The holy books and self damnation

legspin

As the boss has asked.

What are your opinions of those followers of religions whose holy books are less than complimentary of those followers

I speak specifically of women and gays and the attitude of the bible and the koran towards them, but if you can think of other examples go for it.

Schuhart

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

That these women like the morals contained in the Bible is, to me, counter-intuitive. It is not a woman-friendly book and without doubt treats men as superior beings to women.

Could there be a truth in there that we don't want to deal with? One reason religion thrives is because women adhere to it. Yet, as you say, religion tends to work on the basis of men having authority over women.

The conclusion would seem to be that many women are attracted to ideologies that require them to defer to men, because that's how they want to live.

It seems to me that we're creating problems for ourselves by basing our conception of the world on how we'd like people to be rather than on how they actually are.

robindch

legspin wrote: »

What are your opinions of those followers of religions whose holy books are less than complimentary of those [...] women and gays [...] and the attitude of the bible and the koran towards them

The books themselves, or at least the sections and ideas which are used to sanctify prejudice and glorify violence, are the product of deeply unpleasant people.

It's very sad, and sometimes very dangerous, that there exist vast human industries whose sole end-product is the replication of these ideas in the brains of other humans, and for no end more useful than the basic act of carrying them. And to make this replication workable, it's important to create an appeal to as many people, or aspects of humanity as possible. And unfortunately, a lot of men do regard women as chattels, and many of both sexes regard gay men as a non-parenting outgroup (so in the economy of religious propagation, it's safe enough to vilify them without hurting the religion's overall prospects). Hence the dominance of religious texts which legitimize both hatreds -- their supporting societies simply overran the less successful religious replicators that nobody remembers any more.

So, my opinion of the books is that they're interesting from the sociological point of view in which they're seen as collections of basic human motivations, but certainly not in the "altruistic" sense believed by the religious. Outside of that, they're generally dull, where they're readable at all.

For the followers of religions, these generally fall into one of the two broad camps -- the first being the unwitting victims who carry the religion, and who deserve at least some kind of basic sympathy; the second, and far smaller group, are the people who understand the power that religious belief confers, and go on to take advantage of it for their own ends; this second group are as dangerous as they are contemptible.

Whispered

Schuhart wrote: »

Could there be a truth in there that we don't want to deal with? One reason religion thrives is because women adhere to it. Yet, as you say, religion tends to work on the basis of men having authority over women.

The conclusion would seem to be that many women are attracted to ideologies that require them to defer to men, because that's how they want to live.

It seems to me that we're creating problems for ourselves by basing our conception of the world on how we'd like people to be rather than on how they actually are.

:eek::eek::eek:

You know the sad fact is that some women find it easier to defer to men, in the same way as some people (men and women) like to defer to a boss. In that way they are never to blame, as they were just following instructions. These are the peopl who will feel the same way about religion. In my humble opinion.

Pompey Magnus

Schuhart wrote: »

Could there be a truth in there that we don't want to deal with? One reason religion thrives is because women adhere to it. Yet, as you say, religion tends to work on the basis of men having authority over women.

The conclusion would seem to be that many women are attracted to ideologies that require them to defer to men, because that's how they want to live.

It is something I have never understood. It is a mystery to me, up there with why women go back to abusive husbands, I really don't see where the attraction is. The only thing I can come up with is that women have a natural attraction towards dominant males, and God is about as dominant as males come. Submission to the alpha male is a well known trait among primates like ourselves, because in return for obedience the alpha male protects the group, very much the same role as God plays.

Schuhart

robindch wrote: »

And unfortunately, a lot of men do regard women as chattels, and many of both sexes regard gay men as a non-parenting outgroup (so in the economy of religious propagation, it's safe enough to vilify them without hurting the religion's overall prospects).

I’ve a feeling this isn’t challenging enough. You’re leaving out women who want to be regarded as chattels – or at least regarded as homemakers. Many people act out submissive roles in situations where they can only claim to be satisfying a fetish. Think of how much more socially valuable it seems if you appeal to a religion.

robindch wrote: »

For the followers of religions, these generally fall into one of the two broad camps -- the first being the unwitting victims who carry the religion, and who deserve at least some kind of basic sympathy; the second, and far smaller group, are the people who understand the power that religious belief confers, and go on to take advantage of it for their own ends; this second group are as dangerous as they are contemptible.

But is this consistent with the view that religion confers an evolutionary advantage? Surely if practice of a religion is a feature of people who successfully propagate, then this division between ‘unwitting victims’ and ‘people who understand the power’ doesn’t really exist as persisting in religious belief (or at least religious affiliation) is simply a smart move, if your motivation is to reproduce successfully.

helena.ryan wrote: »

You know the sad fact is that some women find it easier to defer to men, in the same way as some people (men and women) like to defer to a boss. In that way they are never to blame, as they were just following instructions. These are the peopl who will feel the same way about religion. In my humble opinion.

I think you are pretty much correct. The only real question is to what extent we can define whether that ‘some’ is ‘many’ (or what ‘some’ or ‘many’ means). I can’t claim any particular science to this - other than to note that atheists tend to be men, which suggests women are slower to reject religion. That suggests religion is giving them something they value. I’d therefore speculate that the view of women we find in religion is not one that they find abhorrent, and quite likely one they find attractive.

Generally, I think atheists tend to be slow to simply acknowledge that religion persists because that’s what normal humans do. I think we are slow to do this, because we don’t like the conclusions that pop out of this about what this means normal humans are.

Depeche_Mode wrote:

Submission to the alpha male is a well known trait among primates like ourselves, because in return for obedience the alpha male protects the group, very much the same role as God plays.

Indeed, if we take that old question of Freud's 'What does a woman want?', I sort of feel the answer provided by a close study of BBC wildlife documentaries is 'if she's anything like the rest of the animal world, to collect semen from the alpha male'.

legspin

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

It is something I have never understood. It is a mystery to me, up there with why women go back to abusive husbands, I really don't see where the attraction is. The only thing I can come up with is that women have a natural attraction towards dominant males, and God is about as dominant as males come. Submission to the alpha male is a well known trait among primates like ourselves, because in return for obedience the alpha male protects the group, very much the same role as God plays.

There is a train of thought that there is a bit of the Stockholm Syndrome floating around here. The (un)natural instinct of victims to identify with their oppressors has been linked to the lack of slave revolts over the years and to the phenomenon of battered spouses going back to their abusers.

Personally, I find the books odious in the extreme and the philosophies they espouse to be evil, especially as they are purported to be the books of a loving and forgiving god.
However, if you are of one of the groups they seek to condemn and you still follow the strictures of that religion you deserve everything you get, if only for being a fool if nothing else.

robindch

Schuhart wrote: »

I’ve a feeling this isn’t challenging enough. You’re leaving out women who want to be regarded as chattels – or at least regarded as homemakers.

I think there's a strong distinction between chattels and traditional homemakers, with the former being pretty close to the biblical model, and the latter being closer to a post-feminist, equality-minded, modern-day, child-equipped, happy-cooky yummy-mummy with a car and career plans. I think there are few enough of the chattel-types these days, at least outside of the FLDS and equivalent religious and other organizations.

Schuhart wrote: »

Think of how much more socially valuable it seems if you appeal to a religion.

It's certainly possible to acquire trust by seeming to appealing to the perceived interests of society, and if the society has been preconditioned to believe that only religion can deliver stability, then it's pretty obvious what one has to do.

Schuhart wrote: »

But is this consistent with the view that religion confers an evolutionary advantage? Surely if practice of a religion is a feature of people who successfully propagate [...]

I don't believe that religion does confer any genetic evolutionary advantage, because I believe that religion itself is a cultural organism which is able to evolve much faster than the biological substrate within which it exists (ie, our brains). Hence, any genetic evolution that takes place is going to be outpaced by concurrent cultural evolution. It takes many generations to evolve an extra leg, but six months for the Rubik's Cube to turn up everywhere.

Schuhart wrote: »

I can’t claim any particular science to this - other than to note that atheists tend to be men, which suggests women are slower to reject religion.

I'd phrase it the other way around -- that women are easier targets for religious acquisition in the first place, though quite possible they do indeed discard it less, once it's been acquired.

Schuhart wrote: »

That suggests religion is giving them something they value

That's the "Rational Choice" explanation for religion -- a bit like Pascal's Wager -- and I don't find it very convincing. I think that religion is much, much cuter than that.

Schuhart wrote: »

Generally, I think atheists tend to be slow to simply acknowledge that religion persists because that’s what normal humans do.

"that's what normal people are told to do", and like the biological computers that people are, many of them will do what they're told. Especially, it seems, if the people doing the telling are elderly men dressed up in fancy frocks and silken socks, going through interminable mock-solemn ceremonies.

Schuhart wrote: »

I think we are slow to do this, because we don’t like the conclusions that pop out of this about what this means normal humans are. Indeed, if we take that old question of Freud's 'What does a woman want?', I sort of feel the answer provided by a close study of BBC wildlife documentaries is 'if she's anything like the rest of the animal world, to collect semen from the alpha male'.

Which brings us to the strange question of why so many religious are concerned with creating their own biological reality through the creationist movement. Is it that facing the truth of one's biological reality seems to cut too much out of many people's sense of self-worth? Seems so to me.

Schuhart

I think there's a strong distinction between chattels and traditional homemakers, with the former being pretty close to the biblical model, and the latter being closer to a post-feminist, equality-minded, modern-day, child-equipped, happy-cooky yummy-mummy with a car and career plans.

It is an exaggeration for me to grab that word ‘chattel’. Using more moderate language, religion seems to underwrite the family arrangement of mom, pop and the kids. Law can do it too – but if you end up in court, that presumably means the arrangement is damaged. I know we want to be careful about deeming the ‘decision’ to pursue a religion as the outcome of a rational evaluation of costs and benefits. But I think it is relevant to note when religion seems to be explicable in those terms.

if the society has been preconditioned to believe that only religion can deliver stability, then it's pretty obvious what one has to do.

But do we need to consider that if ‘preconditioned’ societies are what we have, then religion must be pretty good at delivering on that promise of stability. I think of that bible quote about the ‘fool says in his heart there is no god’. That suggests that atheism has been around for a long time. If religion has persisted in the face of pretty obvious doubts, that (to me) suggests it has some natural advantage. It’s doing something that atheism doesn’t – or doesn’t do half as well.

I don't believe that religion does confer any genetic evolutionary advantage, because I believe that religion itself is a cultural organism which is able to evolve much faster than the biological substrate within which it exists (ie, our brains).

Indeed, and two thoughts occur. Firstly, if religion is a cultural organism it seems unnecessary to talk about the misguided multitude being manipulated by the elite who really know. Even authority figures are just acting out roles provided to them by that organism – sometimes at personal cost, as I don’t doubt Pope Benedict had the ability to pursue a commercial career with the bonus of a family if the God business hadn’t seemed attractive. Secondly, if we’re looking at humans as just providers of a biological substrate for cultural organisms, then there’s no particular basis to feel there’s anything wrong with the arrangement or anything to be gained by replacing that organism with another that venerates (for the sake of argument) Burberry patterned possessions.

That's the "Rational Choice" explanation for religion -- a bit like Pascal's Wager -- and I don't find it very convincing. I think that religion is much, much cuter than that.

Fair point – but is it possible to suggest a similar idea, that religion has some feature that promotes its acquisition and retention by women. Maybe they just can’t help it.

"that's what normal people are told to do", and like the biological computers that people are, many of them will do what they're told. Especially, it seems, if the people doing the telling are elderly men dressed up in fancy frocks and silken socks, going through interminable mock-solemn ceremonies.

Except (and I know you don’t really mean it this way) that suggests some external thing telling one group of people to dress in the fancy frocks, and telling the rest to listen to them. I think the key point is this is all stuff humans collectively devised. I’m no archaeologist, but I take it at some stage people took the God thing to be a reasonable explanation of the world and, ultimately, developed all the trappings we now know – sacred myths, with specialist experts who can explain them and perform related ceremonies.

I think it’s important that we try to bring the responsibility home. People hold to religions because, even after extensive discussion, they see something in them. If it was just about them being told, then they’d drop the stuff once someone told them differently. Atheists have been telling them differently for thousands of years – I suggest we’re missing something, whatever it is.

Which brings us to the strange question of why so many religious are concerned with creating their own biological reality through the creationist movement. Is it that facing the truth of one's biological reality seems to cut too much out of many people's sense of self-worth? Seems so to me.

I’d agreed this is a strong motivation – even for religious people who are not creationists, but simply hold that the universe was ultimately willed into existence by God. I think this is where we see statements about ‘religion brings hope’ coming into the picture.

To be honest (there being little point in not being honest) I find the absence of a clear basis for morality to be unsatisfying. I find I can understand (increasingly, as I read more on the topic of religion and philosophy) the logic that Ken Miller uses (in about the last 30 of this youtube video) to explain why people align themselves to creationism. Put crudely, if you think evolution=less religion=less morality=bad society, then you’ll oppose evolution even if you know it to be right. I think what’s need is something that clearly shows less religion doesn’t mean less morality – but I’m not even sure that’s true, let alone have a way of doing more than communicate that doubt.

Clearly what we want is to keep the good stuff that comes from religion – which is what makes it something that people choose to adhere to – while not rejecting our human reason. Which (I’ll be tarred and feathered for this) seems to be what Pope Benedict is getting at in that misquoted speech he gave on Islam.

Galvasean

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

It is something I have never understood. It is a mystery to me, up there with why women go back to abusive husbands, I really don't see where the attraction is. The only thing I can come up with is that women have a natural attraction towards dominant males, and God is about as dominant as males come. Submission to the alpha male is a well known trait among primates like ourselves, because in return for obedience the alpha male protects the group, very much the same role as God plays.

Gawd aint no dayum munkie!!!!!