@fmf saidWow, five upvotes over lunch. Impressive feat there!
With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil — that takes religion. ~ Steven Weinberg
Is there some truth in this?
---
So is the formula like this?:
Man does good thing. It's because he's good.
Bad man does bad thing. It's because he's bad.
Bad man becomes good. It's probably because he was good all along and he found himself.
Good man does bad things, and it's not because he was bad all along, and his own choices, but, it's suddenly because of an external force that made him bad.
Moreover, you could make this quote read like this and it would make just as much sense:
With or without politics, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -- that takes politics.
---
But, of course, this is still just conveniently turning off agency selectively.
12 Feb 19
@philokalia saidHe's just appealing to his base. Like someone else we know.
Wow, five upvotes over lunch. Impressive feat there!
---
A person's gotta know his audience. This is how one makes it look like he knows what he's talking about and gets some ego-stroking at the same time. Like someone else we know.
12 Feb 19
@philokaliaSo, yes there is some truth in it or no there is no truth in it?
You can replace "religion" with another ideology, if you want to, and look at it that way.
12 Feb 19
@suzianne saidWhat about the quote in the OP?
He's just appealing to his base. Like someone else we know.
A person's gotta know his audience. This is how one makes it look like he knows what he's talking about and gets some ego-stroking at the same time. Like someone else we know.
12 Feb 19
@FMF
It appears he made those remarks in relation to using religion to justify slavery but I'm not convinced that he has applied the same rigour to that pronouncement as he might to his particle physics. If there is such a thing as good and bad people rather than just people who can act either way, then there are all sorts of social narratives, not just religious ones, that can be used as justification for bad behaviour in otherwise good people.
12 Feb 19
@ragwort saidIt's certainly easy to pick it apart for being simplistic and generalizing.
@FMF
It appears he made those remarks in relation to using religion to justify slavery but I'm not convinced that he has applied the same rigour to that pronouncement as he might to his particle physics. If there is such a thing as good and bad people rather than just people who can act either way, then there are all sorts of social narratives, not just religious ones, that can be used as justification for bad behaviour in otherwise good people.
Aside from its application to slavery in Weinberg's mind [and intention], it might work with certain behaviours rooted in religious fervour ~ where the perpetrator sees himself as being devout and obedient.
A devout Muslim man, for instance, might ostensibly be a "good" man - in a range of ways - in terms of family responsibility, contribution to the community, with charitable acts etc. but he might also engage in domestic abuse or FMG and do so - or believe he is doing so - in accordance with his religion.
12 Feb 19
2 edits
@FMF
Agreed those things happen but is it any different to an Arsenal supporter who uses his football fervour to justify kicking the head in of a Liverpool supporter or a business man who uses capitalism to justify exploiting a workforce? Weinberg's statement is like someone who blames the church for child abuse because that's who they want to attack, whilst ignoring the fact that it occurs in secular youth organisations too -and that inadequate child protection measures exist in both.
Edits for grammar.
12 Feb 19
@ragwort saidI think the topic here is doctrine. There's no doctrinal obligation connected to being "an Arsenal supporter" that necessitates kicking anyone's head [in connection with club affiliation] and there's nothing about the doctrine underpinning "being a Christian" that necessitates either abusing a child or covering it up.
@FMF
Agreed those things happen but is it any different to an Arsenal supporter who uses his football fervour to kick the head in of a Liverpool supporter or a business man who uses capitalism to exploit a workforce? Weinberg's statement is like someone who blames the church for child abuse because that's what they want to attack, whilst ignoring the fact that it occurs in secular youth organisations too -and that inadequate child protection measures exist in both.
12 Feb 19
@FMF
I think the topic is really about the mechanics of group psychology and the ideas and beliefs that drive it. Calling it doctrine doesn't change anything. There is socialist doctrine, environmental doctrine, capitalist doctrine as well as religious doctrine. Weinberg brought his atheism front and centre into his pronouncement when his objection could have been applied to philosophies across the board.
12 Feb 19
@ragwort saidI think the topic is really about the mechanics of group psychology and the ideas and beliefs that drive it. Calling it doctrine doesn't change anything.
@FMF
I think the topic is really about the mechanics of group psychology and the ideas and beliefs that drive it. Calling it doctrine doesn't change anything. There is socialist doctrine, environmental doctrine, capitalist doctrine as well as religious doctrine. Weinberg brought his atheism front and centre into his pronouncement when his objection could have been applied to philosophies across the board.
I disagree. The word gets to the very heart of it. "The ideas and beliefs that drive" a group activity, if they are formulated as rules, then it is a doctrine. The topic is only about "the mechanics of group psychology" in so far as those "mechanics" have been turned into rules that a group member feels they must obey.
As I said earlier, one can replace "religion" with another ideology, if one wants to, and look at it that way, as long as it is ideology that has created obligations. I am not overly concerned with Weinberg's atheism.
There is domestic abuse the world over, for example, but domestic abuse perpetrated by people who believe that engaging in it is righteous and has divine blessing is a somewhat different kettle of fish from domestic abuse caused by alcohol abuse, mental health problems and violent misogyny ~ none of which are backed by doctrine, except, perhaps in a sense, if there is ideological opposition to passing laws to protect women.
12 Feb 19
@ragwort saidFMF: There's nothing about the doctrine underpinning "being a Christian" that necessitates either abusing a child or covering it up.
I didn't say there was. I hope you are not trying to strawman me.
Ragwort: I didn't say there was. I hope you are not trying to strawman me.
It's not a strawman, no. But, instead, it's me indicating that your analogy fails. Or that you are not catching my drift.