Is religion a force for good in the world? The debate in Toronto, Canada on 26th of November 2010.
Tony Blair never spoke of his religion whilst he was Prime Minister of Britain, but converted to his wife’s faith (Roman Catholicism) shortly after he resigned and has been making a lot of money on the global speaking circuit ever since.
Christopher Hitchens is a world-famous atheist author and journalist who will need little introduction here. Despite his illness (his throat cancer has metastacised) he has not backed down from a debate or budged an inch on the issue of faith and religion.
I’ve left out Part 1 because it is nine minutes of rather wordy introduction from an unknown and doesn’t contribute to the debate.
Parts 3 to 9 can be found here.
Blaire? Was he that loud? :p
Hitchens is fantastic at debates, but from what I’ve read about this one his opponent seems to make little effort to stray from anything but the most familiar and tired arguments. Blair claims that we’ve seen a world without religion: Hitler’s Germany. Oh dear. On a related note, there’s that old saying about those who do not learn from history…
Watching the whole thing might give a different impression though, so thanks for the links.
Yes, he changed his name to Blare when he converted (Bleat was already taken.)
There is no ‘e’ in Blair.
C’mon guys! I thought we were better than this, lol.
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
Debating a Christian doesn’t really do much to make atheism a credible faith, anymore than beating up a little girl proves you are a badass.
I guess this is some kind of money making scam for Blair. Whole thing seems rather surreal to me. Not sure what to think of it.
1) Atheism is not a faith.
2) Christianity is no more or less credible than Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Scientology or any other faith. Do you think that an illiterate camel trader flew to heaven on a winged horse and was dictated a holy book?
No such thoughts, friend. I’m named after a character in a Melville book you probably never read, and I am not the religious type.
Atheism is a belief system, which involves determinations about things which a human being is incapable of understanding; whether you choose to refer to it as a faith or not is a semantic argument.
Anyway, it is funny to see Blair and Hitchens debating something. Thought they agreed about everything.
Nobody asked you where you got your name – I have to ask you why you thought you should bring it up, if some better reason than to presume people are too stupid to talk to you. Good luck with that.
You’re thinking my name was not why he accused me of being a Muslim? Because it happens a lot. Maybe it is just standard practice to automatically accuse anyone who doesn’t believe in Christianity or Atheism of being a Muslim?
I didn’t get that at all from his post, because I can read.
Yes, I was wanting to congratulate you on that.
Ishmael, I think you’re missing the point: I did not accuse you of anything – I asked you. There’s quite a big difference. Kodie saw it.
To be fair to Ishmael, the “camel trader” thing struck me as a pretty clear Muhammed reference.
I read the Melville book. It was anticlimactic.
Fair enough. More about prose than plot, admittedly.
He accused you of being Muslim? If anything he accused you of being Christian. as prefaced in his sentence. Christianity is no more or less credible than … The Myth he referenced was just an example of the absurdities you can find in various holy books. It would have been too wordy to mention the Volcano Bombing of Scientology, and other myths unique to each belief.
standard practice to automatically accuse anyone who doesn’t believe in Christianity or Atheism of being a Muslim?
But hey at least you get to play the victim card. Thats another direct hit on the “Talking Points”. Good job!
Why do you think being Muslim is worthy of an accusation? Even if Custador thought you were Muslim based on your name, he never accused you of anything.
Words have meaning, you know.
http://iwannadieinthepi.wordpress.com/2010/12/07/towards-a-brave-new-world-atheism-and-the-grand-design-of-the-posthuman-era/
Speaking of things you probably have never read:
I apologize for breaking the rules. Forgive me.
I don’t think the rules are too strict, mainly that you apologized, but it just seems really more polite to discuss the discussion here instead of being lazy and linking to your own blog post about similar subject and hoping we go over there to discuss it. It’s at least worth you giving some effort to post your thoughts here, and ok, mention that you have recently written a more expanded idea in a blog post over at your url, and maybe some people would check it out, but also free to quote you and argue what you’ve written here.
I mean, there’s a reason for these policies.
Threads too long for me to post below, but yes, I understand the policy. Easily can lead to spam, even if my link wasn’t intended as such, and I am sure you guys get regularly rushed by Christian fanatics, so I suppose I can understand the reasoning behind a more rigid posting policy.
Really, dude?
Baseless assertion, ass-pulling, pot meet kettle, hypocrite? If you’re not a theist, and you’re not an atheist, and you are some smarty pseudo-intellectual 3rd thing, I think we’ll call that 3rd thing: idiot. Totally.
I should also point out, as smart as you think you are about just about everything, your post is dated with tomorrow’s date.
I could see why you didn’t want to post your thoughts here, and it was probably for the best you violated the policies and posted the link.
I’m on Hong Kong time. It’s Tuesday morning here.
I would like to point out that your understanding of the Big Bang is not just simplistic, it is pretty much completely wrong. For example:
Actually, the Big Bang theory was not created to explain the presence of matter (in fact it doesn’t), but to explain the expansion of the universe among other facts.
It is not clear where matter comes from (though that is not to say there are no existing theories of its origin) or even what type of event the “Big Bang” really was (or if it was even an “event” at all). It is simply a point of reference for describing the age of the universe. It is generally assumed to be a singularity because if it is taken to be an event, it is the event at which time and space were zero. But it is not well understood.
Anecdotal? Really? Red shift measurements of the expansion of the universe are anecdotal? The detection of the cosmic background radiation was anecdotal? The telescopically observed opaque early universe is anecdotal? Einstein’s theory of General Relativity is anecdotal?
Either you are trolling or you are seriously misinformed about the current state of astronomy and cosmology. I recommend you read a book about it (in part so you understand, but also in part because these books are awesome) such as The Elegant Universe, A Brief History of Time, or Fabric of the Cosmos before making claims like this. Or at the very least learn a little bit from Wikipedia and the like.
Don’t assume we know nothing simply because you know nothing.
Read the Hawking book in high school. The key point of “big bang” theory regards astral bodies moving, and the accepted belief is that they are moving away from each other, though that is debatable. Assuming this is the case though, saying “astral bodies moving away from one another means they are still reacting to a giant explosion which created them” is like saying “I have a headache, so I must have fallen out of a tree”.
Read it again. That is not the only reason we know the Big Bang hypothesis is basically correct, and it is not debatable. It is not difficult (anymore) to measure the rate of the metric expansion of the universe. This is most commonly measured via red-shift. As light travels across space, it is slowly stretched by the metric expansion, and so the wavelength increases, thus shifting visible light closer to the red end of the visible spectrum (hence “red-shift”).
Again, this is not disputed.
No, it’s more like saying, “The universe is expanding, so it must have been smaller in the past.” Actually, that is what it is saying. Do not confuse the metric expansion of the universe with an explosion.
To be absolutely clear, it is space itself which is expanding. It isn’t just galaxies clusters flying away from each other due to their own momentum.
And again, this is not the only evidence we have of the Big Bang. If you actually cared about the truth, you would pay attention to the book you claim to have read where it outlines a variety of reasons we know it is true. But I think when that book was written, we didn’t even have the best evidence yet, which is the cosmic microwave background radiation, a relic of the early, small, hot, and opaque universe.
But don’t let facts slow you down, Ishmael.
More to the point, why would a Catholic priest propose the Big Bang as an alternative to God?
More like: we have the facts, we are looking for the explanation but we are not sure about it yet. Would you prefer to make up an explanation? Would you prefer us to say “It was just magic”? Or goddidit? I assume you have an alternative explanation or, according to your assertion, your “belief system” would be flawed.
Science is still looking for the answer to the origin of life and abyogenesis hipothesy seems pretty plausible, but we don’t know yet.
Naw it seems he just wants to label stuff, “things which a human being is incapable of understanding”. Pretty shortsighted if you ask me. The list is growing shorter everyday.
Furthermore its just silly. A no text post with a link to your website is just spam and sends a different sort of message than you may have intended.
Basically this is what you said to us, “Here’s a random link! Just click on it, I don’t care enough about my message to explain why I’m throwing this up, I just want some site hits.”
Hehe. No, my hit count is pretty good. Honestly I didn’t think about it, not so used to blogs with this kind of rigid system of commenting rules. Really, I didn’t mean to upset anyone. It explains my position, rather than going through this routine of “you must be a Muslim or or or something”. But yes, maybe that was inappropriate commenting behavior. Feel free to delete it.
rigid system of commenting rules
LOL
routine of “you must be a Muslim or or or something”.
The routine you started? Maybe if you put a little glue on the victim card it will stick better.
This guy is filling up my Bingo card at a rapid pace.
It’s rude to refer to someone in the third person while they are in the same comments section as you.
I’m named after a character in a Melville book you probably never read
Assume your audience is ignorant instead of more read than you, Nice!
Atheism is a belief system
Just like not collecting stamps is a hobby.
which involves determinations about things which a human being is incapable of understanding
Really? You’re going with “God of the Gaps”?
whether you choose to refer to it as a faith or not is a semantic argument.
Furious hand-waiving and false equivocation.
I am not the religious type.
You seem to be hitting all the major fundie talking points dead on.
As though you are reading from a script. Bravo.
Well, you basically hung a neon sign on yourself saying “I’m a knob.” If you thought you’d blow us away with your intellect, please do begin.
Well, I’ve been examining some Atheist blogs over the past couple days, and have been fascinated to find that the vast majority of the content of these blogs is simply attacks on religion. This is little included about the implications or application of Atheism itself.
That’s because there is no application of “atheism itself.” It’s an A- (dis-/un-/anti-) theism. The only thing is that we don’t have a belief system, we don’t believe in god(s)/supernatural/woo. Atheism would not exist if there were no religious beliefs to point out how silly/stupid/destructive they are. There is no reason to inflict this imaginary stuff on the rest of society. I have no idea what else you are talking about, and a sneaking suspicion neither do you.
Yes, that is fair enough.
However, it seems that you are making certain assumptions of the nature of things, as well as taking a position that has not really been considered very intently throughout the history of the human race. So I have to believe that this has implications on the lives of people who hold such a position beyond causing them to harbor the desire to make fun of Christians.
The key Atheist philosophers discuss some of this stuff, though not in great detail.
Anyway, I am not certain I see a point in the ridicule of Christians. They are like children. Don’t you think you’re hurting their feelings?
I read your blog post on your blog, and I have news for you – you’re an atheist. You just have some wild misconception what an atheist is that you deny being one because you’re not what you think an atheist is. You’re not some 3rd thing – you’re an atheist. Atheism is not a belief system. All those scientific thingies you’re apprehensive about being certain of – that’s just science. Whether you want to or not to do the research and be willing to feel partially certain about things we know a lot about (but not everything) is up to you. But if you don’t belief in god(s), you’re an atheist, and you say you don’t believe in god(s). You have somehow mushed up a lot of other stuff with your impression of an “atheist belief” in things you’re not sure about and don’t want to give the impression you are sure about them.
News flash: I’m an atheist, and I’m no science genius. I take science for what it is – the best information we have so far. Nobody “believes” in it, we all basically accept that this is what we are pretty sure we do know, so far and willing to accept changes based on evidence. You can choose to do that, or not, but you don’t believe in god – that’s all it means to be an atheist. There is really no use in over-analyzing what you think you’ve heard; you’re simply incorrect. You seemed surprised that all we “seem to do” is criticize religions. Religion being the assertion that god(s) is/are real and have/had an influence on our world (upon faith, no evidence), and the rejection of that is called atheism.
I should add for emphasis that anything beyond what I’ve described as atheism is somewhat particular to the individual. Like an atheist who skis, or an atheist who hates to cook, any of those characteristics you feel describe atheism are perhaps strong feelings arrived at through atheism or perhaps strong feelings at which atheism was arrived, or irrelevant to the rejection of religion. Strong attention to science tends to knock people when it contradicts their religion – and it provides evidence for things once thought to be caused by gods. It’s also fascinating. Philosophy, another handy one. We are not all the same, we don’t have some handbook though. It’s just one principle, as I’ve said – lack of belief in god. There is no system we all buy into and preach, not even science. Science is a very good friend to atheism, but it’s not the same thing.
Well, that is an interesting comment. I will have to think about it a bit.
I suppose not believing in some mythical creation out of mud does not restrict me from belief in some higher order of being beyond normal human perceptions, which is why I have never identified myself as an Atheist.
I personally believe that reality itself is much more complicated than people are generally ready to admit, and this could involve some sort of interwoven order of various levels of consciousness as is implied by the concept of the Tao, or something else that probably doesn’t fit into Atheism. But as I state in my blog, I have know way of knowing this, and certainly no way of proving it, so any conclusions I draw would have to have been based on personal experience, of which I do not yet have enough of to draw conclusions.
I appreciate you separating Atheism as a system of thought from scientific theory. That makes things a bit more dynamic.
If you are intent on creating some order of belief in a “higher” thing out of your own imagination – things you cannot know, but invent, then you are not an atheist. If you are going to lie about how atheists (as you perceive them) are prone to underestimating how complex reality is, you can still be an atheist, just not the mythical creature of one you’ve created. When I said I read your blog post, I hadn’t gotten to your real cream toward the end, where it comes up that science is just too complicated for you to understand.
It’s the best information we have so far. You also seem to – and this is the difficulty for posting your link and not posting your comments here for me to respond to; nobody knows what I’m talking about unless they look at themselves – have a hard time with the “sanctity of life” idea, in that it’s hard for you to feel that we are just animals and serve no purpose other than to ourselves, really. I mean, get over it. You may be a theist or deist, you lean toward wishful thinking and wanting stuff to be true so that it supports your other values, makes them more real and purposeful.
You have really made up a pile about what atheism is. You have, as Sunny Day, opened up with a laundry list of everything we have heard before – atheists’ lives are meaningless, immoral, depressing. – atheists are dogmatic, zealous, etc. If it seems so, we are merely responding in kind to the “push” of religion as if it were real in our society, that is all.
Inside your head are a lot of ideas that are not original, and you do have some sort of leaning toward something to believe in that’s not real, as if that is somehow more profound than science, because you have bought into a myth of atheism and you feel lost and empty, and you think because science doesn’t really have all the answers, you would call that “belief” in something that’s not real. It’s just the closest thing we have. Don’t make some other stuff up, that’s nonsense, and you seem to know that. But making up some higher power, that’s not maybe Christianity, but that doesn’t mean it’s not a religious belief/supernatural wishful thinking – that would make you a theist of some sort, not an atheist. Brings us back to Custador’s question whether you believe in that Muslim thing or recognize that it’s ridiculous. Billions of Christians think their horseshlt is true. No one’s accusing you of being a Muslim or a Christian – just that you’re not being completely honest. You are questioning faiths, I don’t know whether you are really an atheist or not – that’s something you have to decide if you are going to believe the “higher power” you made up makes more sense than science just because you’re afraid science doesn’t answer the questions you demand answers for, if that comforts you more than accepting reality, then you would not be an atheist in that situation. But you would not be a 3rd thing, you would be one of many thousands of invented religions/superstitions.
Why would you want to do that?
Well, Ishmael, if you see no point in the critique/ridicule of religion, then you probably shouldn’t visit atheist blogs. Oh, and capitalizing atheism doesn’t make it a religion or a system of belief.
Kodie, I am not interested in “belief”. Atheism is a system of belief. What I have is skepticism.
There are fundamental flaws with all of this. For instance, discussing the “origin” of the universe presupposes that it had a beginning. We have no reason to believe that, beyond some very shaky circumstantial evidence, but this is the way the human mind works: “My life had a beginning, my day had a beginning, my favorite TV show has a beginning, so the universe obviously must have one as well”.
We are also basing all these theories about the nature of the world on the premise that physical matter meets a very specific definition, which we take on nothing more than faith. It is quite within the realm of possibility that physical matter is something of a nature vastly different than that which Christians and Atheists both tend to agree on.
Kodie, I am not interested in “belief”. Atheism is a system of belief. What I have is skepticism.
There are fundamental flaws with all of this. For instance, discussing the “origin” of the universe presupposes that it had a beginning. We have no reason to believe that, beyond some very shaky circumstantial evidence, but this is the way the human mind works: “My life had a beginning, my day had a beginning, my favorite TV show has a beginning, so the universe obviously must have one as well”.
We are also basing all these theories about the nature of the world on the premise that physical matter meets a very specific definition, which we take on nothing more than faith. It is quite within the realm of possibility that physical matter is something of a nature vastly different than that which Christians and Atheists both tend to agree on.
My response to the Muslim question is the same as it was the first time, though it is strange you would ask that after reading the article.
There is a science you have probably never heard of, it’s called Astronomy. They aren’t sure about a lot of things but they mostly agree that there was kinda a beginning.
Ishmael, we may be living in the Matrix, but for everyday interaction it is useful to think that reality is, well, real (material)
There have been numerous models of the universe that don’t include a beginning; the most popular of these was the Steady State model, which was the main scientific consensus before the Big Bang gained popularity.
The switch didn’t happen because scientists suddenly decided that “hey, things have a beginning”, but because the Big Bang model better explains the observed evidence than the Steady State model.
If you’ve never had the faintest idea about (or interest in researching) the history of cosmology, why do you try to lecture on the subject? It’s really not very convincing.
While I hate to say it, you appear to be more like the second word of the title of the book that your name comes from. I always prefered Starbuck.
Hehe. Starbuck was rather religious, I believe.
Yes Starbuck was religious (Quaker?). And fictitious.
You’re named after a character from Moby Dick and you’re… Well, you’re being how you’re being. Ironic. Don’t play the “who’s better read game” with me, I can hold my own there.
Yes, that is the obvious joke. But I don’t think I’ve really been a dick. Other than linking to my own site. But I’ve apologized for that already. I mean, I know you guys don’t have a forgiveness doctrine, but give a guy a break.
I think someone is obsessed with chasing his white whale while being oblivious the consequences of his impact on those around him.
I apologize if I hurt your feelings.
Atheism is neither a belief nor a system. When atheists do form groups, quite often the only thing they have in common is a disinclination to be bullied by believers.
Perhaps that is the case, but surely you must acknowledge the similarities in approach between Christopher Hitchiens and some fanatical religious demagogue. He is pushing a system of thought regarding the fundamentally unexplainable mysteries of the universe, and he is doing it with evangelical fervor.
And doesn’t this guy’s status as a neo-conservative nutjob put you guys off a bit?
You proceed from a false assumption, “Ishmael.” You presume (rather foolishly, I might add) that atheists agree with other atheists on every point that said atheists might make. If you’ve spent any time on this blog or others, you would know that atheists disagree vehemently on many issues. And yes, many of us atheists disagree with Hitchens’ views regarding the Iraq War. And by the by, what makes Hitchens’ a “neo-conservative nutjob”?
Yes, Hitchens’ support for the Iraq War puts me off quite a bit. But since atheism is not a “belief system”, I can disagree with Hitchens on Iraq and still agree with on the other thing.
What Hitchens is “pushing” here is not “a system of thought regarding the fundamentally unexplainable mysteries of the universe”. He is positing that religion has observable detrimental effects in the real world.
…And let’s remember that the guy he is debating is Tony Blair. So even though Hitch lost some points with me for cheerleading the Iraq War, it is still cool to see that cheerleader smacking down one of the people who ordered the war in the first place.
It’s your kind of lack of awareness what you’re even talking about that strikes so well against your earlier remark that we haven’t read Moby Dick. Certain issues seem to have relation to atheistic beliefs but are not the same. There is no atheistic ideology, that doesn’t mean atheists can’t form opinions or be involved in other things. We are not all Christopher Hitchens – only Christopher Hitchens is. That doesn’t mean we can’t learn from him or think alike on certain things, or disagree with him about other things. The fact that one atheist might have an “off-putting” opinion on the Iraq War doesn’t mean he’s not an atheist or is the representative of everything a real atheist thinks or agrees with.
We don’t say – I don’t like that guy’s opinion on the Iraq War, plus he’s an atheist, therefore I don’t “believe” in atheism.
You have a suitcase full of ironic fallacies, considering how smart you think you are, how stupid and blind and prone to dogmatic beliefs you think atheists are. You think we are sheep following Christopher Hitchens blindly, or Dawkins, and haven’t thought things through for ourselves. The types of myths you pull from your backside sort of ruin atheism, mostly because people like yourself run from it – from all I could tell, you are an atheist. I’m not telling you this because I want to agree with everything you think or say, but because you do not believe in god or gods. People are demonizing atheists, troubling themselves to come up with an atheism on their own terms and not be some “hitchensian” like that’s so scary. Be yourself and be an atheist – there should be no conflict with that option.
Actually, I don’t see any similarity between Hitchens’ choice of science as a tool for exploring the unknown and an fanatic’s rant. You seem to equate fervor with preaching – understandable, but wrong. Fervor was invented by the first woman chasing a goat out of her garden, thereafter much imitated by Assyrians & c.
Ishmael…
So I checked out your blog and there are some serious problems with your assertions there.
First of all, you conflate methodological naturalism with philosophical naturalism. While it may be true that atheists such as Dawkins ascribe
to philosophical naturalism, science is not an endeavor that does.
Also, you state, “The fact that a magical man from the sky making people out of clay doesn’t make sense does not mean that there is sense in the equally bizarre concept of amino acids lining themselves up in some “primordial ooze” and somehow coming to life for no reason.”
The fact that you think that abiogenesis occurred for “no reason” means that you do not understand thermodynamics.
No offense, but the fact remains that people who have ascribed to philosophical naturalism do so for epistemological reasons often rooted in science’s methodological naturalism (although science has nothing to say about metaphysical issues as its realm is purely the physical) and people who have ascribed to “woo” do so based on??? Authority? (Illogical) Faith? (Illogical) What logical reason does anyone have to believe in one set of “holy” proclamations over another? They don’t, and this is what irritates non-believers.
For you to accuse non-believers of being as dogmatic as believers means that you don’t understand the root problem… that is that non-believers are tired of being told to believe something on faith when evidence is what we require. There is nothing “dogmatic” about expecting people to reasonably demonstrate their claims.
No, there is nothing inherently dogmatic about that, clearly. However, there is something inherently dogmatic about the approach of Richard Dawkins, which is the prevailing and widely accepted version of modern Atheism, and that was what I was discussing in the article, which is why I defined my terms.
What evidence do you have that Dawkins’ approach is the prevailing approach? Most of the skeptics I know in person are in academia, and they have approaches that aren’t dogmatic. Many of the people I “know” here on this blog also have rather reasonable ways of talking about their skepticism.
Also, I don’t find Dawkins to be dogmatic so much as outspoken. If God himself appeared to Dawkins, I think he would change his mind based on the EVIDENCE. That’s the point. EVIDENCE. We demand evidence from believers, but we never get it. What we get is drivel based on “holy” texts. We are tired of that. We are tired of presenting evidence that shows that we are factually correct about a number of things only to have the evidence ignored and the same stupid, vacuous non-arguments brought up over and over and over and over… it gets tiresome to deal with that level of ignorance. Dawkins expresses his disdain for people who refuse to deal in facts. I can sympathize.
As an agnostic, I’m not committed to philosophical naturalism as a metaphysical position because I simply don’t know whether it is the “true” position or not. However, philosophical naturalism is the only position that there is solid evidence for until some metaphysical evidence comes to light, and so it is the only logical framework from which to work. Again, this is not a dogmatic approach as I would happily change my position in light of EVIDENCE. So far no religious person has given any.
Ishmael,
It seems to me that you’re confusing “evangelizing” with “dogmatic.” The word “dogmatic” has a very specific meaning, and while I am personally a bit put off by the “evangelical fervor” of Hitchens and the like (as well as plenty of people/groups of faith), the word “dogmatic” doesn’t seem to apply him.
Ah, now I get it. You think atheists should be seen, but not heard. Or perhaps not seen, either. Dawkins and Hitchens are both usually excruciatingly polite, even when the people they debate are not.
By the way, while there is nothing wrong with the intro, if you want to go straight to the debate, Hitchens starts his opening statement at about 4:58.
Excellent, thanks for posting this.
Very welcome, BR.
I wish someone would have asked Tony my question. I know it wasn’t a debate about whether religion is real, just ‘is it beneficial?’.
I would love to ask Mr . Blair:
If a particular faith is conclusively show to be both A. untrue, and B. beneficial to the well being of a society, what becomes more important Truth or Well Being?
If you respond, I’m not terribly interested in discussing whether truth makes a society more or less happy (I believe it makes people more happy in the long run, and more miserable in the short term), but just my question as a hypothetical reality.
Revy.. people on the forum have been saying you’ve got a great YouTube channel. We talked about it on “Shameless Self Promotion”. Perhaps you could provide links?
Don’t do it man, it’s a trap. These people get really mad when you post links to your own site.
“Really mad”? How many more lies are you going to tell?
Posting links to the FORUM is not a trap and is not against the rules. And Revy is a long time poster here. We know him.
We don’t know you.
The rise of civilization couldn’t have taken place without the implementation of organized systems religion, so if one is a proponent of civilization, then it is difficult to argue that religion has not been beneficial.
I personally think civilization was a totally stupid idea.
I don’t agree with your statement, that – essentially – religions are necessary for civilisations to develop. Just think how much further we would have been if free-thinking scientists and philosophers hadn’t been held back for dozens (if not hundreds) of years by religious resistance.
If you think civilization is so stupid, why are you partaking in it’s goodness? The internet is a byproduct of civilization, as is the food you eat every day unless you grow it all yourself. Electricity, running water, police, fire protection, buildings, transportation, money, shops… all byproducts of civilization.
It is what it is. I’ve spent a lot of time in the jungles of Southeast Asia, and certainly wish I was born in such a situation. But the fact remains that I was born into this, and it is very difficult to completely escape it.
Nonetheless, the history of civilization is nothing more or less than a history of a ruling elite dominating and enslaving the entire planet. It is a difficult thing to defend.
Anyway, if you are fond of civilization, how on earth can you be against religion? Religion is at the very core of civilization, and without it, there is absolutely no way all of this could have taken place. That is basic, mainstream history.
No, what is “basic, mainstream history” is that many civilizations developed without anything like what we would traditionally call a “religion,” including some of the most powerful ones in history such as ancient China. When you say “history,” you really mean “Western history,” which only reflects the ethnocentricity you lament.
History is indeed full of all kinds of brutal acts, but I like to believe we have the power to improve things, and to some extent already have. I have no doubt that we have a very long way to go, but I prefer attempting progress to giving up and returning to the stone age.
And I have no idea why you think Southeast Asia is “uncivilized” or why you think its wealth distribution is fair. I promise you this is not the case, even in Communist Vietnam.
The rise of civilization couldn’t have taken place without the implementation of organized systems PHILOSOPHY, so if one is a proponent of civilization, then it is difficult to argue that PHILOSOPHY has not been beneficial.
There, fixed that for you.
BTW, plenty of Eastern cultures have philosophies that aren’t religions per se and that have led to the organization of society. Confucianism is one such philosophy.
Technically, it isn’t even clear that philosophies are required for civilization for their utility. They certainly seem to necessarily spring up, but that doesn’t mean that they are required, just inevitable.
I was thinking about moral philosophies and the making of laws. I know that laws aren’t necessarily morals per se and that immoral things aren’t necessarily illegal, but there does seem to be some philosophy involved in law making.
Religion has metaphysical commitments that often have no bearing on real world actions. It is interesting to me that Plato wrote the Republic based on his eidos of the Good/Just, then turned around and wrote the Laws in an attempt to have some kind of more practical way of dealing with government.
:D
Yeah, you are probably right. I feel like a state with no central principles or philosophy whatsoever would be pretty hard to sustain.
So I definitely agree with you.
But I don’t know that for sure :).
Trying to turn this into an argument over semantics is unproductive.
The rise of civilization could not have taken place without forcing certain assumptions about the nature of reality and the role of human beings within this reality on primitive peoples. In every instance I am aware of, conquered people’s were forced to accept a specific doctrine relating to metaphysics. You simply cannot conquer and dominate a people with swords alone, you have to break them down psychologically, and religion is how this is always done.
Don’t you guys usually argue that religion was mainly used as a form of social control? Thought that was one of the points we agreed upon.
You keep bringing up this word, “semantics.” Are you unaware of the linguistic turn in philosophy?
Yes, semantics matters. It has mattered since Plato began his elenchus (dialectic) process to determine meanings/definitions of terms in discussing philosophical matters. It matters now especially in light of post-structuralist claims about how language functions in epistemology.
Precise language usage affects the clarity of an argument.
Well if you buy into post-structuralism, it means a lot more than that. (I don’t really, though.)
Anyway, to answer Ishmael, ancient Rome is a fair example of an empire that did not force metaphysical beliefs on its subjects. Of course, it depends on the time period, and there certainly was bloodshed over the issue of religion more than once. But throughout most of its history, people who did not believe in their Gods were not treated harshly or disparaged, which is probably more than you can say about non-Christians in America even now.
This was true even to a greater extent in ancient Athens.
But as I pointed out above, China is a truly great example. They conquered a hell of a lot of territory, but the empire never forced metaphysical beliefs on its subjects, perhaps with the exception of the Mandate of Heaven (though even this is time-dependent).
And hell, I’m not a history guy. There are probably lots of better examples. But I’m not going to just buy your baseless assertion that every people forced everybody into religious beliefs. And if it is true that they did, fuck that, that was wrong. And it’s changing.
Well, the “Mandate of Heaven” was the Chinese version of absolute monarchy, so really it was about the power of the emperor more than forcing people to accept a particular deity.
The rise of civilization couldn’t have taken place without the implementation of organized systems religion,
We don’t know your statement is true. What we do know is that religions were integral to the development of some civilizations. There are important distinctions between my statement and yours (and LRA already got you on this, I see).
This is just wrong. This did not happen as a part of the rise of “some civilizations”. It happened in every single instance. Along with agriculture, economics and social hierarchy, specialization of labor and written language, organized religion is a fundamental characteristic necessary for the development of a civilization. No one argues about this.
You can talk about hypotheticals, “maybe it could have happened differently”, but the fact is, it never, ever did.
You are clearly wrong, and it annoys me that you keep acting like you are right in the face of actual evidence, with no evidence of your own, and in disagreement with everybody else here.
What even is the point you are trying to make anyway?
I argue, too. Correlation does not imply causation. Thanksgiving day does not cause the hurricane season to end. Moreover, your claim is not falsifiable.
“organized religion is a fundamental characteristic necessary for the development of a civilization”
Perhaps if you provided a link to a reputable source or a citation for this claim it would be helpful. I just don’t get the “necessity” claim you are making there. How is it “necessary”?
Heads of House will accompany students back to their dormitories, staff will kindly accompany me to the dungeon….
HP FTW..
TROLL! TROLL IN THE DUNGEON!
.
.
.
.
Thought you oughta know.
Of course, that makes me think of Boromir’s somewhat sarcastic, “They have a cave troll.” in the Fellowship of the Rings movie.
That’s my girlfriend’s favorite line in the movie. Perfectly delivered, she says. I’m inclined to agree.
Gonna get all Gimli on his ass very shortly…
BINGO!
Who told Blair that seven is a biblical number? Its a freaking number…
The number seven carried symbolic significance in some parts of the Bible. There were many such numbers at various different times in various different cultures (off the top of my head, 1, 3, 6, 7, 9, 12, 13, 40, 44, 60, 70, 666), so some of that made its way into the Bible.
The Quran has a special number too, now. 19. There’s ton of shit on Youtube.
What an awesome thread, totally not what I expected. I went to the debate in Toronto and I was hoping to get some opinions on the actual debate here instead I got something equally interesting if not more.
On the debate: I though Blare (Blair… whatever)’s arguments were weak. He’s always started with : “Yes, I agree with you that religion has brought lots bad in this world but” And then he would give obvious examples of good being done by Christians in the world and the point was always “there are some people that are inspired by religion to do good” Which I don’t entirely disagree with. However, people get inspired by many other things then religion to do good, humanism is one. However, if you’re debating your point I’d think you’d want to drive your point a bit more forcefully. I found his speeches to be very political in manner. As for Hitchens, I found him a bit frail (to be expected) which is probably one of the reasons why he didn’t come across as “evangelical” as he usually does.
He did bring up a great point though (as he often does). Poverty, you want to start eliminating it, start giving women control over how they reproduce, let them work, let them have a say. Most religions oppress women. Us evil women always out to get the men, we so bad!
Can someone name me religions other then Taoism that does not oppress women?
Also on the whole debate with Ishmael, One thing I was hoping someone would say was that he was confusing atheism (which as stated quite clearly is not a system of beliefs but quite simply the fact that said person doesn’t believe in a god/gods) with how one may see the world as a whole and how one may chose to live his/her life. I for one cannot describe my world view entirely by simply stating that I am atheist. I am a weak atheist-humanist who subscribes to the philosophical idea of materialism and I also have a penchant for determinism. And even then I’m not entirely defined by those ideas.
Ishmael should do a little more research of the types of atheists that there are (implicit, explicit strong, weak…ect…) and then research the tenets of different ways of life that are secular. While he is at it he might want to look up secularism too.
Disclaimer: I’m sorry if this is Ad nauseam, irrelevant and/or poorly worded. My mother tongue isn’t English, it is sometimes hard for me to express myself and use the wrong expressions or words in wrong context. Sorry about that.
it, start giving women control over how they reproduce, let them work, let them have a say. Most religions oppress women. Uss evil women always out to get the men, we so bad!
Can someone name me religions other then Taoism that does not oppress women?
OK post fail..dunno how the last part got in there. Post should have ended with “Sorry about that”
While I agree with your basic point, these “types” are arbitrary and subjective. You can take two people with identical opinions on the non-existence of gods, and one will happily label themselves as a strong atheist, while the other would be offended by that label and insist that they’re an agnostic. Personally, I label myself as an agnostic atheist, but (while they make sense to me) I don’t expect anyone to agree with my definitions. Until such definitions become widely agreed upon, it’s more useful to say that I’ll believe in gods when they give me a reason to, describing my belief, rather than categorizing it.
I agree with describing yourself rather than categorizing it. While categories can be useful, it just reminds me of the way Christianity is divided into sects, and I don’t know how useful those sect labels are in describing what someone believes as filtered through their individual church. If someone says they’re a Christian, I know that doesn’t tell me much about their beliefs except in the salvation of Jesus Christ, and I wouldn’t “attack” someone for being Christian because I just don’t know what their personal beliefs are yet. If they want to refine that with the available labels, that will be a start.
In that same way, I call myself an atheist. By no means does that describe everything about me, but I think it’s not helpful for people to think there’s such a thing as a “True Atheist” like people tend to call themselves a “True Christian” and everyone else is not. Adding information to that helps someone understand you better and knows that not all atheists are the same or that there’s such a thing as a “True Atheist.” I think where Ishmael gets stuck is thinking there’s such a thing and he doesn’t buy that whole package, so he must be something else; or that a few prominent atheists present the image we’d all like to present and that is how the world sees atheists, and he is not one of “those” so he must be something else.
Atheism, just like the totality of Christians have one single idea in common, is about the one thing we have in common. It doesn’t mean you’re vocal or a scientist, or in lock-step with a whole method of ideas or ideals. Those are other things about some atheists in addition to their atheism.
Another analogy would be homosexuals – they are attracted to the same sex. Any other qualities they have (i.e. some of them do and some of them don’t fit a stereotype) is up to the individual to further describe, and they also categorize themselves, but not fitting a stereotype or describing yourself by a label doesn’t mean you’re not still attracted to the same sex.
Where I said “in addition to” in the end of the 3rd paragraph, I’d like to add “related to” one’s atheism. It’s not like these subjects aren’t inter-related.