religion and war

[rjr6]

Find the middle ground.

That is the problem. My belief structure does not embrace atheism. Nor does atheism embrace a 'possibility of a God'. A middle ground would be like maybe, purgatory? But that dosen't exist for an atheists.

 

[S.A.M.]

I don't see that. Usually it's the religionists that cling so hopefully to idealism.

But theists have external accountability.

 

[SkinWalker]

I think peace and war are human characteristics and the question is what legitimizes these best. Ironically, religious reasons seem to have been used to legitimize both more frequently than secular reasons. By "secular" I'm in no way saying "atheistic," but rather reasons that are independent from religion, such as greed and capitalism. But even purely capitalistic and greedy motivations to go to war can find legitimacy in religious ideology, used to align popular approval. Such methods of propaganda were frequently used in the Cold War as politicians made analogies of communism with atheism and godlessness to create a feeling of hatred among their constituencies, who they knew to be self-described christians.

 

[spidergoat]

But theists have external accountability.

In this lifetime or after?

 

[S.A.M.]

In this lifetime or after?

From the scriptures, in both cases.

 

[S.A.M.]

Sorry. I had a typo. "irrational" should have been just "rational" in the second sentence. I've no excuse for such a gross error in syntax.

Thanks that makes sense.

You had me there for a minute

 

[spidergoat]

From the scriptures, in both cases.

There is nothing about atheism that prevents one from following a written moral code.

 

[S.A.M.]

I think peace and war are human characteristics and the question is what legitimizes these best. Ironically, religious reasons seem to have been used to legitimize both more frequently than secular reasons. By "secular" I'm in no way saying "atheistic," but rather reasons that are independent from religion, such as greed and capitalism. But even purely capitalistic and greedy motivations to go to war can find legitimacy in religious ideology, used to align popular approval. Such methods of propaganda were frequently used in the Cold War as politicians made analogies of communism with atheism and godlessness to create a feeling of hatred among their constituencies, who they knew to be self-described christians.

And what did communists use ?

 

[S.A.M.]

There is nothing about atheism that prevents one from following a written moral code.

Nothing that prevents them from re-writing it either.

Not saying that all atheists do it, but removing accountability makes morality much more of a grey area.

e.g. the projection of Islamic fundamentalism as a global phenomenon rather than a limited view of extremists by Dawkins is one way to create hatred for an entire community of people and justify their segregation, which in a perverse way echoes the sentiments of Hitler and Stalin (rather over used I know, but relevant here)

By simply looking at the historical data, however, Overy shows that straightforward cultural explanations are not enough, and that the similarities between the two regimes ran deeper than the usual clichés.

It is often said, for example, that both regimes rejected traditional religion, and offered forms of "truth" as a replacement. But by looking at what the regimes actually did and said, Overy establishes that their quasi-religious sense of certainty was not at all mystical. It was grounded, rather, in their parallel obsessions with science. "I am a fool for technology," said Hitler, whose regime at one point employed three hundred thousand engineers. "Technology in the period of reconstruction decides everything," said Stalin, who himself launched the cult of the proletarian-engineer.

This faith in science was about more than economics. Both societies also believed that science could be used to create perfect human beings, and ultimately a perfect society. In Nazi Germany, this faith in science manifested itself in an elaborate form of forced Darwinism. One of the illustrations in Overy's learned volume is a chart showing the likely offspring of two different breeds of cattle. It comes from a book on Mendelian genetics, published in Germany in 1936, which warned that cross-breeding produced genetic variation in cattle, and "brings the danger of internal disharmony" among humans too. To avoid this internal disharmony, and to ensure a powerful society, the Germans would have to eliminate impure elements. Infamously, the Nazi obsession with genetics ultimately led to mass murder, first of the mentally ill, then of the Jews, as well as Gypsies, homosexuals, and Slavs.

But the widespread belief in the efficacy of racial science also affected non-Jewish Germans in unexpectedly profound ways. Nazi Germany transformed the institution of marriage, for example, into another form of service to the state. Women who qualified as "good breeders" received rewards. When war reduced the supply of men, they received even higher praise for producing children out of wedlock. The Darwinian obsession also affected the German occupation of other countries. In 1940, Himmler established a "German Racial Register" in an attempt to define which other Europeans might qualify as ethnically German. Eventually the register would contain the measurements, the photographs, and the medical records of 1.5 million people, all gathered with the aim of identifying and isolating the people who had the greatest potential for Germanization, and expelling or murdering the rest.

The science itself was very different in Soviet and Nazi society, in other words, but its function was essentially the same. The supposed neutrality and incontrovertibility of scientific doctrine gave both regimes a good part of their intellectual legitimacy. Science, or rather pseudoscience, gave people a moral justification for behavior that had formerly been unthinkable. German concentration-camp guards, convinced that their Jewish prisoners were biologically inferior humans, had few qualms about murdering them. Soviet concentration-camp guards, convinced that their political prisoners were flawed humans who had to be re-educated through hard labor, saw nothing wrong with mistreating them, even if they died in the process.

Over the course of the book, he also discusses the political structures of the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, their economic systems, their armies, and their cultural establishments. Yet in the end, as in his treatment of science, he keeps coming back to ideology, and to the mysterious question of how ideology convinced so many people in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union to collaborate with what would traditionally have been considered amoral regimes. Some people, probably most, cooperated because they were afraid. But others collaborated even when they were under no pressure to do so.

From the standpoint of our own time, their participation is hard to understand. The crudity of Hitler's genetics, the patent falsity of Lysenko's experiments, their visions of "world domination"--all seem ludicrous in hindsight. Recordings of Hitler's speeches make him appear laughable, hysterical, absurd. Looked at now, Stalin's kitsch propaganda films seem like parodies. Yet it is clear from archives, from memoirs, from recollections, that very few people were laughing at the time. The propaganda, the education, the parades, the spectacles, the falsified history, the marble statues, the Socialist Realist novels: they worked.

Significant numbers of Germans really did believe that the elimination of the Jews would bring about utopia, that the world would be a better place when Germany ran it, and that it was right to use Slavic Untermenschen as slave laborers. Plenty of Soviet citizens believed that central planning, collectivized agriculture, and the re-education of the bourgeoisie would bring about utopia in Russia. If things were not going well, they placed the blame squarely on bourgeois saboteurs or foreign agents. If people were unfairly arrested--well, there was the saw about the omelette and the broken eggs. As Overy puts it, "The dictatorships cannot be understood only as systems of political oppression," since so many of those who participated in them did so willingly. The hatred and the intensity of the German-Soviet war was itself a product of the fanaticism that both leaders inspired.

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?pt=pqYvPYsWUY8UiFqGkkRKxw==

Hindsight as they say, always twenty/twenty

 

[S.A.M.]

There is nothing about atheism that prevents one from following a written moral code.

Don't have to go too far either, it seems.

The present Meme of Islam is what generates the extremists. Fix the Meme and suffocate the problem.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Apparently atheists disparage religion as a major cause of war. Are they equally against nationalism?

Religion in my opinion is necessary for optimal human mental health. Unfortunately it comes with alot of magical-thinking assertions that promote irrational thought... and that is what tends to promote violent conflict.

I am for adaptable nationalism because it protects by objective threat of force what I subjectively value and own and isn't inflexible to the wants and needs of the inside or outside world.

 

[spidergoat]

Nothing that prevents them from re-writing it either.

Nothing that prevents Religions from rewriting and reinterpreting their own texts. The NEW Testament, The Book of Mormon, hadiths in Islam. Morality is inherently a grey area, since no book of rules can predict every scenerio.

 

[S.A.M.]

Nothing that prevents Religions from rewriting and reinterpreting their own texts. The NEW Testament, The Book of Mormon, hadiths in Islam. Morality is inherently a grey area, since no book of rules can predict every scenerio.

Exactly.

 

[S.A.M.]

Religion in my opinion is necessary for optimal human mental health. Unfortunately it comes with alot of magical-thinking assertions that promote irrational thought... and that is what tends to promote violent conflict.

I am for adaptable nationalism because it protects by objective threat of force what I subjectively value and own and isn't inflexible to the wants and needs of the inside or outside world.

So what are your views on nationalist totalitarianism?

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Don't have to go too far either, it seems.

Sam, the implication of what you are saying (and it might be a misinterpretation on my part) is that my asserting the Islamic Meme a problem to be fixed somehow justifies hatred and segregation of Muslims.

I am not suggesting attacking Muslims. I am not suggesting removing the fantasy from the Meme. I am suggesting fixing a broken feedback mechanism in the present Meme.

 

[S.A.M.]

Sam, the implication of what you are saying (and it might be a misinterpretation on my part) is that my asserting the Islamic Meme a problem to be fixed somehow justifies hatred and segregation of Muslims.

I am not suggesting attacking Muslims. I am not suggesting removing the fantasy from the Meme. I am suggesting fixing a broken feedback mechanism in the present Meme.

You, Dawkins and everyone else.

The meme is also a fantasy, describing a philosophical/ideological construct, couching it in pseudoscientific terms to give it scientific validity.

It fails to recognise or address the problem, merely makes the speaker sound knowledgeable and important while allowing him to generalise his subjective opinions in an objective manner.

I describe the meme as "previously known as liberal arts"

 

[Crunchy Cat]

So what are your views on nationalist totalitarianism?

It lacks engagement and feedback.

 

[S.A.M.]

It lacks engagement and feedback.

But it ensures control over scarce resources, justifies using "aid" to promote conflict and divides the world into competitive capitalist autocracies.

All evolutionarily justified.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

You, Dawkins and everyone else.

I don't agree with Dawkins. He is for socially attacking theists (i.e. social violence).

The meme is also a fantasy, describing a philosophical/ideological construct, couching it in pseudoscientific terms to give it scientific validity.

A Meme is a very accurate way to describe idea replication. That it happens and everyone is subject to it is reality (i.e. the WHAT of it is quite true). There is a void of knowledge concerning the HOW of it and maybe this is the part that you're objecting to.

It fails to recognise or address the problem, merely makes the speaker sound knowledgeable and important while allowing him to generalise his subjective opinions in an objective manner.

Tell me Sam, do you think Islam is well adapted to reality? Do you think its members have the freedom to communicate any kind of feedback to each other, their leaders, and the 'outside world' without fear of reprisal or dismissal?

 

[Crunchy Cat]

But it ensures control over scarce resources, justifies using "aid" to promote conflict and divides the world into competitive capitalist autocracies.

All evolutionarily justified.

Having engagement and feedback doesn't eliminate any of those items you listed. What it does; however, is not make them the automatic results.