Pages

Thursday, June 09, 2011

Are Religions Evil because they cause Inquisitions?

One of the best lines in the movie Mary Poppins was, I think, given to Mrs. Banks to sing:

"Although we adore men individually, we agree that as a group they're raa-theer stoooo-pid." 

Seldom has the inanity of man to man (not excepting woman) been more richly on display than in Dublin, at the World Atheist Conference a few days ago, when Iranian dissident Maryam Namazie gave a popular keynote speech on the horrors of religion, comparing Christian and Muslim inquisitions. 

In my last post (please read first, it's short), I asked the obvious question, that seems to have escaped those who invited Ms. Namazie.  If you're going to defame religion for causing inquisitions and offer atheism as the solution to such evils, wouldn't it be better to invite someone who is NOT on the Central Committee of a communist party to make the point?  Even in the goodthinking frenzy of the moment, isn't it just possible that some non-atheist in the crowd, who still remembers the long-forgotten 20th Century (it HAS been 11 years, now), might gently point to the Killing Fields or Gulag, and ask why it's better to kill fifty million people to end religion, than to kill three thousand to keep it afloat?

No doubt, "as a group" we Christians can be "rather stupid," too.  It is probably healthy for us to get beat over the head for past sins, from time to time -- lest we ever forget that Christians can put people on the rack, too.      

But we also need to think clearly about history, and try to learn the right lessons from the past. 

In the interest of doing so, I will now analyze and respond to the substance, not just the spectacle, of Ms. Poppins' -- I mean Maryam Namazie's -- speech.  Much of what she says shows deep ignorance and lack of reflection.  One can admire her passion, though, and I think she does hit a few nails on the heads. 

The Islamic Inquisition  / Maryam Namazie  / Keynote address at the World Atheist Conference  / June 4-6 2011


"In this day and age, Islam matters because of Islamism. Islam per se is fundamentally no worse than any other religion. The tenets, dogma, and principles of all religions are equal."

How can anyone get away with thinking, let alone saying, such blithering nonsense in public?  Quakerism is the same as the Peoples' Temple?  "Love your neighbor as yourself" is the same as, "sacrifice your neighbor on top of yon pyramid and cut out his heart so the gods will keep Earth going?" 

Atheists like to portray themselves as being especially in tune with the spirit of science, but from a scientific point of view, when are different objects in a single class equal to one another?  Is a lime as sweet as a strawberry?  Does a weiner dog pull sleds as heavy a load as a husky?  Can one live as comfortably on a planet circling a quasar as on our own beloved Earth?

The reason Namazie could get away with such nonsense, of course, is that she was speaking to New Atheists, who think their own views are true, and dismiss with contempt those they don't believe in.  This is one of the ways in which Gnus are like fundamentalists: they hold to a radical form of what in the theology of religions is called an "exclusivist" understanding of religion, or rather "ontological exclusivism:" the idea that we are right, and everyone else is just wrong, full stop.  It's a very naive view, suitable for adolescents in reaction, not for people who have fairly surveyed the world of religions.  It's not at all what I think Christianity teaches.  But a lot of Gnus seem to be stuck in it. 

"I don't believe in good or bad religions; in my opinion all religion is bad for you."

In the face of the millions of people who have quit drugs, stopped drinking themselves to death, learned to love parents, children, or spouses better, in the face of religious reform movements that combated slavery, foot-binding, human sacrifice, and started tens of thousands of hospitals, schools, and rehab centers around the world, what can one deduce from such Machivalean thinking?  This sounds like a mass of people trying to convince themselves something by the sound of their preacher's roar.  

"Religion should come with a health warning like cigarettes: ‘religion kills.’"

Another easy applause line.  How simple the world can seem!

"But even so, today - as we speak - there is a distinction to be made between religions in general and Islam in particular, but for no other reasons than that it is the ideology behind a far-Right regressive political movement that has state power in many places with Sharia law being the most implemented legal code in the world."

When Namazie is speaking about Islam, she can say some interesting things.  But why reduce a religion that has existed 1400 years to a vague modern political ideology? 

"Islam matters to us today because we are living through an Islamic inquisition and not because it is becoming more ‘popular’ as its proponents like to argue. They call it the fastest growing religion. I’d personally like a count of how many people are leaving it, or would like to leave if they could without being killed."

 Of course one cannot obtain such a count.  But there is no doubt the number of Muslims in the world has grown in recent decades.  Largely that is because of a high birth rate in most Muslim countries, until recently, when it has begun to fall in some Arab states.  It is also true that many have left or would like to leave Islam, but that this can be dangerous in many Muslim countries -- which is no doubt why Ms. Namazie left Iran. 

"Islam’s appeal has not grown amongst the general public; in fact it’s the opposite. Its record in political power speaks volumes for itself: stonings, honour killings, amputation of limbs, child ‘marriages’, sexual apartheid, decapitations, public hangings, bombs in discotheques and on buses, the slaughter of entire generations in the Middle East and North Africa ... "

Which "general public" is she talking about?  The number of Muslims in the UK appears to have grown by about a million in the past ten years.  A quarter of Muslims in the US are converts. 

Frankly, a little madness doesn't always hurt the prospects of an ideology.  Look at communism: everyone knew those folks were out for blood, and still it kept growing.  The willingness to risk your life for a belief creates what sociologist Rodney Stark calls a "high-tension" religion, which tend to grow. 

"It is the difference between Christianity today and one during the inquisition.  A religion that has been reined in by an enlightenment is very different from one that has political power and is spearheading an inquisition."

The "Enlightenment" can be as dangerous as anything.  The French Revolution followed the Enlightenment.  Both Nazis and Communists adopted some of its values and language.  But here Namazie touches on the real issue: the danger of allowing any one ideological group monopoly power.

Stark argues, and I think he's right, that aside from ideology -- which really does matter -- it's a problem if one ideological group monopolizes a society, or if two big groups struggle for control.  A better situation is a free market of ideas.  That's what we've had in the US for 200 years, and as a result, religion has been both vibrant and free. 

"Under the inquisition, you were killed even if you confessed. A confession would just mean that you would be strangled before being burnt to death rather than being burnt alive. The same applies for Islamism. It’s a killing machine."

Most of what Namazie says about the Inquisition appears to be based more on popular myth than reality.  A very small percentage of those subject to the Inquisition were killed; most were given light punishments.  But I agree that the Inquisition was a terrible event, and part of a bigger problem after nationalized churches became supreme in Europe. 

"Sharia law is designed to teach the masses the damnable nature of dissent.  Moreover, under the inquisition, once you were baptized, it could not be undone. The same is true with Islam. You are just not allowed to leave."

There is, indeed, a parallel between the worst excesses of the "Christian" Middle Ages and oppressive Muslim regimes.  Weak religions commonly borrow from stronger religions.  When Islam was on the rise, it borrowed practices from Christians, Jews, Persians, and Arab polytheists.  Later, as Islam ruled most of the richest parts of the Mediterranean world, and threatened to conquer the rest, Europe naturally adopted some Muslim beliefs, such as jihad and Mohammed's teaching that those who die in holy war go straight to heaven.  Christianity also borrowed from the tyranical system of ancient Rome, which had persecuted the church, and turned on its persecutors. 

"If you look at Christianity for example, it’s not that the tenets, dogma, and principles have changed; it has not become more humane since the days of the inquisition and witch burnings."

Actually, when people are allowed to read the words of Jesus (which they were not, in much of the Middle Ages), they see that witch burnings and inquisitions are AGAINST the tenets of Christ.  They were not, unfortunately, against the tenets of Marx. 

It is passing strange for a communist to hold up customs that appeared 1200 years after the time of Christ, and make that the standard for Christianity.  Marx' true homocidal tendencies came to the fore much more quickly. 

"It is important to note here that Islamism was actually brought to centre stage during the Cold War as part of US foreign policy in order to create a ‘green’ Islamic belt surrounding the Soviet Union and not concocted in some immigrant’s kitchen in London . . . "

This looks like one of those weird Middle Eastern conspiracy theories.  Few of the practices that Namazie derides are new to Islam -- most have parallels in the life of Mohammed himself, who I do not believe was a CIA agent.   

"It is the human being who is meant to be equal not his or her beliefs. It is the human being who is worthy of the highest respect and rights not his or her beliefs or those imputed on them."

Here we agree. 

"The problem is that religion sees things the other way around."

Unless this idea was the fruit of Christian theology. 

"This is precisely what is wrong with multiculturalism. It gives precedence to cultures and religion rather than people and their rights and lives. And it says that human beings – depending on how they are pigeon-holed – are fundamentally different, and should be treated as such. The idea of difference has always been the fundamental principle of a racist agenda not the other way around.

"And within this context any criticism of Islam and Islamism are deemed to be racism and Islamophobia. This is nothing but political scaremongering in order to silence criticism against Islam. The term is used to shield Islam and Islamism from criticism and so everything from opposing executions in Iran to demanding an end to Sharia courts in Britain are deemed racism by Islamic lobbyists and their supporters, including from within the Left, like the Socialist Workers' Party in the UK. It has become politically incorrect to criticise Islam. But Islamophobia does not refer to the fear of a certain people. It refers to the fear of a certain religion. And what is so wrong with that? Shouldn't we have the right to be critical of Islam - especially given its practices, its record?"

Preach it! 

Did anyone mention communism?

"At a minimum, we must have the complete separation of religion from the state, the law and educational system. The promotion of secularism is therefore an important vehicle to protect society from religion's intervention in people's lives, especially in the face of religion’s rising access to power."

That depends what "secularism" means.  If it means we favor the worldview of atheists and communists over that of Quakers and Presbyterians, I don't see why that would help. 

"Religion excludes whilst secularism is inclusive and ensures that a sect or group does not impose its beliefs on all. That a person's religion is a private affair."

Sure!  But many secular humanists see schools as an instrument for persuading kids to accept their atheistic worldview.  Sam Harris is on record as saying so; Dan Dennett at loudly hinting it.  And of course communists followed out that policy, on similiar rationale, in one third of the world, and still try to wash tender brains of opposing views in places like China and North Korea. 

"Faith schools must be abolished."

Ah!  The claws of the putty-tat begin to protrude. 

"Religion in general and Islam more so because of the rise of Islamism, indoctrinates children – often violently."

Having been to a religious school as a young boy, I remember some of that violence -- Mrs. Jones in third grade hit my hand with a ruler for getting an answer wrong, as I recall.  Let's abolish Mrs. Jones, and parents like mine who send kids to such houses of instructional horror! 

"Religious schools by nature must teach the superiority of their belief system and the baseness of non-believers and kafirs . . . Education is meant to give children access to science, reason and the advances of the 21st century. It is meant to level the playing field irrespective of and despite the family the child is born into. It is meant to allow children to think freely and critically – something that religion actually prohibits and punishes."

Now there's another remarkably sweeping statement.  If "religion" prohibits and punishes critical thought -- full stop -- where did people like Augustine, Anselm, and Aquinas (to start with a few early As) come from? 

If Christian schools are such terrible things, why have billions of young people managed to get a decent education in the things?  Why was I so bored when I went to public school in 4th grade, and sat in my desk a year or so waiting for all the "free-thinking, critical" kids around me to catch up? 

"Let me end with a quote from the late Marxist, atheist and humanist Mansoor Hekmat:"

“…In Islam, be it true or untrue, the individual has no rights or dignity. In Islam, the woman is a slave. In Islam, the child is on par with animals. In Islam, freethinking is a sin deserving of punishment. Music is corrupt. Sex without permission and religious certification, is the greatest of sins. This is the religion of death. In reality, all religions are such but most religions have been restrained by freethinking and freedom-loving humanity over hundreds of years. This one was never restrained or controlled. With every move, it brings abominations and misery."

Some of this seems a little over the top, even about Islam.

To give him credit, Hekmat seems to have opposed Russian and Chinese communism.  Why was he a Marxist, though, if he cared so much about freedom?  One can only wonder -- Karl Marx himself was as egocentric and bossy as many of his totalitarian followers.  

But it looks like Hekmat is simply trying to dis the competition.  All religions, what, say music is corrupt?  But Confucius said, "I heard the sound of this music, and could not notice the taste of my food for months afterwards."  Christianity?  One word: Bach.  OK, a few more: Handel.  Harps.  Halleluyah. Gospel.

What is behind the pitch black image of religion that Marxists portray, seems to be a fundamental (ist) drive to simplify reality: "communism abolishes all religion, all eternal truth, all morality."   

Compare that to the approach an atheist I respect, the psychologist, Ernest Becker, took: 
Sexual aparheid


“I have had the growing realization over the past few years that the problem of man’s knowledge is not to oppose and to demolish opposing views, but to include them in a larger theoretical structure.”

Or Jesus:

"Don't think I have come to abolish the Law and the Prophets.  I have not come to abolish, but to fulfill."

The New Atheism seems to be following Marx into the most simplistic and untenable view of religion: that they are all simply wrong, aside from my own, which I do not define as a religion. 

Jesus offers a richer understanding, not just of Christian tradition, but of world tradition -- including the best ideas in atheism.

What we can learn from the Inquisition: 

(1) Ma Bell doesn't care, because she doesn't have to care.  A free market of ideas is best for everybody. 

(2) "Power corrupts."  Separation of powers is not an option.  "My kingdom is not of this world;" "Give to Caesar the things that are Caesar's" -- somebody had a good idea.

(3) Ideas matter, too.  Bad ideas can bring you to torture, faster, and keep you doing it for longer.  Good ideas ("Love your enemy as yourself") are not magic wands, but when accepted, can slow the rush to hell described in (2). 

(4) Thank God for atheists!  And for Christian squabbling.  It's probably a good idea for society when the sects, and the anti-sects, are fractured.

(5) Islam, like the West, needs Jesus.  



13 comments:

Dr H said...

[part one of two...]
======
David said:
"Love your neighbor as yourself" is the same as, "sacrifice your neighbor on top of yon pyramid and cut out his heart so the gods will keep Earth going?"
======
Absolute statements are always going to be problematic, and I agree that your interpretation could be taken from a literal reading of Namazie's statement.

But let's try to keep a sense of perspective here. Do you really believe that the keynote speaker at this 21st century conference was intending to compare modern religion with that of the ancient Maya? Or is it more likely that she intended a comparison among the most prevalent dominant religions of 2011?

======
In the face of the millions of people who have quit drugs, ... (etc.)
======
Millions have done this without religion as well. To say nothing of the people who have been driven to drinking and drugs by the conflicting and unrealistic demands of their religious upbringing.

======
Another easy applause line. How simple the world can seem!
======
It's a slogan. I don't especially like slogans, since they are rarely, if ever, good arguments. OTOH, the religious are hardly immune from the temptation to sloganize, such as when blithely conflating "atheists" with "atheism", or "atheism" with "communism" or "communism" with "religion".

======
The number of Muslims in the UK appears to have grown by about a million in the past ten years. A quarter of Muslims in the US are converts.
======
That is true, but incomplete. The most Muslim-populous country in the world is Indonesia, and the vast majority of Indonesian Muslims are pretty much laissez-faire Muslims.
If you look at where the most radical Muslims come from, you're looking at a relatively small area of the Middle East.

======
[I]t's a problem if one ideological group monopolizes a society, or if two big groups struggle for control. A better situation is a free market of ideas. That's what we've had in the US for 200 years, and as a result, religion has been both vibrant and free.
======
Hardly. What we've mostly had is a continuous artificial "struggle" between two big groups -- call them "liberals" and "conservatives" or "democrats" and "republicans". Both of which arose from a common root: the privilaged, landed, monied, merchant class that was dominant when the Colonies revolted in 1776, took steps to assure its continued domination in drafting the Constitution, and which continues to dominate to this day. And religion has been a very useful tool indeed for this segment of our society.

======
A very small percentage of those subject to the Inquisition were killed; most were given light punishments.
======
Yes, after they were tortured. Torture wasn't considered a punishment, but merely part of the interogation.

======
Actually, when people are allowed to read the words of Jesus (which they were not, in much of the Middle Ages), they see that witch burnings and inquisitions are AGAINST the tenets of Christ. They were not, unfortunately, against the tenets of Marx.
======
LOL. David, you surprise me. I didn't think you would ever go so far out in left field as to try to vicariously blame the Inquisition on Marx, rather than the Church. ;)

======
That depends what "secularism" means. If it means we favor the worldview of atheists and communists over that of Quakers and Presbyterians, I don't see why that would help.
======
To me it would mean a worldview based on rationality and evidence, rather than on mythology and faith. But I can't speak for Namazie.

[continued in next post...]

Dr H said...

[part two of two ...]
======
Having been to a religious school as a young boy, I remember some of that violence -- Mrs. Jones in third grade hit my hand with a ruler for getting an answer wrong, as I recall. Let's abolish Mrs. Jones, and parents like mine who send kids to such houses of instructional horror!
======
I went to public schools, but I was sent -- religiously, one might say -- to the Catholic school every Friday for what we used to call "catechism".

First off, we were most certainly indoctrinated in the faith. We were told, for example, that only good Catholics went to Heaven, and that most Protestants were going straight to Hell, simply for being Protestants. We were encouraged to try to entice our Protestant (and Jewish!) friends to attend the Catholic church, but warned that if we so much as set foot inside a Presbyterian or Lutheran church God would strike us dead on the spot.

In those days a certain amount of corporal punishment was not unheard of even in the public schools, but it was very rare, and meted out only in extreme circumstances. I knew many kids from the Catholic schools, however, that regularly exhibited bruised knuckles that could not have been the result of a single, on-time swipe with a ruler, but of frequent, if not daily whacks. In the priest's office hung a leather strap that was used for more serious disciplinary problems than simply getting an answer wrong -- or writing left-handed.

I consider myself hugely fortunate that no clerical sex-abuse seems to have occured in my particular parish, but there were a number of cases in neighboring parishes. Sexual abuse of this kind is facilitated when an unsupervised adult is given a position of unquestioned dominance over the children in his charge. The priest could summon you to his office -- privately -- at any time, and his supervisor was the bishop -- whose office was a hundred miles away. We were taught that the Priest spoke "with the authority of God." It's hard to imagine a position of greater dominance than that.


======
If Christian schools are such terrible things, why have billions of young people managed to get a decent education in the things?
======
Including indoctrination and even abuse in the curriculum doesn't preclude also having teachers capable of adequately conveying the necessary fundamentals of the three R's, nor of having children, which are very resilient beings, capable of learning them. People can still learn under adverse conditions -- witness the people who have completed college degrees which serving time in prison.

======
All religions, what, say music is corrupt?
======
The Catholic Church, famous for "The Index" of banned books it maintained for centuries, also banned certain kinds and even particular pieces of music. You couldn't, for example, just introduce any song out of the hymnal -- even a Catholic hymnal -- into a service without getting an imprimatur from the Vatican. I can think of some other religions that frown on certain kinds of mucic, or even on music itself, but again I don't think that "all religions" in this context is intended to include every sect that has existed in every culture since the begining of time.

======
"Power corrupts." Separation of powers is not an option. "My kingdom is not of this world;" "Give to Caesar the things that are Caesar's" -- somebody had a good idea.
======
One can read this statement as an admonishion for separation of powers. However, one can also read it, more accurately I think, as an admonishion to accept one's worldly lot, and not make waves, because suffering in this life is rewarded in the next life. In other words, an admonishion to the poor and downtrodden to shut up, stop complaining, and not try to improve their worldly lot, since their next-worldy lot was more important.

What a convenient philosophy for those who already had a pretty good worldly lot, eh?

David B Marshall said...

Dr. H: All religions are evil. All religions kill. I'd say that fits the Maya better than it fits 21st Free Methodists, for example. So if anyone is stuck in a time warp, it's Namazie & her comrades. Extremist rhetoric is not made more sensible by saying, "She probably didn't mean it" -- that only suggests that you're probably more sensible than her. Though she still has a nice smile.

I said religion in the US has been "both vibrant and free," and you respond by saying "Hardly." Then you launch into a Zinnian political speal. But which of my claims are you denying? That Americans have religious liberty? Or that there are lots of successful churches independent of one another? I really don't see how either can be denied; this wasn't an applause line, it was a statement of the obvious.

The subject here is inquisitions. My point is that they are against the teachings of Jesus, but not those of Marx. I've given you direct quotes from Marx before, demonstrating his fondness for violence. Of course I'm not blaming him for the much smaller inquisitions that occurred before his birth.

Your read of Jesus' words as "Shut up and put up with your lot in this life," is contradicted by the fact that Jewish and Roman authorities conspired to kill him as a subversive. Jesus was not a political revolutionary -- thank God -- but his teachings were deeply subversive, did subvert, as scholars as diverse as John Crossan, N. T. Wright, and Will Durant, recognize.

David B Marshall said...

Dr. H: Your mild-mannered fellow from the Oregon Octopus Guild has just threatened to ban me from his site, to all appearances for heresy. You might be amused by the conversation: see Alan Moore at Cheltenham, and following. I did criticize the Guild Master pretty directly, true: I took his PR half seriously, and thought he could handle it, might even say something intelligent in self-defense. I guess that's the danger of gathering too many acolytes.

Dr H said...

======
David said:
Extremist rhetoric is not made more sensible by saying, "She probably didn't mean it" -- that only suggests that you're probably more sensible than her.
======
Thanks, but I didn't say that 'she probably didn't mean it.' I tried to put what she said into a less-broad, and more probable context than you did.

And either way, she has a point. Sure modern religions have reformed somewhat from their forebears. Mostly it's taken centuries, and it's been kicking and screaming under pressure of changing civil law and authority, but yes, they have done it. To the best of my knowledge the Catholics no longer castrate vocally talented young boys for the Vatican choir, and you hardly ever hear of a Calvanist burning a witch these days, at least in public.

But really, do these moves away from the grossest and most extreme abuses of power really signal a fundamental change in the way these religions view the world?

Consider: had German Naziism triumphed in Europe, but failed to either conquer the Soviets or cross the ocean to America, it would have had to change with the times somewhat as well, if only for the sake of it's own survival. Possibly the Nazi's would have stopped openly advocating the extermination of Jews, Catholics, Romany, Marxists, Gays, etc., and maybe simply contented themselves with confiscating their property and deporting them. They might have ceased pushing the Aryan-master-race line, and embraced other "lesser" white "races" into their fold. Once they settled down into the day-to-day business of social management they very likely would have been building hospitals, schools, day care centers, and retirement homes.

In short, there would have been quite a difference between, say, a 21st century Greek Nazi and his 1940 German counterpart.

Would naziism therefore have ceased to be evil?

======
I said religion in the US has been "both vibrant and free," and you respond by saying "Hardly."
...
But which of my claims are you denying?
======
Now that's interesting. You made a rather lengthy statement, which I quoted in full and responded to, and here you act as if I was only responding to the last seven words of your statement.

So, to clarify, this is the claim you made that I was responding to:

"[I]t's a problem if one ideological group monopolizes a society, or if two big groups struggle for control. A better situation is a free market of ideas. That's what we've had in the US for 200 years, ... ]

This is decidedly NOT what we have had in the US for 200 years, and if your one example "and as a result, religion has been both vibrant and free" is true, it must therefore be true in spite of the fact that your premise as to why it is true is incorrect.

In other words, either religion has thrived in the US under exactly the conditions you claim are inimical to it, or else it's thrived for other reasons than you suppose.

======
The subject here is inquisitions. My point is that they are against the teachings of Jesus,
======
Funny, then, that the historical event which gives us the name "inquisition" for these little contratemps was instigated by the Church.

======
"Shut up and put up with your lot in this life," is contradicted by the fact that Jewish and Roman authorities conspired to kill him as a subversive.
======
I suppose that depends on whether you think Jesus was a reform-Jewish agitator speaking specifically to his contemporaries, or whether he was the Son of God speaking not only to his own little cultural group, but to all future generations.

Dr H said...

======
David said:
Your mild-mannered fellow from the Oregon Octopus Guild has just threatened to ban me from his site, to all appearances for heresy.
======
Please... AFAIK when he was here PZ was working with zebra fish. Octopuses eat zebra fish. ;)

Dr H said...

======
David said:
You might be amused by the conversation: see Alan Moore at Cheltenham, and following.
======
[Just returned from reading the thread...]


Oh my. It is Alan Moore, the comic book artist, you are refering to.

Dammit, David, are you determined to drag me into yet another blog? ;-/

Sheesh, there's nothing worse than a bunch of scientists who aren't involved in the arts lecturing/debating about aesthetics. Of course there are a few who work in both worlds, but they tend to get shouted down in such encounters. If I do jump in, probably my position is going to be similar to that of "Neil," with a few qualifications.

It is absurd to claim that religion has not inspired artistic creativity, especially if one is also going to claim that crystal-gazing can do so. On the other hand, it is also true that religion inhibits creativity; everything inhibits creativity: laws, society, culture, the weather, hunger, gluttony, lack of sleep, too much sleep, walls, doors, air, taxes, clothing, other people... because everything imposes some kind of limit or restraint. Those who create do so in spite of these perceived limitations, or find ways to work-around and/or incorporate them in their art.

The fact that a good deal of art has been inspired/influenced by religion is one of religion's few mitigating graces, IMO. Yet this inspiration is neither a vindication nor a condemnation of religion; it just is. Great art has been inspired by great joy, courage, mankind's great accomplishments, real people, and the wonders of science and nature. It has also been inspired by misery, shame, war, genocide, mythology, and natural disasters.

Handel may or may not have been a deist, but Bach most certainly was a strict Lutheran. Cage was a Buddhist. Chick Corea is a Scientologist. Frank Zappa was an atheist. So?

[grumble] Probably I'm going to have to post this on Pharyngula. Probably I'll get banned with my first post.

Oh well... wouldn't be the first time. Anarchists take no prisoners. ;-)

Moewicus said...

"communism abolishes all religion, all eternal truth, all morality." [Communist Manifesto, Chapter 2]

I looked up the context of this quotation, as I've encountered bogus Marx quotations in recent times. I'm not sure how you intend it to be seen, but the way it's used in your post it looks like Marx/Engels are asserting and agree with the substance of the quotation while in context they give it as a bourgeois objection to Communism. I'm not sure they don't completely dismiss it, but I'm not sure they affirm it either. How exactly do you see this quotation?

David B Marshall said...

Moe: That's a good question, fairly asked. Since I think it might be of interest to other people, too, I've just posted a blog to try to answer it.

David B Marshall said...

Dr. H: You're kind of begging the question here, and kind of making a good point. No, as far as I could make out (growing up in Calvinist churches), they don't burn witches at the stake, anymore. But then, neither did Jesus or his first followers, nor did they tell anybody to. In fact, when Christianity first caught on, it abolished laws against executing witches, on the grounds that it was superstition.

So why not conclude that the present state of affairs is a return to Christian norm? Why define Christian orthodoxy by what some fanatic in the 16th Century did? Who died and made John Knox into Jesus Christ?

Obviously, Nazism is a completely different case, as is Islam. Mohammed himself raped, assassinated critics, started offensive wars, tortured, and mass-murdered. Hitler did worse. If a religion is defined by the personality, teachings, and actions of its founder (and that should be a primary definition), then the cheap relativism you assume in that post breaks down.

But then, I'm glad you don't interpret anarchism to mean you have to throw bombs at public buildings all the time, too. Apparently Anarch died and left you in charge, which is why we have Big Government Anarchy! Ain't life fun.

Dr H said...

======
David said:
In fact, when Christianity first caught on, it abolished laws against executing witches, on the grounds that it was superstition.
======
And the Spanish, German, and other Inquisitions were what? An unfortunate little relapse, like a recovering alcoholic falling off the wagon at a wedding reception?

======
Why define Christian orthodoxy by what some fanatic in the 16th Century did? Who died and made John Knox into Jesus Christ?
======
I'm not attempting to define Christian orthodoxy, but to recognize and point out the dangers of religion.

Of what use is a wonderful philosophy if people of power repeatedly use it to justify horrendous acts? Sure, you can say that such people aren't being true to the original concept. But you must realize that the same can be said of those who presided over the communist governments of the 20th century.

======
If a religion is defined by the personality, teachings, and actions of its founder (and that should be a primary definition), then the cheap relativism you assume in that post breaks down.
======
Now that does raise an interesting point. Is it the founder of a religion who defines it, or the primary object of worship of that religion?

Because Jesus never founded any religion; Christianity was founded in his name, after he was long gone. By your suggestion, one would be far more justified in examining the life of Saul of Tarsus in order to understand the orthodoxy of modern Christianity.

======
But then, I'm glad you don't interpret anarchism to mean you have to throw bombs at public buildings all the time, too.
======
Few (if any) anarchists have ever interpreted anarchy in that way. Far fewer, I'd wager, than the number of Christians who have interpreted the Bible to justify torturing witches, burning heretics, and backing 'offensive' and genocidal wars.

As to "Big Government" anarchy, you wish. How about "Big Church" religion?

David B Marshall said...

Dr. H: Sure, inquisitions were a huge relapse. Hardly unknown. Buddha didn't teach people to torture, either, but Buddhists seem to have been prime movers in the Japanese Inquisition starting about 1597.

"Of what use is a wonderful philosophy if people of power repeatedly use it to justify horrendous acts? Sure, you can say that such people aren't being true to the original concept. But you must realize that the same can be said of those who presided over the communist governments of the 20th century."

We'll wring the relativism out of you, if it takes the rack and thumbscrews. : -)

Marx was not Jesus. Marx taught hatred and violent revolution. Marx was a creep. Jesus taught self-sacrificial love, and demonstrated it.

Yes, people can abuse good teachings -- but that does not make them bad teachings. How can I make this clear? Aside from the teaching itself, there is human nature to contend with. Christianity teaches that humans are selfish and often violent creatures, who will pervert good teachings to bad ends. This happens even in the Gospels, when Jesus rebukes his disciples for wanting to call fire down on an unfriendly village.

But there is still a difference between the quality of different teachings, and the effect they have on the world. Good teachings are a necessary but not sufficient cause of good actions. Does that seem a plausible formula to you?

Dr H said...

======
David said:
Buddha didn't teach people to torture, either, but Buddhists seem to have been prime movers in the Japanese Inquisition starting about 1597.
======
True, and you know that I don't let Buddhism off the hook, either.

======
Marx was not Jesus.
======
For which, I suppose, we both should be thankful. For different reasons, of course.


======
Marx taught hatred and violent revolution.
======
Marx taught -- what in his day looked to be a perpetual underclass -- to resist oppression. Oppression is rarely pretty, which tends to take the glamor off of resistance to it as well.

======
Marx was a creep.
======
Never knew the man, myself. You must be a good deal older than you look. ;)

======
Jesus taught self-sacrificial love, and demonstrated it.
======
Jesus taught subservience to Earthly oppression in hopes of a rewarding afterlife: "render unto Ceasar"; "blessed be the poor: for yours is the kingdom of God"; "thou shalt have treasure in heaven." He taught that anything other than superficial charity was misplaced: "Ye have the poor with you always."

Funny that he seems to have almost exclusively called upon the poor and downtrodden to practice self-sacrifice.

Marx, of course, had other ideas.

======
Yes, people can abuse good teachings -- but that does not make them bad teachings.
======
Perhaps. But that almost amounts to a mystical procalmation. The only way we can know whether they are "good" teachings is by what sorts of results they manifest when applied. You can argue -- and have -- that religion has accomplished some good in the world, and I agree. I also maintain that application of Marx's ideas have accomplished a deal of good in the world as well, and that countless lives are better off now than they would have been had Marx never made known his particular brand of socialist econonmics.

And both religion and Marxism have been used to bad ends as well, and as a result both have motivated men to cause death and suffering to millions of their fellows.

One difference, and to me this is a crucial difference, is that when Marxism fails there is no one to blame but the people responsible for misusing it. Not so with religion, where we can fob respojnsibility off on mysterious supernatural forces beyond our ken, and pretend we are innocent.

======
But there is still a difference between the quality of different teachings, and the effect they have on the world. Good teachings are a necessary but not sufficient cause of good actions. Does that seem a plausible formula to you?
======
Plausible, but very incomplete. The stickler, again, is in judging what is "good". It seems to me that a really good teaching -- good in the sense of practical, effective, and beneficial (as opposed to morally "good") -- would by its very nature minimize the ways in which it could be misused.

That's a tall order, I know. But I am utterly convinced that we have a far better chance of approaching that ideal by looking at what actually happens in the real world, than we do by constructing myths about it.