OJBs Web Site: Blog Page

Note: You are currently viewing my old web site. There is a new version with most of this content at OJB.NZ.
The new site is being updated, uses modern techniques, has higher quality media, and has a mobile-friendly version.
This old site will stay on-line for a while, but maybe not indefinitely. Please update your bookmarks. Thanks.

Add a Comment (Go Up to OJB's Blog Page)

Absurdities and Atrocities

Entry 1657, on 2014-06-04 at 20:29:08 (Rating 3, Religion)

Can all the adherents of a group be blamed (at least partially) for the actions of extremists in that same group? It's a question which often comes up in connection to Islamic extremism but more recently I heard a similar idea presented blaming all of society (males in particular) for the problem of misogyny.

The person making the claim was a feminist with some rather extreme views (as many of them do) which didn't appear to be based on much more than her own opinion, but there is undoubtedly some truth in what she was saying. Real science has shown that there is a bias against women in some situations, from men, but interestingly equally from other women. Also there are societies which are clearly misogynistic, especially those who base their laws on Islamic "values".

In common with other recent posts I think there is a nuanced answer to this. Society in general can't be totally blamed for misogyny, Islam and moderate Muslims can't be entirely blamed for extremism, and the average woman who just wants a fair deal can't be completely blamed for the damaging and unsupported opinions of extreme feminists.

But moderates in any group should take some of the blame for what extremists in their group do. For example, I think billions of Muslims who believe in an absurd, primitive religion must take some blame for the extremists who carry out atrocities in the name of that same religion. And before I'm accused of picking on Islam I would say the same applies to all religions to some extent, it just happens that Islam is the worst at this point in history.

Look at the latest horrific religion-inspired crime in Pakistan where Farzana Iqbal, a 25 year old pregnant woman, was bludgeoned to death by several people - including her female cousin, her brother, and her father - for marrying against their wishes (they wanted her to marry her cousin). And just to make it worse the man she married had already killed his first wife so he could marry her. He was not punished for that crime because his son forgave him under Pakistan's blood-money laws. I promise, I'm not making this up. This really happened in the 21st century! It would almost be funny if it wasn't so horrendous.

Only belief in religion can make people act so irrationally and hatefully. And the people who claim that these "honour killings" are not condoned by Islam should look more closely. The official punishment for adultery is death by stoning (not in the Qur'an but in Hadith). Of course the moderates claim that the punishment is "...death by stoning for adultery..." but "...these punishments are not really meant to be performed as much as they are meant to make these crimes hated in the eyes of the society in order to minimize their occurrence." This sounds like a very convenient re-interpretation of the original meaning to me, but even if it wasn't it is easy to see how the rule could be taken literally.

If the moderates simply deny that the punishment prescribed by their religion is primitive and hateful and creatively re-interpret the text then it just makes extremist interpretations easier. What they should do is say that it is primitive nonsense with no place in modern society and then they should leave the religion until such blatant problems are fixed. But here is a problem there: the penalty for apostasy is also death! (as stated in Qur'an 4.89)

At this point it may seem that the moderate believers in all areas should take part of the blame for any associated extremism. So should people like me who identify with atheism and skepticism also be blamed? Sure, if those belief systems caused any atrocities, but they don't of course because they aren't belief systems in the same way as Islam, Christianity, fascism, or feminism are. If anything they are belief systems based on lack of belief (maybe apart from the belief that there should be no irrational beliefs).

So all Muslims should be ashamed of their religion when they see honour killings (thousands happen every year and most aren't punished) happening because of religious belief. The moderates are partly to blame. Need I repeat my favourite Voltaire quote again: those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities.

Comment 39 (4017) by OJB on 2014-06-13 at 20:02:22: (view earlier comments)

According to Wikipedia "...there are reported to be approximately 41,000 Christian denominations...". These are all groups which are broadly Christian yet have sufficiently different beliefs that they feel the need to start their own distinct branch. Can't see how there can be much agreement going on there! I see no reason to think there is any significant shared core doctrine, some don't even believe in a god*. And many put a lot of emphasis on the (violent) OT.

My point was that believing in something which isn't true might lead to some positive outcomes (possibly less violence) but would also very likely lead to bad outcomes as well. It would be hard to judge if the situation was good or bad on balance. In fact scientific advances have given people far longer and better lives than any religious, economic, or political action in history.

Obviously some science, like evolution, isn't clear to some people because they approach it from the wrong perspective, have an innate bias, or are just ignorant. There might be a way to make it as clear to them as it is to all honest, informed people, but we haven't found it yet.

Yeah OK, I see your point regarding that what the Bible teaches isn't necessarily related to whether it is true or not. I guess my problem is that if a book is based on myths there is no need for internal consistency and logical argumentation like a book based on fact would need, so interpretation becomes a problem.

So it sounds like you just given your god a free pass to be a hideous monster. That's pretty irresponsible. No wonder Christianity has been responsible for so many atrocities over the centuries!

When I fly I know many people have flown before, I have flown before, I know the physics and engineering involved, I know the statistics about the safety of flying, I know the strict regulations for safety. None of this applies to your fairy tale world. That's the difference between confidence and faith!

* A group who follow Christian atheism say "God is a projection of the human mind" but like Christian philosophy.

Comment 40 (4018) by richard on 2014-06-16 at 14:04:16:

You see here's the problem. Unless we are able to agree on some basic principles, then it's very hard to make any sense of the debate. You are confusing the fact that many or these groups like to associate themselves with the Christian label because (and this is interesting in itself btw) of the legitimacy that brings in many peoples minds. However, to accept 'on blind faith' that it is appropriate to include for example the 'Christian Atheism' group as a Christian Group, simply because they added name and like some Christian philosophy is profoundly unintelligent, and it makes a complete mockery of any statistics quoted. Don't use blind faith - look at the evidence.

I literally don't know of anyone that doesn't understand the simple logic that Christianity (where Theism is an absolute requirement) and Atheism are mutually exclusive, and thus disqualify that group from legitimately using the label.

What IS interesting there though is trying to figure out which worldview is to blame if the Christian Atheists committed an atrocity?! :)

And of the groups that do meet the 'minimum' criteria, your assumption that they all started due ONLY to 'sufficiently different beliefs' is also not supportable. There are lots of other legitimate (or theologically benign) reasons why a new group might be started, as mention earlier. Churches are started and they are filled with people - it's it's people that have different cultures, tastes, preferences etc and it's the FREEDOM inherent within Christianity that allows people everywhere to start a group if they wish that suits them perfectly, is one of the real virtues, not a cause to dismiss it.

Comment 41 (4021) by OJB on 2014-06-16 at 14:36:16:

I totally agree that many of the disagreements we have get back to definitions and basic principles. I would say that anyone who genuinely (note I used the word "genuinely" there, so I'm not talking about anyone who is doing it dishonestly) associates themselves with the Christian label is a Christian. What other definition do you suggest?

The "Christian Atheists" are on to something I think. They take the positive philosophy associated with Christianity and ignore all the superstitious nonsense. Sounds like a good solution. Of course, I take it one step further. I ignore the superstition and accept all positive philosophy: Christian, Buddhist, secular, etc.

I think if you bother to research it you will find that most of the major divisions in Christianity arose because of theological differences. I do agree that sometimes these were cynical manipulations for political purposes, but this just further illustrates the fact that there is no right or wrong interpretation of Christianity.

Comment 42 (4022) by richard on 2014-06-16 at 16:22:33:

Isn't that about as sensible as saying anyone who 'genuinely' thinks they aren't breaking the law, actually isn't and cannot therefore be labelled criminals? No - you have to examine the agreed 'laws' - a groups 'genuineness' is irrelevant. There is an agreed standard of measure that is regarded as the benchmark - which has outlined the core doctrines well enough to describe 'Christian' belief. The Nicene creed has been in place more than long enough to serve this purpose.

Of course I can see the appeal of your 'philosophy' there - why would I not agree with picking bits I like. Of course the issue for both of us as actual thinkers, rather than mere 'wishers', is that what we like is not as important here as what is actually 'reality'.

I think research shows that 'many' divisions occurred due to theological differences yes. But I never denied that - I was merely calling you out on your inconsistent application of the number 41,000 which is highly mis-leading to your readers when you implied ALL those were due to 'significant' theological differences. Simply not true. Cheers.

Comment 43 (4024) by OJB on 2014-06-16 at 21:45:57:

Yeah, I'm not sure if some rules thrown together by a committee 2000 years ago are necessarily the best to suit modern requirements, but I guess if you follow a religion you believe nothing really changes so yes, the Nicene Creed could be used as a definition. All I see there is that there is one god and Jesus is the son of God who was crucified and resurrected and will judge everyone one day. How does that help?

In the end everyone picks "the bits they like" and that is exactly what they should do. Everyone has their own personal morality even if they think they haven't. By choosing to follow a particular brand of Christianity you have made a personal moral choice yourself, just like me. I just am a bit more open minded about it!

I certainly didn't mean to imply that all 41,000 were the result of significant differences, how could there be that many significant differences in anything!

You can leave comments about this entry using this form.

To add a comment: enter a name and email (both optional), type the number shown above, enter a comment, then click Add.
Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous.
Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry.
The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.