For good people to do bad things...

[Retorth]

For example, Christian fundamentalists who bomb abortion clinics use religion to RATIONALIZE their appalling acts, while in reality their professed religion (i) not only does not condone such acts (ii) but in fact condemns it. Such people, if they did not have religious language by which to rationalize their acts, would use the language of the next most convenient thing. Since their behavior is brought to their chosen narrative, and not derived from it, what narrative they use is mostly irrelevant.

I dont think thats true, they bomb the abortion clinics BECAUSE of their beliefs. Without the belief there would be no bombing.

You are trying to put the horse behind the cart.

Does that not mean the same thing? Arcanus said the Christian fundamentalists used their religion to rationalize their acts, hence they acted the way they did because of their beliefs. Correct me if I'm wrong though.

[Darwinian]

I think it's possible that you did. The minor addition of emphasis might make Padraic's point more clear: "Good people use religion to RATIONALIZE the most appalling acts. Without religion, they would find other excuses—such as 'the national interest'," which refers to the implied horrors of anti-religious regimes.

Now that my mind is starting to boot up I'll try to tackle this point.

You seem to be suggesting that good people would still do bad things without religion under the guise of alternative excuses. If this is what you are saying then I must disagree. It is of course entirely possible for good people to do bad things if motivated by any ideology but to say that they would 'find' other reason to commit bad acts suggests that they are just waiting to be bad and use any excuse to justify it.

This I infer from the following statement.

Without religion, they (Good people) would find other excuses

Suggests that they are just looking for an excuse to do bad things.

It is religious ideology, more than any other, that makes people commit acts that without religion they would simply have not committed at all.

[fr0d0]

@ Retorth and downbeatplumb: No, you're both saying the opposite of what Arcanus is saying.

The abortion bombers are justifying their actions on a professed belief that specifically condemns the act. They're doing something anti-Christian in the name of Christianity.

They didn't do what they did because of their beliefs. They did something bad against what their professed beliefs state.

[Darwinian]

@ Retorth and downbeatplumb: No, you're both saying the opposite of what Arcanus is saying.

The abortion bombers are justifying their actions on a professed belief that specifically condemns the act. They're doing something anti-Christian in the name of Christianity.

They didn't do what they did because of their beliefs. They did something bad against what their professed beliefs state.

But atheists don't bomb abortion clinics, or do they?

[downbeatplumb]

I think it's possible that you did. The minor addition of emphasis might make Padraic's point more clear: "Good people use religion to RATIONALIZE the most appalling acts. Without religion, they would find other excuses—such as 'the national interest'," which refers to the implied horrors of anti-religious regimes.

Now that my mind is starting to boot up I'll try to tackle this point.

You seem to be suggesting that good people would still do bad things without religion under the guise of alternative excuses. If this is what you are saying then I must disagree. It is of course entirely possible for good people to do bad things if motivated by any ideology but to say that they would 'find' other reason to commit bad acts suggests that they are just waiting to be bad and use any excuse to justify it.

This I infer from the following statement.

Without religion, they (Good people) would find other excuses

Suggests that they are just looking for an excuse to do bad things.

It is religious ideology, more than any other, that makes people commit acts that without religion they would simply have not committed at all.

My point exactly. If the bad act was perpetrated purely for religious reasons, that there could be no other expaination, and if the person was not themselves evil, then the religion would be the one, the only cause of the act and not just the rationale.

I'm sure you'll find no shortage of instances if you care to look.

[Retorth]

@ Retorth and downbeatplumb: No, you're both saying the opposite of what Arcanus is saying.

The abortion bombers are justifying their actions on a professed belief that specifically condemns the act. They're doing something anti-Christian in the name of Christianity.

They didn't do what they did because of their beliefs. They did something bad against what their professed beliefs state.

Be that as it may, I still think they still committed the act because of their belief. This due to the fact that they believed so strongly what they did was in line with their religion, even though it isn't.

[downbeatplumb]

@ Retorth and downbeatplumb: No, you're both saying the opposite of what Arcanus is saying.

The abortion bombers are justifying their actions on a professed belief that specifically condemns the act. They're doing something anti-Christian in the name of Christianity.

They didn't do what they did because of their beliefs. They did something bad against what their professed beliefs state.

Their beliefs may be skewed in your eyes.
This does not mean they did not do it because of religion.
It might not be your take on christianity or whatever but it was surely theirs.

[Kyuuketsuki]

Adrian on more than one occasion has referenced this quote attributed to Steven Weinberg: "Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things. But for good people to do bad things, it takes religion."

In the context set forth by this quote, could someone explain how it takes religion "for good people to do bad things"? That is to say, explain a good person doing bad things. Before I rip that quote to shreds on my blog, I want to ensure I have understood it properly. So, people, weigh in with your thoughts and I'll use them to evaluate whether or not I have understood Weinberg correctly.

The obvious example is Islamic terrorism ... Ignoring those who send the poor saps in I would not for one moment brand those people as evil, as an evil (in terms of an effect) sure, but not actually evil ... I believe they believe they are doing the right thing for their god.

It's also worth noting that I think Weinberg's quote doesn't quite get it right ... I think "religion" should be replaced by "ideology" (that doesn't excuse religion, religions are ideologies) and I think it should be acknowledged that ideologies CAN make bad people do good things.

Kyu

[Edwardo Piet]

They didn't do what they did because of their beliefs. They did something bad against what their professed beliefs state.

It obviously wasn't against their beliefs from their point of view. Maybe it was from the point of view of the 'true believers', since 'no true Christian would do that'. Which would be the NTS fallacy! With the dodging definitions of true Christianity.

EvF

[fr0d0]

Be that as it may, I still think they still committed the act because of their belief. This due to the fact that they believed so strongly what they did was in line with their religion, even though it isn't.

They take an idea that someone states a position on abortion, and then try to commit mass murder as this is their solution. None of that really has anything to do with Christianity, but someone's warped sense of morals. Similarly if a non believer bombed a church, I couldn't then rationally associate them with you because you are also a non believer.

Religion is used to justify atrocities, sure. It's an easy target. It isn't a rational justification.