BBO Discussion Forums: The Problem with Religious Moderation - BBO Discussion Forums

 Vampyr, on 2014-March-04, 07:02, said:

I wonder if you, and mikeh, do not consider a "religious moderate" as a contradiction in terms?

My own experience is that life is not as simple as that. I have known many believers whom I would consider moderate.

Let me pose an hypothetical: I think it was Dick Morris who said of President Clinton that "when he went to church on Sunday he was a devout Christian , when he entered the Oval Office on the following Monday he was a complete pragmatist".

I do not think you could label Pres. Clinton a fanatic or an atheist, would you call him a religious moderate?

 Scarabin, on 2014-March-04, 22:22, said:

I suspect that Clinton was not the least bit religious in the sense of truly believing in anything other than himself. Carter, otoh, was, I believe, genuinely a religious president.

However, my view is that you still 'don't' get it. Of course there are many religious believers who are moderate. Many, many religious believers are tolerant of others, are socially liberal and progressive. There are many I would be happy to count as friends, and indeed (at the risk of invoking what is often the claim of bigots), some of my good friends are religious moderates:)

However, in terms of the OP, it seems to me that once one removes all of the obfuscations and rationalizations, the religious moderate has more in common with the religious fanatic than with the atheist in terms of how they see the universe and their place in it. In terms of day to day behaviour, and how they treat others, the opposite will often hold true. There is no question but at I would far rather deal with the moderate believer than the fanatic. In terms of tolerance, compassion, friendship, I don't for one moment claim that all atheists or indeed any atheist is automatically better than any religious moderate. Far from it: in terms of being a good human being, I don't think that the distinction is even important. The problem is that the existence of so many people whose world view is premised on illogical, irrational, inconsistent and simply stupid belief rather than evidence and critical thinking provides both shelter and justification for he truly nasty fanatics.

 Scarabin, on 2014-March-04, 22:22, said:

Well, you claim that religious moderates are reasonably likely to change their views and become unbelievers. Is this the case in your experience?

Major report reveals extensive abuse of women in EU

What do you think is the underlying reason for this? These are supposed to be intelligent, sophisticated, modern free thinking Europeans who have progressed via evolution to the top of the food chain? This is the region where the LHC was built to take us to the "next level of science." We are talking here about (mostly) highly educated Europeans, not the uneducated from Africa.

So what's going on here?

 32519, on 2014-March-05, 02:59, said:

Well, Christianity (to give the most common example in Europe) with its patriarchy could be a contributing factor. Your hero Paul was a fanatical misogynist, and all Christian sects consider women to be second-class citizens (obviously some more than others). Many hundreds of years of culture have created a worldview which devalues women, so some nasty and violent people consider them legitimate targets for abuse.

Also just in general, mean people pick on those who are smaller or weaker than themselves.

"Top of the food chain"? Where are my downvotes?

On topic, I suspect what is going on is that (at least some of the some countries of) the EU takes this question very seriously and they are trying to do some serious statistics about it. If you used their definition of rape to some countries from Africa or the Middle East, I suspect the ratio wouldn't be 33% but much closer to 99% (although maybe more than 100% if you use some sort of double counting as apparently they do sometimes in Sweden: http://www.bbc.com/n...gazine-19592372). Marital rape as a concept doesn't exist in most of the world even though it can be just as traumatic an experience.
What do you think about this case for example?
http://www.bbc.com/n...africa-26286264
Do you think this would happen in the EU? Do you think that women from Sudan are more or less likely to report rapes compared to the EU if they know that they might be stoned to death for being raped?

I thought blaming gay people for hurricanes and earthquakes was bad enonugh, now we are blaming Higgs bosons for rape statistics

Even by bbf standards, the wandering of this thread seems to be erratic.

Possibly there is room for me to somewhat agree (how's that for lukewarm) with mikeh if he would broaden his stance to deplore the general concept of group membership. No doubt Lennon's Imagine is unrealistic but I do think a lot of harm is done when we line up as members of a group. The flip side of that is that group membership often both sets behavioral standards and offers support. So where are we? You know it ain't easy...

 Vampyr, on 2014-March-05, 03:09, said:

Wow! Your posts are steadily getting worse and worse. On what basis are you making this outrageous statement?

I’ll give you this to read while you formulate your answer, Was Paul married?
The people upvoting posts like this of yours are equally clueless!

 kenberg, on 2014-March-05, 08:05, said:

Done!

It may seem to some that atheists from a group and maybe some do. There are atheist organizations, after all. However, there is no such thing as an atheist holy book or set of sacred texts that cannot be questioned. Atheists tend, IMO, to be fairly liberal in their social and political outlook but that is far from universally true so you can't even say that we group in that fashion.

None of that should be surprising:atheism is the lack of a certain belief...for most it means that he or she has done some critical thinking about the nature of the universe and our place within it. While there may be many atheists who were raised that way, such that their atheism is 'unexamined', many (including myself) were raised in a somewhat religious environment. Becoming an atheist meant opting out of group-think, not opting in.

(Deleted - double post...damn you, iPad!)

 mikeh, on 2014-March-05, 08:51, said:

For sure. Ayn Rand, for example, was a very outspoken atheist.

 kenberg, on 2014-March-05, 08:05, said:

Quite. When the composer and singer of the song had a refrigerated room in his penthouse apartment for storing his fur coats, what hope is there for the rest of us?

 32519, on 2014-March-05, 08:45, said:

You misunderstand. I did not mean to imply that Christianity is the only religion that institutionalises the subjugation of women. All major modern religions do it. Probably not Buddhism, but Buddhism lags way behind the Big Four in number of adherents.

The point is not that all men are created equal - you're right, they aren't - but that they should all be treated equally. If white men have the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" then so should everybody else. If someone, somewhere, has a right to defend himself, his family, and others with lethal force against force initiated against them, then so do everyone everywhere. Note that "right" is not the same thing as "legal privilege", even though many people would call the latter a "right". Right comes from what you are - human - not from where or under what political system you live.

Idealistic? Yes. Foolish? I hope not.

This discussion has become confusing


Does not everyone I mean everyone who has a belief in religion, believe in a god, belief in a wise man/women in a king/queen... denies the rational world.... accept some version of a philosopher king and all the weakness that implies that leads to Hegel and others?


Likewise all those who only accept a rational world with no gods, no spiritual world a world where avoiding pain and maximizing pleasure becomes the only valid measure of right and wrong.

I would argue that it is the irreconcilable difference between these ideals that creates tension and renewal in our world. That is a good thing.

 mike777, on 2014-March-06, 02:41, said:

Isn't this the "Golden Rule" that is the basis of many religions? So there's no big difference, is there.

 Vampyr, on 2014-March-05, 02:58, said:

I would say that moderates, whether religious or secular, are more likely to change their views than fanatics, whether religious or secular. I think browsing earlier religious topics should provide evidence for this.

In my experience, most people try to formulate life philosophies with which they can feel comfortable and are loathe to leave their comfort zones. I have known some people I would term moderates whose views fluctuated constantly.

 mikeh, on 2014-March-05, 00:30, said:

Otoh I seem to recall your believing Adolf Hitler was a good Christian, so perhaps your suspicion of Clinton lacks conviction?

Reading the rest of your post I concluded the great truth you accuse me of failing to get is your belief that atheists can never be fanatics while all believers are potential fanatics.

While such a view may be theoretically possible it does not seem to be related to reality. May I suggest you re-read some of the BBF religious topics?

 Scarabin, on 2014-March-06, 03:40, said:

Right, I guess we are not on the same wavelength as far as defining "religious moderates". I am using the term to,describe people who are believers, who go to church etc, but are otherwise normal.

Now, it is true that most of the atheists I know, especially family members, were raised in "moderate" religious households and were believers in their youth. But most people just stick with the religion they were brought up in, and are not interested in changing their beliefs.

I don't know anyone whose views fluctuate, at least not once they are adults.