New Hypothesis: Atheism the root cause of violence in Fundamental Monotheists

[Cris]

baftan,

There is no such genetics independent of environment and conditioning. This is an unsubstantiated assumption.

If two people with high IQs have children there is a tendency for such children to also have high IQs. Similarly for parents with artistic abilities. I have three daughters all now in their twenties. They were all raised in the same environment and the same schools. They each demonstrated very different behavioral characteristics from as early as a few weeks and which have stayed with them for life, hardly the results of environment or conditioning. Clearly behavioral genetics is real and I would argue quite obvious when observing similar traits with family groups and where offspring mix freely with others. Traits such as good with math, or creative writing, or analysis, are all such examples, as compared to many who may have enormous trouble with these tasks despite advantageous environments, but may excel at games/sports (e.g. good 3D visualization), or art. All of these things and the other examples are cerebral characteristics that are clearly genetically influenced. It is not a big step to include the abilities to deduce and analyze clearly among such traits, others we know despite the very best of teaching cannot easily analyze or produce good math - they are simply not genetically inclined to do so. But this is obvious, surely?

 

[Cris]

Skeptical,

You may well be correct. But what of the Muslim who has serious doubts about the teachings because of his analytical abilities but feels guilty about his doubts and so overcompensates by violent actions against the infidels (a group of which he really belongs). Isn't that a reasonable scenario?

 

[Skeptical]

Cris

We see the equivalent in our society all the time. Christians who become atheists, and probably are emotionally very upset over the change. None of them go violent. Why should a Muslim?

 

[Michael]

Firstly, great post Skeptical. And, the more I was thinking about it, the more I started question the OP myself. That said, your second point could still fit very well within the OP. That is these are not mutually exclusive positions.

First : the idea that gay bashers are themselves gay? I would need to see good evidence, which was not offered.

Well, I didn't want to get too sidetracked. I'll just link the wiki.

Internalized homophobia

Internalized homophobia (or egodystonic homophobia) refers to negative feeling towards oneself because of homosexuality.[43][44] This term has been criticized because holding negative attitudes does not necessarily involve a phobia, and the term "internalized stigma" is sometimes used instead.[43] It causes severe discomfort with or disapproval of one's own sexual orientation. Internalized homophobia is thus a form of cognitive dissonance; the individual cannot reconcile the conflicting conscious or unconscious sexual desires with values and tenets gained from society, religion or upbringing.

Maybe I should coin the terms Internalized anti-atheism or egodystonic atheistphobia

Second : the idea that Muslim violence is because the offenders are 'naturally' atheist. I suspect that the evidence for this idea is also zero.

Of course our understanding of higher cognitive functions is still pretty basic. But, I'm sure we will find that there is a hard-wired propensity for some individuals to be religious and other not to be. Of course the cerebral cortex being plastic that does make the whole planning of studys regarding these ideas a bit difficult.

I have read articles on research done into Muslim violence. The idea presented is actually social. It is a known psychological quirk that people who are concerned about something who get together to discuss their mutual concern, will reinforce each other, sometimes to the extent that their concern becomes obsessive and fanatical.

So Muslim suicide nutters can begin with Muslims who are concerned about 'threats' to their faith, who discuss it with like minded people, and have that idea reinforced to the point of fanaticism.

Then a second social factor can enter in. That is group dynamics. People who share a fanatical belief, can become a very tightly bound social group, and group pressure for action becomes enormously powerful. People will kill other people, and even commit suicide (with a bomb maybe) in order to avoid disappointing their peers. If the shared belief is a fanatical religious idea, then death becomes preferable to going against the shared ideal.

This seems very reasonable. Great post. I still think there is room for the OP. It may be that the demographic of people who find themselves in this situation and ultimately blow themselves up are from the subgroup as detailed in the OP. Maybe not. But, if it is possible to study such individuals I think it could be interesting.


I think I usually think about these things from a single human POV, which is difficult itself and not the whole story, let along group dynamics, even more so, again, great post.

 

[Cris]

skeptical,

Christians who become atheists, and probably are emotionally very upset over the change. None of them go violent. Why should a Muslim?

But the social dynamic is totally different in a Muslim culture. It is simply not acceptable for a Muslim to declare they are an atheist. The ramifications for them would be huge. I suspect that would force them to stay in the closet at least. As for violence - hmm it becomes less valid as I think it through.

 

[Skeptical]

Michael

Thank you for the positive comments. It is very commendable when someone like you praises a debate contribution that goes against their own stated view. That reveals a mental flexibility that is quite rare.

I looked at your reference to homophobia. It appears the relevent part is :

"Some argue that some or most people who are homophobic have repressed their own homosexuality, but this argument is somewhat controversial. In 1996, a controlled study of 64 heterosexual men (half claimed to be homophobic by experience and self-reported orientation) at the University of Georgia found that men who were found to be homophobic (as measured by the Index of Homophobia) were considerably more likely to experience more erectile responses when exposed to homoerotic images than non-homophobic men."

With respect, I find that single study unconvincing. I would need to see other follow up studies to nail the point down. A single study with only 64 subjects is very likely to have other influences. Even blind chance.

I am not an expert and my comments on Muslim fanaticism were based on an article from New Scientist a couple of years back.

 

[spidergoat]

I don't think the premise is correct. People that enforce their religion through violence are just afraid of the influence of doubt or heresy. If you really believe that incorrect religious thoughts could spread and result in your children, relatives, or friends going to a place of eternal damnation, what wouldn't you do to prevent that? The problem is that there is not enough education in the area to convince people that skepticism is a healthy form of seeking knowledge. For them, religious knowledge comes from one place alone, one book.