That man Dawkins

I can't agree that no religion advocates violence - I have read the Old Testament. And there appears to be plenty of incitement to kill apostates in Islam.

There was an interesting interview with Salmon Rushdie on radio4 last night he spoke about the horror of the fatwa. And this was set up by a spiritual leader, not an uneducated 'nut job'.

Different cultures, different ideas about blasphemy and punishment etc.

Was this latest 'insult' a deliberate provocation do you think?

Incidentally, it wasn't that long ago in our own culture that people were horribly tortured and killed if found guilty of blasphemy.

I wonder whether in all societies there are people who are prepared to go to rabid extremes whether it be forming a lynch mob, murdering people because of their sexuality or blowing up others just because they have different beliefs, and all the while convinced they are behaving righteously.

No Greatnan it was about Ghandi not lawyers! He became religious later in life, some atheists start as Christians and become atheists later in life.

Do I need to explain 'later in life'? I simply mean it hit him when he was a full adult.

Movedalot - I can't understand what you mean by 'Some atheists do it the other way round'. Do what? Stop being spiritual and become lawyers? That is a bit judgemental about lawyers, isn't it?

Gagagran - do you think remote tribes that have not had the 'benefit' of the Christian/Judeo system are incapable of moral behaviour?
As Bags so eloquently says, if man were not more capable of cooperation than conflict, we would never have evolved as we have. We are pack animals, and any member of the pack who strays too far from the norm will be ejected - and in the wild that usually meant death.
I think it is rather arrogant to assume that there is only one way of becoming altruistic.
I really don't see the point of these 'Christians do good things' arguments - nobody has ever even hinted that they don't. I don't recall seeing the religous beliefs of most murderers mentioned in newspaper reports.

Thank you for your point of view. Mostly I agree with it, but I do "have a problem" with the beliefs of those nut jobs who are causing so much horror at the moment because they think their prophet has been insulted. Even being insulted doesn't warrant terrorism. Yes, I have a big problem with the kind of belief that makes people behave like that. It may or may not be a religious belief (they seem to think it is), but it's a belief I have a problem with.

Not all beliefs are worthy of respect. Some beliefs are diabolical.

Petallus I like your open mindedness and respect for the work done by some Christians. I think there are probably many branches of Christianity which have no record of abuse, hatred or misery. Which don't ban family planning or homosexuals etc. Also other non Christian religions. Ghandi had a deep faith and I don't think anyone would say he had any bad motives for his work. He started as a lawyer, not a particularly spiritual job, but became the leader he was because of his life experiences. Some atheists do it the other way round.

Good works are not just the works of religious people, there are good and bad in all walks of life. Just as bad things are in all works of life and not just by some who call themselves Christians/Muslims/whatever. I don't have a problem with anyone's beliefs, I was brought up in a home with a strong atheist and a deeply spritual Christian so can see both points of view.

It is interesting though that when a Christian/Muslim/whatever does something wicked we all hear about their beliefs but when someone who is not known to have a faith does something wicked we never hear that they were agnostic/atheist/humanist although everyone must be something. Perhaps this distorts our perception of people who profess to have a faith?

My problem is with people who purport to do something bad because of their faith but I am not aware that any religion teaches us to hurt others, it is just some fanatics interpretation of their relgion.
.
I don't think the Roman Catholic priests who hurt children did it in the name of their faith though.

Please don't assume anything about my faith or lack of it from this it is just a point of view, no more or less.

Which means that individuals survive better (and are happier?) too. Which is what life is all about.

It makes biological sense to help others in your group if you are a member of a social species. Co-operating groups simply survive better and work better if the animals belonging to them follow certain basic rules.

Yes, that's the word that was eluding me, absent. Thanks.

No, I don't agree, gaga, that out sense of rightness and goodness comes from the judeo-christian theological belief system. Other social animals (i.e. not humans) have moral systems as well, so clearly it has evolved as a survival strategy, like everything else.

How do you define goodness other than from the Judeo-Christian belief system which is the basis of western laws Bags? I do accept that one does not have to be an adherent to any one faith but surely our understanding of morality and goodness comes from that?

Altruism Bags?

Here's a very local-to-me example: of the six people running the scout group in our area (scouts, cubs, beavers), only two have religious faith. So two-thirds of that admittedly very small sample of people are doing something good for their community just because they want to be helpful. And that's in an organisation that tries to exclude people with no religious faith!

Actually, I think there's plenty of evidence that people do good things regardless of religion. Just look around at all the non-religious people nowadays.

Works the other way too. Proportionally, agnostics and atheists are under-represented in prisons.

Religion is irrelevant to goodness.

You seem to be agreeing with me, Lilygran - thank you.

Bags! They certainly thought they were motivated by their faith! You can't say 'they would have done it anyway' because there is no evidence to that effect and lots to the contrary. Greatnan I think people's beliefs do affect their behaviour and I accept that organisations like the Inquisition and situations like the tribal wars in Ulster do arise from misinterpretations by fallible people of the right action for Christians, just as suicide bombers misinterpret the teaching of the Prophet. I don't accept that the abuse of children by priests arises from their beliefs, nor that the attempts at cover-ups have anything to do with Christianity - very much the opposite. People do bad things and good things whatever their beliefs, I think we can all agree on that.

The corollary of 'Christians do good things because of their faith' is 'Christians do and have done very terrible things because of their faith'.
You can't logically have one without the other.
Can we not just accept that a person's belief or unbelief usually has little influence on behaviour.

Sorry. Morality is the wrong word. More like 'helpfulness'. there is another word commonly used, but it escapes me right now, and anyway, it's not quite right either. The simple point is that people don't need religion to do good for others.

That's because nowadays it is recognised that they would have done the good deeds even without a religious spur. Morality is inbuilt into social species because it's part of survival strategy.

I'm sure someone somewhere has done extensive research into the effects of religious beliefs on ethical behaviour - in fact, I know that body of research exists but I'm too idle busy to look up the references. So I'll fall back on theorising on an inadequate data basis. . There is plenty of well-known evidence of important liberation and social improvement movements which arose from the Christian beliefs of the prime movers. Although, interestingly, it is possible nowadays to read an article or see or hear a programme about some great philanthropist (Nightingale, Wilberforce, Beecher Stowe and Shaftesbury spring to mind as recent examples) with hardly, if any mention of their Christian motivation.

I feel the same, G, but I think Ghandi's point was that there Is a lot of nastiness in the world (has been, at any rate, and still is in some places) which is enacted by people who call themselves christians. Mind you, the same can be said of any group, I would have thought. Just shows how silly labels are.

I do not often find myself at odds with anything Ghandi said but in this instance I feel the exact opposite. I hate organised religion but have no quarrel with the huge majority of believers. I simply think they are wrong.
I don't have the statistics but I am willing to bet there is not much difference in people's behaviour according to their religous beliefs (except where such beliefs lead them to injurious practices.)

Bags I think it was. He was also the man who when asked what he thought about Western civilisation, said, "I think it would be a good idea."

Was it Ghandi (sp?) who, when asked what he thought of christians, replied: "I like your christianity; not so sure about your christians" ?