Most everyone desires to raise their families in peace.

[Rival]

The major religions have certainly been a force for social justice in particular contexts, as they have also been a force for oppression and violence in other contexts. I think it's extremely difficult to try to draw some overarching theme of what the consequences of all monotheism (or any religion of sufficient size) has been.

Yes, this is true - but also many social justice movements have been put forward by monotheists. I'm not saying this as a sweeping statement that it has always been a universal force for good, nothing ever has or ever can be, but that it has by and large been a movement for social justice - whether that social justice is your brand or otherwise.

I would say that is an extremely inaccurate, or incomplete, portrait of the history involved. Monotheism did not invent the notion of all people being equals - my understanding is that the animism of many indigenous cultures, for example, reinforced a quite egalitarian, democratic ethic in many places. Monotheism, on the other hand, has frequently reinforced rigid hierarchy (e.g. between the priestly and lay classes of society, between sexes, etc.). The divine right of kings, for example, was a concept that enabled monotheistic rulers to claim de facto divine status and the authority to speak on behalf of the One True God. We see this concept all the way back in the Torah, which elevated Moses' status to the literal spokesperson for Yahweh. That power dynamic is extremely ripe for exploitation and has produced much oppression.

Yes, but the difference is in the inherent human worth.

In polytheistic societies one's moral worth was tied up with one's social status. This is especially true in Plato's Politeia, where he actually advocates lying to people about themselves to keep everyone in their socially defined status. The man is morally worth more than the woman; he is greater in human worth and dignity by virtue of his being a man.

Monotheism, on the other hand, does not get rid of hierarchy, but what it does is makes each human morally equal in that they are all responsible to the same transcendent power. The King may have had a Divine Right (although this is a fundamentally Christian idea), he was still morally equal in his fundamental status as a human being to other human beings (whether this played out politically is another matter, but this is the theological belief).

When you say everyone is beholden to the same standard, the same transcendent power, they become more as brothers in the system where, albeit there is a hierarchy, as souls, as humans, they are the same. This was one of the main driving factors behind the rapid spread of Christianity through Greece and Rome, because the idea that 'all are made in G-d's image' and 'all are one in Jesus' was such a novel concept to the folks in those societies that it was revolutionary.

 

[Quiddity]

What was the meaning?

That in order to gauge things about a group/religion, you need to understand how they operate, what they actually believe, etc. If you don't get this right then there is no way to know if the actions reflect the religion.

What response? I replied to Ken's claim by pointing out that if it were true we'd see some solid evidence for it. But we don't.

You keep throwing out the "e" word like it's something that is akin to what is used in science.

Whatevs...

This will likely be in the form of a study and I personally wouldn't elevate that evidence we find in science. I guess we differ.

But really, people experience both out in the world. They experience a nice atheist and a mean religious person. Nothing new......but, the comparison is folly since we're talking about a small minority of people.

 

[Rival]

I would say that is an extremely inaccurate, or incomplete, portrait of the history involved. Monotheism did not invent the notion of all people being equals - my understanding is that the animism of many indigenous cultures, for example, reinforced a quite egalitarian, democratic ethic in many places.

I actually think that you raise an interesting point here and that it's more tied to hunter-gathers vs. agricultural groups. HG groups, regardless of any other factors, do tend to be by and large very equal societies. Animism etc. tend to be the main religious themes within such groups.

 

[Quiddity]

I would say that is an extremely inaccurate, or incomplete, portrait of the history involved. Monotheism did not invent the notion of all people being equals - my understanding is that the animism of many indigenous cultures, for example, reinforced a quite egalitarian, democratic ethic in many places. Monotheism, on the other hand, has frequently reinforced rigid hierarchy (e.g. between the priestly and lay classes of society, between sexes, etc.). The divine right of kings, for example, was a concept that enabled monotheistic rulers to claim de facto divine status and the authority to speak on behalf of the One True God. We see this concept all the way back in the Torah, which elevated Moses' status to the literal spokesperson for Yahweh. That power dynamic is extremely ripe for exploitation and has produced much oppression.

This was only true on a small scale. The dynamic completely changes once you get into a larger society. They had no problem cannibalizing the small populations around them.

 

[Left Coast]

Yes, this is true - but also many social justice movements have been put forward by monotheists. I'm not saying this as a sweeping statement that it has always been a universal force for good, nothing ever has or ever can be, but that it has by and large been a movement for social justice - whether that social justice is your brand or otherwise.

I see a fairly complicated mix of good and evil, if we want to put it in those terms, coming from monotheism. Some very lovely ideas, and some truly horrible ones.

Yes, but the difference is in the inherent human worth.

In polytheistic societies one's moral worth was tied up with one's social status. This is especially true in Plato's Politeia, where he actually advocates lying to people about themselves to keep everyone in their socially defined status. The man is morally worth more than the woman; he is greater in human worth and dignity by virtue of his being a man.

Monotheism, on the other hand, does not get rid of hierarchy, but what it does is makes each human morally equal in that they are all responsible to the same transcendent power. The King may have had a Divine Right (although this is a fundamentally Christian idea), he was still morally equal in his fundamental status as a human being to other human beings (whether this played out politically is another matter, but this is the theological belief).

The problem here is that at the end of the day, we have to get out of our heads and the abstraction of our ideals and actually look out in the world at what happens. And what has actually happened in Abrahamic societies is that despite lofty rhetoric about the inherent worth of all people, in the end they have been just as violent and oppressive, both as individuals and in terms of societial structure, as anyone else. The Bible literally endorses slavery. You can claim masters and slaves are "morally equal," but that is a functionally meaningless idea while one remains the property of the other.

When you say everyone is beholden to the same standard, the same transcendent power, they become more as brothers in the system where, albeit there is a hierarchy, as souls, as humans, they are the same. This was one of the main driving factors behind the rapid spread of Christianity through Greece and Rome, because the idea that 'all are made in G-d's image' and 'all are one in Jesus' was such a novel concept to the folks in those societies that it was revolutionary.

Indeed there are anti-hierarchical or counter-cultural themes present in early Christianity, and that seems to have been one reason it was popular among slaves, women, and so on. Unfortunately, as soon as Christianity gained political power, it became just as authoritarian as any pagan regime.

This is, again, why my argument here is that we need to look at what actually happens on the ground when people adopt these ideas, not simply the ideas themselves in abstract. Communism sounds amazing considered in a vacuum. Yet we all understand that communism actually applied on a broad scale has led to much less ideal outcomes.

 

[Left Coast]

That in order to gauge things about a group/religion, you need to understand how they operate, what they actually believe, etc. If you don't get this right then there is no way to know if the actions reflect the religion.

This sounds like a convenient way of claiming that the reason we don't see the results you'd expect if Ken's idea is correct is because people are not True Believers.

Unfortunately that dog don't hunt.

You keep throwing out the "e" word like it's something that is akin to what is used in science.

Whatevs...

This will likely be in the form of a study and I personally wouldn't elevate that evidence we find in science. I guess we differ.

But really, people experience both out in the world. They experience a nice atheist and a mean religious person. Nothing new......but, the comparison is folly since we're talking about a small minority of people.

What evidence would you suggest we examine to determine if Ken's idea is accurate? At some point we have to stop discussing abstractions and actually look out in the world with our eyes and ears and examine what's happening.

And that is the issue with Ken's idea. It doesn't bear out when we actually examine what happens in the world. As you mentioned, there are nice atheists and mean atheists, there are nice theists and mean theists. Theism in and of itself does not lead to people being better people. To claim such is simply baseless.

 

[Left Coast]

This was only true on a small scale. The dynamic completely changes once you get into a larger society. They had no problem cannibalizing the small populations around them.

By "they," you mean polytheists?

Monotheists have also "cannibalized" smaller populations around them. Indeed, they have not infrequently believed they had divine authority to do so.

 

[Quiddity]

This sounds like a convenient way of claiming that the reason we don't see the results you'd expect if Ken's idea is correct is because people are not True Believers.

Or the desperate attempt to attach something that isn't there. I mean, it's not difficult to see that acts done by a myriad of Catholics or any religious figure for that matter, do not necessarily align with its tenets. It's typically when you get into wars or other more nuanced atrocities where it gets harder to see, but nonetheless, it either does, or it doesn't. It's far more convenient to lump it all together because the alternative is too daunting to unpack and very few qualified (theist and nontheist alike) do an adequate job at it.

Note that I retain neither interest nor motivation in disabusing the regurgitating and in vogue objections in this particular area. Short of you reading about the numerous horrors and understanding its origins as it relates to the particular faith, you will likely continue the in vogue thing.

There is no evidence, so you can sleep well at night that you may be onto something.

Or.....no evidence just means it hasn't been done. A stretch......I know.

 

[Quiddity]

By "they," you mean polytheists?

Monotheists have also "cannibalized" smaller populations around them. Indeed, they have not infrequently believed they had divine authority to do so.

By "they", I meant precisely what you referenced......indigenous animist.

As to the "also" comment, I don't see the expansion of monotheism the same but understand why you see it that way.

 

[Left Coast]

Or the desperate attempt to attach something that isn't there. I mean, it's not difficult to see that acts done by a myriad of Catholics or any religious figure for that matter, do not necessarily align with its tenets.

Actually it's significantly more difficult than you'd think. Particularly the wider out your lens goes - if we want to zoom out to something as generic as "monotheism," there is virtually no consensus among y'all about virtually any ethical question under the sun. Monotheists have defended slavery and opposed it, have defended genocide and opposed it, have defended the death penalty and opposed it, have defended abortion and opposed it, have defended monarchy and opposed it....on, and on, and on. Even within particular faith traditions, like Catholicism, there is often vehement disagreement between people in the faith on whether particular behaviors or ideas "align with the tenets" of the faith.

This, again, illustrates the silliness of a claim as vague as that a belief in a monotheistic "God" somehow gives someone some ethical advantage in life. There is just no evidence for such a thing.

Note that I retain neither interest nor motivation in disabusing the regurgitating and in vogue objections in this particular area. Short of you reading about the numerous horrors and understanding its origins as it relates to the particular faith, you will likely continue the in vogue thing.

There is no evidence, so you can sleep well at night that you may be onto something.

Or.....no evidence just means it hasn't been done. A stretch......I know.

Your condescension here, I must say, is palpable.

If you don't want to talk...then don't. Just don't reply to this. Problem solved.

However, if you have no evidence for something, you're absolutely right that may be because it "hasn't been done." But until someone "does it," you have no rational basis for the belief. The time to believe things is when we have evidence for them, not merely because they might be true but we just don't know yet.

So again, if you want to produce some evidence for Ken's/your claim, I'm all ears. Until then, if you continue asserting it without evidence I'm going to continue noting that's what you're doing.

 

[capumetu]

Because a lot of people don't have families they are responsible for. That applies to almost all the young men that get involved in terrorism for example.

Likely that would be a contributing factor, I gather then you are saying they are motivated politically to incite violence.

 

[Heyo]

Why can that not be?

Because peace is not a thing of the majority. Just one ******* can ruin it for everyone.

 

[exchemist]

Likely that would be a contributing factor, I gather then you are saying they are motivated politically to incite violence.

That is one example. But I suppose one can also have people that choose to fight because they think it is the only way to preserve their families.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think because without God it becomes generally impossible.

When you are raised in a culture of "It is normal to have another woman when you are married" and you have no God in your life to say "It is a violation of covenant", it is hard to raise a family in peace.

That same principle can be applied in dozens of other areas that can rob peace in a family.

No God help, by and large, no peace.

I say generally because there are exceptions where a family may have no God but there is enough God around them to still have peace in the family. As Ambassadors for Christ say, "He rains on the just and the unjust".

In my experience, theism and religion is more of a hindrance than a help in this regard.

Religion only unifies a family if everyone in the family shares a religion. Making that happen, though... that usually involves suppressing dissenting views within the family, so it often gets very oppressive.

 

[Vee]

A lot of us weren't raised in healthy (whatever that means by culture) families. Some tend to care for loved ones late in life and others have trauma they don't at all.

True. Some people are really unlucky with their families, but do you think that determines their future or can they still turn things around and do better? Like for example, being better parents than the ones they had?

 

[Heyo]

True. Some people are really unlucky with their families, but do you think that determines their future or can they still turn things around and do better? Like for example, being better parents than the ones they had?

Sure. It's not a question of if but of how many and how can we help. People tend to repeat mistakes in raising kids from their parents but it's not a fate.

 

[Kenny]

In my experience, theism and religion is more of a hindrance than a help in this regard.

Religion only unifies a family if everyone in the family shares a religion. Making that happen, though... that usually involves suppressing dissenting views within the family, so it often gets very oppressive.

That is true in many cases... but at the same time it would also apply to atheism. Atheism also unifies a family only if they share the same viewpoint.

However, my personal experience is that we were headed for a divorce until faith unified it. So I found it to be beneficial

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I think because without God it becomes generally impossible.

When you are raised in a culture of "It is normal to have another woman when you are married" and you have no God in your life to say "It is a violation of covenant", it is hard to raise a family in peace.

That same principle can be applied in dozens of other areas that can rob peace in a family.

No God help, by and large, no peace.

I say generally because there are exceptions where a family may have no God but there is enough God around them to still have peace in the family. As Ambassadors for Christ say, "He rains on the just and the unjust".

If this were true, countries like New Zealand, Sweden and Australia should show higher rates of familial breakdown and violence, right?

 

[Brickjectivity]

Why can that not be?

Suppose you take glass, melt it down, make a jar, then cool it too quickly such as with a spray of water? It breaks. Similarly what if you form a clay jar of clay with air bubbles in it? It breaks, too. Society is like that. We're constantly in flux and unable to settle into a pattern. Even in the historic periods of stagnation we're constantly in flux, because things change. Things change, and we adjust by adjusting our population size; because that is what is required by circumstances. This results in a society full of fractures and structurally unsound.

Its not because of things we can control, either. If for example there had been no Industrial revolution, there still would have been disasters and other changes. If there had been no computer revolution there would have been other revolutions. Even the appearance of steady state is an illusion on Earth. Soon there is rapid change of a kind which will force a population change up or down. Disease, plagues, disasters, climate changes, ideological changes all are guaranteed to continue; and we won't be able to adjust without changing our population either up or down which is analogous to rapid temperature change in a fragile vessel.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

To me, it just verifies what the Bible says @ 1 John 5:19, that there’s basically an intelligent force working against the establishment of a peaceful world, reinforcing human weaknesses & bad attitudes.