Is faith in ideology less blind, fanatical and dangerous than relgious

[SRV]

Religion is often singled out as the primary cause for conflict and violence in the world today. But is this accusation justified?

It is indisputable that much violence and many wars, conquests, inquisitions, cultural genocide, and genocide has been committed and continues to be committed in the name of religion. It is also true that violence perpetrated in the name of religion is rooted in fanatical blind faith in religious constructs that its adherents feel justifies their intolerance of and violence toward those who disagree with them. Many adherents to religions reject scientific data inconsistent with their teachings and/or 'sacred texts'. This lack of objectivity has caused many secular, atheist and scientifically-minded people to label religions as dangerous and its adherents as fanatics that collectively represent the greatest obstacle to world peace.

But are religions the primary obstacle to world peace in the 21st century? Would poverty, cultural genocide, colonialism, racism, inequality, war and violence magically disappear if enlightened people abandoned religion? Or has religion become both a scapegoat and a tool used alternatively by a sinister and obscure corporatocracy that unscrupulously uses peoples' religious beliefs to garner support for its own corporate agenda, while it simultaneously manipulates the secular ideologues' critique of religion to divert attention away from its own abuses of power? Colonialism is a case in point: Five hundred years ago colonialism --the systemic appropriation and dispossession of other peoples lands and resources-- was done in the name of religion. The Doctrine of Discovery recognized only the sovereignty of Christian countries who invaded ('discovered') non-Christian countries. Cultural genocide in the name of God and saving the souls of pagans was a moral duty. Today the systemic appropriation and dispossession of other peoples' lands and resources (neo-colonialism) is justified on the basis of 'bringing development to the under-developed'. Like 'saving the souls of the pagans' before it, 'bringing development to the underdeveloped' is a moral duty, and the resulting cultural genocide an unfortunate but inevitable consequence. Despite having shed its religious underpinnings, colonial systemic oppression (neo-colonialism) continues unabated and uninterrupted. Ideological arguments have eclipsed religious ones as the primary justification for systemic land and resource appropriation and the resulting cultural genocide.

Even a cursory glance at political campaigns are enough to show that elections today are not won or lost based on an enlightened public's scientific understanding of the world we live in. Despite separation of Church and State religious views are still invoked and exploited in electoral campaigns, while science --social science or hard science-- plays little or no role in the propaganda used to woo voters. The general voting public has no more knowledge and insight into the behind-closed-doors decision-making that determines when wars will be fought, trade deals signed, foreign policy decisions made, and economic policy decided upon and enacted than did parishioners back when priests still delivered homilies in Latin. Whether their country and political party's superiority is based on being God's chosen people or on advancement in some contrived Darwinian chain of social evolution matters little. The fanatical blind passionate faith people place in political candidates, parties and ideologies is indistinguishable from the faith they previously or still place in religious constructs. And, like their ancestors before them in a more religious era, the corporate elites continue to denounce as heretics scientists who present evidence that goes against their corporate agendas.

In short, it seems to me that in the upper echelons of power people's religious and ideological beliefs are equally fanatical, blind and easily manipulated. A move towards a more secular society and world view will do little to nothing to promote justice, prosperity and peace. Cultures and human rights are not threatened by innovation and a lack of adaptability. They are threatened by an imbalance and abuse of power. Mutual respect for and appreciation and protection of diversity will do far more to promote justice, prosperity and peace for all than top-down religious, ideological or economic constructs!

Edited December 16, 2015 by SRV

[Exegesisme]

Either faith of ideology nor a special existed religion can make world peace in the 21st century, so I have been creating omega theology for future Christianity to approach world peace in the 21st century.

Three obstacles to world peace in the 21st century:​

1 greedy;

2 ignorance;

3 lack of healthy creativity.

Ideology and alpha theology more likely

Three values to world peace in the 21st century:​

1 sound private;

2 good order of knowledge;

3 healthy creativity.

Omega theology of future Christianity pursues these values.

Edited December 16, 2015 by Exegesisme

[Guest]

But are religions the primary obstacle to world peace in the 21st century? Would poverty, cultural genocide, colonialism, racism, inequality, war and violence magically disappear if enlightened people abandoned religion?

I think you would get better results if all the unenlightened people abandoned religion. The enlightened people can keep it, they aren't the problem.

As to whether religion is the primary obstacle to world peace in the 21st century: Probably not, but as my sig says, they do seem to get the most joy out of being any kind of obstacle.

Edited December 16, 2015 by bcsapper

[SRV]

I guess what concerns me is the native assumption that the secular are assumed to be more objective, less fanatical, and more benevolent. I see people questioning the role of religion that are oblivious to their equally blind unquestioning faith and trust in politicians most of whom are in fact corporate lackeys.

[Exegesisme]

I guess what concerns me is the native assumption that the secular are assumed to be more objective, less fanatical, and more benevolent. I see people questioning the role of religion that are oblivious to their equally blind unquestioning faith and trust in politicians most of whom are in fact corporate lackeys.

The secular is easier to be arrogant, case as Kantian philosophy, which started ways for communism and fascism, both are sources of wars.

The knowledge of religions is too old to assist believers live a good life in 21st century, so hardly make major contribution to world peace in 21st century.

Edited December 16, 2015 by Exegesisme

[SRV]

I guess what concerns me is the naive assumption that the secular are assumed to be more objective, less fanatical, and more benevolent. I see people questioning the role of religion that are oblivious to the role of equally blind unquestioning faith and trust in politicians, most of whom are in fact willing or reluctant corporate lackeys.

[Guest]

I guess what concerns me is the naive assumption that the secular are assumed to be more objective, less fanatical, and more benevolent. I see people questioning the role of religion that are oblivious to the role of equally blind unquestioning faith and trust in politicians, most of whom are in fact willing or reluctant corporate lackeys.

How come you repeat your posts? Mistake? Better watch it, points have been handed out for less.

[SRV]

A mistake. Didn't intend to repeat my post. Thought I was editing --correcting the spelling of naive to be precise-- and discovered it had reposted the whole thing. The editing option on my computer app seems to be more straight forward than this Android app, which I'm not sure even has that option. A bit new to all this...

[Guest]

It happens. That's why you see a lot of post with just a dot, or "dp", for deleted post.

Edited December 16, 2015 by bcsapper

[Moonlight Graham]

Ignorance is an enemy of both secular democracy and religious fanatics. People who do not question their beliefs, or attempt to investigate the facts. Both are very dangerous. Violent religious nuts kill people, while the ignorant masses, through their own uninformed opinions and votes and consumer habits, allow corporations and politicians to do terribly cruel and violent things through their ignorance. Most people aren't bad people at all, but they let bad tings happen, or vote for people or buy products/services from people who make bad things happen, and are therefore complicit themselves.

[Guest]

To me believing in any concept not supported by evidence is the same thing. Gods, goddesses, big foot, karma, spirits, astrology, acupuncture, climate change denialism, etc. However, it seems to me that religion is more protected from scorn than many other false concepts.

[Big Guy]

"Spirituality and Religion have been called on to fill in the gaps that science did not understand." - Dan Brown, Angels & Demons

[Moonlight Graham]

To me believing in any concept not supported by evidence is the same thing. Gods, goddesses, big foot, karma, spirits, astrology, acupuncture, climate change denialism, etc. However, it seems to me that religion is more protected from scorn than many other false concepts.

Well, there's still a lot of scorn for religion. The thing is, in Canada like in the US, citizens a right to freedom of belief. Even the most ridiculous beliefs are protected by law, as long as they don't outright threaten people with violence or hatred etc. Religious rights are basically an extension of right to belief and expression, but with special protections. So it that way you're right.

[eyeball]

To me believing in any concept not supported by evidence is the same thing. Gods, goddesses, big foot, karma, spirits, astrology, acupuncture, climate change denialism, etc. However, it seems to me that religion is more protected from scorn than many other false concepts.

Religion is often the primer that prepares a mind for accepting the impossible. People are deluged with micro-delusions all their life from an early age and they pile up and saturate the minds of some people to such an extent that they couldn't think straight if their lives counted on it.

So what exactly is a micro-delusion? "Good luck" comes to mind.

[ReeferMadness]

The dominant religion in the developed world is capitalist dogma. It's easy to laugh at people who believe in 72 virgins in the afterlife but it really isn't much different from poor/low income people who accept what right wing politicians tell them about their policies. In fact, in some ways, believers in extremist capitalist dogma are worse than religious fanatics. With religious fanaticism, there is no way to disprove their beliefs. With extremist capitalist dogma, there is lots of good evidence it only benefits a few but people refuse to accept the evidence.

'Economic interests (aka greed) is by far the leading cause of conflict in the world. Religion doesn't even come close.

[SRV]

The dominant religion in the developed world is capitalist dogma. It's easy to laugh at people who believe in 72 virgins in the afterlife but it really isn't much different from poor/low income people who accept what right wing politicians tell them about their policies. In fact, in some ways, believers in extremist capitalist dogma are worse than religious fanatics. With religious fanaticism, there is no way to disprove their beliefs. With extremist capitalist dogma, there is lots of good evidence it only benefits a few but people refuse to accept the evidence.

'Economic interests (aka greed) is by far the leading cause of conflict in the world. Religion doesn't even come close.

Exactly! Whether you abdicate your responsibilities because of your blind fanatical faith in an invisible divine God's invisible hand or once-visible Adam Smith's pseudo social science construct is irrelevant. Either way you are wrongfully endorsing the misallocation of the worlds resources and contributing to growing global inequality and misuse of resources. The West is increasingly choosing the latter, or some combination of the two (i.e. Providence is God rewarding those who help themselves). You should only get to choose your poison if your the only one that's gotta drink it!

[TimG]

In fact, in some ways, believers in extremist capitalist dogma are worse than religious fanatics.

You can say the same thing about anti-capitalist dogma. What makes you so confident that the dogma that you believe in is the "truth" and everyone else's dogma is "false"?

[Moonlight Graham]

You can say the same thing about anti-capitalist dogma. What makes you so confident that the dogma that you believe in is the "truth" and everyone else's dogma is "false"?

Neither is truth. Economic ideology usually all comes down to who you want to benefit and have more of the pie and who you don't.

Especially given we live in a democracy where the majority can change any policy, it's weird to me that most people make below 70-80k yet these same people support an economic system that has increasingly only really benefited a very small wealthy minority. The masses continue to work more hours with fewer benefits and little to no increase in income and rack up more debt. People usually act in their own selfish interests, yet have done virtually nothing about how they seem to be getting a bad deal. That's how brainwashed by the dogma they've become.

[Guest]

Neither is truth. Economic ideology usually all comes down to who you want to benefit and have more of the pie and who you don't.

Especially given we live in a democracy where the majority can change any policy, it's weird to me that most people make below 70-80k yet these same people support an economic system that has increasingly only really benefited a very small wealthy minority. The masses continue to work more hours with fewer benefits and little to no increase in income and rack up more debt. People usually act in their own selfish interests, yet have done virtually nothing about how they seem to be getting a bad deal. That's how brainwashed by the dogma they've become.

They have little choice. They alternate between the Liberals and the Conservatives and hope for the best.

[Moonlight Graham]

Ya but it's not like voters are demanding it. Politicians do what voters want or they lose their jobs, that's how it works.

[Guest]

Ya but it's not like voters are demanding it. Politicians do what voters want or they lose their jobs, that's how it works.

I don't think so. Notwithstanding all the lies, they give people a choice which people make. People rarely vote for the independent candidate with the left field ideas. Maybe they're afraid they'll be the only one and they'll waste their vote. Maybe they are secretly afraid of left field (or right field) ideas. Maybe they see the rest of the world and settle back in relative comfort. I don't know. Real change comes infrequently.

[TimG]

Economic ideology usually all comes down to who you want to benefit and have more of the pie and who you don't.

No it doesn't. It comes down to a question of who thinks economic decisions should be based on an understanding of economics and evidence instead of basing them on myths and wishful thinking.

For example, when measured by the well being all of all citizens, communism has been shown to be a complete failure as an economic system and capitalism has shown considerable success. Most people understand this and accept the principle of capitalism while they rant and rave about it. The real debate is about type and the availability of public services and how to pay for them. On that front we have evidence that shows that punitive taxation and/or regulatory regimes decrease the standard of living for everyone and evidence that a complete lack of taxation or regulation will result in a grossly unequal society. The evidence based approach would look for the right spot between those two extremes.

The masses continue to work more hours with fewer benefits and little to no increase in income and rack up more debt. People usually act in their own selfish interests, yet have done virtually nothing about how they seem to be getting a bad deal. That's how brainwashed by the dogma they've become.

What is myth is the claim that people who generally have no fear of starvation or have few problems finding shelter are hard done by. Yes people have to work hard but that is way it has always been for 1000s of years. The idea that we have a right to exist without hard work is a true myth.

Look at Venezuela if you want to see what extreme anti-capitalist ideology does to a society. Even people living on the street in Vancouver have a better standard of living than the average Venezuelan today.

Edited December 17, 2015 by TimG

[Moonlight Graham]

What is myth is the claim that people who generally have no fear of starvation or have no problems finding shelter are hard done by. Yes people have to work hard but that is way it has always been for 1000 of years. The idea that we have a right to exist without hard work is a true myth.

No, it's a myth that because a person isn't starving or has shelter that they aren't being screwed over.

Also, there's little correlation between how hard you work and income. Most janitors and restaurant workers work their butts off. It's about working smarter.

Also, I don't know much about Venezuela but it has better incomes-per-capita than many other South American countries, including neighbours like Brazil and Colombia.

The real debate is about type and the availability of public services and how to pay for them.

That's covered by what I said here: "Economic ideology usually all comes down to who you want to benefit and have more of the pie and who you don't." There's infinite variants of capitalist ideology, like laissez-faire compared to a strong mixed economy with labour rights and everything in between.

On that front we have evidence that shows that punitive taxation and/or regulatory regimes decrease the standard of living for everyone.

What evidence is that?

For example, when measured by the well being all of all citizens, communism has been shown to be a complete failure as an economic system and capitalism has shown considerable success.

Well, that's a bit of a myth too. I'm not going to say communism is anywhere near as good as capitalism, however, Cuba has done well and does better than most Latin American countries economically, even with a trade embargo from the world's largest economy.

[kimmy]

"Spirituality and Religion have been called on to fill in the gaps that science did not understand." - Dan Brown, Angels & Demons

Dan "deep as a dish-pan" Brown.

-k

[Michael Hardner]

Dan "deep as a dish-pan" Brown.

-k

Beyond that, the quote reverses the order in which these modes of inquiry developed. Holy men came centuries before science.