"With or without religion.." Quote. Is Weinberg wrong?

[Alex K]

... And there's a kajillion more who, while Muslim, think those guys are evil, or stupid, or at best misguided.

Those mobs might represent Muslims to you. But the aren't the masses of Muslims, which number 1.6 billion.

If only 10% of Muslims become murderous extremists that's still too many. It still means there's a problem with this ideology.

Where do you get that number???

[abaris]

If only 10% of Muslims become murderous extremists that's still too many. It still means there's a problem with this ideology.

Where do you get that number???

[DeistPaladin]

Where do you get that number???

From the word "if".

It's called a hypothetical.

[Anomalocaris]

Well, Weinberg obviously is one of the quickest bulbs in the shed when it comes to physics, but I never found this one to be terribly convincing. First of all, all kinds of ideologies can make good people do bad things, it doesn't have to be religion, unless you define religion really loosely. What's more interesting here is the statistics - how likely are people in each group to do X - of course there are tons of correlations and confounding factors which render such studies meaningless very easily.

In philosophical discussions, I care about the truth of religious claims first and foremost, whereas their impact on society is important, but something different entirely if you ask me. Religion could be pure poison, but still be true. Weinberg's argument is not so much concerned with the veracity of religion, but instead primarily aims to attack the very common notion that religious faith is a virtue.

I don't think it is excessively loose to define religion as being any ideology which creates a cosmology out of whole cloth, and embodies within that cosmology an otherwise u supported promise of extravagant reward for actions that happen to serve the self-perpetuate ting interests of the ideology, as well as an matching and also otherwise unsupported promise of extravagant punishment for dismissing that cosmology.

One has to admit ideology which has these attributes has a uniquely strong power to twist the gullible and impressionably selfish towards actions harmful to all conventional sense of greater wellbeing for mankind, and mere gullibility and I pressionable selfishness would otherwise have not have, without this ideology, been likely to have led them to actions of comparable destructiveness.

[Alex K]

Where do you get that number???

From the word "if".

It's called a hypothetical.

Since it didn't come from a previous claim which you attempted to address or refute, you were obviously insinuating that it's somehow a probable number. Why else would you bring it up. It's the same rhetoric demagogues use to rile up the people without actually claiming anything.

If Deist Paladin were a child molester, that would be absolutely unacceptable and he should be locked up. Not saying he is, where did you get that idea, it's just a hypothetical, see?

---

Well, Weinberg obviously is one of the quickest bulbs in the shed when it comes to physics, but I never found this one to be terribly convincing. First of all, all kinds of ideologies can make good people do bad things, it doesn't have to be religion, unless you define religion really loosely. What's more interesting here is the statistics - how likely are people in each group to do X - of course there are tons of correlations and confounding factors which render such studies meaningless very easily.

In philosophical discussions, I care about the truth of religious claims first and foremost, whereas their impact on society is important, but something different entirely if you ask me. Religion could be pure poison, but still be true. Weinberg's argument is not so much concerned with the veracity of religion, but instead primarily aims to attack the very common notion that religious faith is a virtue.

I don't think it is excessively loose to define religion as being any ideology which creates a cosmology out of whole cloth, and embodies within that cosmology an otherwise u supported promise of extravagant reward for actions that happen to serve the self-perpetuate ting interests of the ideology, as well as an matching and also otherwise unsupported promise of extravagant punishment for dismissing that cosmology.

Sounds like a reasonable definition, but that's not my point, is it.

One has to admit ideology which has these attributes has a uniquely strong power to twist the gullible and impressionably selfish towards actions harmful to all conventional sense of greater wellbeing for mankind, and mere gullibility and I pressionable selfishness would otherwise have not have, without this ideology, been likely to have led them to actions of comparable destructiveness.

The soviet communist and Nazi ideologies, to name two obvious ones, had a similar power, possibly because, even if they didn't establish a whole cosmology, they still incorporated some kind of utopia. In any case, they would only very loosely fit into the description of religion, which is why I wrote that criticism of Weinberg's quote.

[DeistPaladin]

Since it didn't come from a previous claim which you attempted to address or refute, you were obviously insinuating that it's somehow a probable number. Why else would you bring it up.

I was addressing the look-it's-just-a-crazed-minority-that-become-radicals argument.

My response is if even only 10% (a pretty small minority) become radicalized, that's still too many.

You think the 10% number is high? How about if only 1%? Still too many.

[The Grand Nudger]

The most generous reading is that religion provides -yet another excuse- for human beings to engage in deleterious behavior, even if religion...like the gods religion espouses, are actually powerless as a -cause- for human behavior.

[Drich]

“With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”

Just curious about this. I have had multiple arguments where I use this, although it is argued back that;

"Although not in the name of atheism, secular people can do wrong acts too" and "Good people do evil acts as well, so what's your point?"

What do people think about these counter arguments?

In 8 pages of dialog has anyone pointed out the fact that Christ and Paul both tell us there are no 'good people.' If there are no 'good people.' Then the quote the op posted is flawed.

[abaris]

In 8 pages of dialog has anyone pointed out the fact that Christ and Paul both tell us there are no 'good people.' If there are no 'good people.' Then the quote the op posted is flawed.

No offense, Drich, but you're arguing from a very narrow perspective, since you only take the bible as a referrence.

But I agree, there are no good people, but there are no bad people either. There are only people doing good stuff, bad stuff and neutral stuff. Individuals are constantly evolving and what they experience in their lives, especially in their early childhood, has a great influence on how they deal with others. That's not excusing anyone from personal responsibility for their actions, it only says, things aren't predetermined.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I just don't get the same vibe from the 187 Marches. Did the 'Murrica Firsters go ape-shit about the mexican flag? Yes. Don't put that on the marchers. The 'Murrica Firsters go ape-shit about everything.

Yeah, you missed my point.

---

Where do you get that number???

From the word "if".

It's called a hypothetical.

And as such, is about as useful as tits on a boar.

---

Since it didn't come from a previous claim which you attempted to address or refute, you were obviously insinuating that it's somehow a probable number. Why else would you bring it up.

I was addressing the look-it's-just-a-crazed-minority-that-become-radicals argument.

My response is if even only 10% (a pretty small minority) become radicalized, that's still too many.

You think the 10% number is high? How about if only 1%? Still too many.

The ideal percentage is zero. How far do you want to go to achieve that ideal? How small must the minority be before the media stops tarring the majority?

---

In 8 pages of dialog has anyone pointed out the fact that Christ and Paul both tell us there are no 'good people.' If there are no 'good people.' Then the quote the op posted is flawed.

Who cares what they think? The first is mythical, the second deluded.