Rape or Religion?

[Debater Slayer]

Harris's quote - and objections to it - really do depend on making judgements about which is worse... though I do agree with you about it being rhetoric to create an emotional reaction.

I do agree that it would be needlessly nit-picky to somehow quantify all of religion's harm and compare it to the quantified harm of all the rape in the world (or at least all the rape that would persist without religion). I think the point of what he said is to call attention to the fact that the harm inflicted by religion is staggering.

There's no real-world scenario where people would stop trying to combat rape in order to focus on religion; the real issue we're dealing with is that religion is singled out for praise, special benefit, and tax breaks, and isn't generally pointed to as a problem at all.

The core point I think Harris was trying to make--that is, pointing out how destructive religion has been at different times in human history--could have been made using a better, more thoughtful, and more meaningful argument. It seems to me that rape is already normalized and excused enough in different societies without comparisons that employ it as a tool to gain emotional momentum.

Harris has intelligently and articulately laid out criticism of religion on more than one occasion without resorting to such emotional rhetoric. I view the quote in question as one of his worst blunders.

 

[Fool]

rape is somewhat like the movie castaway.

they lose a lot and they find a way to reconstruct life and struggle to survive it. hopefully one day they realize they don't survive this. they won't survive this life either.

they still have the memories. they can watch them from the theater seats, the balcony seats if they need a little more distance. they can still feel something for those actors. the movie ends, they get up and get on with life.

water, water everywhere but not a drop to drink.



“Souls cross ages like clouds cross skies, an' tho' a cloud's shape nor hue nor size don't stay the same, it's still a cloud an' so is a soul. Who can say where the cloud's blowed from or who the soul'll be 'morrow? Only Sonmi the east an' the west an' the compass an' the atlas, yay, only the atlas o' clouds.”
― David Mitchell, Cloud Atlas

 

[Debater Slayer]

Alcohol and drugs have show to be destructive but no one suggest those who can handle them loose the ability to partake in them. For some reason religion has to be obliterated for some people to be happy. Makes no sense. Does he not know a single decent theist?

I can't speak for Harris or anyone but myself, but I think that when speaking of Abrahamic religions at the very least, their core texts contain so much harmful, hateful, and outdated material that on the whole, the world would indeed be better if said religions didn't exist.

 

[Holdasown]

I can't speak for Harris or anyone but myself, but I think that when speaking of Abrahamic religions at the very least, their core texts contain so much harmful, hateful, and outdated material that on the whole, the world would indeed be better if said religions didn't exist.

Well religion and theist do not imply one type or sect. Again you don't know a single decent Jew, Muslim or Christian?

 

[Debater Slayer]

Well religion and theist do not imply one type or sect. Again you don't know a single decent Jew, Muslim or Christian?

I agree; there are so many religions that speaking of religion as a monolith becomes problematic in many situations. That said, I'm mainly talking about Abrahamic religions.

I know decent people from all of the religions you mentioned. It's just that I don't think they wouldn't be decent anyway if not for their religions--and in some cases, they endorse harmful beliefs out of religious conviction. So I think some of them would actually be more tolerant if their religions didn't exist.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Alcohol and drugs have show to be destructive but no one suggest those who can handle them loose the ability to partake in them.

That depends on the drug, actually. Plenty of narcotics are banned and many people want to keep it that way.

But even for the substances we aren't looking to ban, the question is still "how should we deal with the harm that results from this substance?" We aren't there yet when it comes to religion.

For some reason religion has to be obliterated for some people to be happy. Makes no sense. Does he not know a single decent theist?

Not obliterated, just reduced.

You mention alcohol; imagine that our approach to alcohol was the paradigm for religion:

- don't partake at work
- don't let it influence you when you're making critical decisions
- don't give it to kids
- don't push it on anyone who doesn't want it
- don't expect your habit to be subsidized by the government

... but feel free to partake in a responsible way.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Pretty sure the Constitution covers that. And I can think of at least 7 religions that already function that way.

The post you quoted isn't mine, but it shows my username in the quote box. Might want to fix that.

 

[Rival]

The post you quoted isn't mine, but it shows my username in the quote box. Might want to fix that.

New RF lows, eh? We've made it to forgery now.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I agree; there are so many religions that speaking of religion as a monolith becomes problematic in many situations. That said, I'm mainly talking about Abrahamic religions.

When we're talking about societal impacts and policy-level decisions, I think it's just as fine to talk about religion as a monolith as it is to talk about cars this way. The impact of automobiles is almost completely the impact of commuting with gas-powered cars; likewise, the impact of religion is almost completely the impact of the Abrahamic and Dharmic religions. Yes, there are some antique cars and plug-in hybrids out there, but their contribution to the overall net impact is so small that it can be ignored. Likewise, while a Pagan might find their faith personally meaningful, Paganism's influence on the net impact of religion is less than the rounding error.

Something like 70% of humanity belongs to either Christianity or Islam. If we only consider those two groups as "religion as a whole" and ignore every other faith group, we'll still be at least 70% correct all the time.

 

[Nakosis]

Do you have to have been raped to know religion in general is not as bad as rape? All sex isn't rape. All religion isn't abuse.

No, but I prefer to speak from experience. It's the only place I have any authenticity.

Sure, maybe you can imagine what it is like in your head however, I find what I imagine something to be like can never really compare to the actual experience.

So I don't know. If he had been maybe he is speaking from a place of personal experience.

 

[Mindmaster]

View attachment 20242

Anyone agree with Sammy?

Implying religion is worse than rape...

Atheists tend to make crazy comments like this, and hyperbole is always illogical.

There are plenty of non-dogmatic religions and plenty of intellectually-oriented spiritual paths (hinduism, buddhism, etc...). Religion isn't the problem, religions which prohibit inquiry are the problem, and there are plenty that promote it that refute this comment. If you think Abrahamic religions (dogma required) represent the entirety of the "spiritual paths" out there, it's your brain that is broken not theirs.

 

[Nakosis]

Atheists tend to make crazy comments like this, and hyperbole is always illogical.

There are plenty of non-dogmatic religions and plenty of intellectually-oriented spiritual paths (hinduism, buddhism, etc...). Religion isn't the problem, religions which prohibit inquiry are the problem, and there are plenty that promote it that refute this comment. If you think Abrahamic religions (dogma required) represent the entirety of the "spiritual paths" out there, it's your brain that is broken not theirs.

Seems most of the "neo-atheists" focus on the Abrahamic religions, but that covers a majority of the folks that exist. 4 out of 7 or so billion.

 

[Nakosis]

Atheists tend to make crazy comments like this, and hyperbole is always illogical.

Um... no, they don't.
I think this was a real blunder on his part. Still can't find any apology or even an attempt at him trying to justify the comment.

Haven't heard any atheist directly support him on this.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Atheists tend to make crazy comments like this, and hyperbole is always illogical.

There are plenty of non-dogmatic religions and plenty of intellectually-oriented spiritual paths (hinduism, buddhism, etc...). Religion isn't the problem, religions which prohibit inquiry are the problem, and there are plenty that promote it that refute this comment.

So you think that religion prohibits inquiry more often than not, but you just don't think it always does this?

If you think Abrahamic religions (dogma required) represent the entirety of the "spiritual paths" out there, it's your brain that is broken not theirs.

Not the entirety; just the bulk.

Do you think that saying that we would be better off without religion implies that every single religion is bad?

 

[savagewind]

I can't speak for Harris or anyone but myself, but I think that when speaking of Abrahamic religions at the very least, their core texts contain so much harmful, hateful, and outdated material that on the whole, the world would indeed be better if said religions didn't exist.

I think that religions have brought people together for a common goal. For the world to learn about the common goal (survival at its best) it is a good thing to believe in, imo.

On the other hand, the trouble with religion is that there isn't one which includes all people and Earth's real future.

 

[Mindmaster]

So you think that religion prohibits inquiry more often than not, but you just don't think it always does this?

Not the entirety; just the bulk.

Do you think that saying that we would be better off without religion implies that every single religion is bad?

I don't think all religions prohibit inquiry, just about half of them do. (in response to your first comment)

I think that value is determined by practicality first, and while I've been reading on Hinduism only recently much of their ideas are congruent with modern self-help psychological texts. It'd be crazy to say that is useless information, or that we'd be better off without it. Many of their texts are extremely insightful, and the knowledge hasn't been carried forward in the west. If it wasn't here people couldn't mine for this gold, so yeah the world would probably be a worse place for it. I tend to feel this way about Buddhism as well, and certainly there are plenty of pagan religions that are focused on helpful notions.

He didn't quantify that statement to say either way, so there is no sense of scope, just absolutes. But, what do I know? I think Alan Watts is more intelligent than the four horsemen of atheism... maybe, it's just that his perspective seems more balanced to me...

 

[Mindmaster]

Um... no, they don't.
I think this was a real blunder on his part. Still can't find any apology or even an attempt at him trying to justify the comment.

Haven't heard any atheist directly support him on this.

There are a lot of anti-theists who throw the baby out with the bathwater... Or presume that one cannot be theistic and still practice inquiry... I guess to me, the thing that bothered me is that this statement is patently false upon immediate inspection.

Others have said similar nasty crap:

"Religion is capable of driving people to such dangerous folly that faith seems to me to qualify as a kind of mental illness." - Dawkins

Obviously, this is ridiculous... Hitchens or Dennet seem more balanced, and the least objectionable in my view.

 

[Nakosis]

There are a lot of anti-theists who throw the baby out with the bathwater... Or presume that one cannot be theistic and still practice inquiry... I guess to me, the thing that bothered me is that this statement is patently false upon immediate inspection.

Others have said similar nasty crap:

"Religion is capable of driving people to such dangerous folly that faith seems to me to qualify as a kind of mental illness." - Dawkins

Obviously, this is ridiculous... Hitchens or Dennet seem more balanced, and the least objectionable in my view.

Dawkins has some incentive to sell his books IMO. If you actually read his books they are really not that incendiary.

I occasionally use hyperbole to bring attention to a thread. I don't see where Sam's quote is justified even as hyperbole.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think that in all religions there exist checks and balances. So, yes, religion really does cause some serious problems, but religion also does a lot of good. Is there anything good about rape? I think not.

The question is what is the net result. If the net of religion is still worse than rape then Harris was justified in his claim.

 

[JustWondering]

Even without religion people would still come up with crazy ideologies to justify their crimes and nasty behavior. So, getting rid of rape would actually accomplish something.