Yes
I don't know that we've determined any benefits from a religious society. Moral, of course, but religion does not have a copyright on morality. For that matter, humans don't even own the copyright. Monkeys can be moral.
Religion as socially-accepted mental illness
- Thread starter Magical Realist
- Start date
Osama bin Laden.
I wasn't aware that armed conflict in the middle east wasn't in full swing (mostly due to oil politics) by the time this came along
I am not even sure how one can meaningful discuss the rise of power of al-Qaeda divorced from the power politics of the USA/russia
It provides one common escape from the Tragedy of the Commons.
It can put brake on wealth accumulation or its employment and consequent tribe-damaging effects of such inevitable but temporary inequality - not a perfect one, of course, or even maybe adequate when confronted by industrial society, but some amelioration anyway.
It provides a prior organization of the community, abetting quick response to emergency nevertheless consistent with long term benefit.
In general, it imposes the influence of long term and big picture thinking on everybody's behavior.
In general: suspension of disbelief, the invoked and committed influence of story and myth and legend on real life, common loyalty to the implications and dependencies of particular symbols and archetypical expressions, is not a bug but a feature: it's how human beings handle certain profound and difficult mental issues. It's a capability, not an illness.
A religious society cannot be moral.
on the contrary, you can't even discuss morality without borrowing from precepts derived from religious institutions
Relevant studies to the contrary.
We took a group of 450 participants, split them into two groups and set them loose on our usual matrix task. We asked half of them to recall the Ten Commandments and the other half to recall 10 books that they had read in high school. Among the group who recalled the 10 books, we saw the typical widespread but moderate cheating. But in the group that was asked to recall the Ten Commandments, we observed no cheating whatsoever. -http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304840904577422090013997320.html
Sure it can. Morality imposed by God (as defined by a given church) has a long history in our societies, with dozens of examples. You may not always agree with that morality, but your disagreement does not equate to "not being moral."
You can read minds?
Religion requires more will power than being a heathen. Why is more willpower a mental illness? Liberalism like to define up as down and down as up. In this case higher willpower is considered worse than impulsive behavior. The dumbing down of culture.
For example, how many liberals could wait until marriage for sex; a measure of willpower. It is easier to be an impulsive animal since my dog could do this. If you convince the dumb downs, this is the high road of will power, they can't tell the difference. Explain why less willpower is not closer to mental illness, since mental illness always impacts control over choice/compulsions.
For example, how many liberals could wait until marriage for sex; a measure of willpower. It is easier to be an impulsive animal since my dog could do this. If you convince the dumb downs, this is the high road of will power, they can't tell the difference. Explain why less willpower is not closer to mental illness, since mental illness always impacts control over choice/compulsions.
How so?
I'm not sure, but I do know that religious American teenagers who make a big deal about taking chastity pledges (no sex before marriage) in the name of God statistically tend to have a higher incidence of teen pregnancy than those who do not. So, here we have at least one example where religiously-motivated willpower doesn't count for much.
One doesn't have to. Our politics can put us in the region, while bin Laden's religious convictions can be the cause of his aggression. His chief charge against us was that we were on holy land.
and that played out how exactly when his sort were employed/trained/supported by the USA when russia had a political interest in the region?
Your question doesn't seem to follow from my post. Care to rephrase?
unless you think they got employed/trained/supported by the USA without ever an american setting foot in their lands, you are not making sense.
It seems that you are talking out of your arse, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
Here is a transcription of an interview of OBL, please explain the bold quote with this, or anything directly quoted from him.
jan.