h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

It is true that of the atrocities blamed on religion, many were perpetrated either for calculatedly non-religious reasons, or by plain psycopaths. It is also true that many atrocious crimes have been committed by the likes of Stalin, Pol Pot and Hitler.

It is worth noting, however, that even the secular nutcases had many followers who truly believed in them, and they certainly believed in themselves.

In the case of religiously associated barbarity, I suspect that the availability of a mass of faithful people (faith being defined as belief despite the lack of supporting evidence, or the presence of conflicting evidence) would make it much easier for a charismatic leader to gain and retain followers, even for purposes that end up being truly evil.
I also suspect that some religious heirarchies (like any other kind) can provide a path to power for people who can convincingly say the right words, whether or not they actually beleive what they're saying themselves.

I'm not sure how much blame can be laid at religion itself - there's clearly part of the human brain that makes people susceptible (to varying degree_ to easy explanations, whether in the world of politics, mainstream religion, or the various cults of nutters which pepper the globe.
What I *am* sure of is that whenever large groups of people start uncritically following anyone, whether the leader of a new Reich, or someone who claims to be speaking on behalf of God, there's probably trouble not too far away.

Critical thinking is the best defence against stupidity of any kind, either our own, or that of other people.

The class I attend at church has had an underlying theme of trying to figure out why people ditch the main principles of the Bible and concentrate on nitpicky details that can be interpreted in infinite ways. I've met many people who claim to be Christian but ignore any morals they have when conducting 'business'. It seems that many Christians try to justify their actions, forgetting that God looks at their motives instead. When a religeous leader is in a powerful position it is easy for them to motivate people to 'fix' something they perceive as a problem. Whether it's Torquemada (sp?) trying to convert Jews and 'heretics' (political opponents) by force or modern church leaders preaching the politics of division, it's all done against God's will but in his name.

"Critical thinking is the best defence against stupidity of any kind, either our own, or that of other people." - Exactly. Why do you believe what you believe? Is it because someone told you so? The Bible (or Koran) says so and it's a perfect book because God wrote it? The Bible may have been inspired by God, but it was written by man. It is the word of God transcribed by servants of God with imperfect ears. It is still a wonderful and powerful book, but it can be misinterpreted (I personally think if it were perfect it wouldn't be misinterpreted). You have to study why the Bible says what it does, who wrote which passages, and what their motivation was.

BTW, Monty Python's 'Life of Brian' is an excellent movie about religeon and how people interpret it differently.

Only one thing bothered me about this article: the "do unto others vs. masochism bit." His reasoning there is a little short-sighted.

Think of it instead this way; "Treat other people like human beings." Since most people's definition of "Human being" begins and ends with themselves, it amounts to the same thing. I don't, for instance, expect other people to like the things I like, but I do expect them to be considerate of my likes.

Interestingly, the actual rule here is "Love others.." not "Do unto..."

In order to have religion one first needs faith. Faith is fine in itself. Blind faith, on the other hand, seems to be the thing that starts all of the trouble. Blind faith is the thing which breeds the fanatic and the fanatic is an inherently dangerous person. The fanatic will go to any lengths if the name of God or the Church are involved...and they will damn well believe anything that they are told to do by someone draped in a robe.

Love others...as in Love your neighbor as thyself...was the original Leviticus version. However, it is my understanding that the Golden Rule as quoted in the entry is correct from the NT perspective. (Not being well versed in the NT, I could be wrong.)

There is the rule, as stated by Rabbi Hillel, and termed by some as "The Silver Rule" which defends partially against the masochist problem. What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor.

Confucius also is credited with a variation on the principle.

The book of St. Mathew, Ch. 22, verse 39: "And the second is like unto it. Though shalt love thy neighbor as thyself."

Doesn't get much more golden than that.

It should be noted that Confuscius's went something like "Do not do unto any man that which you would not willingly submit yourself to." Jesus's rule is both harder to follow and, if followed, more rewarding.

OK. I thought he had actually used different wording from Leviticus, but I guess if you're right he directly quoted it. OK.

Critical rationalism is the best defense against the beliefs and orthodoxies of fideism and fideist cults. One must also be on guard against the 'truths' and 'facts' offered by logical positivism, which is currently on the vanguard of Western scientific sophistry. An excellent read on this topic is Thomas Kuhn's book, 'the structure of scientific revolutions' by University of Chicago press. Critical rationalism, wherein all statements and observations are understood to be aspects of perceptual modelling, with relative meaning but without an independantly verifiable objective state, is probably the best cognitive approach to an understanding of life, the universe, and everything.

This piece got a bit chopped up in editing, but all I had intended to say was that while it is true that religion is often used to justify some atrocious things (no army has ever marched under the banner of 'satan' or 'evil') I would think that this destructive tendency of ours is something that most religious thinkers are rather against. religious thought is stultified by politics, and as soon as a large number of people find a common banner to unite under, politics becomes inevitable. I would contend that in the case of Christianity, for example, the original teachings tended to center around the concept of finding religious and spiritual purpose, of finding 'reconnection' with reality WITHIN ONESELF and not in a church... in short, it was an attempt to undermine the hierarchy and political stranglehold of organized religion in judaic culture. Probably one good reason why orthodox judaism doesn't recognize Christ at all. The irony of course is that once there were enough Christians out there with only a vague notion of what the message actually was, a new hierarchy easily fell into place to play upon the vague notions most people had of it. The gnostic sect was hunted down and annihilated. History repeats.

The only good religion is one that you made up yourself and practice yourself. Why should your search for meaning and purpose be defined by someone else's notion of what is real, meaningful, or true?

As for the bit about being nice to people... I think that's sort of a 'well, duh' idea and not at all radical. I would think that one's capacity for empathy has a great deal more to do with one's experiences (and perhaps genetics?) than with some two thousand-years dead messiah/teacher's wistful musings. People are capable of both the greatest grace and the greatest cruelties... finding a balance between the two in our lives is an ongoing struggle that is somewhat degraded by trite platitudes such as the golden rule.

I have mentioned elsewhere that the word 'God' actually is norse gutteral for the concept of 'loud noise in the sky'. I sometimes wish people would stop blaming the weather for having written books. I agree that the cult of Christ-worship in its present multitude of orthodox states is far removed from anything resembling Christianity in its arguably 'truer' form. Often the message is perverted beyond any semblance of meaning while the messenger is put on a pedestal instead.

There is no workable defense, except stupidity, against the impact of a new idea.

My favourite 'holy book' has always been the Tao de Chiang, even though I am not much of a Taoist. Well, most taoists are taoists the way most christians are christians, meaning they practice meaningless and degrading superstitions without any concept of what they are worshipping or why. Anyways if you are looking for wonderful and insightful books, there's one i'd recommend.

It seems to me that faith is a rather onerous burden we bear when we could do fine without it. I would offer hope as a useful alternative, for example. Hope is proactive... faith is reactive. We have faith when we have nothing else and despair. We have hope when we see potential for something desirable and intend to take action to achieve or attain it. Belief is a form of brain damage... we believe things when we want them to be 'true'. Critical rationalists, taoists, and even smart physicists know that truth is as slippery an eel as Schrodinger's Cat. Truth is a casualty of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. I would suggest moving beyond belief and faith to contemplation and proactive desire. Those are the tools from which a strong and meaningful religious experience of life can be attained.

I think you're getting a little too philosophical, not that that's a problem, it's just confusing. I think faith can be proactive, but yes, some people carry it too far. I have faith in my mechanical abilities, therefore I am attempting to replace the motor in my car without much outside help. I do not believe that if I drink poison God will prevent it from harming me if I have enough faith (reactive, and I know some people who believe this).

Forgot to proofread, that first example of me working on my car was supposed to be explained as proactive.