I loved your review of Useful Idiots! I own it and just haven't gotten around to reading it yet (along with about a zillion other books). I know what you mean about getting riled up after reading something like this. Ignorance can be blissful. Unfortunately, too many people in this country are spending a lot of time being "blissful" which is what explains too many of our election results. I would call myself a conservative with libertarian instincts also. The bigger government gets, the more bloated and inefficient it gets. As Ronald Reagan famously said, "What are the ten most dangerous words in the English language? I'm from the government and I'm here to help you."

posted by cranmergirl at 8:43 pm (EST) on Apr 26, 2008

If I may, let me give you my thoughts:

I think it’s probable that there is an entity or entities more powerful than we are, perhaps even such that he/she/it/they may be responsible for the fact of our existence or, in some way, the existence of the universe (or at least, one or a subset of them). I believe this based on certain observable facts about nature, such as the complexity of biological organisms—which I do not think can be accounted for strictly by naturalistic evolution. Though, I have a feeling you would disagree with me there.

It is, of course quite possible that he/she/it/they wouldn’t exactly be God or gods in the deepest metaphysical sense, but they perhaps would be gods in the “indistinguishable from”, Arthur C. Clarke-ish sort of sense. Your belief that such an entity a priori obviously wouldn’t care about us appears to me to have no rational grounding whatsoever, as would, by the way, the belief that it a priori would care for us. I have no idea how one would go about assessing the probability of whether they wouldn’t or would. Clearly, though, that would still leave us a long way from a Judeo-Christian God, which I believe must be justified on other grounds.

So, now that I think of it, perhaps Deism or Deism Plus is not so irrational. I was too hasty.

People are often motivated by group dynamics to do evil. But I would say they also are often motivated by group dynamics to do good. People are influenced by other people, and like to do things in groups. People are social and socially influenced. That’s clear. Why this should be particularly or exclusively applicable to religious belief, as opposed to, say, any other type of group belief, I don’t know. And I do not know why from a strictly logical point of view, a belief in absurdities, if that is really what they are, are any more likely to cause evil actions as they might be to cause good actions. I guess it sort of depends on what the particular absurdities are. (“Be really nice to people and you will go to Heaven,” would appear to be one of those (to you) absurdities that to me, at least, would appear to be pretty darn socially advantageous.) I think Christianity has on the whole been a very good thing, but even if you do not go that far, I think it’s pretty clear that human history is filled with great evil—much of it caused by mass movements and mass beliefs (some religious and some not)—and also great good--much of it caused by mass movements and mass beliefs (some religious and some not). So what?

I think the history of Christianity has largely been written by atheists or Protestants with an axe to grind. Thus, according to one of the most recent (and non-religious) studies by Henry Kamen, the Inquisition—that well worn example of Christianity gone bad—killed only about 3,000 people at its height in the first fifty years, fewer than were killed in a day under Stalin, or one might argue, fewer than have been killed by coercive euthanasia in the Netherlands in the last ten years, or fewer than the number of homosexuals killed by the Islamic government of Iran in the last twenty-five years, etc., etc. And the Inquisition was launched at a time when torture and execution were sort of the norm for the secular political powers.

But to leave out my favorite topics of Judeo-Christianity and Islam for a moment, I think that if you look at the history of other religions, they differ enormously in what history says as to how peaceful or violent they were, just as different political views have differed enormously. This is an empirical claim that has absolutely nothing to do, of course, with whether or not such religions were true. But to sort of lump them all together, even if you can cite some religions that have been pretty nasty, is simplistic, and I think contradicts what the actual historical evidence shows.

Oakes

posted by oakesspalding at 3:27 am (EST) on Apr 14, 2008

Hi - thought I should let you know that I tossed your name into this discussion.

Hoo boy! With all of the heated discussion over your tags, what do you suppose users are going to say when they start finding these weird strings in their titles?

posted by oregonobsessionz at 4:23 am (EST) on Feb 13, 2008

I see on the music in lit thread that you knew people in the early 80's Chicago scene. I grew up in the Minneapolis scene and got to know the Raygun guys and Albini a little bit. There was apparently a short Strike Under reunion recently at an after party to celebrate that new documentary on the Chicago scene that just came out. The Effigies, Raygun and Big Black were my favorites.

posted by motomama at 9:13 pm (EST) on Jan 17, 2008