4 ms·

I don't see how that relates to what I posted, but to answer your question, I think all human activities do some form of harm at some time.

by brlewis 15y ago

Tichy 15y ago
You wrote that religion is merely a pretense, which I interpreted as religion being not harmful, since it never really causes anything. Dawkins presumably is convinced that religion is harmful. Even if it is not the root cause for wars (which I can't comment on), I suspect it still enables wars, for example by paying soldiers with empty promises. Therefore I personally would have to agree with Dawkins.
- brlewis 15y ago
  You're certainly free to suspect what you like -- it's impossible to rigorously test every opinion. I would hope, though, that if you were considering making it your life's work to campaign for eradicating religion, you would do so based on more than a suspicion. My suspicion is that if religion were eradicated, people who want to compel others to do war or terrorism would quickly find other pretenses and other empty promises. This suspicion is consistent with Robert Pape's finding controlling variables for increasing/decreasing terrorism that are not connected to religiosity.
  - Tichy 15y ago
    Religion encourages people not to question things (including reasons for wars), which is reason enough for me to oppose it. That is just my personal preference, though, I'd like people to question things and generally be rational. Of course it is possible to not question things and not be religious, which might explain the terrorism study. Also, of course there are sometimes valid reasons for wars, and clearly not all wars have anything to do with religion at all. So maybe I am not campaigning against religion so much as for logic and rational thought. Religion just happens to be in the way.
    - brlewis 15y ago
      I'm all for campaining for logic and rational thought. If Dawkins confined himself to the instances where religion (or at least religion-flavored politics) interferes with science and education, I would have no problem with it.
      - Tichy 15y ago
        Can't comment because I haven't followed his campaign against religion. I enjoyed some of his earlier books on evolution theory.

I don't see how that relates to what I posted, but to answer your question, I think all human activities do some form of harm at some time.

by brlewis 15y ago

I don't see how that relates to what I posted, but to answer your question, I think all human activities do some form of harm at some time.

Tichy 15y ago

You wrote that religion is merely a pretense, which I interpreted as religion being not harmful, since it never really causes anything. Dawkins presumably is convinced that religion is harmful. Even if it is not the root cause for wars (which I can't comment on), I suspect it still enables wars, for example by paying soldiers with empty promises. Therefore I personally would have to agree with Dawkins.

brlewis 15y ago
You're certainly free to suspect what you like -- it's impossible to rigorously test every opinion. I would hope, though, that if you were considering making it your life's work to campaign for eradicating religion, you would do so based on more than a suspicion. My suspicion is that if religion were eradicated, people who want to compel others to do war or terrorism would quickly find other pretenses and other empty promises. This suspicion is consistent with Robert Pape's finding controlling variables for increasing/decreasing terrorism that are not connected to religiosity.
- Tichy 15y ago
  Religion encourages people not to question things (including reasons for wars), which is reason enough for me to oppose it. That is just my personal preference, though, I'd like people to question things and generally be rational. Of course it is possible to not question things and not be religious, which might explain the terrorism study. Also, of course there are sometimes valid reasons for wars, and clearly not all wars have anything to do with religion at all. So maybe I am not campaigning against religion so much as for logic and rational thought. Religion just happens to be in the way.
  - brlewis 15y ago
    I'm all for campaining for logic and rational thought. If Dawkins confined himself to the instances where religion (or at least religion-flavored politics) interferes with science and education, I would have no problem with it.
    - Tichy 15y ago
      Can't comment because I haven't followed his campaign against religion. I enjoyed some of his earlier books on evolution theory.