increase in republican non-believers... http://www.ajc.com/news/news/national/poll-republican-belief-evolution-decline/ncYrJ/
To be honest, the stat that 33% of democrats don't believe in evolution is almost more surprising than reading that 57 of republicans don't. Then again, looking for similar stats in the UK has one survey saying a quarter believe in creationism or intelligent design, which seems absurdly high Creationism is largely portrayed as just one of those bizarre movements that pop up across America, and doesn't seem to have any force behind it at all over here.
I am convinced that what most americans attribute to religion in the US, has more to do with conservatives doing everything possible to reject any liberal social movements. In a very ironic way, it is similar to how many people blame terrorism on islam, when it really has all to do with politics and military involvement in a country. For example, I live in Mexico, a country that is more religious than the US (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Importance_of_religion_by_country). A country that also has many more limitations when it comes to education. And yet, 65% of mexicans accept evolution, which is more than the UK (62%) and way more than the US (41%). Also, mexicans are extremely homophobic because of a deep seeded macho mentality and yet, gay marriage is legal in Mexico City and there is not nearly the same amount of opposition in the US. People, in general, do not care. This might also have something to do with the difference in mentality between Catholics and Protestants, but I think it was more to do with politics.
I saw that...and it just doesn't seem right. Not sure where that 62% data is from. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution That has us at around 80%, which rings more true to me.
That does ring more true to me too. I´ll try to find the link later today when I have the time. However, I don´t think this changes my point.
Actually, I do think that this has all to do with protestantism vs. catholicism and less so with politics. Of course all these things are connected, but fact is that protestantism and particularly the American brands are very literal when it comes to the Bible, whereas the Catholic church has never put the Bible at the center, but rather as one building block among several. Even US-Catholicism is very much infused with Protestant ideology. Just compare the Catholic league or whatever it's called in the US with Catholicism anywhere else in the world. They're much more fundamentalist. Then again, many Italian, Irish or Hispanic communities still hold on to their more relaxed version of Catholicism, so maybe it's more a matter of the extremists being very loud once again. Similarly, while you can't blame terrorism in general on Islam, modern day islamic terrorism really does have a lot to do with religion. Sure, there are many more enabling factors, but religion is at the basis of it. When someone says that he's killing for Allah, I think the least we should do is to give him the benefit of the doubt regarding his truthfulness.
Right, protestants in general are a lot more dogmatic in their beliefs, however I think this has more to do with political conservatives than religion. On the Islam thing, I absolutely disagree. The Koran defines the Kafir, or infidels, as those who reject faith specifically in the Abrahamic god, however, terrorists only operate in countries whith direct political interference in the middle east. The main reason for the existence of islamic terrorism is exactly this. Religion is used as a catalyst to strengthen the cause, but it is not the only catalyst that has been used to in this manner. National pride, family name and many other inherently neutral things can be used as a catalyst. It is beyond ignorant to think that if you erradicated Islam, you would erradicate these terrorist cells.
But how? Why would a social/political conservative reject evolution if it wasn't for his religion? As I said, there are other enabling factors as well. If the arabic world was all open, free, democratic, wealthy, etc. we'd probably see much less terrorism. Also, the fact that terrorism exists elsewhere proves that it's not unique to Islam. At the same time, Islam itself is a major factor in why there are no open, free, democratic, wealthy, etc. societies in the arabic world, so we already get into problems there, discerning politics from religion. Furthermore, there are many non-islamic places in the world were we have terrible social and economical conditions, where maybe outside forces intervene, etc. that don't produce terrorists at anywhere near the rate of the islamic world. One very obvious example is when you contrast it with Tibet, a country that was annexed by a major power, a population that has lost its freedom,whose culture is being suppressed, etc. And while you do occasionally get protests in Tibet that turn violent on the fringes, there are by and large no Tibetan terrorists blowing up Chinese civilians, not even Chinese military. In fact the most iconic images we have are of the exact opposite, monks burning themselves in protest. To me, the way this protest is channeled in Tibet as well as in Iraq or anywhere else in the islamic world is most definitely a function of their religions. Also, Islamic terrorists don't just operate in countries in the middle east. Think of Indonesia or India, think of Africa. Lastly, whatever the Koran may say in your view is secondary. Maybe it really condemns terrorism, maybe it embraces it. I'm not the authority to judge what "true Islam" is. The point is that large groups of people interpret it in a way that embraces violence, that's all we need to know. Whether they're right or wrong in their interpretation really is secondary, if there even is such a thing as right or wrong when it comes to questions like these. All that matters is what they believe. And then we should take these beliefs seriously. So I'll state it again: When someone says that he's killing for Allah, we should give him the benefit of the doubt regarding his truthfulness.
I've heard several very different definitions of the word antitheist, but assuming that you are talking about active opposition to theism, then no, I'm not an antitheist. As you can see, I'm not shy to voice my rejection of all god claims known to me and the reasons for doing so, but I'm not organized or actively working towards an atheistic world and I'm not out to proselytize either. I will do it in a context where people are open to discussion, like in this forum but normally I wouldn't bring it up just to make a point. I did have periods in my life where I did in fact demonize religion in general, today I've moved beyond that. While I still think that all religions are wrong, I no longer think that they are all necessarily bad. Though many of them do have very negative consequences, for example those medieval interpretations of Islam that not only enable terrorism but also many other human rights violations. But most religious people in my surrounding have a kind of belief that really doesn't go beyond their personal worldview, so I'm not going to pick a fight just because. If the topic of religion ever comes up, I will state my position and present my arguments though. Then again, would I live in the Bible Belt, maybe I'd see things differently. But even then, it wouldn't be anti-theism, but rather anti-fundamentalism I guess.
This thread reminds me of when I took a Ecology and Evolution class in college as one of my electives. We had a couple Creationists who basically ruined the class with debate for a month and a half of the class, before the teacher finally said that any debate would happen out of class and if they object to her teaching, that they could take only the ecology part. Always confused me why someone would take an elective that went against their beliefs.
I find your post extremely misguided. Where to start? First of all, Islam is a religion with a history of more than 1,400 years and Islamic extremism as we know it appeared in the early 20th century when, coincidentally, the west started involing itself in matters in the middle east. We are limited in time and space and therefore love to make the unwarranted extrapolations that do not fit with history. Secondly, the US, a country that is open, free, democratic and wealthy has killed over 16,000 civilians in the middle east in the last 12 years. I am not trying to make a political argument here, but we cant be so dense as to think that this is as black and white as you make it seem, that we are the educated liberators fighting against the ignorant conservative muslims. That when we kill people we do it in the name of freedom and when they do, they do it in the name of terror. Perceptions do matter. Even most attacks in India and Africa are influenced by sociopolitical factors, and a very very small percentage of attacks by these groups are brought about without sociopolitical motivations. Your other argument that Islam establishes the initial conditions for terror and gives people the motivation for comitting these acts actually blows up in your face. Since 1900, about 150 million people have been killed in genocides and about half were brought about atheists that were very outspoken about their atheism ( and in many cases targeted the religious). Atheists would rightly point out that atheism does not lead to violence since it is just a statement of nonbelief, but like you said, should we give them the benefit of the doubt regarding the validity of their belief system? Someone like Stalin built a worldview around his atheism and even if his conclusions were unwarranted,apparently we should take these beliefs seriously and speak out against the dangers of atheism. The point here is that almost ever religion and ideology (and lack of religion or ideology) has been used to bring about death and violence, but since 9/11 Islam, in a very universal and foundational sense, is the most dangerous of them all. Only someone wit a very limited understanding of history could say this. When you somehow manage to agree with Sam Harris and Sarah Palin at the same time, you should really ckeck your beliefs.
Suffice it to say, I completely disagree. For a start, this is just wrong. Extremism has always been a part of Islam and while more moderate elements may have had the upper hand during the 10th century, after that it soon devolved into extremism again. The big difference to today is that back then, the entire world was full of religious extremists. But whereas at least Christianity has come a long way since then, Islam (as its interpreted by a majority of muslims) is still stuck in a medieval mindset regarding religious tolerance and extremism. Secondly, you are aware that most victims of islamic terrorism are fellow muslims? What Islam is experiencing (among many other things) is kinda like a stretched out version of the Thirty Years War in Europe. Not as brutal and not with regular armies, but distributed over a much longer timeframe. How does that fit into your theory about the West causing it? First of all, I don't think I painted this picture in black and white. What you describe are certainly contributing factors. What I'm saying is that you need a secular frame of mind to begin with in order to disentangle religious from sociopolitical factors, something that doesn't exist in most of the muslim world. Turkey used to be an exception, but it clearly is going backwards in that regard as of late as well. Only in a secular context does it make sense to distinguish between politics and religion. That's the error many people make when talking about this issue. They just naturally presume that their secular experience can be mapped onto other regions of the world. Again you're simply dead wrong. For one thing, nobody ever killed in the name of atheism, but many people did in the name of god. Atheism isn't an ideology, communism is. People were killed in the name of communism, which happens to be atheistic. On a side note, your beliefs about Stalin's world view might not be as consistent with reality as you may think. For one, he visited a seminary and was on his way to become an orthodox priest before having to leave for a lack of funds. Later, and even throughout his time as leader of the USSR, he often used religious language and even invoked god. Now that may just have been rhetoric, but it's peculiar nonetheless. The point being once again, that the issue here was communism which in a sense is very similar to religions, only that salvation isn't found in god but in the collective. Secondly, even if your assertion would be correct, it would still be a non sequitur. Even if atheism would pave the way to communism and hence mass murder, that wouldn't absolve the radical interpretations of Islam. I think you will be very hard pressed to find death and violence committed in the name of Jainism or for that matter Humanism. Again you're simply dead wrong. Foundational beliefs do matter. I'm baffled how you could possibly deny this. You pretend to have an unbiased view, but what you are really doing is you deny that the people at the center of this have the capacity to figure out their own motivations. When they say they kill for Allah, that they are looking forward to meeting their virgins in heaven, that they want to rid the world of infidels, etc. then I think the least we can do is to believe that they are sincere. I mean they are willing to give their lives for this. You are doing a disservice not only to them but also to yourself by denying their sincerity. Yes, all kinds of social and economic pressures may have pushed them on the edge, but without the foundational belief, they wouldn't jump. Let me ask you about a specific example, say Saudi Arabia. That country wasn't invaded or bombed by America, in fact it's an important ally. And yet it's one of the worst offenders in terms of human rights, hardly any better than Afghanistan under the Taliban (who BTW came to power long before they made America their enemy, in fact, once again they were sort of allied albeit not as close as Saudi Arabia - even during the late 1990s the US made several deals with the Taliban giving them access to oil pipelines). Are you seriously believing that the islamic extremism in places like Saudi Arabia is a reaction to American foreign politics? And if so, how would that possibly work? Also, why turn to religious extremism? Look at Iran for example, which could probably be a poster child for your theory. Compared to the theocracy of today, the Shah was a liberal. And while American interventions there surely were despicable, why did Islamic extremism win out? At first, the revolution was carried by all kinds of forces who wanted to free themselves of America and the Shah rule. There were Democrats, Communists and Islamists. But the Islamists won. The same story can be seen in Egypt or Syria (in these cases without America, but solely driven by internal politics). Why? On the other hand, why didn't Eastern Europe turn to a Christian Theocracy when they disposed of their rulers? Poland for example was and is highly religious. Why didn't South America become theocratic? After all, the stunts the US pulled down there were rather comparable to those in Iran and the likes of Pinochet hardly any better than the Shah. My answer is that Christianity has evolved. When Spain was freed of muslim rule, it did become a Christian theocracy. But since then Christianity was dragged kicking and screaming through the enlightenment and in the process we have managed to distinguish between religion and politics. Islam hasn't made that transformation and that's what makes it dangerous. But let me point out, this isn't necessarily an inherent distinction. It's not that Islam is by definition dangerous. Rather, the dominating interpretations of it are. But once again, that's what matters in the real world, is it not?
You are forgetting that this is all relative. In the past, we were a lot more violent than we are today and this applies to just about every group. We were a lot more violent toward people from different countries, races and belief system, so in a sense, what you call extremism isnt even a deviation from the norm. This was just the way things were, there was nothing extreme about it. The fact that the west planted the seed for islam terrorism does not contradict that most victims are muslims. Since this is primarily a sociopolitical movement and since more sociopolitical factors that affect this movement take place in muslim majority countries, it makes perfect sense that this movement would primarily operate within those countries and affect the people in these countries. I am looking at this from a secular frame of mind. You are the one comparing Islam to other religions and determining that islam is the one causing the violence. I am saying that the main reason for this kind of violence is not religion, but sociopolitical factors, as can be seen in countries where we can conclude that religion has nothing to do with the violence that is brought about, even to a greater extent that the violence brought about in the name of Islam. Of course nobody killed in the name of atheism, there is no name to kill for. But this is not what I am talking about. I am talking about a foundational beliefs that leads someone (or a group of people) to build a world view (whether it is warranted or not) that leads to violence. Atheism is not an ideology, but like you said, what matters are the conclusions that people draw from their beliefs and even if these are unwarranted we should take them seriously. Because, after all, most muslims would say that Islam is not a religion of hate and violence and you would say that this doesnt matter. The thing that matters is that people terrorize based on conclusions that they draw from Islam and we should take these seriously. All I am asking is that if you believe this, you also have to realize that there are conclusions that have been drawn from atheism that have lead to violence. Two examples: Ted Bundy: Then I learned that all moral judgments are ‘value judgments,’ that all value judgments are subjective [it just depends on how you think about them], and that none can be proved to be either ‘right’ or ‘wrong’…I discovered that to become truly free, truly unfettered, I had to become truly uninhibited. And I quickly discovered that the greatest obstacle to my freedom, the greatest block and limitation to it, consists in the insupportable “value judgment that I was bound to respect the rights of others. I asked myself, who were these ‘others?’ Other human beings with human rights? Why is it more wrong to kill a human animal than any other animal, a pig or a sheep or a steer? Is your life more to you than a hog’s life to a hog? Why should I be willing to sacrifice my pleasure more for the one than for the other? Surely, you would not, in this age of scientific enlightenment, declare that God or nature has marked some pleasures as ‘moral’ or ‘good’ and others as ‘immoral’ or ‘bad’? In any case, let me assure you, my dear young lady, that there is absolutely no comparison between the pleasure I might take in eating ham and the pleasure I anticipate in raping and murdering you. That is the honest conclusion to which my education has led me – after the most conscientious examination of my spontaneous and uninhibited self.” Jeffrey Dahmer: If a person doesn’t think there is a God to be accountable to, then—then what’s the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges? That’s how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime. When we, when we died, you know, that was it, there is nothing…" We believe that you can be an atheist and have a good grounded moral system, but according to you, it doesnt matter what we believe, only the dangerous beliefs that people attribute to some foundational belief, in this case atheism. Stalin was most definetly an atheist (he was not raised as one, but became one during his life). Most atheist today had some form of religious education as children, so I dont know how that is any evidence that he wasnt one. During his reign, he not only persecuted believers but also brought about terror campaigns against them (sound familiar). Mao, who was even worse than Stalin, was cut from the same cloth. Exactly. I do not think that atheism or Islam are the necessary foundational beliefs for the violence in these examples. I think they have been used as a catalyst to motivate a small group of people to bring about violence primarily for sociopolitical reason. You are the one singeling out Islam and not applying the same logic to other foundational beliefs that have brought about violence when in reality, any belief can be used to bring about violence. There is very little substancial difference between killing those that do not believe in Allah and killing those that do. Read again, I never denied it. I said that most beliefs and ideologies (and their negations) have been used as reasons for violence (not all). And I dont even deny that certain violent acts are brought about primarily because of an ideology. All I am saying is that in general, most acts of violence are brought about by sociopolitical factors, including those that are attributed to religion, which is certainly the case when speaking about Islamic terrorism. I do not have that much of a problem with the specific examples at the end of your post. I have no problem admitting that Islam plays an important role in cultural issues in the middle east. My point is that terrorism is a different beast all together. Groups have brought about terror and violence without the need of a stringest conservative cultural background. I also see no problem with countries not reacting to western influence in the same way. 99.99 % of Muslims are not terrorists, it takes a small group of people with a lot of capital and an organizational structure to carry out these attacks. In other words, this is something that is spurred by a wealthy few and not a following many. I see no reason to expect every case of western influence to be met with violence from an extreme fringe group. But for what its worth, Latinos have comitted twice as many terrorist attacks in the last 30 years in the US than any other group: http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013...ttacks-on-u-s-soil-between-1970-and-2012.html
the single most evident element in these example is that anyone can rationalize any kind of behavior based on individual criteria if there are no absolutes. Ted Bundy believed that he ought to be -- by dint of some rationale -- free, which meant unfettered by the repressions of conventional moral judgment. but he isn't really talking about freedom. the concept he is describing is "license". the more pointed term is "licentiousness", which is the absence of moral restraint. he is able to argue that he should not be accountable to a common standard because he is an educated person. his enlightenment has led him to the conclusion that morals are relative and that no one pleasure is of greater or lesser value than another; thus, by extension, no bad is worse than another, so, accordingly, why deny oneself any particular pleasure simply because somebody terms it bad. in response to benztown's assertion that Christianity has evolved, i would respond that the human animal has cheapened the gospel, largely in the Western World, and now most "Christians" are people who go to church on some sort of regular basis and try to follow some obvious rules ( the Ten Commandments being among the more obvious ) but if they fail to obey the basic moral tenets of Christianity, they get a free pass because they mumbled some words at some point in their lifetime. many of these "Christians" set aside a sum of money for charity, but it isn't a biblical "tithe". that would be too great a sacrifice. in the world other than the West, Christianity is about following Jesus, trying by the power of the Spirit, to live a life that reprises that which Jesus lived. it involves discipline, sacrifice and humility, all characteristics that Jesus embodied. anything else is a fabrication.
even that is a fabrication. According to your strict definition, I am guessing there are about 14 christians in the world