Monday, November 28, 2011

Would The World Be Better Off Without Religion?

A recent debate at New York University sought to answer this question. Now, normally I ignore these things when they pop up in the news, because I have absolutely no interest in these discussions and think it is all nonsense: from the formation of the question to the concluding statements. I decided to listen to this one, however, because I have been wanting for some time to do a post where I evaluate a debate and pull apart the arguments. Also, I had already started to write about religion, so I thought I may as well get it all out in one fell swoop, include this discussion in the mix, and then most likely not bring up religion again in any systematic way.

As it turned out, this debate was worse than I expected, and it conclusively shows that you can have an impressive CV, advanced degrees, and best-selling books, and still be utterly stupid. This goes for all sides, who were equally terrible; though, I must say, while the opposing (pro-religion) side performed as I had expected, the supporting side was far more lacking in sanity and depth than I could ever have imagined (perhaps solely due to the train wreck that was the philosopher). I will say this for the latter: it is pretty impressive when you manage to come off as racist (or Eurocentric, to put it politely), standing next to the man who wrote a book claiming that president Obama is an angry, racist Kenyan.  (That man is Dinesh D'Souza, Fox News Superstar, and member of the opposing side in this debate.) I thought it odd that they would involve such a raving lunatic in the debate, but D'Souza, oddly enough, did not sound that rabid compared to the others. It probably says more about everyone else that it does D'Souza. And it really says something about the others, because I make this statement despite, I will admit, having a very passionate abhorrence of Dinesh D'Souza. He just makes me so ANGRY!

I found it interesting that, for the pro-religion side, there were only representatives of the Judeo-Christian tradition. There were no Muslims, no Hindus. All participants were men, all were middle-upper class, all were British or U.S. citizens. Thus, the perspectives on both sides were quite limited.

Before moving on to the debate itself, I have one more preliminary comment in the form of an elaboration on my statement that this is all nonsense. In light of my anthropological/deconstructive view of religion, the question itself does not make any sense. If religion is not a single entity with any sort of essence, and can thus not exist in any linear causal relationship with any other aspect of society, then it follows that religion cannot have any particular "effects."  It does not exist on one side of some mathematical equation that would allow one to isolate its positive and negative effects, in order to employ a cost-benefit analysis.  In children's terms: religion does not make people good, and it does not make people bad. Even in Marx's dialogical view, religion was shaped by people and their needs as much as it shaped them. More importantly, because the consruction of "religion"is so instrumental to the narrative of "modernity," and because the institutional elements associated with "religion" are part and parcel of large-scale institutional transformations that shaped the modern world, "religion" is both a creation and necessary component of modernity.  Questioning whether the world would be better off without religion is like asking if the world would be better off without the economy. It just does not make sense.

Now, to move on to the debate. I can think of no more pleasurable way of discussing it, than with a blow-by-blow commentary.

The participants:
Darwin Jr. (Matthew Chapman, Darwin's great-great-great-grandson, or something like that)
Philosopher (A.C. Grayling - what. a. moron.)
Rabbi (David Wolpe... a cute man, but lackluster debater)
Right-Wing Crazy (Dinesh D'Souza)

*Note: since everyone speaking with a British accent sounds alike, I often had trouble distinguishing between Darwin Jr. and Philosopher.

Philosopher: We are not here to argue the existence of God or whether it is rational to believe in God, but rather the sociological implications of religion as a man-made (hello, sexism!) social institution.
Andddd..... wrong. It does not take very long at all for this to turn into a discussion about rationality and belief. Just wait.
All religions have two things in common: monolithic ideology (if you don't subscribe to our views, you will be sanctioned); this is directly opposed to Enlightenment philosophy and the values of liberal democracy (pluralism, individual autonomy, liberty, democracy). 
So you're not going to share the second thing religions have in common?  Well you're a tease. But as to the first - monolithic ideology - I will say two things (and I, for one, will actually get to the second). First, it is not true that all religions have a monolithic ideology, in the terms outlined by Philosopher (forcing subscription to a single view via threat of sanction). Buddhism, of course, is a great example. But other religions contain sects within them that are more "open" or "tolerant" (whatever word you prefer) to different religions and points of view. There are a substantial number of religious people who do not try to impose sanctions on those who believe differently.  Therefore, that feature is not a necessary defining element of religion (of course, there are no necessary defining characteristics of religion).  Point two, all ideology is in some sense monolithic, and that is just how human society works. For example, I would ask, do certain nations not have to face sanctions from the UN and/or the U.S. for not following the principles of democracy which are imposed, with violent force, around the world? The argument made is that violence is sometimes necessary to spread the principles of democracy. This characteristic cannot be confined to religion. Now, as to the statement about "Enlightenment philosophy" and "the values of liberal democracy" (of which Philosopher tautologically lists "democracy" as one) I will have to set aside a post-colonial critique of these concepts, because it is a whole different, complicated discussion in itself. My post on the ideology of progress just scratches the surface. My only comment now will be that, the invocation of these values shows that Philosopher is residing in a fairly non-progressive domain of academia, and is apparently unaware of or unconcerned by many of the valid critiques about the inherent Eurocentrism and racism embedded in these views.
Also, everything good about religious morality is shared by non-religious ethical outlooks. Ancient Greek values were derived from reason and human experience. 
Right, right right.  But the question is not whether the world would be worse without religion, it is whether it would be better. The burden of proof is to demonstrate that the world would, in fact, be better, and therefore this argument is irrelevant.
Final point: what's wrong with "moderate religion"? Moderate religion means that people do cherry-picking, and that is hypocrisy.  At the other end are people who take their religion extremely seriously - "the extremists." They are the most honest, because they remain committed to tradition and stay closest to the texts. If that is real religion, honest religion, then the world is very much better without it. And if the world is better without the most true and honest form of the religion, why not put the hypocrites in with them too?
The concept of "tradition" is problematic because no human practice is static and understood in exactly the same way by all practitioners. Tradition is constantly interpreted and reinterpreted to fit the circumstances at hand. Who are you, Philosopher, to determine that there is one "correct" method of interpretation to apply to traditions and texts, and that anyone who interprets things differently is necessarily a "hypocrite" or dishonest? Who gave you the authority to determine what is "real" religion, and what is mere cherry-picking? However, I am most interested by your statement, "If that is real religion, honest religion, then the world is very much better without it." Isn't that the proposition you are supposed to be trying to defend? Up to this point, you have kind of been skirting around the issue. You gave one easily refutable argument at the beginning, but have been padding your opening statement with irrelevant musings ever since.  Now you simply repeat the very statement you are supposed to prove.  You can't just say "the world is very much better without it" - you have to give reasons why this is the case. A restatement of the proposition you are trying to defend does not constitute an argument. I hope you teach that in your philosophy courses.

Rabbi: The good deeds of religion do not make headlines. The largest aid organization in the world is a Christian organization. The difference between religious aid workers and others is they stay. If tomorrow you took religion out of the world, the world would be tremendously impoverished in terms of the way in which people who are in trouble get help. 
I don't know if it's because he reminds me of a Seinfeld character, but of all points made in this discussion, this is the hardest to counter based on the limitations imposed by the question itself. The part about staying is particularly important in the world of foreign aid, though this does get addressed by someone on the other team, who notes that proselytization plays a role in the length of stay. This is true, and, from my perspective, that is one big drawback of religious aid. But, sticking to the question at hand, one would have to determine whether conversion is a greater evil than poverty or starvation.  I know how Philosopher and Darwin Jr. might respond, but I am also willing to bet neither has experienced true poverty.  Additionally, there is the fact that, if we are talking specifically about Christian aid, the recipients (much of the Third World) are already Christian, and to a much greater degree than many people in the U.S. (in fact, they send their own missionaries to the United States) so that should be taken into account as well. Interestingly, Rabbi leaves out the role of religious organizations in impoverished urban areas within the United States. This is where the lack of diversity on both sides of the debate becomes significant. If you spend much time in white, middle-upper class suburban areas or college towns - particularly in spaces dominated by universities - you may be unaware of the importance of religious organizations in the lives of the urban poor. In fact, to go from the former to the latter is jarring. And I say this based on some personal experience. In urban areas, religious organizations often fill in the gaps that are left by the state's inadequate "social safety net," providing services and resources that are denied to these "dispensable" citizens. NOW, that being said, I return to my original sentiment that the question being debated is ridiculous, and point out that, in some hypothetical universe without religion, some other sort of institution might exist to fill in those gaps and provide those services (though I hesitate to say even that because the hypothetical is not meaningful). I would also like to point out that many of the "problems" that religion may or may not be solving were caused by capitalism, so maybe we should be arguing whether the world would be better off without capitalism.
Point 2: according to studies, religious Americans give more to charity, volunteer more, participate in civic processes more, attend more meetings, are more likely to vote (the Religious Right?), less likely to drink (are we excluding Irish Catholics?), divorce (are we excluding Anglicans?), do drugs, they're much more helpful in their communities.  If you want to measure altruism and empathy (I don't; I think that's a stupid idea), the best measure is not age, gender, income, education, it's whether you're involved in a religious community. Religion is a system that encourages goodness, which is why when a religious person does something wrong, people get particularly upset. Many people of all beliefs and no belief do good in this world, but religion is an organized system that makes people better and seeks to do good in the world. The world without it would be a poorer, sadder, crueler place.
I do not know how to respond to this point, except by saying that I don't buy into these studies. I think anyone's personal experience can contradict the claim that there is any correlation between personal habits (drinking, divorcing, voting) and religion. And any systematic attempts by religious groups to encourage voting have had deleterious consequences (the Religious Right, AIPAC, etc.) Also, I would argue that organized transmission of moral frameworks occur outside of religious contexts. But above all else, as I said before: religion does not make people bad and it does not make people good. The End.

Darwin Jr:  Religion makes two big claims: God really exists and religion makes us behave better. But does religion really make us behave better? (I don't think this is the question you are supposed to be answering...) To partially answer that question, I will quote a verse from the Bible that says something awful.  Quote, quote quote.  Far from making us behave better, religion often complicates and distorts morality. Everyone wants food, water, shelter, love, and for their children to grow up happy and in a peaceful world. Because of these common desires, war should be unthinkable. Religion, however, makes everyone an infidel to someone. 
So, point number one is, religion causes war. Without religion, there is no reason at all why wars might occur. I'll just let the absurdity of that argument sink in.  Actually, as a social construction, religion does not have the capacity to cause wars.  Usually religion is invoked as a justification for actions that have a political economic rationale.  See my post on the systemic nature of violence.
There are thousands of gods available and which one you believe in is an arbitrary result of birth. If my opponents were born in Afghanistan, they'd both be Muslim. (If I were not Darwin's great-great-grandson... oh wait.) How then do they know that their god exists and other gods don't or that their god is better than the other gods? Because they have been told by an authority figure, who said their god is supreme, he is invisible, we have no proof of his existence, but if you have faith, you will believe in him. They take the weakest point of the argument and make it a condition of entry so that you overlook it. This affects many aspects of life including the functioning of democracy and the understanding of science, both of which demand that you insist on evidence (which is why scientific journals are open to the general public so that they may examine the evidence themselves), question everything (even global warming?), and take nothing on faith from anyone.
I have already written at length about how the ideological descriptions of science and democracy bear little resemblance to real practices.  Thus, it is NOT true that science always insists on evidence for every assumption (in fact, many assumptions go undetected.. like, that testosterone must cause aggression, because that is how males are by nature), that the peer review process and accessibility of scientific documents allow for adequate scrutiny, and that people are encouraged, in the spirit of science, to not take on faith the claims of experts. In fact, particularly in the debate about global warming, we are told:  "It's science!  You have to believe it!"  I am not trying to argue against global warming here, of course, merely pointing out some hypocrisy, in which "science" and "experts" demand the same faith from the masses as religious authorities. Same goes for "democracy." The whole American electoral process was based on the presumption that the mass of the American public was too stupid to be fully entrusted with the power to vote without some oversight.
A lot of Americans don't believe in evolution. Creationists are ignorant but passionate. Faith over reason. Antipathy towards science slows the progress of stem cell research, harms women's health, and contributes to skepticism about global warming.
So, about global warming. If I'm not mistaken, isn't it corporations who push the skepticism about global warming, because they want to continue to pollute with impunity? But back to the main argument, which is, partially, that when you hinder science you harm the world (see post addressing this  claim). It also presupposes that religion is inherently and necessarily opposed to science. This cannot be the case because religion does not have a single essence, and I can think of plenty of counter-examples. But I would also like to address Darwin's comments about evolution. If we are doing simple cost-benefit math here, I would like to point out that on evolution's score card there is eugenics (some of Darwin Jr.'s relatives founded the eugenics movement in Europe), racism, and social Darwinism.  Ideas about evolution have had horrendous social consequences. This is a perfect example of why you can't construct such simple linear equations out of complex social phenomena (science only contributes good... is never used for evil; religion only makes people bad... ).
Religion claims to provide morality, but it is divisive, homophobic, it subjugates women, and it distorts morality.
Actually, that sounds like the beginning of a great riddle... What is divisive, homophobic, subjugates women, and distorts morality?  Answer:  capitalism!  Of course, religion is not inherently any of these things (because, for the fiftieth time, it has no essence). For example, at the last gay pride parade I attended, probably close to a third of the groups in the parade were religiously affiliated.

Right Wing Crazy: The crimes of religion are miniscule compared to the crimes of atheist regimes that are greater in magnitude and duration. Fewer people were killed during the Inquisition and the Salem witch trials than throughout the history of the Soviet Union, under Mao, Kim Jung Il, and Pol Pot. They killed millions of people. Dawkins says that unlike religious people who kill in the name of religion, these dictators did not kill in the name of atheism. However, looking at the works of Marx, you can see that the atheism is not incidental, it is intrinsic to the ideology.  Marx said that religion is the opium (a drug) of the people and said that you had to get rid of religion to free people from their shackles.
Sighhhh.  Right Wing Crazy, of course, commits the same fallacies as everyone else. Just as religion does not cause violence, it is equally ridiculous to say that atheism causes violence. Especially when you are talking about the kinds of genocide and political violence invoked by Right Wing Crazy, to simply hold atheism as the cause and ignore all the many factors that would have existed regardless of the dictators' religious affiliations, that is about as nutty as saying that war would be inconceivable without religion. Oh yeah, and Marx. That was my main objective in writing my previous post - to respond to this argument. Plus, I cannot express vehemently enough the fact that the actions of these dictators did not follow from the writings of Marx!
Usually when we think of secular society, we think of Europe; but Europe is not really secular. It is the product of centuries of Jewish and Christian civilization. I will throw in some pretentious literary quotes now. 
The concept of the "secular" is also a social construction, and quite a complex one at that. The idea of the "secular" and "secularism" as a movement was born in Europe. Europe is secular in the sense that the logic of secular doctrine (sanctity of the individual and private property, e.g.) structures much of civic and social life. However, Right Wing Crazy is correct that no one completely breaks from their past; and history structures the present. Though this does NOT mean that Europe is essentially Christian (in part, because, say it with me, nothing is in its essence religious). But really, I don't understand the relevance of this point at all. What difference does it make if Europe is secular or Judeo-Christian? Perhaps because Right Wing Crazy is associating all that is good in the world with the supremacy of European culture... and therefore he has to defend it as religious? I don't know, and I don't think I want to know.
When we get rid of religion, we license terrible calamities.
Terrible calamities are unavoidable, either way.

Moderator: Why would so many people embrace religion if it is destructive to them?


Philosopher: Religion is pervasive in history and it is handed down from parents to their children, so it is a potent force in society. But if you look at the trend in the developed and advanced and educated (and by "developed and advanced, and educated" I mean "white") countries in the world since the time of the Enlightenment, you see the numbers [of religious people] are plummeting, even here in the United States of America. The trends are setting in the right direction.
First, Philosopher is wrong in his assumption that things get passed on with any fidelity over time. He also ignores the many instances of "conversion" and abrupt change throughout history. He ignores "external" (horiztonal) influences and processes of diffusion. And he ignores the fact that there have been multiple "religions" and multiple histories (but he really seems to envision a singular history, in which all people past and all non-European people present form an undifferentiated "dawn of humanity" against which European (Western, white, European) people have majestically advanced to levels of near perfection.) The claim that religion is waning is a dubious one, despite whatever studies he wants to cite (of course, Philosopher is going to restrict his statistical attention to Western - or in his terms, advanced - countries because they are the only ones that matter when it comes to understanding global trends; they are, after all, on the cutting edge of cultural evolution). In all seriousness, though, this claim has been floating around in the sociology of religion for centuries, and the world today looks nothing like the many predictions that were made based on this assumption. Now it is more of a sociological/anthropological truism that this is not the case and only causes social scientists to misunderstand and miss out on a lot of what is brewing in the world right now.


Moderator: Pro-religion side, what of this point that religion gets kids early and then it's set? (oh whyyyy is this relevant?)


Right Wing Crazy: We also get kids early with habits like brushing their teeth, learning the mathematical tables.   
Seriously??? These were the best examples you were able to come up with? I mean, if it were me, I would have said that parents impress their political views on kids at an early age; they inculcate racial prejudice; they transmit gender norms; they ingrain the values of democracy and science before children learn to reason. That is why a lot of people don't critically think about what any of these latter things really mean in practice. It is a fact of social life that socialization occurs at a young age, and this involves all important cultural values and principles. But my task is to ridicule Right Wing Crazy, not to form his arguments for him.
We all learn our ethical values from our parents. Now a personal story about how I went to Darmouth and my beliefs were battered. Saying that we learned it from our parents misses the thrust of why billions of people continue to do it into old age. Religion delivers practical benefits. It gives us the hope of life after death. That is a practical benefit.
No. Clearly you do not know what a practical benefit is. A practical benefit of religion would be "It helps me get elected to public office because most Americans only vote for Christians."
Second, religion is a mode of transmission of morality. No one teaches their kids morality through Heidegger or Nietzsche.
Are there no better examples of secular morality? I shudder to think of what the world would be like if children were taught morality through Nietzsche. A world overrun by self-absorbed, oddly reactionary hipsters.... NOOOO!!
Darwin Jr.: People in other cultures become addicted to their religions. (I will leave alone the racist implications here) Even if you could remove all of the bad things about religion and keep all of the good things about religion, none of which can't be performed by people who don't believe in God, you end up with someone like Father Christmas. 
Well, I guess that would depend on what you define as the "good" parts and the "bad" parts.  (For some people, the hope of life after death is one of the "good" parts, and I don't know that Santa Claus provides that; in addition to the fact that his charity work is somewhat lacking... one night a year, one present?)  On the whole this is quite an arbitrary conclusion to come to.
Would you want to find out that the president of the United States was a devout believer in Father Christmas?
Well, if a lot of adults in America believed in Father Christmas, and everyone who had ever been president of the U.S. believed in Father Christmas, then I would not find it so shocking, no.


Rabbi: It's interesting that the side that is actually providing evidence of any kind is this side. The idea that religious people are only religious because of a psychological deficit while non-religious people have reasoned their way out, not only slights the idea that religious people are capable of thought, but also railroads you into condemning it without looking at all of the histories and ideas. Perhaps your argument is not as sound as you think it is.
The cute little rabbi is getting feisty!


Philosopher or Darwin Jr.: Most people who escape religion do it because they look at the facts. Children don't know what race and ethnicity they all are. We have to work very hard to divide them.
Okay. I am really having a lot of trouble figuring this out. How do the first two statements have anything to do with each other?  Is Indistinguishable British Accent implying that religion causes racism? Interestingly enough, science was actually at the forefront of the construction of the concept of "race." Religious doctrine may have helped, but it was also religious people who opposed slavery and racism at a time when scientists were still calculating how much smaller black skulls were. Which is only to say, once again, that you can't make such ridiculous attributions.


Right Wing Crazy: Darwin did not become an atheist because he discovered evolution; it wasn't facts. It was when his daughter died, he said that if there were a hell he would know a lot of people who were in it, and he could not bear that thought. You, Darwin Jr., talked in an interview about nuns who beat you and stuck their hands down your pants. In many cases we are not dealing with facts, but "wounded theism." Many times when we hear the word "atheism" we are dealing with people who are angry with God, or the representatives of God.
And Right Wing Crazy turns the tables on his opponents by using the psychological fallacy against them.  Fallacy nonetheless.  Oh, by the way, have you noticed that this has become a discussion of the rationality of belief now?  I think the momentum occurred somewhere around the time Santa Claus was mentioned.


Moderator: Darwin Jr., are you angry with God?


Darwin Jr.: How can you be angry with someone who doesn't exist? Darwin's atheism didn't come solely from the fact that his daughter died. It was a very slow process of seeing how the theory of evolution was in conflict with the Bible. 
It seems that Darwin Jr. does not know much of his own family history. Darwin never considered himself an atheist (more agnostic); and from what I've read/been told, it was not so much evolution which caused him to question his beliefs (religiously framed ideas of evolution had existed prior to Darwin, and Darwin himself thought it was great evidence of design), but more moral quandaries like the existence of suffering. Regardless, I don't think it is possible to isolate a single cause for Darwin's transformations in belief. And more importantly, why are we discussing this??
Let's give the religious people that at some point in history religion was helpful (oh you're so kind), but the texts upon which they are based are archaic, absurd, cruel, and open to interpretation.
No! I will not stand for texts that are open to interpretation!
There are better ways of conducting yourself in this life. I don't buy the idea that we've inherited it from Christianity because if you look at the evolutionary world, empathy, cooperation, compassion, clearly existed before God decided to intervene.
What was the question we were debating again?


Moderator: Rabbi, you are not a literalist, would you like to respond?


Rabbi: I am not a literalist. But what I find interesting is the leap that Darwin Jr. is making. He says that these texts have cruel things, there are better ways to behave. 
And the leap is.... where?
But we are not asking if the world would be better off if we rewrote the Bible, but would the world be better off without the influence religion has on religious people. To Philosopher: I disagree that people are fundamentally good. You've clearly never visited a playground. Children have to be socialized to good, and that is hard work, and that is what religious communities do.
And clearly, without religion, everyone would behave like children on a playground, all the time.  Actually.... that already happens. WITH religion.


Darwin Jr.: This is the viewpoint of a rabbi who does work in an affluent community in Los Angeles. Both of my opponents are sophisticated. The people who I've talked to in Pennsylvania who are creationists and fundamentalists ignore their sophistication. Most of the world is fundamentalist and takes a barbaric view of many of the texts.
Ouch! So, we've made brief passes at sexism, developed a passionate relationship with Eurocentrism (aka racism), and now we're starting to eye classism? Damn those unsophisticated white trash Pennsylvanians!


Moderator: If there were no religion what would be happening in Pennsylvania?


Darwin Jr.: The harm is enormous. Half of the growth in the American economy since WW2 has been from science and technology. This anti-scientism is gradually eroding America's ability to produce enterprising, educated citizens.
HA! HA! Yes, American economic growth had nothing to do with the construction of exploitative global relationships following European imperial decline, and the current economic contraction has nothing to do with the inherent contradictions of capitalism. Science could have brought us to such great heights, but religion ruins everything. Should I point out that Henry Ford and many other American entrepreneurs were devoutly religious? What I think this debate is really missing is a historian.


Moderator: Does religious thinking limit science?


Right Wing Crazy: If you were to make a list of the greatest scientists of all time, the majority were religious. 
True; except that "religious" would be an anachronism if you go back a couple hundred years.
We are indicting all of the world's religions based on the 1% minority of religious rednecks. (We are the 99%!!) Nothing could be more shameful than to imply that Athens and Jerusalem, that have shaped our economy, philosophy, checks and balances....


Philosopher: You are the most tremendous rewriter of history I have ever come across in my life. When Christianity became dominant in Europe (3rd-4th century AD), they found that their ethics were very thin and got their extra ethics from Greek philosophy. Most of European culture is deeply rooted in classical antiquity. Christianity was an oriental religion the erupted into Europe and derailed it for over a thousand years. People couldn't build a dome like before because they lost knowledge of simple engineering.  Religion did to the history of our culture exactly what Darwin Jr. says it's doing again.
Oh pot calling the "tremendous rewriter of history" black..  Where do I begin (and where should I END?)?  I find it interesting that Philosopher characterizes Christianity as an "oriental" eruption into Europe, implying: 1) Europe has always had distinct geographical, ethnic, cultural borders... The Roman Empire certainly never encompassed the "oriental" territory where Christianity was born); 2) Anything coming from outside those borders is necessarily disruptive to European progress; 3) Western Europe has a distinct essence (and I won't say it's superior to the "orient," but...) and 4) that essence contains absolutely no elements the originated outside of "Europe" however conceived.  The tryst with classism was fun, but you know it's racism who I truly love. Perhaps the most hilariously outrageous part of Philosopher's argument is his claim that religion singlehandedly diminished technical knowledge to the point that Europeans didn't even know how to construct a dome anymore. First, it is not even clear if he is talking about a contiguous population here, as the teleological history of European progress often weaves disparate groups of people into a single historical narrative. Of course, Philosopher seems to think the context of the barbarian migrations/invasions and the fall of the Roman Empire are insignificant to these developments (or, more aptly, regressions). And then there is that whole sticky business that many of the great "achievements" that Philosopher would laud occurred after the Christianization of Europe, but before its secularization. I think Philosopher is proving that if you are really passionate about a belief, you will say any number of absurd things to defend it.


Rabbi: Long before Christianity, Judaism enunciated all of the ideals you say did not come from Christianity. ...
Oh for the love of...

---Now I'm getting bored so I'll skip to the last interesting part-------


Audience question: How are the harms of religion different from those of nationalism and racism?


Philosopher or Darwin Jr.: I think the difference is that even the mistakes of the people who are acting out of nonreligious motives are mistakes based on reason, and most of the horrors of religion are mistakes based on superstitious fear and delusion.
Next time someone tells me I'm racist, I'll explain that my racism is based on reason.

No comments:

Post a Comment