Journey-man
New Member
The important thing to realize about religion, is that the doctrines of particular sects are contextualized to events and narratives in history as well. A Reformed Christian would have more of a connection to a John Calvin or Martin Luther, and there is a cultural element to these denominational expressions as well, but then we make even more refined distinctions between Reformed Baptists and Reformed Presbyterian. The point is, religion, like people, is extremely complex and the mixture of real life events and what religious people believe about those events is perhaps one of the largest framers of history. Take for instance, the most dominant interpretation that lends to Islamic Extremism, the Saudi Sunni Philosophy Wahhabism. This conservative interpretation of fundamental Political Islam comes from the 18th Century preacher Abd al-Wahhad who was in many ways like the Puritans but politically a proto-totalitarian theocrat. In the context of the failing Arab Nationalism in the late 20th Century, this kind of Salafi interpretation to Islam would become appealing to many of the younger generation, though exacerbated of course by the internet's capacity for propaganda output as well as what has been viewed as incessant western intrusion which has resulted in a destabilization of the entire region.
So when a man bursts into a nightclub to destroy his fellow human beings, is he acting in such a way that he would have without the religion? Most certainly not, but religion is the a wholly causal factor as there are a multitude of other events and beliefs by which we motivate our behaviors. More important than that is the psychology of it, as we motivate more so the habits which then create the overarching framework for behavior, and the sociological impacts of political subversion and poor economic conditions can push people to the extreme.
Religion is a human affair and can be used in the hands of Gandhi to bring about peace or can be used in the hands of al-Baghdadi to justify massacring and raping of innocents. The factors which determine this aren't necessarily the overall pre-existing factors of the religion itself, such as if it is Christian, Hindu, Islamic, Jewish, etc. Those are important questions, but one has to also inquire about its relative ideology within that religion (where does it fall on the conservative spectrum in its own tradition, and what is the content of those fundamental beliefs). You then have to investigate the other interests of the sectarian organizations, as there is usually a heavily contextualized historical element to the emergence of these movements.
At the end of looking at all this myself, being an atheist today, but formerly a Mormon and Christian, is to see religion as much more of an anthropological view and look at how it interacts with historical events and how different ideologies emerge within their Canonical traditions. Trying to spin it in such simplistic ways usually conceals a background motivation to want to either vindicate or indict religion perhaps out of the belief that "religion poisons everything." I think religion is still a largely necessary social and cultural construct for society, as the communal impacts are demonstrably impactful on the well-being of many. I think we should be looking at ways to supersede it culturally, politically, and socially as I think having a belief structure that isn't tethered to a pragmatic evaluation of observable reality is potentially dangerous.
My two cents. JM
So when a man bursts into a nightclub to destroy his fellow human beings, is he acting in such a way that he would have without the religion? Most certainly not, but religion is the a wholly causal factor as there are a multitude of other events and beliefs by which we motivate our behaviors. More important than that is the psychology of it, as we motivate more so the habits which then create the overarching framework for behavior, and the sociological impacts of political subversion and poor economic conditions can push people to the extreme.
Religion is a human affair and can be used in the hands of Gandhi to bring about peace or can be used in the hands of al-Baghdadi to justify massacring and raping of innocents. The factors which determine this aren't necessarily the overall pre-existing factors of the religion itself, such as if it is Christian, Hindu, Islamic, Jewish, etc. Those are important questions, but one has to also inquire about its relative ideology within that religion (where does it fall on the conservative spectrum in its own tradition, and what is the content of those fundamental beliefs). You then have to investigate the other interests of the sectarian organizations, as there is usually a heavily contextualized historical element to the emergence of these movements.
At the end of looking at all this myself, being an atheist today, but formerly a Mormon and Christian, is to see religion as much more of an anthropological view and look at how it interacts with historical events and how different ideologies emerge within their Canonical traditions. Trying to spin it in such simplistic ways usually conceals a background motivation to want to either vindicate or indict religion perhaps out of the belief that "religion poisons everything." I think religion is still a largely necessary social and cultural construct for society, as the communal impacts are demonstrably impactful on the well-being of many. I think we should be looking at ways to supersede it culturally, politically, and socially as I think having a belief structure that isn't tethered to a pragmatic evaluation of observable reality is potentially dangerous.
My two cents. JM
