Radical religion

gree0232: I guess what I mean is that if you already believe in something divine, you can more easily believe in a divine mandate to kill, because you can justify that to people. Sure, you can entice people to violence with no justification, but it's harder than if you already have a justification available. That's not to say everybody will believe it, or that it's the only justification (and sure, most revolutions, wars etc have not had a religious justification at all). It simply can help to facilitate the rationalization of violence. Skepticism is unfortunately a hardly foolproof defense. This is particularly true of the supernatural which by definition cannot be found by any sort of naturalist inquiry, so random miracles won't help. If anything you could simply bust out some apologetics and bring non-believers to the cause as well.

I would further argue that this not true of all beliefs. A belief that one should turn the other cheek is harder to corrupt than a belief that one should kill one's enemies. I think religion as a justification has a clear moral hazard in that the basic presumption of a divine mandate can be basically molded to suit anything from violence to peace. I don't agree that all atrocious human activity is someone seeking power by any means necessary (did looting during the London Riots have a clear charismatic leader?) but I guess that's a side-issue.

I think religion can be blamed as a tool used to exploit others. It's rarely the sole reason for war, but often part of the justification used. Al Qaeda is very good at integrating Qu'ranic verses into their materials, and ISIS often shares such verses on social media too. It's all contributing to the overall message they're trying to send that their religion supports their cause, and by extension, God.

admin: Religion has one thing that makes it less corruptible than other ideologies: doctrine.

When you try to justify killing, which is different than war (although it certainly involves killing), the doctrine is there for everyone to see. This is exactly what is happening with ISIS.

http://www.dailysabah.com/politics/2014/09/25/muslim-scholars-present-religious-rebuttal-to-isis

Has Islam been 'corrupted' when the scholars come out and solidly condemn the group? Isn't it extremist precisely because it has taken a position on the religion that is at odds with how it is generally understood? It is precisely this doctrinal basis that allows people to call out the extremists. Its also not like its just one man tat can interpret the text differently either. Especially with long standing religion, the consensus formed by centuries of examination and seminaries producing people within a band of excellence if you will, are going to suddenly be upended by a call to violence. That being said, there are instances of religious leaders being corrupted of co-opted in the pursuit of temporal political power - that is not because of religion, its because they are human. The story of Saint Francis pops immediately into mind, as someone who, despite all the pressure to grab onto power held tight to what was in the scripture precisely because it was in the scripture.

If we contrast this with the Russian Revolution? It is precisely because they call to arms was something nebulous and undefinable - what exactly is 'the Revolution' - that humanity, in he case of the purges for example, was thrown into a violent frenzy that defies all sense or reason. The literature that emerges from the Russian Revolution is profound precisely in its guilt and remorse for the actions taken during the Revolution. Yet the reason it became so sinister was because Stalin was seeking political power, and the lives of other people became little more than tools to that end. How do you stop it? The Revolution must survive? And in such a setting the ruthless will take advantage.

I'll toss one other issue into the fray. Religion is a tool. On one end, we can see the emergence of Right Wing Jewish groups as a dire threat to Israel itself. The inability to talk to your enemy in a place where the demographics simply do not facilitate perpetual war makes that attitude very dangerous - practically strategic suicide. That is religion being improperly used, but it is tolerated not because it is 'correct' Judaism - its tolerated because Bibi build his political coalition on the backs of the extremists. Power is the facilitator of the corruption in that case. Conversely, if you look at Afghanistan, riddled with tribal strife and usually a basket case, there is one reason that the Taliban remains a threat - its the only way. There are two ways to govern in Afghanistan, either through tribal coalitions, which perpetuate the tribal basis and its feuds, or through ... religion. Islam is the only force that can cross tribal boundaries in Afghanistan. The rise of the Taliban as a unifying force is derived precisely from a religious basis that appeals ACROSS ethic lines. It is precisely the failure to formulate a counter and inclusive narrative that makes the Taliban so resilient. It may not even be possible to create a narrative outside of religion that will move beyond Afghanistan's tribal conditions. Our version of a secular and inclusive society rests on compromise and that is not possible in a society where tribe A's gain is tribe B's lose. Its zero sum. A religious figure with 'divine' guidance, can come in and adjudicate in a manner that the tribes will follow. Religion in this case, can be a great peace maker.

Religion is just a tool in a broad sense (individually it can be a spiritual and reply held thing) but those with the reigns of power can either use it to maintain stability by emphasizing its calls for stability (Christianity has a directive to be good citizens for example) or to use it for change (Christianity emphasizes charity for the poor for example - needed in hard times) or to attempt to justify violence. Yet it should be noted in the final instance that the Vatican, among others, strongly condemned the Iraq War and has issued words of caution with every American act of violence. We chose to go it anyway, and its hard to blame religion for the cause of blowing off religious leaders to go to war. We went to war for our interests, or at least what we perceived them to be, and its not religions fault we did so. There was no, and is no, divine guidance to pull the trigger ... we've had no trouble justifying it whatsoever. On the contrary, one of the most vocal and aggressive proponents of the Iraq war was not religious at all: Chris Hitchens.

If religion brings us anything, it is a call to be wary of the ways of man - and our recent history bears out what sage advice that really is.

gree0232: Thanks for writing these huge posts. I agree with a lot of what you're saying.
I'll rack up some questions later on, just for the sake of debate.

gree0232: Doctrine can be anti-war ... but it can also be pro-war. Islam is a good example because the doctrine is vague by nature. It's so vague that commentaries are sometimes regarded as more important than the original text. There are legitimate arguments from Islam that ISIS is justified in their actions. There are equally legitimate arguments that 9/11 was justified if Islam is a given. There are very few religions that do not have some doctrine that commands some form of violence, and even fewer that have no doctrines permitting violence. ISIS and Al Qaeda have scholars on their side too.

Your presumption that religion commands peace is what gets me. I'd be interested in discussing that in another thread.

But what I don't understand is why you don't think that a religion with the doctrine of "kill everybody" is worse than a religion with the doctrine of "be nice to everybody". Just put aside discussions of power for a moment. Surely you must see some correlation between belief and action. If I believe somebody wants to rob me, I would act differently than if I believed somebody wished to give me a present. Likewise if I believed in killing everybody, then I would act differently than if I did not. All I'm doing is extending that to the view that one can be objectively and unquestionably entitled to the moral truth. If I am the only one with the right to decide what is right and wrong for people to do, then attempts to impose that upon others can lead to conflict that would not have happened if I did not have that belief. It's not necessarily about seizing power, because you already believe you hold that power, and if your particular interpretation of the religion is true, then indeed you do.

I must emphasize again that I've never believed this to be true even generally, but certainly to be true in rare, exceptional circumstances. Just a bit of marginal violence here and there.

It's a fair point that religions can bring peace, but they are rarely spread through peace alone. The history of the lands of central asia is littered with wars of conquest and the preachers who were behind the muskets.

admin: I ask you this in all seriousness, have you read the Koran? I am not Muslim, but I have served with Muslims in two wars. I have fought side by side with them, I have eaten dinner with them, I have made friends with them, risked my life for them as they have theirs for me, played with their children, etc. There is no commandment to 'kill everyone' in Islam.

When you read the Koran, whether you agree with the concept of the Prophet or not, what you get is a riveting narrative. You have a man of meager means who is visited by an Angle and given great responsibility, and attempts to reject it. Only reluctantly does he take up his duty, in a hostile religious environment where he earns converts, but also scorn and oppression. He is stripped bear, impoverished, and thrust into the desert to die. Rather than die, he is adopted by perpetually warring tribes and ... unites them through wisdom and sound judgement. Seeing this, his oppressors raise an army, and (depending on the historical account its anywhere from 3 to 1 to 10 to 1 odds) only under threat of the complete annihilation of his people does the Prophet reluctantly defend his people.

With an Army coming out to kill every man woman and child in your community, would you not defend yourself? Your family? Your children?

And the Prophet did what was necessary. He defended his people. He fought the Battle of Badr against overwhelming odds and won. The Meccan Pagans called upon the tribes to raise and eliminate the Muslims, and so began a brutal three year war in which the Prophet hides none of the brutality. This is not a call to violence, as a combat veteran I can assure you that these passages are a warning to avoid violence at all costs. nevertheless, they are also a call to do what is necessary to defat your enemy.

And upon defeat? What does the victor do? Does he slaughter his oppressor as they would he? Nope, he grants them mercy if they convert from the religion that attempted to crush and murder them. He makes Mecca rather than Medina the center of the new religion, cementing is power and prestige for eternity rather than burning it to the ground as any victor under the circumstances would do. he then promulgates a legal and administrative code that is so far ahead of its time that Muslim Armies venturing into lands ruled by warlords find populations desperate fore the Rule of Law of uncorrupted religious figures who judge on merit not politics of loyalty. He grants tolerance to the people of the book. He preaches mercy and justice, forgiveness and repellence.

Does that sound like a narrative that can be reduced to simply, "Kill everyone?"

Again, the problem with religion and seizing power is that no one man can seize power by himself. If you have a published doctrine, then someone claiming he has the correct interpretation has some convincing to do. In open societies, the Charles Manson's who attempt this fail.

As to the point of religion spreading peacefully, I disagree. When you see countries ike Korea that are 50/50 Christian. Buddhist ... they were not forced under the gun to convert. Rome itself was not forced to covert. Most of the people 'conquered' by Islam, as we see above, readily accepted the new religion and its superior legal and administrative code (not that the codes of 700AD remain superior today - but they certainly were then).

Religion can be a tool for good, and as we single out Islam as a 'killer' religion, we should be mindful that the conversion process for most of its adherents had nothing to do with violence. The converts came willingly because the contrast to the brutality and injustice of war lords in the region was appalling. Islam made the better case.

Having worked among them, what they preach is not violence - its family, its friendship, its charity, its selflessness. If we miss this in favor of a relatively small number of violent fanatics, then the fault is ours - not Islam's.

Going to write a more indepth post on what you guys are talking about.
Gree0232, you can quote by using the following BBcode -

Having worked among them, what they preach is not violence - its family, its friendship, its charity, its selflessness. If we miss this in favor of a relatively small number of violent fanatics, then the fault is ours - not Islam's.

gree0232: I feel like almost all of this is off-topic to the radicalization of religion but moving into the territory of whether particular faiths are violent. That really needs to go into another thread, so I'll make one shortly and answer this there.

admin: So it's ironic that the only proof you can think of for logic doesn't meet logic's own standards of proof.
It's not ironic, it's metaphyiscally necessary. I didn't offer proof, I offered an observation.

If you could prove logic, it would introduce a paradox of identifiaction. A chicken out of the egg scenario, much like "I know the bible is right because the bible tells me so."

My position is disticnt from religion in that way as well.

But you don't accept God because God is illogical. That just makes no sense to me.
What does it mean "make no sense to you" do you mean it is illogical?

Again, absolutely ALL of this is stuff I've heard of theists before.
Theists can be right everyonce in a while

Perhaps the reason why God should be considered an axiom is because God is an axiom.
That's begging the question, and not analogous to my observations (not arguments) about the axioms of rationality.

ADreamOfLiberty: YYW says hi.

Dassault Papillon: Tell him to burn in the eternal fires of hell for me, thanks.

ADreamOfLiberty: Add that the eternal fires of hell are too good for him from me, thanks.

why exactly do we hate yyw?

Blackflag: I don't hate him. I'm sorry if I caused any offense. I was simply telling him not to go into the eternal fires of hell because he doesn't deserve it.

ADreamOfLiberty: Nah, I just wanted to see how you would react.

admin: What you mean and what you say are two very different things. What you said is that burning in eternal fire isn't a bad enough punishment for YYW.

Blackflag: If you wanted to say what you meant, it would of went "Add that he is to good for the eternal fires of hell"

Blackflag: I was deliberately trying to make the point that one can take almost any of these kinds of statements in several ways.

lol at csareo blocking me

Blackflag: Yea I think the good was in the wrong place.

BTW I acccidently reported your post because my instinct keeps telling me that is the reply button and there is no confirmation. Sorry admin for spamming you with spam reports.

ADreamOfLiberty: I've done that a couple times myself, lol