My point is that religion and science are both social and tribal phenomena which are defined by social and tribal relationships. Dawkins is inside that world, not outside of it. He's not going to make the fundies stop being fundies just because he's written a few books about evolution and religion and the Royal Society thinks he's a cool dude.
Dawkins is inside that world, not outside of it. He's not going to make the fundies stop being fundies just because he's written a few books about evolution and religion and the Royal Society thinks he's a cool dude.
The feminist movement of the early to middle 20th century didn't take male feelings into account. It was a declaration of war as far as traditional society was concerned. Sitting down for a reasonable discussion over a cup of tea, as some people here seem to believe is the proper course of action, would have accomplished nothing.
As Northern Ireland showed clearly, political problems have political solutions, not religious ones.
How many year of violence preceded the bargaining table?
you are the media you consume.
Forgot to add this: would the bargaining table have even happened if the years of violence hadn't led to a kind of stalemate?
That's a different issue. Terrorist violence is by definition political. That the political peace process was preceeded by political violence is hardly surprising.
More relevant to this discussion, Is the fundamental argument between the Northern Irish peoples over the theology of the sacraments, or are those theological disputes identity labels for a political dispute? I would argue the latter.
But it smells of special pleading to say that among all these contributing factors, only religion should be discounted as a predominantly negative influence. Would there have been a conflict in Northern Ireland without any religious divide? Very likely yes. Would there have been a first world war without jingoistic nationalism? Very likely yes. Why, then do you want to give religious bigotry a free pass in the former case, when nationalist bigotry does not get a free pass in the latter?
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
I might as well put them out there anyway, though.
First off, one could argue that religion in this sense is being used in the place that language, flags, geography, and a million other things could also fill in a tribal nationalist construct. None of these things, in and of themselves, say much of anything about politics, but can quite easily become the symbols behind which the same old violent tribalistic nationalism hides, and has always hid. Thus, the problem both here and in WWI is really nationalism. This seems to just be re-defining the situation, with a dose of special pleading thrown in.
One could argue that religion can often have a variety of neutral to positive products, while nationalism seems never to have any. This is a boring argument.
One could argue that some form of religious belief has been part of every human society in all times and places, and thus is just not something that is going to dissappear, whereas nationalism does seem to be much more recent phenomenon. Then again, that would depend on how you define nationalism, and it would require that one deal with the very common religious belief that members of one's own group are real humans, and everybody else isn't.
One could also argue that by the standards you are proposing (any cultural construct that is not scientifically verifiable and that has led to something negative in past history should be discarded) would leave us with just about nothing, as all systems of values, ethics, beliefs, philosophy, and aesthetics are both scientifically unverifiable and can lead people to do stupid and damaging things.
One can argue all kinds of things, but all of the counter-arguments that are coming to mind seem shallow and inadequate, as if I have not grasped the real thrust of your argument. Maybe that's just the sleep-deprivation and exhaustion talking.
I think that the problem with this hypothesis is that you misidentify nationalism as being the sole or primary underlying phenomenon. In reality opposing camps are likely generated for a combination of different reasons, and putting it all down to single-factor explanations like nationalism or class struggle seems entirely too simplistic. In fact, nationalism seems to be employed just as frequently as religion these days as a proxy for other interests - be they oil, basing rights or military dominance.
More importantly, it's also false: In Denmark, for example, the first democratic constitution piggybacked on a chiefly nationalist zeitgeist. Without the aid of the nationalists, it likely wouldn't have passed (the story, as always, is a bit more complicated than that, of course).
More importantly, simple longevity should not make a concept above reasoned criticism. Until not very long ago as the universe measures such things, slavery had been a universal human institution and was unlikely to just disappear. The same can be said for gender discrimination today. And yet we consider both amoral and abhorrent, so simple age is no stamp of approval on an idea.
That's a very powerful argument, but it has the problem that it attacks a position that is a shade more extreme than the one I hold (although it's entirely possible that Dawkins holds it - I'm not sufficiently familiar with his writings to tell). I merely argue that we should acknowledge those cases in which religion has played a predominantly negative role and take prudent steps to see that as few such situations arise as possible, not that we should therefore abolish religion.
I happen to think, however, that religion will almost always play a predominantly negative role when it becomes part of the political equation. Religion is similar to alcohol and sex, in that when enjoyed in the privacy of one's own home or pub/nightclub/temple it does no harm, provided that one does not go overboard and that only consenting adults are involved. Unfortunately, it is also similar to alcohol and sex in that if you get it mixed up in politics, Bad Things can (and regularly do) happen. Think Yeltsin, Clinton and Bush the Lesser, if you want examples.
as if I have not grasped the real thrust of your argument. Maybe that's just the sleep-deprivation and exhaustion talking.
The fact that I'm also getting tired probably doesn't help either... Let's call it a night and get back to it some other time.
