReplyDeleteAfter your 9 comments, to still be using words and phases like 'backpeddling', 'shift the goal posts', and 'exposed', is very disingenuous, when this great revelation you have now 'exposed' and that you believe I am 'backpeddling' from was clarified by me after your very first comment.
To be calling me dishonest after so many posts, when my honesty is clear for all to see from the very first does you no credit.
...and writing things that you know to be untrue does you no credit.
ReplyDeleteWould you have felt any need to clarify the statement in your blog had it remained unchallenged?
Presumably not.
It is only once you were challenged with the evidence that disproved it that you started claiming that you never actually meant exactly what you wrote.
Like I said: dishonest.
"Would you have felt any need to clarify the statement in your blog had it remained unchallenged?"
ReplyDeleteOf course not, but in my defence I had not factored in the prospect of someone anally reading blog posts intended as generalisations and satire as absolutes - lesson learned.
"It is only once you were challenged with the evidence that disproved it that you started claiming that you never actually meant exactly what you wrote."
I have never said I did not mean what I wrote, I only apologised for the need to clarify my post to someone who lacked understanding.
"Like I said: dishonest."
No dishonesty, no deception and no misleading as I clearly implied before your unfounded accusations.
It is interesting that your first accusation of dishonestly only came after 9 posts and a 'gotcha', ("So you accept that it was written in an absolute sense despite the fact that you knew that this wasn't an absolute."), which was confirmed at the outset of this discussion.
No doubt you were fishing for something better but had to settle for me honestly admitting that I agreed with you about religion not being the only driver of evil actions, but still felt the need to justify your time by actually claiming dishonesty on my part for doing so.
What is even more interesting is that you are more concerned by the semantics and intended meaning of phase, rather than the evidence that religious people are murdering old women in the world as witches in the name of Christ.
What would make someone's priorities so skewed?
Defence of their faith perhaps?
"Of course not, but in my defence I had not factored in the prospect of someone anally reading blog posts intended as generalisations and satire as absolutes"
ReplyDeleteAnd how was your reader supposed to recognise "for good people to do evil things, it takes religion" as either generalisation or satire?
I only apologised for the need to clarify my post to someone who lacked understanding
And how was your reader supposed to understand that "for good people to do evil things, it takes religion" meant something other than what it said?
I assume that you will not be using this particular phase again without some degree of qualification?
But then why wouldn't you use it again when you admit that you understood when you wrote it that it wasn't true?
Since your latest epistle is just a hash of others and you have ignored my last question I assume I am correct.
ReplyDeleteDefending your beliefs by berating others for their choice of phase is much more important than addressing the notion that your beliefs, when applied as a fundamental truth, may lead to the most appalling atrocities even in the modern age.
That pretty much was the point of the post BTW.
"your beliefs, when applied as a fundamental truth, may lead to the most appalling atrocities even in the modern age"
ReplyDeleteYou know nothing about my beliefs.
However any deeply held conviction can lead to "appalling atrocities". All one has to do is be convinced that one is acting in "the greater good" and it would appear that nothing is sacrosanct.
That is the horrific reality of humanity's recent history.
How ordinary people could have been convinced to become involved in acts of barbarism against their fellow human was the question that drove Milgram to formulate his famous experiment.
What the result demonstrated was that we are all (not just the religiously minded) merely a bad set of circumstances away from herding our neighbours onto cattle trucks.
Your blog entry would imply that this is something that those with a religious faith are somehow more succeptible to acts of barbarism than those without:
"A short step from madness", "if you believe in a paranormal deity and supernatural evil you are a very short step away from this type of behaviour", "if they do hold such beliefs all it takes is a change in their personal or social circumstances or a charismatic leader and their god and religious beliefs will be invoked to explain it and drive their actions", "for good people to do evil things, it takes religion"
when in fact you know (and apparantly knew before writing any of this) that barbaric behaviour towards other human beings is not uniquely religious and we are all capable of such behaviour given the wrong set of circumstances.
THAT is why what you wrote was fundamentally dishonest.
“You know nothing about my beliefs.”
ReplyDeleteOf course I do, many are transparent from your comments.
“However any deeply held conviction can lead to "appalling atrocities". All one has to do is be convinced that one is acting in "the greater good" and it would appear that nothing is sacrosanct.”
In the example that prompted this post it was Christian based beliefs and "the greater good" is more likely to infer religious belief. Pointing out the obvious makes it seem like you are saying, ‘Look others do it too, these people might have misguidedly murdered an old lady, but, well um.. that sort of thing can happen all over the place.’ as if you are trying to dilute or avoid the consequences.
“Your blog entry would imply that this is something that those with a religious faith are somehow more succeptible to acts of barbarism than those without:”
It would imply that and that implication is supported by research. Milgram many not have exclusively used religiously minded people but other research and studies have and there is evidence that those with religious faith are somehow more susceptible.
"To please the supernatural agent they worship, they exact higher punishments. The other possibility is that the cued words awakened the concepts of appropriate punishment in their minds."
"The punishing may be unpleasant but it's in the service of the greater good for that particular group or religion, enabling them to thrive and spread the word,"
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19760-thoughts-of-religion-prompt-acts-of-punishment.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news
“Drawing from recent work on attribution theory and religion, this paper proposes and reports evidence that public support for the retributive doctrine is closely linked to affiliation with fundamentalist Protestant denominations and fundamentalist religious beliefs.”
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1992.tb01092.x/abstract
“Several recent studies suggest aspects of Conservative Protestant (i.e., fundamentalist and evangelical) theology foster support for, and the use of corporal punishment”
“A few critics go much further, charging that Conservative Protestantism, among other variants of Christianity, encourages or at least countenances the physical abuse of children, and that this is only one of a number of ways in which religious beliefs torment children.”
“There is even a suggestion that physical abuse shapes the nature of religious experience within these traditions,”
Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion © 1996 Society for the Scientific Study of Religion.
http://www.jstor.org/pss/1386391
There are many other examples if you care to enlighten yourself. While I still do not claim exclusivity of religious belief, this is research that supports they very thing that you have accused me of being fundamentally dishonest about. I suppose your beliefs, religious or otherwise do not allow an apology for such a baseless accusation?
"Of course I do, many are transparent from your comments."
ReplyDeleteReally? Perhaps you would care to share your visionary insights with the rest of the class, o great seer!
""the greater good" is more likely to infer religious belief"
Utter rubbish! We all have a concept of what we believe to be "the greater good", it is what we consider the ideal state of the world to be.
If atheists have no concept of "the greater good" how do they decide who to vote for in general elections? Through pure and selfish self-interest presumably?
You're making yourself look ridiculous as well as dishonest now.
You further demonstrate your dishonesty by supporting your generalisations about the religious with studies involving specific, narrow religious groups: "fundamentalist Protestant denominations", "Conservative Protestant (i.e., fundamentalist and evangelical)".
How can you honestly justify the use of studies about such specific, narrow religious groups to support your general statements about the religious, particularly religious liberals: e.g. "Most liberal theists might try to disagree with me, but if they do hold such beliefs all it takes is a change in their personal or social circumstances or a charismatic leader and their god and religious beliefs will be invoked to explain it and drive their actions to rectify it"?
Were the control groups for these studies similarly conservative non-religious types?
Thought not.
You are utterly dishonest from start to finish.
Anyone can fall prey to seductively simple ideas of "the ends justifying the means" in pursuit of "the greater good" and if you think that this doesn't apply to those without a religious belief then you are deluding yourself.
The ultimate act of dishonesty: refusing to be honest with yourself.
Since what I wrote previously appears to mysteriously disappeared:
ReplyDelete"Of course I do, many are transparent from your comments"
ReallY? Perhaps you would care to share your visionary insights with the rest of the class then, o great seer!
""the greater good" is more likely to infer religious belief"
Utter nonsense! Everyone has some concept or other of "the greater good", it is what they belive the ideal state of the world should be, whether that be a theocracy or a world devoid of religion.
Without some concept of what constitutes "the greater good" how do atheists choose how to vote in democracies?
Presumably out of pure and selfish self-interest?
Your making yourself look ridiculous as well as dishonest now.
You further demonstrate your dishonesty by attempting to use studies related to specific, narrow religious groups to justify your comments about the religious in general: "fundamentalist Protestant denominations", "Conservative Protestant (i.e., fundamentalist and evangelical)".
Were the control groups in these studies similarly conservative, non-religious types?
Thought not.
How can you honestly justify using such narrow research in support of your comments about the relious in general, particularly religious liberals: "Most liberal theists might try to disagree with me, but if they do hold such beliefs all it takes is a change in their personal or social circumstances or a charismatic leader and their god and religious beliefs will be invoked to explain it and drive their actions to rectify it"?
The truth of the matter is that we can all fall prey to seductively simple ideas about "the ends justifying the means" in pursuit of "the greater good" irrespective of our religious beliefs or lack of them.
If you believe that your atheism makes you immune then you are deluding yourself and that is the greatest dishonesty: the refusal to be honest with yourself.
"Since what I wrote previously appears to mysteriously disappeared:"
ReplyDeleteVery strange indeed. I have received emails containing 2 posts from you but only one has appeared on the blog.
Here is your other one as it arrived in my inbox, I will respond to both later ignoring obvious duplication.
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "A short step from madness.":
"Of course I do, many are transparent from your comments."
Really? Perhaps you would care to share your visionary insights with the rest of the class, o great seer!
""the greater good" is more likely to infer religious belief"
Utter rubbish! We all have a concept of what we believe to be "the greater good", it is what we consider the ideal state of the world to be.
If atheists have no concept of "the greater good" how do they decide who to vote for in general elections? Through pure and selfish self-interest presumably?
You're making yourself look ridiculous as well as dishonest now.
You further demonstrate your dishonesty by supporting your generalisations about the religious with studies involving specific, narrow religious groups: "fundamentalist Protestant denominations", "Conservative Protestant (i.e., fundamentalist and evangelical)".
How can you honestly justify the use of studies about such specific, narrow religious groups to support your general statements about the religious, particularly religious liberals: e.g. "Most liberal theists might try to disagree with me, but if they do hold such beliefs all it takes is a change in their personal or social circumstances or a charismatic leader and their god and religious beliefs will be invoked to explain it and drive their actions to rectify it"?
Were the control groups for these studies similarly conservative non-religious types?
Thought not.
You are utterly dishonest from start to finish.
Anyone can fall prey to seductively simple ideas of "the ends justifying the means" in pursuit of "the greater good" and if you think that this doesn't apply to those without a religious belief then you are deluding yourself.
The ultimate act of dishonesty: refusing to be honest with yourself.
“ We all have a concept of what we believe to be "the greater good", it is what we consider the ideal state of the world to be.”
ReplyDeleteAnd how do most people learn this concept? Would you deny that almost all people grow up learning the concept of good within a religious framework? Most people express some level of religious conviction, most children have an act of worship in schools, many attend events and services with a religious bent. Few to my knowledge grown up learning the Harold Shipman philosophy of care for others. That is why it is true to say that peoples concept of the greater is more likely to been influenced by religious beliefs.
“If atheists have no concept of "the greater good" how do they decide who to vote for in general elections?”
Who has said that Atheists have no concept of “the greater good” other than you. That does not detract from the evidence that the concept is a religiously influenced one for most people – I have never claimed it needs to be.
Many of the concepts of 'the Greater good' are universal and not reliant on religious beliefs or atheist thinking. However I would suggest that burning witches isn't one of them and is far more likely to be carried out as an act for 'the greater good by the religiously minded than the non-believer, am I wrong?
“You further demonstrate your dishonesty by supporting your generalisations about the religious with studies involving specific, narrow religious groups”
That is not dishonest. Are you really dismissing the scientific evidence because it used the wrong type of Christians? Surely those that murder old ladies as witches are a narrow religious group? Yet you have never in all your posts criticised this behaviour but only mine for the way I expressed my outrage at such.
“You are utterly dishonest from start to finish”
I reckon that you have now used ‘dishonest’ or its derivatives in relation to me about a dozen times, plus several other derogatory terms like 'ridiculous’.
Your first use of me being ‘dishonest’ was because I reported the gist of what someone else had said about religion but failed to add all the caveats, or exceptions I see. It is such terrible dishonesty for people to express the opinions of others without clarifying their own, that I wonder how anyone in the media can sleep at night. Davis Smith, (the Guardian Reporter), needs a good talking too for not explicitly stating if he either agreed with the killers or the assistant police commissioner. What a terrible state of affairs!
The second claims of terrible dishonesty are because you could imply something about my post – “those with a religious faith are somehow more succeptible to acts of barbarism than those without”. So I’m dishonest by your implications not because I have claimed something is true that blatantly is not?
Now a third case of dishonestly is levelled at me because I could actually back up the idea that ‘thoughts of religion prompt acts of punishment’ by actual scientific studies. I am dishonest because these studies didn’t pick the right sort of religious believer! Ever heard of the ‘No True Scotsman’ fallacy?
Of course you are truly right, I should have picked research that proved fundamental religion breeds liberal attitudes to punishing people for perceived sins, (is there any research?), proving that you have been right all along and I was ‘utterly dishonest’ all along. That would have been the honest thing to do. Wouldn’t it?
“The ultimate act of dishonesty: refusing to be honest with yourself.”
Indeed.
"And how do most people learn this concept? Would you deny that almost all people grow up learning the concept of good within a religious framework? Most people express some level of religious conviction, most children have an act of worship in schools, many attend events and services with a religious bent. Few to my knowledge grown up learning the Harold Shipman philosophy of care for others. That is why it is true to say that peoples concept of the greater is more likely to been influenced by religious beliefs"
ReplyDeleteYes, but people without religious beliefs will still have a concept of "the greater good" (irrespective of how that concept has been informed) and are therefore just as likely to fall victim of suggestions that "evil" actions can be justified in the name of "the greater good" as religious people.
Therefore my previous point: "However any deeply held conviction can lead to "appalling atrocities". All one has to do is be convinced that one is acting in "the greater good" and it would appear that nothing is sacrosanct.
That is the horrific reality of humanity's recent history" still holds as true for atheists as it does for those with a religious faith.
"Are you really dismissing the scientific evidence because it used the wrong type of Christians?"
No, but I am dismissing your use of it to try and justify your generalisations about all religious people since it clearly only applies to a subset.
It is your suggestion that this research justifies your generalisations about ALL religious people that is fundamentally dishonest.
I note that you haven't shared your insights about my beliefs yet.
Are you suffering from a malfunction of your amazing powers of deduction?
Is this a side effect of racking your brains to produce increasingly dishonest justifications for your claim that "for good people to do evil things, it takes religion" and your inability to accept that those without a religious faith are just as capable of commiting atrocities against their fellow humans as those with one?
Another entry disappears after it has been published. Curiouser and curiouser said Alice.
ReplyDelete"And how do most people learn this concept? Would you deny that almost all people grow up learning the concept of good within a religious framework? Most people express some level of religious conviction, most children have an act of worship in schools, many attend events and services with a religious bent. Few to my knowledge grown up learning the Harold Shipman philosophy of care for others. That is why it is true to say that peoples concept of the greater is more likely to been influenced by religious beliefs"
The point is that that atheists will still possess a concept of what constitutes "the greater good" (irrespective of how that concept is informed) and are therefore just as likely to accept actions that they consider to be for "the greater good" as those with a religious belief are.
Therefore my earlier point: "However any deeply held conviction can lead to "appalling atrocities". All one has to do is be convinced that one is acting in "the greater good" and it would appear that nothing is sacrosanct. That is the horrific reality of humanity's recent history" still stands for atheists as well as those with a religious belief. Anyone with a concept of "the greater good", religious or a-religious, can fall prey to seductively simple ideas about "the ends justifying the means" in pursuit of "the greater good".
" Are you really dismissing the scientific evidence because it used the wrong type of Christians?"
No. I am dismissing your use of research regarding a specific subset of those with a religious belief to dishonestly try support your generalisations about ALL those with a religious belief.
I note that you have so far failed to share your insights on my beliefs.
Are your amazing powers of deduction failing you?
Is this a side effect of racking your brains to produce increasingly dishonest justifications for your use of the fallacy "for good people to do evil things, it takes religion" and your inability to accept that those without a religious faith are just as capable of committing atrocities against their fellow humans in the name of "the greater good" as those with one?
Anonymous said...
ReplyDelete“Another entry disappears after it has been published. Curiouser and curiouser said Alice.”
Indeed. I have two posts from you again in my inbox but only one has appeared on the blog. Are your posts appearing then disappearing? Do you get any error message when you post? The last time I posted I go one saying something about the URL being too long to process or some such but when reloaded my post was there. I can only suggest you keep a copy of your posts but so far I am receiving all of your posts in my inbox.
“The point is that that atheists will still possess a concept of what constitutes "the greater good" (irrespective of how that concept is informed) and are therefore just as likely to accept actions that they consider to be for "the greater good" as those with a religious belief are.”
I agree but that was not the point I was making in the blog post. Unless believers and non-believers alike are radicalised they will all act in ways society would usually consider within the bounds of normality – eccentricities accepted. Of course atheists / non believers can get radicalised into some sort of ideological fundamentalists and behave or act in awful ways yet believe they are acting for the greater good – I don’t deny that.
The point of the post ‘A short step from madness’; is that your atheists are unlikely to be radicalised into burning witches. Many religious people, (I would suggest far more than atheists if only because there are many times more people with religious faith), already have fundamental beliefs and it is only a short step, ‘a change in their personal or social circumstances or a charismatic leader’ and they could be burning witches and the like. No one can say it doesn’t happen as it plainly does. And the scientific research into these fundamental types, shows that they already favour more extreme punishment.
Anything else goes of topic for the post but since you seem to be asking, it is also far more likely that ordinary religious groups, rather than the non-religious, will develop more fundamental beliefs, and they would be two steps from madness in this context.
I’m aware that this second group may include you if you are religious, but you must be able to admit that this group is far more likely to be exposed to fundamental concepts through regular religious attendance of services than the much less numerous non-believer spending his Sundays having a lie in before going to the pub for a pint before dinner.
“It is your suggestion that this research justifies your generalisations about ALL religious people that is fundamentally dishonest.”
Then I can not be dishonest. I have never suggested such a thing and if you don’t mind me saying so, it is less than honest for you to suggest I did. If I did then my original post would have said that I though ALL religious people are a hairs breath from a good witch burning when in fact I specifically singled out those that ‘truly believe evil is affecting their lives’, so that ‘they will take the actions they believe to defeat it.’
The original post and anything I have said that could be seen as negative statements about religion have always been about those with fundamental beliefs, that are in my opinion, (am I entitled to an opinion without being dishonest?), one step from extreme acts that I consider madness.
“I note that you have so far failed to share your insights on my beliefs.”
I prefer people to stay anonymous if they prefer it Mr Anonymous.
You are religiously a Christian, and you believe strong one. But you do not believe that you are extreme in anyway. You believe that radical atheism is a threat to Christian culture. You believe that you are a reasonable person who considers evidence over blind faith. You believe that you have important points to make that others would find valuable and enlightening if accepted.
Close?
Just found missing comments in Blog spam filter and published them.
ReplyDeleteMight be difficult to argue with it's judgement through ;-)