Originally posted by humy
Arr yes, but I am not the one claiming/implying that the evidence simplistically DOES clearly show a simple direct causal link between theism and crime.
My argument is with those that not only do claim this but claim/imply that atheism causes crime while theism prevents crime.
By response to that will always be [b]IF the evidence DOES clearly show a simp ...[text shortened]... S clearly show a simple direct causal link.
I hope I have made my cautious position clear here.[/b]
Yes I had already acknowledged your qualification by writing
"What would be reasonable of course is to refute an assertion that theist have not been violent."
In setting out statistical correlations between theism and violence, there is no particular reason to make reference to atheism and violence since that is not what you are commenting on, so the heated cries to this effect miss their mark and talk at cross purposes. Certainly, attempts to argue that atheists or materialists are inherently violent and anti-human rely on specious reasoning.
What is violent is the use of power to try and destroy religious adherence, but I see little distinction between the way communists have persecuted people with religious faith and the way, for example, Christians have persecuted people with different religious faiths. Maybe the height of absurdity was reached in the martyrdom of the protestant Bishop Cranmer for rejecting transubstantiation, which would be sad had he not sent so many people to the same stake for endorsing transubstantiation. Even Cranmer himself acknowledged that very few people even understood the argument but that did not prevent strong adherence to either camp, up to and including the acceptance of martyrdom.
At some point opinionated people on this forum would do well to recognise that people with violent aims will never have much difficulty in perverting any source, secular or religious, to their ends. [It would be useful if debaters could appreciate that so called Social Darwinism is not even similar to Darwinism. People have been breeding better dogs, cattle, horses and poultry since the dawn of civilisation if not before then. English lords in Scotland exercised their so called Droit du seigneur in the hope of impregnating the Scots with good English blood to help end what they perceived as their inherent defects. Wiklpiedia tracks this practice back to references in Herodotus.]
For example, it suits many people to insist that Islam is inherently violent and also inherently oppressive to women. After all, violent and oppressive groups rely heavily on appeals to Islam for their vile schemes. This rather discounts the overwhelming desire among Muslims in many lands for a more enlightened interpretation of their faith and it discounts the historical record, in which an enlightened pursuit of Science and secular philosophy as well as a record of tolerance and respect towards other religions features very strongly and in striking contrast to the Christian historical record. It all depends on which slice of history and social geography you wish to draw on to support your preconceived opinions. [Remember I write this as an atheist - not among the people tolerated in the Qu'ran since Islam was established in opposition to paganism, not in opposition to Christians, Jews or even Zoroastrians]
It is fascinating to appreciate the survival of the Jewish faith within Spain and Portugal despite the Inquisition's best efforts, or the survival of Orthodox Christianity in Russia despite Stalin's efforts. Whether The Inquisition or Stalin actually were the more systematic and violent is not easy to resolve - maybe the Inquisition achieved more. All the evidence is that, the more religious groups feel themselves to be under threat, the more stringently they adhere to the strict requirements of their respective faiths.
As we have seen - most notably in St Augustine of Hippo -, when Reason and Faith come into conflict, then Reason is jettisoned. It was no accident that the last great philosopher in Alexandria, Hypatia, was beaten and flayed by a Christian mob. The track record suggests that when it comes to tolerance, Atheism has no apologies to make to those of Faith. But the argument against violence and intolerance has always been a secular one and never religious (apart from Islam - sorry guys!). In the Renaissance, it was Humanism that emerged as the champion of individual freedon and respect for the common humanity of all. This did not entail any necessary rejection of religious faith. For example, the writings of Montaigne set out a whole system of tolerant humanism based on the Grek and Roman philosophers (who had of course been destroyed by the Church) but Montaigne maintained a very solid adherence to his Catholic fiath. He just did not find it relevant to his ethics [perhaps because, on investigation, the Bible has not got a lot to say that is of much help, but that's my opinion shared by many others including Christian theologians].
10 May '12 12:241 editYouTube&skipcontrinter=1
Rochdale grooming trial: Split views on race issue
Back to Top