The iron rod of religion 27 Dec 2007 Benazir Bhutto has been assassinated, probably by Islamist extremists. While no saint, she clearly stood for democratisation in Pakistan, and all hell is likely to break out there now. Today, I saw The Golden Compass, after reading the book a couple of days ago. It, too, portrayed religious absolutism (and I can well understand that the Catholic Church might object, although it was clearly not the Church of our “parallel” universe being depicted). Again, women were not permitted power, despite the role played by the ironically named Mrs Coulter. The only freedom of thought permitted was in the colleges, and that is under attack by the Authorities in the film. Religion is a word that comes from the Latin religare, which means “to bind”. There are those who take a benign view of this: religion binds those who are adherents. But the dark side of the iron rod of religion is not too deep below even this liberal view; it takes but a moment for religion to try to bind all under a single authority and rule. And this is the best argument for secular society. Let no religion, no matter how numerous its adherents, even in a society that is almost entirely of one faith, control the thoughts and behaviours of all. The only and historically universal alternative is that a Magisterium will arise to tell us what to do. And once that happens, no dissent will be permitted. People who are of good minds and hearts who are religious try to play up the benign aspect of religion, and it is well they do this, for the malign side is all too easy to manifest itself. I do not go so far as Sam Harris or Christopher Hitchens and deny religion all legitimacy, but nobody who is sane and reads history can ever deny that religion, if permitted, will make an absolutist society. Bhutto was one year older than I am. This should not have happened, but religion made it happen. And while morons like Mitt Romney claim that without religion freedom is impossible, the plain fact is that with religion, freedom is unlikely. Religion
Creationism and Intelligent Design The problem of foreknowledge 28 Jun 2010 So, following on from my previous post on theism and science, let’s consider another aspect of the problem: foreknowledge. How could God know what would occur if the universe is fundamentally, by which we mean at the quantum mechanical level, indeterminate? We know from chaos theory (and chaos is determinate,… Read More
Biology On gods and religion 14 Oct 2009 I have just had a very pleasant meeting of the minds with Justin Barrett here in Oxford, who gave me some of his time. We agreed on a lot, and this has set me thinking that I should document some of the claims I intend to make in my research,… Read More
Chocosophy Xocolatl and the creation of the universe 28 Aug 201224 Nov 2022 Once upon a time, the great god Xocolatl was bored. The party was over, there was a mess in the divine mansion, and nothing was left besides savory snacks and stale beer. Now Xocolatl was a cool god, but he hated being bored and having to clean up after his hosts, so… Read More
rahul: “…with religion, freedom is unlikely.” Would you be so kind as to explain that in a few words, please. Thanks. Wilkins already did. Read the paragraphs leading up to that.
vanderluen wrote: “Perhaps I missed all those thousand of incidents over the past 20 or so years.” Check out the Lord’s Resistance Army: http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si/2007/Jan/piomboJan07.asp http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord's_Resistance_Army I will now wait for the True Scotsman to show up.
I don’t see that religion is all about organizing people. Civil law is all about organizing people. Religion is about raising human above their inherited animal instincts and if it fails to do so, it’s absolutely useless.
I don’t see that religion is all about organizing people. Civil law is all about organizing people. Religion is about raising human above their inherited animal instincts and if it fails to do so, it’s absolutely useless.
“Mass Psychology of Fascism” by Wilhelm Reich maybe? I still think it’s important to differentiate between what religion is all about and what it ends up doing instead.
“…with religion, freedom is unlikely.” Would you be so kind as to explain that in a few words, please. Thanks.
The world makes a big mistake all the time. Poverty, unemployment, lack of hope, power and control. Negativity of ego, greed and pride gets a platform to stand on in the name of religion. It has happened to them all. The word religion is about being closer to God but that’s not so easy.
“Religion made it happen.” Really, it is my impression that a very specific religion with very specific goals and creeds and actions and policies made it happen. Surprising that one with a scientific bent should conflate the particular with the general. I don’t seem to recall the Christians of late roaming around the world killing, maiming, beheading, and blowing up men, women and children in the name of God. Perhaps I missed all those thousand of incidents over the past 20 or so years. A list would be handy. And one for the Buddhists too while you’re at it. If or when the city you live in is blown up, I think I’m safe in saying that the Christians and Buddhists will have had nothing to do with.
“…with religion, freedom is unlikely.” Would you be so kind as to explain that in a few words, please. It all depends on your definition of “freedom”. Some speak of “religious freedom”. What is that? Freedom to believe what you want, or “freedom” to impose your belief and moral systems on others? And to use any means necessary? Unfortunately, your freedom ends where my pain begins. A “religion” is all about organizing people, and in that respect it is similar to a (worldwide) political party or lobby – with substantial power to effect change. But the normal dynamics of give and take in opposing political parties are mostly absent in religion – it’s mandate, or assertion of “truth”, is absolute. If people kept to themselves, and held there own private beliefs about the nature of reality, religion would have no potency, and would not intersect with political freedom. But that’s not what religions are about, are they? “Not my will, but thine. Onward Christian soldiers…”
I don’t see that religion is all about organizing people. Then why do they go to church, or form political action groups, or apply for government funds, or become involved in politics in general? Why not just stay at home and pray? ————– “Onward Christian soldiers, marching as to war, with the cross of Jesus, going on before.” ————– “Not my will but thine.” (If the Lord is your shephard, what does that make you? Baaaaah…)
While I am in agreement with the sentiments of this post, I would be rather less inclined to jump to the conclusion that Islamic extremists are responsible for Bhutto’s death.
What did you think of the fil, John? I thought it flattened out the complexities of the book. I am about to join Exeter college as a reseacrh member, Pullman’s alma mater, and the college which is the model for Jordan in the book. It was also where the college scenes were filmed. As long as the magisterium doesn’t stop me…
Uh, religion made it happen? Musharraf is a religious demagogue? While it may have been just another suicide bomber, Bhutto was apparently shot by someone, and the outcome of this whole affair is very favorable for Musharraf. Now he’s lost a vocal opponent and he has an excuse to cancel elections.
Stephen, I realise that it might not be Islamists who assassinated Bhutto, but it is likely. She has been the target of extremists Muslims before. Whether or not Musharef or his allies were involved is another story. I do not know the politics of Pakistan well, but I would not be surprised if “the enemy of my enemy” principle is in play here. It’s central Asia, after all. Neil, the film struck me as the highlights of a three-film series; it was too episodic and bitsy. They didn’t do nearly as good a job at exposition of the plot as Jackson did for Lord of the Rings, and they seem to have dampened down the book’s anti-clericalism, making the Magisterium a kind of fascist conspiracy instead of a Church, but enough of that shone through anyway. Congrats on the Exeter College position. The visuals, however, were spot on.
it takes but a moment for religion to try to bind all under a single authority and rule. On religion to bind them all in the darkness of Mordor… don’t seem to recall the Christians of late roaming around the world killing, maiming, beheading, and blowing up men, women and children in the name of God. Christianity has been somewhat neutered by secular society. If Christianity gets the reigns again, it will demand submission no less than Islam….
Could it be that the person who blew himself up was different than the people who targeted her? Afterall, how can a person riding a bike among thousands target two accurate shots?
Could it be that the person who blew himself up was different than the people who targeted her? Afterall, how can a person riding a bike among thousands target two accurate shots?
Could it be that the person who blew himself up was different than the people who targeted her? Afterall, how can a person riding a bike among thousands target two accurate shots?
stelios wrote: I don’t see that religion is all about organizing people. Civil law is all about organizing people. Religion is about raising human above their inherited animal instincts and if it fails to do so, it’s absolutely useless. Religion is about all sorts of things, like any cultural construct. It’s about social control, it’s about creating an identifying mythos, it’s about tribal identification, and, most importantly, it’s about power. Humans are animals. Whatever instincts we have still dominate us. Our social tribalism, like that of our close relatives, often makes our cultures incredibly xenophobic, and I do have to agree with Dawkins that monotheism seems to be among the very worst at this. Polytheistic religions are much more malleable, much more willing to adopt local supernaturalism into the greater mythos. Monotheistic faiths have, thus far, shown themselves much more intolerant. I think the root of the George W. Bush doctrine of “If you’re not with us you’re against us” is the ultimate expression of that xenophobic myopic monomania. One could debate for a long time how Christendom managed to come out of the horrors of such conflicts as the Reformation and the Thirty Years War and promulgate an entirely new idea of individualism and liberty. I suspect a good part of it, as with all things, was fundamentally economic, that Europe, being wealthier by the Enlightenment, was able to free itself political alliance between the Church and the Princes. In contrast, Islamic nations, even those were incredible amounts of wealth are being pumped out of the ground, are notable for a small wealthy elite ruling over a large, poor underclass. This has created an enormous amount of dissatisfaction, but in many Islamic cultures, the only apparent pressure relief valve for that dissatisfaction is Islamist teachings. Al Qaeda may be lead by a doctor and the scion of a wealthy Saudi house, but it is young men, raised in poverty and a politically stunted environment, that make up its ground soldiers. If there has been a revolution of the mind like that which occurred during the Enlightenment in Europe, it is a religious fundamentalist revolution which pretty much explicitly rejects democracy, liberty and individualism. Bhutto, despite all her shortcomings, represented to the Islamists the very antithesis of their world view. Certainly her pro-Western supporters didn’t help, but ultimately her assassination is yet another Islamist declaration of war on the very idea of a democratic Muslim state. Pakistan has its own peculiar problems and history. I agree with those who think that it should never have existed to begin with. The Partition of India is a tragedy that seems never to end, the fracture of that vast multi-religious multi-ethnic subcontinent is a disaster that just keeps playing out more than half a century after it happened. Whether it was Islamic Fundamentalists or Musharif seems to matter little, because what it enforces is what Pakistan has been for almost all of its short, violent history; an artificial state balancing on a fulcrum between the army on one hand and Islamic Fundamentalism on the other. The West concentrates its fears on Iran, a state where it seems clear a growing percentage of the populace no longer wants to live under a restrictive theocratic state, because of its nuclear program, when all the while Pakistan slides towards anarchy, and it has real live nuclear weapons. Quite frankly, I think the assassination of Benazir Bhutto is infinitely more frightening than the mad ramblings of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
I will now wait for the True Scotsman to show up. He’ll have had his tea, then. Like Stephen, I wouldn’t be so hasty to conclude that it was religious extremists. Political assassinations have happened before in Pakistan, including of Ms. Bhutto’s estranged brother whilst she was prime minister (there was a programme on the ABC before Christmas about Benazir Bhutto). Both the Pakistani and American governments gain by blaming it on Islamic extremists, whether they did it or not. I’m waiting for the smoke to clear before coming to any conclusions. Bob
I will now wait for the True Scotsman to show up. He’ll have had his tea, then. Like Stephen, I wouldn’t be so hasty to conclude that it was religious extremists. Political assassinations have happened before in Pakistan, including of Ms. Bhutto’s estranged brother whilst she was prime minister (there was a programme on the ABC before Christmas about Benazir Bhutto). Both the Pakistani and American governments gain by blaming it on Islamic extremists, whether they did it or not. I’m waiting for the smoke to clear before coming to any conclusions. Bob
I will now wait for the True Scotsman to show up. He’ll have had his tea, then. Like Stephen, I wouldn’t be so hasty to conclude that it was religious extremists. Political assassinations have happened before in Pakistan, including of Ms. Bhutto’s estranged brother whilst she was prime minister (there was a programme on the ABC before Christmas about Benazir Bhutto). Both the Pakistani and American governments gain by blaming it on Islamic extremists, whether they did it or not. I’m waiting for the smoke to clear before coming to any conclusions. Bob
I will now wait for the True Scotsman to show up. He’ll have had his tea, then. Like Stephen, I wouldn’t be so hasty to conclude that it was religious extremists. Political assassinations have happened before in Pakistan, including of Ms. Bhutto’s estranged brother whilst she was prime minister (there was a programme on the ABC before Christmas about Benazir Bhutto). Both the Pakistani and American governments gain by blaming it on Islamic extremists, whether they did it or not. I’m waiting for the smoke to clear before coming to any conclusions. Bob
I wouldn’t limit it on religion, but on every ideology. Under “ideology” I mean a system of (mostly unspoken and unaware) core assumptions which may be not challenged or discussed under any circumstances. So we can add not only atrocities based on religion, but communism and nazism, too. All have in common that people who are not part of the belief system are considered at least less worthy and at worst an abomination punished with torture and death. But I agree that religion is a particular problematic case because in the evolution of the belief system several severe problems and contradictions were included (e.g. Trinity dogma against the Arians, the omipotent good god together with theodicy against gnosticism). Anyone who is willing to accept the dogmas without thinking are prone to swallow further inconsistencies readily. But I go even further and think that even such positively judged belief systems as naturalism, scientism and “human rights” as ideology are dangerous. Even more so if the adherents are utterly convinced to be ultimately rational (which no human being on earth is). So let no ideology, no matter how numerous its adherents, control the thoughts and behaviours of all. Amen.
I wouldn’t limit it on religion, but on every ideology. Under “ideology” I mean a system of (mostly unspoken and unaware) core assumptions which may be not challenged or discussed under any circumstances. So we can add not only atrocities based on religion, but communism and nazism, too. All have in common that people who are not part of the belief system are considered at least less worthy and at worst an abomination punished with torture and death. But I agree that religion is a particular problematic case because in the evolution of the belief system several severe problems and contradictions were included (e.g. Trinity dogma against the Arians, the omipotent good god together with theodicy against gnosticism). Anyone who is willing to accept the dogmas without thinking are prone to swallow further inconsistencies readily. But I go even further and think that even such positively judged belief systems as naturalism, scientism and “human rights” as ideology are dangerous. Even more so if the adherents are utterly convinced to be ultimately rational (which no human being on earth is). So let no ideology, no matter how numerous its adherents, control the thoughts and behaviours of all. Amen.
Bob O’H: I was not talking about the Bhutto Assasination, I was talking about Christian terrorist organizations like the Lord’s Resistance Army in Africa. I was expecting vanderluen to come back saying that these aren’t *real* Christians, hence the True Scotsman reference.
Just briefly, ideologies support causes of war and are useful for stirring up the troops. What John is referring to is the idea that religion has the capacity to imprint a godly imperative on people’s need to repress other people. At least that is how I understand it. Monotheistic religions, especially have a claim to what Hector Avalos refers to as a “scarce resource” of a single truth and sole access to the Real God. Even if the religions in opposition claim access to the same God, the reason that they are separate religions is because they claim exclusive access to the same God. So, you have religions in conflict by their very nature. Bhutto was not religious enough for the group that killed her. She had business ties with and an education in the United States, which these people equate with infidelity to their God. She was a woman with a realistic chance of regaining her political position as leader of her country. Their religion could not allow such a thing. Some of you are blind to the negative powers that religion has and Christianity is not exempt from taking advantage of it. Your local baptist minister may seem like a nice enough guy and probably has no intention to blow himself up in a Jewish cafe, but he is probably itching for the Apocalypse so he can take up arms in defense of Jesus. Cause your minister has the truth, doesn’t he?
Where are you from…after Aristotle (4 century B.C)…Jesus from Nazareth (-6/30-33 C.E), St.thoams AQuinas….A.Einstein,…A.TARSKI+K.GODEL (truth@proof)…Fides et Ratio of John Paul II? Are still at the stage of ape on a tree? In Judeo-Christinity the main command is: to listen only God (Lk 10:27;Deut 6:5) what in practical English means just:”Do not kiss the ass of Boss” (Lk4:7)or public opinion (democratic voting…if 51%of voters)idiots have power to legislate sth…obvious?) There is an introductory textbook to use rightly words such as religion, truth, law, God, etc: Fr. J.M.Bochenski OP ,Philosophy: an Introduction, Dordrecht 1963;only 60 pages Plato dreamed on Perfect Society; in reading such Junk of “Experts” like Wilkinson it is necessary to use Force (Army+Police) to lock citizens in Library until they learn St.Aristotle@company) or a bullet in the head (UN resolution from 1863 by University of Paris)
Well Al Qaeda seem to have claimed responsibility. Then again Al Qaeda or people claiming to be franchises (Al Queda this and that) claim every bombing against pro democracy politicians and/or western targets. It appears that Ms Bhutto stood up to wave at supporters from her vehicle, so an opportunist suicide bomber?
Well Al Qaeda seem to have claimed responsibility. Then again Al Qaeda or people claiming to be franchises (Al Queda this and that) claim every bombing against pro democracy politicians and/or western targets. It appears that Ms Bhutto stood up to wave at supporters from her vehicle, so an opportunist suicide bomber?
Well Al Qaeda seem to have claimed responsibility. Then again Al Qaeda or people claiming to be franchises (Al Queda this and that) claim every bombing against pro democracy politicians and/or western targets. It appears that Ms Bhutto stood up to wave at supporters from her vehicle, so an opportunist suicide bomber?
Well Al Qaeda seem to have claimed responsibility. Then again Al Qaeda or people claiming to be franchises (Al Queda this and that) claim every bombing against pro democracy politicians and/or western targets. It appears that Ms Bhutto stood up to wave at supporters from her vehicle, so an opportunist suicide bomber?