Show that there is *religiously* motivated violence

[wynn]

What we are - futilely, seemingly - trying to remind you is that there are people who interpret their religion in a manner unlike you.

What I have repeatedly requested from those of you who argue the above, is:

What does that imply if people have their own interpretations of religion?

Do you believe that the existence of doxastic pluralism among individuals necessarily makes each individual position correct?


(If so, why don't you consider the position that religion cannot motivate violence to be correct?)

That they can do so in the name of their religion and have their assertions supported by scripture is reason enough to conclude that religious violence exists.

This is tantamount to saying that a thing inherently is whatever anyone calls it.
Such an outlook dissolves all rationality.

 

[lightgigantic]

More straw men? "Because he is a woman/muslim/black" implies that such a perspective should be common to all individuals within these demographic groups, which is of course a bullshit contrast from the get-go.

actually its more about the disingenuity of not differentiating between secondary and primary causes

It appears that no one is arguing for such a contrast except you, so please cease the disingenuity. The point is that some individuals do act in violent ways because there is abundant suggestion in their religious texts to do so. Ergo, there is religious violence.

Note how acknowledging the differentiation between secondary and primary causes easily allows one to explain why its only some persons of a group perform violence (even though all members of the group have access to the so-called abundant suggestions for violence)

 

[GeoffP]

Geoff,

please explain what it means to be religous, in your own words?

jan.

To have a set of beliefs regarding deific or supernatural reality, including the importance of the instructions such deities or powers dictate for their followers on earth.

What I have repeatedly requested from those of you who argue the above, is:

What does that imply if people have their own interpretations of religion?

Imply about what? The existence of religiously-motivated violence? Clearly it establishes a parameter space for such violence to occur in.

Do you believe that the existence of doxastic pluralism among individuals necessarily makes each individual position correct?

Correct about what? I think you've lost hold of your epistemological thread here. We were discussing motivation.

This is tantamount to saying that a thing inherently is whatever anyone calls it.

Cutting to the chase here, such a claim would have to supported in some way by the didactic elements that such individuals draw on to support their claim. Unfortunately, in the case of religious violence, there is ample reason - and precedent - to conclude that such motivation exists.

Such an outlook dissolves all rationality.

Seeking to remove all motivation would certainly place our discussion in a similar place. Incidentally, what motivates greed?

actually its more about the disingenuity of not differentiating between secondary and primary causes

Note how acknowledging the differentiation between secondary and primary causes easily allows one to explain why its only some persons of a group perform violence (even though all members of the group have access to the so-called abundant suggestions for violence)

Among those causes would, in fact, be the weight that each individual gives such suggestion. This would be a most parsimonious explanation.

 

[lightgigantic]

Among those causes would, in fact, be the weight that each individual gives such suggestion. This would be a most parsimonious explanation.

so what if they give different answers at different times?
Do you accept them all, or some more than others?
Or what if there are several members to a group and they all give different answers?

 

[wynn]

Imply about what? The existence of religiously-motivated violence? Clearly it establishes a parameter space for such violence to occur in.

Correct about what? I think you've lost hold of your epistemological thread here. We were discussing motivation.

Again:
Some of you have been arguing that different people have different interpretations of religious instructions.
But you yet have to clarify what importance do you believe that this pluralism carries with it.
Different people have different interpretations of religious instructions - so?

Cutting to the chase here, such a claim would have to supported in some way by the didactic elements that such individuals draw on to support their claim. Unfortunately, in the case of religious violence, there is ample reason - and precedent - to conclude that such motivation exists.

Do you believe that in the absence of religious instruction, those same people in those same circumstances would not use force against others or themselves?

Seeking to remove all motivation would certainly place our discussion in a similar place. Incidentally, what motivates greed?

In short, greed is fueled by ignorance of the true nature of oneself and others; or, in other words, greed is fueled by the ignorance of the true cause of suffering and ignorance of the true cause for the cessation of suffering.

People are greedy when they believe that in order to be happy, they need more material wealth, more respect from others, more fame, more beauty and such.

Among those causes would, in fact, be the weight that each individual gives such suggestion. This would be a most parsimonious explanation.

It is also a relativistic anything-goes explanation that excludes all scientific investigation of the issue.

Science concerns itself with cause and effect relationships.

If, as some posters have claimed in this thread, anything can cause anyone to do anything - then there is no room for scientific exploration and discussion of anything, including "religiously motivated violence."


:shrug:

 

[GeoffP]

so what if they give different answers at different times?

Different times?

Do you accept them all, or some more than others?

I would have to accept them in proportion to the evidence of their connection with violence.

Or what if there are several members to a group and they all give different answers?

As above, so below.

Again:
Some of you have been arguing that different people have different interpretations of religious instructions.
But you yet have to clarify what importance do you believe that this pluralism carries with it.
Different people have different interpretations of religious instructions - so?

So what? Does this in any way refute the fact that there is religiously-motivated violence?

Do you believe that in the absence of religious instruction, those same people in those same circumstances would not use force against others or themselves?

If they express religiously-motivated violence, what they would do without such motivation is difficult to say.

In short, greed is fueled by ignorance of the true nature of oneself and others; or, in other words, greed is fueled by the ignorance of the true cause of suffering and ignorance of the true cause for the cessation of suffering.

People are greedy when they believe that in order to be happy, they need more material wealth, more respect from others, more fame, more beauty and such.

Well, some of those (respect for one) do contradict the definition of greed, so I don't think I'll be going along with this point.

It is also a relativistic anything-goes explanation that excludes all scientific investigation of the issue.

Science concerns itself with cause and effect relationships.

If, as some posters have claimed in this thread, anything can cause anyone to do anything - then there is no room for scientific exploration and discussion of anything, including "religiously motivated violence."

I'm not sure in what possible way that's true. You seem to be interpreting the idea of motivation as a willy-nilly phenomenon that admits no causation or source. As far as argument termination goes, that ranks pretty highly.

I do agree that it would be difficult to continue investigating the subject in a pass-fail kind of way, since its existence has already been amply demonstrated. :shrug: I think your use of the contrary argument - a regression to a universe without motivation except for the nebulously defined 'greed' - is not helpful. That does indeed leave no room for discussion. For example, we certainly cannot conclude 'greed' in the empirical cases that have been introduced to the thread, since there is no evidence for them. It's just a gross supposition; it reduces the anima of human personality to mismatched speculation about the psychology of resource allocation. Is this all humans are? If so, is there then no religiously-motivated love, or generosity, or kindness?

 

[Jan Ardena]

GeoffP,

To have a set of beliefs regarding deific or supernatural reality, including the importance of the instructions such deities or powers dictate for their followers on earth.


What you describe ''could'' be described as theism, not ''being religious''.

jan.

 

[GeoffP]

Is "being religious" completely coincident with "religion"? I think you're going off on a tangent here.

But: throw in the increasingly establishment of limits to the profane and sacred, the boundaries of cohesion and organization in religion to that definition if you like. Other than in that sense, I don't know that the definition above helps here. Certainly the examples in the thread indicate it quite strongly; neither Christianity nor Islam nor Judaism are theisms, alone.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Is "being religious" completely coincident with "religion"? I think you're going off on a tangent here.

But: throw in the increasingly establishment of limits to the profane and sacred, the boundaries of cohesion and organization in religion to that definition if you like. Other than in that sense, I don't know that the definition above helps here. Certainly the examples in the thread indicate it quite strongly; neither Christianity nor Islam nor Judaism are theisms, alone.

It's really quite simple Geoff, you don't know what ''reiligion'' is, which is why you don't know what is means to be religious. It's like asking someone who has never been in love with another human being, what is being being in love, like.

You cannot show the component of ''religion'' in any of the examples that are used by mod-aths, which is the request of this thread.

We're not saying there is no motivation, we're asking you to show the religious motivation. How can you do this if you don't know what is actually ''religion'' or ''religious''?


jan.

 

[spidergoat]

I'm not sure if the writer of Leviticus actually received this revelation during a religious experience, but the fact remains it was codified into religious law, which means that it defined how religion was practiced. It's an integral aspect of a certain kind of religion. Jan, you may practice religion in a different way, but that's irrelevant, because every religion is different. For some, following the law is the primary thing.

 

[kx000]

I'm not sure if the writer of Leviticus actually received this revelation during a religious experience, but the fact remains it was codified into religious law, which means that it defined how religion was practiced. It's an integral aspect of a certain kind of religion. Jan, you may practice religion in a different way, but that's irrelevant, because every religion is different. For some, following the law is the primary thing.

Levictus, is how to pray to the devil, not shitting you. He wants your fear, and hate.

 

[GeoffP]

It's really quite simple Geoff, you don't know what ''reiligion'' is, which is why you don't know what is means to be religious.

Well, I readily admit to not knowing what "reiligion" is, but in point of fact I understand what "religion" is. I've defined it - heck, a couple times - and having been a part of it previously, I know what it is.

It's like asking someone who has never been in love with another human being, what is being being in love, like.

That's a bit much to believe on its face. While you might consider it that way, a working definition of "religion" is pretty easy to come by. I think your objection here is a bit Luddian, to be frank: you're telling me that I must stick my hand in the fire to know that it's hot, and that's just silly. You asked what it was, I told you what it was, and now you're saying that you don't care about any of that, it's something else. Come on, now.

You cannot show the component of ''religion'' in any of the examples that are used by mod-aths, which is the request of this thread.

While again, I'm not strictly sure what a "mod-ath" is, I've illustrated it several times. Simply put, religion is the organized body of belief, which generally includes both the sacred and the profane - and it is in these last two elements where religiously-motivated violence puts its rubber to the road. Violations of the sacred (or what's called sacred, anyway) and occupation of the profane (or what's called profane, anyway) is where the problem starts. Your own interpretation of your own faith or religion is not germane to this discussion: rather, we're discussing the religious motivations of others to protect what they deem sacred and punish that which they call profane. It stands to reason that one could as well find religious motivations in the texts of about any religion for good, and in many for evil as well. Did you have a specific example above that you thought was inappropriate? We could discuss that.

We're not saying there is no motivation, we're asking you to show the religious motivation. How can you do this if you don't know what is actually ''religion'' or ''religious''?

Well, I do, as I demonstrated above. Are you redefining "religion" here? If so, in what way?

 

[lightgigantic]

Different times?

They say it was because their family got killed at one time, say it was religious some time down the track and then say it was for the money some time later

I would have to accept them in proportion to the evidence of their connection with violence.

And if the connection between all the individuals is more or less equal?

As above, so below.

ditto

 

[GeoffP]

They say it was because their family got killed at one time, say it was religious some time down the track and then say it was for the money some time later

Ok, but some don't. Those who stick to the religious angle are probably guilty of RMV.

And if the connection between all the individuals is more or less equal?

The connection between the texts and the violence, not the individuals. If there's liturgical support for it, then that connection is strong.

ditto

Actually I was referring to the chain of motivation here.

 

[lightgigantic]

Ok, but some don't. Those who stick to the religious angle are probably guilty of RMV.

That doesn't answer how you would conclude what the cause was if several are given by the same individual over a period of time

The connection between the texts and the violence, not the individuals. If there's liturgical support for it, then that connection is strong.

then you have just opted out of your previous statements about an individual's claim about why they are motivated to do an act being accepted on face value

Actually I was referring to the chain of motivation here.

so you are just looking at who is at the top of the chain in an operation that involves violence?

 

[GeoffP]

That doesn't answer how you would conclude what the cause was if several are given by the same individual over a period of time

Those causes would probably be as stated: religion may inspire violence and pacifism. Both can be found in religious texts. If otherwise, we assign a single character state to an individual and keep it; this is analytically simple, but probably not accurate. People change over time.

then you have just opted out of your previous statements about an individual's claim about why they are motivated to do an act being accepted on face value

"Opted out"? I wasn't aware of having "opted in" in the first place.

My position all along has been that such claims must exist in the individual and be supported by religious instruction and/or doctrine. It's all well to claim that one of the My Little Ponies prompted your massacre, but if they've never actually called for such a massacre, it would be difficult to conclude the existence of My Little Pony-motivated violence. I'm sorry if this was unclear earlier. Seek and ye shall find.

so you are just looking at who is at the top of the chain in an operation that involves violence?

Actually it was an oblique reference to motivation and doctrine. Not a major issue.

 

[lightgigantic]

Those causes would probably be as stated: religion may inspire violence and pacifism. Both can be found in religious texts. If otherwise, we assign a single character state to an individual and keep it; this is analytically simple, but probably not accurate. People change over time.

so if one can trace some sort of religious angle on the perpetrator and if one can trace some sort of violence angle on the religion, it then becomes religious violence?

"Opted out"? I wasn't aware of having "opted in" in the first place.

My position all along has been that such claims must exist in the individual and be supported by religious instruction and/or doctrine. It's all well to claim that one of the My Little Ponies prompted your massacre, but if they've never actually called for such a massacre, it would be difficult to conclude the existence of My Little Pony-motivated violence. I'm sorry if this was unclear earlier. Seek and ye shall find.

And yet you freely assume that religious texts do call for massacre?
(and that perpetrators are acting in accordance with it)?

Actually it was an oblique reference to motivation and doctrine. Not a major issue.

Then we are still back at the issue of how the hell you determine a cause if there are a variety of them to choose from along with a few red herrings
:shrug:

 

[GeoffP]

so if one can trace some sort of religious angle on the perpetrator and if one can trace some sort of violence angle on the religion, it then becomes religious violence?

Or at least 'religiously-motivated violence'. Is there a reason you would reject this?

And yet you freely assume that religious texts do call for massacre?
(and that perpetrators are acting in accordance with it)?

'Freely assume'? What, from the dozens of violent passages in a variety of core religious texts? How is that an assumption?

Then we are still back at the issue of how the hell you determine a cause if there are a variety of them to choose from along with a few red herrings
:shrug:

?? Actually that point had nothing whatsoever to do with that. :shrug: I'm curious as to why you wish to digress into many causes when the culprit gives one, and his stated source provides a reasonable motivation. When a murderer says he did it for the money, should we pat him on the head and say "Oh, come on: it would be impossible to assign a cause to all that. Sure, you might say greed, but why don't you have a cuppa and go home".

 

[Bells]

Then we are still back at the issue of how the hell you determine a cause if there are a variety of them to choose from along with a few red herrings
:shrug:

Hmmmm...

So if a killer says they were inspired to murder by something or other, religious text or not, you would refuse to accept it because it does not fit into your pre-conceived notion of what you think it should be?

A 28 year-old Philadelphia-area man admitted he stoned to death a 70 year-old man because the Bible says to stone homosexuals. John Joe Thomas reportedly killed Murray Joseph Seidman, whom he knew, and told police, “I stoned Murray with a rock in a sock,” because he had read in the Bible that gays should be stoned.

According to the Philadelphia Inquirer, “The young man and Seidman were often seen together grocery shopping and going to church,” and “He then described how he placed batteries and rocks in a sock, and hit Seidman in the head at least 10 times.”

Think about this. Gays are being stoned to death in 21st century America. Actually, we don’t even know if the man who was stoned was gay, but his murderer thought he was.

[Source]
​

As one blogger points out, the Bible does not exactly say to treat homosexuals with love and tenderness. Unless you consider being tenderised with a rock as counting towards showing tenderness? No? I didn't think so.

And it goes on..

District Attorney Tracey Cline said Friday 27-year-old Peter Lucas Moses shot 5-year-old Jadon Higganbothan because he thought the boy was gay.​

This story is appalling because it's a five year old. It's appalling because Moses also shot a 28 year old woman, suspecting she would go to the police. It's appalling because the child's mother and Moses' brother and sister also appear to be accessories. The facts are horrifying.

The implications are much worse. All the participants were members of a religious sect known as the Black Hebrews. They believe they are direct descendants of the ancient tribes of Israel. Their beliefs are based on the Bible.

Yes... I know... they're not part of the "mainstream," and their beliefs are not sanctioned by the "official" religious powers that be -- at least in America. But good American Christians should not sit too smugly in condemnation of such "obvious" perversion of the "true will of God." There are plenty of American religious leaders whose comments skirt the edge of inciting violence against gays, much closer to home:

"Blaming “homophobia” for any bad thing that happens to homosexuals is to hide under the bed of self-delusion. It denies the homosexual’s need for God’s grace and mercy, and tricks him or her into persisting in rebellion. It ignores the medical problems that this behavior naturally incurs; and it denies the wider societal problems - the decline of the family, the loss of faith in God and in the future, and the erosion of democratic institutions."​

That's Atlanta's own Rev. D. L. Foster. He's a more "mainstream" Christian. Does that sound to you like the good reverend is offering a "loophole" for people who wish to harm gays? Perhaps he is, and perhaps he is not, but he certainly isn't going out of his way to condemn such violence. And he's explicitly telling us that gays are a problem for society.


[Source]
​

Unless of course you are going to claim that killing someone because they are homosexual because that is what they learned in their religious beliefs and from the religious text is not religiously motivated violence? In the first case, he didn't stab him or shoot him. He stoned him, as per the religious text he seems to read.

 

[lightgigantic]

Or at least 'religiously-motivated violence'. Is there a reason you would reject this?

Because it engineers a stereotype for the sake of driving home a conclusion - much like if a black person commits a crime and if one can somehow trace the cause to black communities it then becomes "its an example of blacks being criminals" ... meanwhile the actionable cause remains unchecked

'Freely assume'? What, from the dozens of violent passages in a variety of core religious texts? How is that an assumption?

when you freely ignore the context and communities they appear in of course

?? Actually that point had nothing whatsoever to do with that. :shrug: I'm curious as to why you wish to digress into many causes when the culprit gives one, and his stated source provides a reasonable motivation.

because if we are prepared to accept personal testimony as the sole aspect in isolating a cause for misdemeanor we are left with an absurd legal system for a start ... presenting multiple causes from the same individual simply highlights the inconsistencies in your argument

When a murderer says he did it for the money, should we pat him on the head and say "Oh, come on: it would be impossible to assign a cause to all that. Sure, you might say greed, but why don't you have a cuppa and go home".

when a murderer says they did it for any reason, for the purposes of isolating the cause (and hopefully avoiding future recurrences) they certainly look further abroad than his statements