• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Idealism is dangerous

NewtonTrino

Illuminator
NewtonTrino
Joined
Jul 2, 2007
Messages
4,585
I was thinking about the other thread about how it seems like Christians are more likely to use torture. Personally I don't think this is intrinsic to religion but is more of a side effect of a particular brand of message spreading (e.g. using hell as a big stick).

This leads me to the bigger thought that religions and other memes cause thought patterns to become more static. Anytime you have an absolute rule of something instead of being flexible about a particular situation after looking at the evidence then you have the possibility of danger. People following rules in blind obedience will sometimes do crazy things because it doesn't sound crazy to them, in fact it sounds rational. See suicide bombers as a prime example but many of coups in the world based on ideals (the marxists in Russia etc etc) are based on this absolutist kind of thing.

I guess I would rather see the world run on rationality and critical thinking instead of some arbitrary set of rules that must be obeyed. Harm reduction, scientific investigation of the world etc.

All errors mine, I quit proofreading my posts, it's takes 5 times longer to write when I proofread.
 
Everything I've read on suicide bombers suggests that it isn't as much a matter of poor logic as active and rigorous brainwashing.
 
Who's doing the brainwashing and why? Someone is making the decision somewhere based on some reasoning or another.
 
I'm still not sure you make the strong case that this kind of action is a result of absolute thinking.

It could just as easily be modeled as a different set of priorities. How would the decision to send off a suicide bomber go differently with attention to nuance?
 
If you paid attention to nuance you would realize there is almost no probability of you getting to meet allah and get a bunch of virgins.
 
AH, so your argument is that only absolutist thinking leads to belief in religion, or that all strong belief in religion is the result of absolutist thinking?

Neither is true. People with limited educational resources can come to the conclusion that religious claims are true based on the best information available to them.
 
Atheists could be suicide bombers too. How much did religion have to do with the Japanese Kamikazies?
 
A lot from what I understand. The emperor was their god and they were doing duty to their empire.

Anyway it was just an idea.
 
NewtonTrino said:
I was thinking about the other thread about how it seems like Christians are more likely to use torture. Personally I don't think this is intrinsic to religion but is more of a side effect of a particular brand of message spreading (e.g. using hell as a big stick).

This leads me to the bigger thought that religions and other memes cause thought patterns to become more static. Anytime you have an absolute rule of something instead of being flexible about a particular situation after looking at the evidence then you have the possibility of danger. People following rules in blind obedience will sometimes do crazy things because it doesn't sound crazy to them, in fact it sounds rational. See suicide bombers as a prime example but many of coups in the world based on ideals (the marxists in Russia etc etc) are based on this absolutist kind of thing.

I guess I would rather see the world run on rationality and critical thinking instead of some arbitrary set of rules that must be obeyed. Harm reduction, scientific investigation of the world etc.

All errors mine, I quit proofreading my posts, it's takes 5 times longer to write when I proofread.
Click to expand...


I think you might better have said "ideological extremism is dangerous".
 
quarky said:
Atheists could be suicide bombers too. How much did religion have to do with the Japanese Kamikazies?
Click to expand...

Very little.

I find the Japanese the hardest culture on Earth to understand. I mean....they are weird. Perhaps it is because I'm English and England is about as culturally and sociologically different from Japan as is possible.
 
Last edited:
NewtonTrino said:
I was thinking about the other thread about how it seems like Christians are more likely to use torture. Personally I don't think this is intrinsic to religion but is more of a side effect of a particular brand of message spreading (e.g. using hell as a big stick).

This leads me to the bigger thought that religions and other memes cause thought patterns to become more static. Anytime you have an absolute rule of something instead of being flexible about a particular situation after looking at the evidence then you have the possibility of danger. People following rules in blind obedience will sometimes do crazy things because it doesn't sound crazy to them, in fact it sounds rational. See suicide bombers as a prime example but many of coups in the world based on ideals (the marxists in Russia etc etc) are based on this absolutist kind of thing.

I guess I would rather see the world run on rationality and critical thinking instead of some arbitrary set of rules that must be obeyed. Harm reduction, scientific investigation of the world etc.

All errors mine, I quit proofreading my posts, it's takes 5 times longer to write when I proofread.
Click to expand...

So based on a sample of less than 800 people in a nation of 300 million, you feel this is reason to pass a generality about religious beliefs and aceptance of torture?
 
UndercoverElephant said:
Very little.
Click to expand...

I disagree. I mean, even the name is a religious reference : kami-kaze, god-wind. The whole structure -- particularly after the Meiji restoration and before the surrender -- was based on a religious notion of personal duty to the God-Emperor.
 
Am I the only person here with the title of this thread? Forgive me, but to me, it's not idealism that is the danger.

Idealism can be a wonderful thing. It can inspire us to reach a little higher, as it did with the Apollo missions, or even push us to serve others, such as with Norman Borlaug, and his work in botanical research. There are great things which can be accomplished, if only we'll dare to imagine them.

The danger is when it enters the realm of monomania, when it goes beyond the ends justifying the mean to the ends becoming the means. It becomes a danger when we forget the people who are involved, and the roles they play, and the very real sacrifices they must make over the course of time. It's nice to check out the bones, but you have to see the muscle, the sinew, the skin, the healthy tissue which you must also work with in any situation. There are real people involved; failing to recognize this is what's dangerous.

My question is: What's your goal? What I've seen is that when we involve others in our ideals, when we work towards them together, we have a better chance of success, but also, we can learn what things we should NOT be doing. This isn't simply learning which oxen shouldn't be gored, but rather refinement of the goals and the approaches to them, making it possible for us to achieve them with minimal damage, and greater success. It's not easy, but history has taught us it can be done.

Funny, the whole thing sounds an awful lot like science to me.
 
I can't write like Roadtoad, but I agree with him in my own little monosyllabic way. Idealism can be personally dangerous (or at least risky) but without it, ideas don't advance. It doesn't have to be the extreme, brainwashed idealism of suicide bombers. It can be something as simple as standing up for a principle even in a crowd of people who you know oppose that principle. You might gain their emnity, but without it, your principle will never see the light of day.
 
Being too flexible with ethics and morals is a problem too.

I mean if you can figure out a way to justify everything you do, it would be tantamount to having no morals or a conscience.


INRM
 
Roadtoad said:
Am I the only person here with the title of this thread? Forgive me, but to me, it's not idealism that is the danger.

Idealism can be a wonderful thing.
Click to expand...

So can fire. I think it was Washington who famously said that "government, like fire, is a useful servant, but a fearful master." I don't think anyone in possession of even a few of his senses would deny that fire is dangerous, even while admitting that it is useful.

The danger is when it enters the realm of monomania, when it goes beyond the ends justifying the mean to the ends becoming the means.
Click to expand...

No, the danger enters much earlier than that. When the (good) ends overcome the (evil) means, it is already dangerous. This is especially true since the ends may never come about no matter the means we employ. If my end goal is to eliminate abortions, and my means are to assassinate doctors who perform them, then I have just justified my becoming a murderer -- and, more damningly, abortions will probably still continue even after I am caught, convicted, and executed.

It is precisely the ideals -- those shining visions of a City on a Hill -- that will enable people to do almost anything to achieve. Remember, almost no one thinks evil of themselves. Everyone sitting in jail today is innocent -- just ask them. Almost to a man, they can justify their actions and behavior.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom