Religious moderates cause religious extremists

[Tricky]

At TAM3, both Penn Gilette and Richard Dawkins brought up the point that one reason we have religious extremists is because we have religious moderates. It sounded suspiciously like a slippery slope argument, but it made some very good points.

If we are sanguine about "good people" who espouse unsupported ideas, then do we tacitly give the nod to other unsupported ideas? Is it the extremity that is important, shouldany irrational belief should be challenged?

I don't want to become another Michael Nedow and I don't want to alienate my friends or family, but perhaps I should stop treating their "soft theism" with such kid gloves. If anything, "soft theism" is more dangerous because it creates the environment where we tolerate book burners and doctor-killers and creationists with hardly a shrug.

I'm really torn about this, because I have always prided myself on being able to see all sides of a situation and not being radical, but now I am tempted to become more strident. I might suffer personal loss, but if it keeps us from drifting towards a theocracy, it might be worthwhile. On the other hand, it might hasten the drift towards theocracy by making more atheists seem radical.

Grapple grapple.

 

[MLynn]

I partially agree with what you said.

On the way to the airport, Loon and I had a discussion about "apple vs. orange." According to Chris Hitchens (was it Dawkins?), it seems that a person must be one or the other; there is no accounting for someone being, say, a "breadfruit."

In other words, if Christians are the oranges, then all must be the "enemies" of the Atheists (apples).

I think people are multi-dimensional and should not be pigeon-holed because people go through a lifetime journey (like Julia Sweeney demonstrated in her one-woman show). Aren't people more complex than "either/or?"

I do think there is a PC culture where religion is treated differently from other subjects.

I have a friend (an atheist) who will be in my area in the next month or so to promote her book. I have offered to be her bodyguard against any wacko christian-types who have already threatened her. This is my way of dealing with confronting someone about what they're doing with their beliefs. If I see fellow-Xians talking or acting out of line I confront them about it.

I don't quite grapple with the subject, but I do what I can. Tricky, you can always be direct with me.


(Penn's last name is spelled with a "J")

 

[Iacchus]

At TAM3, both Penn Gilette and Richard Dawkins brought up the point that one reason we have religious extremists is because we have religious moderates. It sounded suspiciously like a slippery slope argument, but it made some very good points.

If we are sanguine about "good people" who espouse unsupported ideas, then do we tacitly give the nod to other unsupported ideas? Is it the extremity that is important, shouldany irrational belief should be challenged?

I don't want to become another Michael Nedow and I don't want to alienate my friends or family, but perhaps I should stop treating their "soft theism" with such kid gloves. If anything, "soft theism" is more dangerous because it creates the environment where we tolerate book burners and doctor-killers and creationists with hardly a shrug.

In other words you're just about through with anything that smacks of religion, is that what you're saying? It sounds just a bit like bigotry if you ask me.

 

[RussDill]

In other words you're just about through with anything that smacks of religion, is that what you're saying? It sounds just a bit like bigotry if you ask me.

Yes, just as many of us our through with anything that smacks of nazi-ism, sexism, racism, etc.

Would you speak out against all racists, or just the ones that burn crosses on other peoples lawns?

 

[c4ts]

A lot of moderately religious people I know can't stand the extremists.

 

[The idea]

[...] now I am tempted to become more strident. I might suffer personal loss, but if it keeps us from drifting towards a theocracy, it might be worthwhile. [...]

One hundred people in the Houston area have already been paid $100 each to become less strident. Two hundred other people in the Houston area bet $100 each that the USA won't become a theocracy. However, those silly two hundred people don't know about the importance of stridency. Before they know it, they will be living in a theocracy and the puppetmaster will have earned a profit of $10,000.

 

[SezMe]

A lot of moderately religious people I know can't stand the extremists.

... and don't do anything about it.

The idea that moderates facilitate extremists is one theme of the book The End of Faith by Sam Harris. He makes a good case, although I'm not completely sold.

 

[IllegalArgument]

The one thing I think Penn and the others overlook is that it's not "religious" people that are dangerous or that moderates cause extremists. It's people who believe in absolute ideology, be it political or religous. The communists seemed to have little trouble killing millions of people without a belief in god.

I'm sure people on this forum can think of one poster or another who has an evangelical-like reaction to have their political philosophy question.

 

[Tricky]

I partially agree with what you said.

On the way to the airport, Loon and I had a discussion about "apple vs. orange." According to Chris Hitchens (was it Dawkins?), it seems that a person must be one or the other; there is no accounting for someone being, say, a "breadfruit."

I don't think it is this way. I think you speak out against the belief, not the person.

In other words, if Christians are the oranges, then all must be the "enemies" of the Atheists (apples).

Again. Christian (or other paranormal) beliefs are the enemies of reason, not the people who hold them.

I think people are multi-dimensional and should not be pigeon-holed because people go through a lifetime journey (like Julia Sweeney demonstrated in her one-woman show). Aren't people more complex than "either/or?"

Yes, I know this quite well, having been a Christian for a good part of my life. And yes, it is very complex, which is why I grapple. On one hand, I agree that there are degrees of everything. On the other hand, can it be just as important to attack non-critical thinking in what appear to be non-threatening stages as well as those full-blown wackos?

I had a long discussion with Ms. Tricky (who is a Pagan) and she seemed to think that she was pretty much a pantheist, yet she strongly believes in karma. I argued that karma invokes an intervention by some "thing" (whether you call it God or not) which decides where you go in your next life. If we could decide for ourselves, would we not all choose something comfy? Most of the truly bad people I know would, which says to me that there must be something "intervening" to make this decision.

Ms. Tricky is not a wacko, but her statement of belief is, "if I thought this was all their was and that bad behavior is not punished, I couldn't be happy." Maybe that says a lot about why people choose to believe things without evidence.

I do think there is a PC culture where religion is treated differently from other subjects.

I agree, but I feel that the reason for this is because many of those who choose to be "PC" about it do so because they do not wish to have their own irrational (in the logical sense) beliefs questioned. I will also say that because I wish to be liked, I avoid "real life" confrontations about religion unless I know the person well. So maybe I am PC too.

I have a friend (an atheist) who will be in my area in the next month or so to promote her book. I have offered to be her bodyguard against any wacko christian-types who have already threatened her. This is my way of dealing with confronting someone about what they're doing with their beliefs. If I see fellow-Xians talking or acting out of line I confront them about it.

You are a gem, Mik, and I have nothing but the utmost respect for you. I wish I could convince you to release your beloved but unsupported religious beliefs, just as I wish I could do with Ms. Tricky. I think all of us wish others (especially those we love) could see the good sense of our point of view. What I have to question is what is the best way of convincing you. Do I directly challenge your beliefs, or do I show you that I am a good, intelligent person and hope that you come to share my beliefs? Dawkins and Jillette (thank you) seemed to favor the former. I am not sure they are right, brilliant though they are.

I don't quite grapple with the subject, but I do what I can.

I know you do. I am only an occasional grappler myself.

Tricky, you can always be direct with me.

No I cannot. I am married.

 

[c4ts]

... and don't do anything about it.

The idea that moderates facilitate extremists is one theme of the book The End of Faith by Sam Harris. He makes a good case, although I'm not completely sold.

Actually, some do, others don't. It's a mix, really. But the fact that the extremists are Christian doesn't seem to bother them. They consider fundies and others non-Christians, or bad Christians, and have several arguments to show for it. It's like when Jack Chick's website warned the other fundies about Islamic fundies using circular logic and other fallacies. There's a blinder involved, but it's not stopping these guys from preventing extremism.

 

[T'ai Chi]

At TAM3, both Penn Gilette and Richard Dawkins brought up the point that one reason we have religious extremists is because we have religious moderates.

And what is their evidence or reason for believing this?

 

[Iacchus]

Yes, just as many of us our through with anything that smacks of nazi-ism, sexism, racism, etc.

Would you speak out against all racists, or just the ones that burn crosses on other peoples lawns?

I just have a problem with the bigots you see. So much so, that I will go to any extreme to prove it!

 

[SezMe]

Actually, some do, others don't. It's a mix, really. But the fact that the extremists are Christian doesn't seem to bother them. They consider fundies and others non-Christians, or bad Christians, and have several arguments to show for it. It's like when Jack Chick's website warned the other fundies about Islamic fundies using circular logic and other fallacies. There's a blinder involved, but it's not stopping these guys from preventing extremism.

Like "No true Scotsman ..."

Your first and last sentence don't add up to me. You say, some Christians do something about extremists, some don't (agreed, my first post was too one-sided) but your last sentence implies "these guys" are stopping terrorism. Or do you mean that it shouldn't be stopping activist Christians from doing something about terrorism.

 

[Oleron]

Tricky,

I have been thinking similar thoughts for some time now and I am in a remarkably similar situation to you. I was a committed xian for a large part of my life and have many friends/family who are still involved with xianity. I also have a Pagan/Wiccan wife as I have mentioned before. (are you sure you're not me?! Nah, you're far too erudite....)

Anyway the thought has occurred to me that xian beliefs are close to belief in the paranormal and while we are all happy about fighting woo-ism , we seem to stop short of attacking xianity. I worry that this is hypocrisy.

Maybe, though, there is a small but important difference. A woo belief is typified by the exaggeration or embellishment of anecdotal observation. Woo's will hear a piece of evidence and choose to believe it because it fits their preconceptions of how the world operates. Even when the evidence is attacked or discredited they will defend it any way they can.

Xianity is slightly different in that it operates on a faith basis. Xians could accept the tearing down of the supporting evidence because of the faith factor. They don't want to have their evidence nullified but even if the entire bible was shown to be the work of a Greek humorist, their faith could survive.

Neither group accepts logic readily. Neither group chooses reason over preconception.

The difference is really down to whether you accept that faith is different from bloody-mindedness.

IMO, they are the same thing - although this is only how I feel today.....

 

[El Greco]

I usually attack the theism of people who are very close to me (with varying levels of subtlety) just because IMO it's a stupid belief no different than Feng Shui or anything else woo. But I don't blame theists for the extremists, not even indirectly. They are not responsible for these idiots. If we start making such connections we will end up as comical zealots. Why not say that we have hooligans because we have sports fans ? And this is just an example.

 

[hammegk]

Just keep Newdow and Penn (eff'n retards) Jillete on the front pages. None of your non-Bright opposition could hope for more or better publicity.

 

[duppyraces]

I usually attack the theism of people who are very close to me (with varying levels of subtlety) just because IMO it's a stupid belief no different than Feng Shui or anything else woo. But I don't blame theists for the extremists, not even indirectly. They are not responsible for these idiots. If we start making such connections we will end up as comical zealots. Why not say that we have hooligans because we have sports fans ? And this is just an example.

I completely agree. I think extremists are not created by Christianity or Islam or the like; but people with the extremism personality defect are using these things as a vehicle to get their driving need to judge or control or feel important or whatever recognized, justified, and feared. I always figured they were the kids that, when they realized they couldn't cut it on their own in the sandbox, said, "my dad can beat up your dad." As others are less impressed by this as they grow up, it becomes "my god is going to destroy you for disagreeing." They have a need to feel in control. To feel powerful. To have purpose with no room for question. If religion didn't exist at all, these people would still find a way to act the same. Different people use religion to serve different needs.

As an atheist, I often hear I am responsible for the world's ills because of the actions of extremists who "don't follow god". I, however, don't think I'm responsible for it. Well, most likely not responsible.

I think the problem with any set of beliefs, or lack thereof, is that that school of thought's followers are less likely to notice or speak against the extremists in their midst until they get way out of control. And suddenly, everyone else judges the group by their extremists, and as responsible for their extremists. One thing I absolutely believe in is that a group should be as outspoken against their extremists as they are against their opposition.

 

[AmateurScientist]

As an atheist, I often hear I am responsible for the world's ills because of the actions of extremists who "don't follow god". I, however, don't think I'm responsible for it. Well, most likely not responsible.

Just admit it. You peed in my cereal this morning.

AS

 

[duppyraces]

Just admit it. You peed in my cereal this morning.

AS

Okay, I did. But I said a prayer before I did it, so you can blame it on the Christians.


P.S. How was it?

 

[AmateurScientist]

Okay, I did. But I said a prayer before I did it, so you can blame it on the Christians.


P.S. How was it?

Well, that was easy getting a confession out of you.

I didn't even have to use any lawyer tricks, beat it out of you with a baseball bat, or resort to my sooper sekrit tickling technique.

It's sort of too bad that you caved so early.

Anyway, I prefer milk.

AS