The Alleged Troubles With Atheism

[Jagella]

It only confuses you, no one else.

Of course. I'm the only person you're trying to convince.

But seriously, I should remind you that you have the burden of proving that ideology causes changes in behavior; namely, violence. If your arguments are confusing (disorderly, unstable, cryptic, ambiguous, etc.), then you have not met your burden of proof.

People who interpret language normally and not with an extreme literalism that completely ignores context and linguistic convention understand that saying "[Mao's] ideology influenced..." or "Maoism influenced..." also implies "Mao influenced...".

I'd recommend you state your premise: "Mao used his ideology to influence people." It's a clear, complete sentence that is unambiguous and spells out the relationship between Mao and his ideology.

It is actually more accurate, because Mao was not directly influencing these people, it was his ideology being spread by the media and other people that was influencing people.

Again, it would be very helpful to explain using an example exactly how Mao's ideology influenced people rather than how Mao influenced people. Distinguishing the role Mao played and the role his ideology played is important because we need to make sure that it was ideology rather than Mao that had causal power over some of the Chinese people. If we cannot separate the two, then we don't know what (or who) caused what.

Let me illustrate: Wang Hung Cho was a happily married family man living in China. He was healthy, physically fit, had no criminal record and was never diagnosed with any mental illness. He had heard of Mao, of course, but never paid much attention to him. One day Wang happened to see a book in a store about Mao's ideology. Wang read the book and quickly changed into a violent revolutionary for Mao telling his family and friends how Mao's ideology caused him to see that he should use violence against those who do not support communism in China.

You have just described yourself as being influenced by beliefs and values. Why did you feel guilty? What did you think critically about?

I began to feel guilty because I was pressured by other people to have faith in God and pray. Their advising me that I could solve some of my problems that way became for me a hoped-for solution to my problems.

That multiple actors may influence people doesn't negate the fact that beliefs and values are among these factors.

That's correct, but to know if ideology influences people we need to rule out other possible causes of behavior.

Thanks for the discussion, but we'll never get anywhere as you keep reverting to the same errors I've pointed out a dozen times or more.

I was hoping that you could offer the reasoning and evidence I was looking for, but it looks like you're opting out. I'm left wondering if you've convinced other people how ideology presumably causes violence.

 

[Augustus]

Of course. I'm the only person you're trying to convince.

But seriously, I should remind you that you have the burden of proving that ideology causes changes in behavior; namely, violence. If your arguments are confusing (disorderly, unstable, cryptic, ambiguous, etc.), then you have not met your burden of proof.

In any discussion, the burden of communication is on both parties. If one party continually fails to understand the basic ideas being discussed and continually misrepresents them, even though they have been articulated in a manner that generally causes no problem for other people to understand them then that party may bear a significant part of the responsibility.

If someone explains basic geological, biological and physical science to a Young Earth Creationist and they keep saying "evolution is just a theory" and "if we evolved from monkeys how come there are still monkeys" despite you pointing out the fallacious nature of the argument, the it may just be that they are incapable or unwilling to understand, not that the concepts have been explained in a manner that is disorderly, unstable, cryptic, ambiguous, etc. Even more so when others reading the thread can easily understand these points.

I was hoping that you could offer the reasoning and evidence I was looking for, but it looks like you're opting out. I'm left wondering if you've convinced other people how ideology presumably causes violence.

From my experience, people generally don't need convincing that beliefs, values, ideas and ideals influence behaviour to some degree as it is pretty self-evident as they a) understand how their beliefs, values, ideas and ideals affect them and/or b) have a lifetime of negotiating a social world where they need to take these factors into account in all kinds of social relations.

For the same reason, people generally don't need to be convinced that, for example, Nazi racialism and anti-semitism significantly contributed to the holocaust, because when people explain very clearly what their beliefs and values are, then use mass propaganda to influence others to adopt these beliefs, then many people act perfectly in accordance with theses explicitly stated beliefs and values that there is some connection between the beliefs and the actions.

I began to feel guilty because I was pressured by other people to have faith in God and pray. Their advising me that I could solve some of my problems that way became for me a hoped-for solution to my problems.

So your behaviour was unequivocally influenced by both your beliefs, values, ideas and ideals and those of other people.

That's all we need to know.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

According to some religious apologists I'm acquainted with, atheism is a problematical way of looking at reality and living one's life. Here is a list of some of the criticisms of atheism and atheists I've heard:

1. Atheism offers no hope.
2. Atheism cannot explain existence.
3. The amazing complexity of living things cannot be explained by atheism.
4. Atheists are responsible for close to 100 million deaths during the twentieth century alone.
5. Hitler was an atheist, and his atheism led him to commit his "final solution" resulting in the deaths of six million Jews.
6. If one is an atheist, then there is no objective basis for that person's morality.
7. Atheism is illogical because it is impossible to know that God doesn't exist.
8. Atheism is a ruse because there are no true atheists: Supposed atheists do believe in God but don't recognize God's authority because they would rather sin.
9. Atheists have created ideas like evolution and the multiverse to avoid the fact that God created the cosmos and life.
10. Atheism is a mental illness brought on by childhood trauma regarding one's father which leads a person to reject her Heavenly Father.

Is there any truth to these criticisms?

No.

Humbly
Hermit

 

[Jagella]

In any discussion, the burden of communication is on both parties. If one party continually fails to understand the basic ideas being discussed and continually misrepresents them, even though they have been articulated in a manner that generally causes no problem for other people to understand them then that party may bear a significant part of the responsibility.

Please explain your position to the best of your ability and clarify it to my satisfaction. Doing so will greatly decrease any presumed misrepresentation of your position on my part. I will try to make myself as clear as possible too.

If someone explains basic geological, biological and physical science to a Young Earth Creationist and they keep saying "evolution is just a theory" and "if we evolved from monkeys how come there are still monkeys" despite you pointing out the fallacious nature of the argument, the it may just be that they are incapable or unwilling to understand, not that the concepts have been explained in a manner that is disorderly, unstable, cryptic, ambiguous, etc.

In that case the person explaining science to the creationist has failed to convince the creationist that lifeforms evolve. It's entirely possible that the science of evolution is not being explained adequately. Perhaps The Theory of Evolution is not being defined properly or consistently. In such cases, it should come as no surprise that the creationist is apparently misrepresenting the Theory of Evolution: He can't represent it correctly if the Theory isn't being adequately communicated to him.

Even more so when others reading the thread can easily understand these points.

How do you know that other people here understand your "points," whatever they may be? For the most part I do understand what you're arguing but disagree with it.

From my experience, people generally don't need convincing that beliefs, values, ideas and ideals influence behaviour to some degree as it is pretty self-evident as they a) understand how their beliefs, values, ideas and ideals affect them and/or b) have a lifetime of negotiating a social world where they need to take these factors into account in all kinds of social relations.

Then obviously I'm not one of those people. Can you post an example of a person who knows her behavior has been changed solely by her ideology? If you could just post some evidence for your position, then I'd be more inclined to see some truth in what you're saying.

For the same reason, people generally don't need to be convinced that, for example, Nazi racialism and anti-semitism significantly contributed to the holocaust, because when people explain very clearly what their beliefs and values are, then use mass propaganda to influence others to adopt these beliefs, then many people act perfectly in accordance with theses explicitly stated beliefs and values that there is some connection between the beliefs and the actions.

Like I've already pointed out, people surely do act according to ideologies. I don't dispute that fact. Also, I realize people do influence other people. But what I do dispute is the supposed causal property of ideology itself. I find the claim that abstract entities like ideas can affect something physical like human action to be farfetched. If you want to say that that's a misrepresentation of your position and that ideology alone has no causality--other factors affect behavior--then you admit that we don't really know what causes behavior because we cannot know if ideology in fact causes behavior--other factors may be the cause.

So your behaviour was unequivocally influenced by both your beliefs, values, ideas and ideals and those of other people.

That's all we need to know.

That's not what I said. I said my actions were influenced by social pressure and feeling guilty, not ideology.

 

[Augustus]

Please explain your position to the best of your ability and clarify it to my satisfaction.

Go back and reread previous posts more carefully then, not much point in repeating as you said you would only read short posts.

Like I've already pointed out, people surely do act according to ideologies. I don't dispute that fact. Also, I realize people do influence other people. But what I do dispute is the supposed causal property of ideology itself. I find the claim that abstract entities like ideas can affect something physical like human action to be farfetched. If you want to say that that's a misrepresentation of your position and that ideology alone has no causality--other factors affect behavior--then you admit that we don't really know what causes behavior because we cannot know if ideology in fact causes behavior--other factors may be the cause.

If you think words can't influence human behaviour, then make your case.

An extraordinary claim like that would require an extraordinary argument to be persuasive seeing as even a child can see the impact of words on behaviour.

If you want a quick and easy example, go down to your local bar and call the biggest person there a **** and see if that has a causal relationship with his behaviour.

(if you don't see the relevance of this, go back and read the posts about complex communication, ideology and reality and address it directly if you don't understand)

That's not what I said. I said my actions were influenced by social pressure and feeling guilty, not ideology.

I began to feel guilty because I was pressured by other people to have faith in God and pray. Their advising me that I could solve some of my problems that way became for me a hoped-for solution to my problems.

What you describe is belief and value dependent.

 

[Jagella]

Go back and reread previous posts more carefully then, not much point in repeating as you said you would only read short posts.

I'm asking you to explain your position to the best of your ability and clarify it to my satisfaction, from now on.

If you think words can't influence human behaviour, then make your case.

That's not my position! Let's take another look at what I just posted:

Jagella: ... But what I do dispute is the supposed causal property of ideology itself..
Your Response: If you think words can't influence human behaviour, then make your case...

See that? I commented on the supposed influence of ideology and you responded by challenging me about the influence of words. Ideology is not words but ideas, and therefore what is true about words is irrelevant to what is true about ideology. Let me post a hypothetical example of such an exchange to clarify the fallacy in how you argue:

Jagella: Toy poodles are harmless dogs.
Your rebuttal: That's wrong! Pit bulls sometimes kill people.

Would you argue about dog breeds that way? Of course not, but then why argue about ideology that way? It's been a major part of your argumentation all along to substitute words I use with words that have different meanings in order to "falsify" what I said.

If you want a quick and easy example, go down to your local bar and call the biggest person there a **** and see if that has a causal relationship with his behaviour.

Insults are not ideology, so this example is irrelevant to the effects of ideology on people's behavior. But we could see if ideology has any such effect on that man's behavior. We could tell him that our ideology is that large men in bars should beat up smaller men there. Do you think he'll then beat up smaller men in that bar? If you are right about ideology, then he may do so!

Or he would do no such thing if I'm right about ideology.

But all is not lost for what you argue. You could still be right about the effects of ideology on human behavior. Can you recommend a book which is preferably written by an author with a background in anthropology or a social science that supports your claim about ideology? I prefer books available in a Kindle version.

 

[Augustus]

That's not my position! Let's take another look at what I just posted:

This is the problem when you excessively split up posts, you treat every sentence as if it were a self-contained text rather than a part of a larger post and a larger discussion.

What I said, and what you ignored

(if you don't see the relevance of this, go back and read the posts about complex communication, ideology and reality and address it directly if you don't understand)

It's been a major part of your argumentation all along to substitute words I use with words that have different meanings in order to "falsify" what I said.

It's been a major part of your argumentation to treat every idea with excessive literalism and in isolation of the context of the discussion. This makes progress impossible, and it makes repeating myself a waste of time as you never addressed it in the first place and keep resorting to the same strawman argument that you made again (for perhaps the 15th time) at the end of your post.

So, like I said, go back and read the posts about complex communication, ideology and reality and address it directly if you don't understand. If you can understand this, then progress might be possible, if not then it won't be.

Mentioned in a few posts from here onwards

The Alleged Troubles With Atheism

 

[Jagella]

This is the problem when you excessively split up posts, you treat every sentence as if it were a self-contained text rather than a part of a larger post and a larger discussion.

I just want to make sure that you reply to and/or rebut what I actually said. Substituting words that have different meanings for the words I use is a textbook case of a straw-man argument.

It's been a major part of your argumentation to treat every idea with excessive literalism and in isolation of the context of the discussion.

In what way is my argumentation "excessive literalism"? Are you using metaphors in your arguments that I'm missing? I think you mean that I'm too picky about using meaningful words. I don't believe I'm too picky about that usage because you are using words that have meanings that are significantly different from the words I use as I have already explained. Let me outline it again:

An ideology is no more words than a toy poodle is a pit-bull.

This makes progress impossible, and it makes repeating myself a waste of time as you never addressed it in the first place and keep resorting to the same strawman argument that you made again (for perhaps the 15th time) at the end of your post.

What is the "it" that I never addressed, and what straw-man argument are you referring to? You keep losing me like this with these kinds of cryptic comments. Please spell out what you are referring to.

So, like I said, go back and read the posts about complex communication, ideology and reality and address it directly if you don't understand. If you can understand this, then progress might be possible, if not then it won't be.

I've already read and rebutted most of what you've posted.

Finally, you neglected to post that book recommendation that I requested. Surely you've read books about ideology and Marxism in particular. Can you please recommend a book that is the basis for your thinking that Marxist ideology can cause violence?

 

[Augustus]

I just want to make sure that you reply to and/or rebut what I actually said. Substituting words that have different meanings for the words I use is a textbook case of a straw-man argument.

I did respond to what you actually said, but you deliberately ignored the part where I explained why you might not realise this as you always take things out of context.

Unsurprisingly, you took this out of context.

In what way is my argumentation "excessive literalism"?

Already been explained multiple times.

An ideology is no more words than a toy poodle is a pit-bull.

You have already made it abundantly clear you don't know what ideology is, that you can't see the connection between ideology and words merely reinforces this.

(the why has already been explained to you multiple times so needs no repeating)

What is the "it" that I never addressed, and what straw-man argument are you referring to? You keep losing me like this with these kinds of cryptic comments. Please spell out what you are referring to.

Explained in last 2 post, along with a link. Can lead a horse to water...

I've already read and rebutted most of what you've posted.

No, you have ignored this at least 5 times.

Finally, you neglected to post that book recommendation that I requested.

Start here, covers the stuff you have avoided at leats 5 times (from about p6 onwards, but best read the whole thing as the first part might help you realise why the strawman you've repeated 15 times is a strawman)

https://www.universiteitleiden.nl/b...orism/2019/issue-6/01-holbrook-and-horgan.pdf

 

[Jagella]

Start here, covers the stuff you have avoided at leats 5 times (from about p6 onwards, but best read the whole thing as the first part might help you realise why the strawman you've repeated 15 times is a strawman)

https://www.universiteitleiden.nl/b...orism/2019/issue-6/01-holbrook-and-horgan.pdf

OK, I can't find anything in that article that states definitively that we know that ideology causes violence, terrorism in particular. In fact, the article seems to argue the opposite--we really don't know if ideology causes violence. Consider these excerpts from the article:

...despite not necessarily knowing much about the precise mechanisms involved, we might safely assume that when it comes to explaining terrorism (as opposed to other kinds of illicit violent activities), that ideology plays at least some role in the development of violent extremist activity. However, there is no consensus in discussions about terrorism of what the role of ideology in these processes may look like. This article seeks to address that divergence.

It again seems irrefutable that consumption of ideology alone, including extremist ideology, does not produce a terrorist. These processes are immensely complex and specific to individuals, while studies that have sought to identify patterns between them invariably identify nonideological variables. Yet, ideology, properly understood, does not sit opposite or isolated from these variables but rather imbues them with particular meanings in a given context.

Despite great progress, the relationship between ideology and violence remains poorly understood. Individual pathways towards terrorism are immensely varied and complex...

Sorry, but this article in no way supports what you've been claiming about ideology. In fact, it's very close to what I've been saying all along. Heck, I could have used this article to support my position on ideology!

With all due respect, you appear to misunderstand what you're reading and that includes your own material. Is it important to you in some way that ideology be the cause of violence? Your position smacks of xenophobia in that it demonizes people from foreign cultures who have alien ideas making those people out to be potentially dangerous or evil.

 

[Augustus]

In fact, the article seems to argue the opposite--we really don't know if ideology causes violence. Consider these excerpts from the article:

Wow, you haven't read the whole paper and have just isolated one sentence from the abstract, one from the conclusion and one from the start of a section and failed to understand that context that is explained in the following sentences. Never saw that coming...

Usually, when people wish to engage in out of context quote mining they do have the foresight to actually cut out the part that illustrates they are engaging in out of context quote mining though.

...despite not necessarily knowing much about the precise mechanisms involved, we might safely assume that when it comes to explaining terrorism (as opposed to other kinds of illicit violent activities), that ideology plays at least some role in the development of violent extremist activity. However, there is no consensus in discussions about terrorism of what the role of ideology in these processes may look like. This article seeks to address that divergence.

It again seems irrefutable that consumption of ideology alone, including extremist ideology, does not produce a terrorist. These processes are immensely complex and specific to individuals, while studies that have sought to identify patterns between them invariably identify nonideological variables. Yet, ideology, properly understood, does not sit opposite or isolated from these variables but rather imbues them with particular meanings in a given context.

At least with the next one you deliberately stopped short of the information that shows your fallacious quote mine

Despite great progress, the relationship between ideology and violence remains poorly understood. Individual pathways towards terrorism are immensely varied and complex...

...We conclude by asserting that ideology is not merely one element that sits aside these pathways that some encounter and others do not. Rather, ideology is fundamentally part of the environment, affecting all who participate and their perceptions of what they encounter, in different ways and to differing degrees.

With all due respect, you appear to misunderstand what you're reading and that includes your own material.

You haven't read it, let alone understood it as the above shows.

It says exactly what I've been saying (especially the stuff you keep ignoring every time it is posted)

Ideology gains significance not just in the substance of any meaning conveyed but also in its modes of transmission and the linkages these exchanges establish.[53] Ideology is integral to, not separate from, the relational mechanisms involved in radicalization pathways and its processes of social learning, collective memory and other social constructs.[54] It imbues its components, such as status, belonging and reward, with significance which can only be understood in that ideological context: defining allegiances and roles, brotherhoods and sisterhoods, and the pull of immaterial rewards such as salvation through martyrdom. Rather than resting uncomfortably alongside these processes as static doctrinal pillars impenetrable to all but dedicated ‘ideologues’, the role of ideology can best be explained through highlighting its social components, the collective maps and shared perspectives that help us make sense of the world and define who is or is not part of our community.

Is it important to you in some way that ideology be the cause of violence? Your position smacks of xenophobia in that it demonizes people from foreign cultures who have alien ideas making those people out to be potentially dangerous or evil.

Augustus: All humans, including me, are influenced by ideology. Here are some violent ideologies that largely originated in Europe.
Jag: "OMG, you are racist! A RACIST!"

Sorry, but this article in no way supports what you've been claiming about ideology.

You have displayed ample evidence you neither understand my position or the article. At this point it's just mildly amusing to see how many times you can make the same errors without learning the slightest thing.

So, can you can say something of substance about the article's overall thesis about how ideology is inseparable from terrorist behaviour?

I'm guessing not...

 

[Jagella]

Wow, you haven't read the whole paper and have just isolated one sentence from the abstract, one from the conclusion and one from the start of a section and failed to understand that context that is explained in the following sentences. Never saw that coming...

Usually, when people wish to engage in out of context quote mining they do have the foresight to actually cut out the part that illustrates they are engaging in out of context quote mining though.

But where does that article state unequivocally that ideology causes violence, terrorism in particular?

"...We conclude by asserting that ideology is not merely one element that sits aside these pathways that some encounter and others do not. Rather, ideology is fundamentally part of the environment, affecting all who participate and their perceptions of what they encounter, in different ways and to differing degrees."

How does that mean that ideology causes violence? All it says is that ideology "affects" people, a claim I do not agree with.

It says exactly what I've been saying (especially the stuff you keep ignoring every time it is posted)

Where does that article say that ideology causes violence?

Ideology gains significance not just in the substance of any meaning conveyed but also in its modes of transmission and the linkages these exchanges establish.[53] Ideology is integral to, not separate from, the relational mechanisms involved in radicalization pathways and its processes of social learning, collective memory and other social constructs.[54] It imbues its components, such as status, belonging and reward, with significance which can only be understood in that ideological context: defining allegiances and roles, brotherhoods and sisterhoods, and the pull of immaterial rewards such as salvation through martyrdom. Rather than resting uncomfortably alongside these processes as static doctrinal pillars impenetrable to all but dedicated ‘ideologues’, the role of ideology can best be explained through highlighting its social components, the collective maps and shared perspectives that help us make sense of the world and define who is or is not part of our community.

There's nothing in there about ideology causing violence.

Augustus: All humans, including me, are influenced by ideology. Here are some violent ideologies that largely originated in Europe.
Jag: "OMG, you are racist! A RACIST!"

Are you a racist? I should point out that suspecting racism is not an ideology.

You have displayed ample evidence you neither understand my position or the article. At this point it's just mildly amusing to see how many times you can make the same errors without learning the slightest thing.

It's not nice to laugh at people when they struggle to understand something.

So, can you can say something of substance about the article's overall thesis about how ideology is inseparable from terrorist behaviour?

I'm guessing not...

The article is about the supposed relation between terrorism and ideology and discusses the difficulties with explaining terrorism as the result of ideology. Am I wrong here?

Finally, to your credit you did post some evidence that many people believe that ideology does apparently have an effect on people. Unfortunately, the article does not substantiate that belief nor does it explain how ideology can affect people.

 

[Augustus]

There's nothing in there about ideology causing violence.

There is plenty there about the role of ideology in violence, you just don't understand it because you are focused on the wrong thing as I keep trying to tell you

The article is about the supposed relation between terrorism and ideology and discusses the difficulties with explaining terrorism as the result of ideology. Am I wrong here?

Yes you are wrong.

It says difficulties in explaining terrorism as a result of ideology stem form misunderstanding what ideology is, and a somewhat naive expectation of how it should facilitate terrorism.

It argues that ideology underpins basically all aspects of the process, and while many of these impacts may be indirect, the process couldn't happen without them for multiple reasons.

You should actually try reading it, might learn something

Unfortunately, the article does not substantiate that belief nor does it explain how ideology can affect people.

The whole article is basically about how ideology affect people with explanations and links to multiple social scientific and anthropological studies.

If you actually read it, you might learn something

 

[Jagella]

There is plenty there about the role of ideology in violence, you just don't understand it because you are focused on the wrong thing as I keep trying to tell you

I'm not asking about the article's comments about the "role" of ideology in violence but want to know where the article states that ideology causes violence. Do you remember my poodle versus pit-bull analogy from a prior post? I ask about ideology as a cause, and you reply about ideology playing a role.

Anyway, you evidently can't find anything in the article that states that ideology causes violence. That's because the article nowhere states that ideology causes violence.

Yes you are wrong.

It says difficulties in explaining terrorism as a result of ideology stem form misunderstanding what ideology is, and a somewhat naive expectation of how it should facilitate terrorism.

It argues that ideology underpins basically all aspects of the process, and while many of these impacts may be indirect, the process couldn't happen without them for multiple reasons.

You should actually try reading it, might learn something

But it doesn't say that ideology causes violence.

The whole article is basically about how ideology affect people with explanations and links to multiple social scientific and anthropological studies.

If you actually read it, you might learn something

Your comments about the article make up an example of what's known as

eisegesis - the interpretation of a text (as of the Bible) by reading into it one's own ideas

You are reading into the text your own ideas about ideology.

 

[Augustus]

I'm not asking about the article's comments about the "role" of ideology in violence but want to know where the article states that ideology causes violence. Do you remember my poodle versus pit-bull analogy from a prior post? I ask about ideology as a cause, and you reply about ideology playing a role.

Anyway, you evidently can't find anything in the article that states that ideology causes violence. That's because the article nowhere states that ideology causes violence.

The ostrich approach where you pretend not to have actually noticed what is clearly visible in black and white (and red) is not all that persuasive to anyone but yourself. You do know that don't you?

The article is about how terroristic violence is impossible without ideology. Unfortunately, you either haven't read it or are incapable of understanding it (my guess is the former).

That your cognitive dissonance forces you to quibble that an article explaining how terroristic violence is impossible without ideology, neither explicitly nor implicitly argues ideology plays a causative role is beyond inane.

our comments about the article make up an example of what's known as

eisegesis - the interpretation of a text (as of the Bible) by reading into it one's own ideas

You are reading into the text your own ideas about ideology.

You would first have to have read the text to make such a claim on rational grounds, as opposed to imaginary ones.

The only time you engaged with the text was to provide facile 3 out of context quote mines, that showed you hadn't even read a whole paragraph, let alone the text. The proof of this is in this thread and is very clear.

I don't know if you are being deliberately dishonest or just struggle to understand the topic, but either way it makes no difference at this stage.

We'll leave it there. It's getting boring.

(if you are genuinely interested in the topic rather than face saving quibbling, do read the article though and chase up some of the texts in the references. You might learn something )

 

[Jagella]

We'll leave it there. It's getting boring.

(if you are genuinely interested in the topic rather than face saving quibbling, do read the article though and chase up some of the texts in the references. You might learn something )

I plan to read a book on the subject of ideology when I get the time. I'll get back to you then. I want to see if I can find something that clearly describes what ideology is and what causes it. I'm also curious how people use ideology to describe and justify their behavior especially violent behavior.

 

[Augustus]

I plan to read a book on the subject of ideology when I get the time. I'll get back to you then. I want to see if I can find something that clearly describes what ideology is and what causes it. I'm also curious how people use ideology to describe and justify their behavior especially violent behavior.

Start with the article I shared. Seriously, it is very good.

Forget about the context of this discussion, just read it neutrally with an open mind and focus on what it says about all of the different roles of ideology plays.

The first part explains why it is wrong to only look for a very direct, linear impact of the kind you seem to expect to see "Bob read a text by Lenin then went straight out and killed folk".

The second part (from about p5 onwards) explains a more nuanced role of ideology in contributing to violence.

This will give you a better conceptual framework to operate from regarding the direct and indirect impacts of ideology.

Once you understand this you can read texts on violence and make the connections yourself even if they are not explicitly about ideological violence.

For example, you would understand why the following kinds of violence cannot take place without ideology. That ideology is not merely incidental, but an essential and inseparable component:

A people who feel that another people’s presence or intermarriage pollutes their CS-defining collective essence may wipe them out to purify and cleanse this endangered essence.

“The Nazis executed up to six million Jews who were ideologically portrayed as a ‘disease,’ as ‘bacilli,’ and as ‘parasites’ that threatened to poison the German national body and contaminate the purity of German blood” (Hinton, 2002: 14). Staub (1989) has argued that this exclusion of the out-group as something separate from the in-group leads to a transformation of indifference to the out-group into a moral obligation to kill them.

But this moral motivation to wipe out entire kinds of people is not a modern invention. Sixteenth-century French Catholics killed and mutilated Protestants and burned their villages to purify themselves of the Protestant heresy (Chirot and McCauley, 2006). In the Great Mutiny of 1857, Indians cleansed their community of the British Kafir infidels. The Old Testament Israelite genocides of the Midianites and Amalekites, and the massacres of Jews by Crusaders, were simultaneous unity-motivated acts of purification and hierarchy-motivated obedience to God’s will (Chirot and McCauley, 2006).

“The perpetrators essentialized both their own group and the polluting out-group as CS equivalence categories, setting the stage for a moral outcry to decontaminate the in-group polluted by the out-group. This was the moral motivation at the core of the Holocaust, the Cambodian genocide, the purges by Stalin and Mao, the Catholic extermination of Huguenots, and the Hutu massacres of Tutsis.The result of this double essentializing is a battle of good and evil, or two incomparable essences in which love of the good means necessarily hate for the threatening out-group. This is what lies at the heart of the most extreme genocidal cases, where the fear of pollution can lead to what would otherwise seem to be incomprehensible mass murder. The out-group’s essence must be kept from contaminating the in-group’s essence … that is endangered by contact or infection.(Chirot and McCauley, 2006: 86)

Virtuous Violence: Hurting and Killing to Create, Sustain, End, and Honor Social Relationships - A Fiske & T Rai


Good luck with your reading.

 

[Jagella]

Start with the article I shared. Seriously, it is very good.

Forget about the context of this discussion, just read it neutrally with an open mind and focus on what it says about all of the different roles of ideology plays.

The first part explains why it is wrong to only look for a very direct, linear impact of the kind you seem to expect to see "Bob read a text by Lenin then went straight out and killed folk".

The second part (from about p5 onwards) explains a more nuanced role of ideology in contributing to violence.

This will give you a better conceptual framework to operate from regarding the direct and indirect impacts of ideology.

Once you understand this you can read texts on violence and make the connections yourself even if they are not explicitly about ideological violence.

For example, you would understand why the following kinds of violence cannot take place without ideology. That ideology is not merely incidental, but an essential and inseparable component:

A people who feel that another people’s presence or intermarriage pollutes their CS-defining collective essence may wipe them out to purify and cleanse this endangered essence.

“The Nazis executed up to six million Jews who were ideologically portrayed as a ‘disease,’ as ‘bacilli,’ and as ‘parasites’ that threatened to poison the German national body and contaminate the purity of German blood” (Hinton, 2002: 14). Staub (1989) has argued that this exclusion of the out-group as something separate from the in-group leads to a transformation of indifference to the out-group into a moral obligation to kill them.

But this moral motivation to wipe out entire kinds of people is not a modern invention. Sixteenth-century French Catholics killed and mutilated Protestants and burned their villages to purify themselves of the Protestant heresy (Chirot and McCauley, 2006). In the Great Mutiny of 1857, Indians cleansed their community of the British Kafir infidels. The Old Testament Israelite genocides of the Midianites and Amalekites, and the massacres of Jews by Crusaders, were simultaneous unity-motivated acts of purification and hierarchy-motivated obedience to God’s will (Chirot and McCauley, 2006).

“The perpetrators essentialized both their own group and the polluting out-group as CS equivalence categories, setting the stage for a moral outcry to decontaminate the in-group polluted by the out-group. This was the moral motivation at the core of the Holocaust, the Cambodian genocide, the purges by Stalin and Mao, the Catholic extermination of Huguenots, and the Hutu massacres of Tutsis.The result of this double essentializing is a battle of good and evil, or two incomparable essences in which love of the good means necessarily hate for the threatening out-group. This is what lies at the heart of the most extreme genocidal cases, where the fear of pollution can lead to what would otherwise seem to be incomprehensible mass murder. The out-group’s essence must be kept from contaminating the in-group’s essence … that is endangered by contact or infection.(Chirot and McCauley, 2006: 86)

Virtuous Violence: Hurting and Killing to Create, Sustain, End, and Honor Social Relationships - A Fiske & T Rai


Good luck with your reading.

I already read that article, and I don't believe that one, short internet page is enough for me to acquire a good familiarity with the subject of ideology. The article simply does not go into much detail about ideology in general and Marxist violence in particular. I'm looking for a short book that is written objectively as possible by an author with no left-wing or right-wing agenda, preferably a behavioral scientist like an anthropologist or sociologist.

 

[Augustus]

The article simply does not go into much detail about ideology in general

This is why I don't think you can have read it, it is basically entirely about ideology in general,

It covers basically everything you need (and even mentions Marxist terror). I'd read again and try to work out what you are missing as I fear you are looking for the wrong thing.

If you don't understand the relevance of what is said in that article, you will likely never find what you are looking for because you are missing basic conceptual understanding.

Seem like you want a book called "Marxist ideology alone makes people instantly violent", whereas you will actually find books that discuss the diverse causes of violent extremism with some discussion of ideology, although often they won't spoon feed you by highlighting how in/out groups, morality, perceived injustice, etc. are intrinsically dependent on ideology, they will just discuss these things as is.

I'm looking for a short book that is written objectively as possible by an author with no left-wing or right-wing agenda, preferably a behavioral scientist like an anthropologist or sociologist.

You could try Virtuous violence the book quoted above, but tbh, it won't be explicit enough for what you want. You will usually have to join the dots.

Could try Talking to the Enemy: Sacred Values, Violent Extremism, and What it Means to be Human by Scott Atran, but again it might not be explicitly linear enough for your expectations.

 

[Jagella]

This is why I don't think you can have read it...

I can only take so much ignorance. Go insult somebody else. I don't waste my time with jerks.