Nick Soapdish
Secret Agent
A while ago Deut started a thread Anti-Humanism and the Enabling Power of Religious Dogma
In this thread he basically asserted that "theology ... enables the sweeping and brutal dismissal of humanity on the basis of virtually nothing".
I have been thinking about this topic and I wonder if it is not an issue specific to theism vs humanism, but rather one of idealism vs. realism. I believe you can make the point that societies which are highly idealistic can be more easily motivated to war than ones that are not.
For example, if we look at countries that have been aggressors in the past, Germany and Japan have historically been very idealistic countries (as compared to say France or China, which tend to be more realist). The US in particular has a fairly violent history (for better and for worse) and the notion that "freedom is worth dying for" is an example of the idealism commonly found in the US.
However, I also believe it is a misrepresentation to limit the subject to violence. I believe idealism has the ability to inspire a person to do a number of things that disagree with their natural inclination in order to uphold his or her ideology. In a sense this gives a person a source of strength and courage. If a person risks their own livelihood in the "brutal dismissal of humanity", then I see it as a tragic outcome of this strength and courage. In my observation, the vast majority of efforts guided by religious idealism are focused on altruistic causes, not destructive ones.
Deut also asserted that those who are guided by religious idealism were not as answerable to society (forgive me, I am paraphrasing). This is often not a bad thing, as society has a tendency to be corrupt. For example, Albert Einstein had this to say about the church:
Being a lover of freedom when the Nazi revolution came, I looked to the universities to defend it, knowing that they'd always boasted of their devotion to the cause of truth. But, no, the universities were immediately silenced. Then I looked to the great editors of newspapers whose flaming editorials in days gone by had proclaimed their love of freedom. But they, like the universities, were silenced in a few short weeks. Only the church stood squarely in the path of Hitlers campaign for suppressing the truth. I never had any special interest in the church before but now I feel a great affection and admiration for it because the church alone has had the courage and persistence to stand for intellectual and moral freedom. I am forced to confess that what I once despised I know praise unreservedly.
Clearly in this case, the church was not as answerable to society as the newspaper editors or the universities were, just as Deut claimed.
In this thread he basically asserted that "theology ... enables the sweeping and brutal dismissal of humanity on the basis of virtually nothing".
I have been thinking about this topic and I wonder if it is not an issue specific to theism vs humanism, but rather one of idealism vs. realism. I believe you can make the point that societies which are highly idealistic can be more easily motivated to war than ones that are not.
For example, if we look at countries that have been aggressors in the past, Germany and Japan have historically been very idealistic countries (as compared to say France or China, which tend to be more realist). The US in particular has a fairly violent history (for better and for worse) and the notion that "freedom is worth dying for" is an example of the idealism commonly found in the US.
However, I also believe it is a misrepresentation to limit the subject to violence. I believe idealism has the ability to inspire a person to do a number of things that disagree with their natural inclination in order to uphold his or her ideology. In a sense this gives a person a source of strength and courage. If a person risks their own livelihood in the "brutal dismissal of humanity", then I see it as a tragic outcome of this strength and courage. In my observation, the vast majority of efforts guided by religious idealism are focused on altruistic causes, not destructive ones.
Deut also asserted that those who are guided by religious idealism were not as answerable to society (forgive me, I am paraphrasing). This is often not a bad thing, as society has a tendency to be corrupt. For example, Albert Einstein had this to say about the church:
Being a lover of freedom when the Nazi revolution came, I looked to the universities to defend it, knowing that they'd always boasted of their devotion to the cause of truth. But, no, the universities were immediately silenced. Then I looked to the great editors of newspapers whose flaming editorials in days gone by had proclaimed their love of freedom. But they, like the universities, were silenced in a few short weeks. Only the church stood squarely in the path of Hitlers campaign for suppressing the truth. I never had any special interest in the church before but now I feel a great affection and admiration for it because the church alone has had the courage and persistence to stand for intellectual and moral freedom. I am forced to confess that what I once despised I know praise unreservedly.
Clearly in this case, the church was not as answerable to society as the newspaper editors or the universities were, just as Deut claimed.
