Agnostic.com

20 11

This came up, thanks syntiger6.

As the world increasingly adopts ideas like human rights, and respect for human diversity, as the norm, where can the hate-filled , evil and prejudiced people go ?

Science offers no support for hate, politics demands respect for majority opinion, philosophy for logic etc. But religion with, increasingly, no role in the global debate, is looking for support/money/credibility wherever it can find it, asks no questions, and can be manipulated to say anything you want.

Do you think its a given ?

Fernapple 8 Feb 23
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

20 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

lemme find the Cassini story, i'll get back to you, but the point is that science has plenty of room for ego, hate, lack of respect for truth, can be manipulated to say anything, etc

Of course science does, every part of human life does contain those things, internally by default. But science does not glorify them, set them up as ideals and try to promote them in the world beyond, indeed science by its nature is not in the business of idealising anything.

@Fernapple lol, ok then

@Fernapple
I don’t know of any religious doctrine that glorifies hate. Many fundamentalists use literalist interpretations of religion to justify the hate they carry, but for the most part, religions glorify compassion, forgiveness, charity, etc.

Science pretty much does glorify rationality, objectivity, the scientific method, etc. Both fields have ideals, and individuals in both fields fall short of those ideals, because humans are like that.

@skado Don't confuse religious doctrine with religion.

Few if any human institutions have much in common in what they become or what they do, with their original doctrine. Marxism was about economic justice for all classes, but the communist system created vast economic cruelty based on a ridgid class system in most of the countries it infected. The US constitution set out freedom and democratic rights, yet the States repressed millions of black slaves horribly, and made native Americans virtual outsiders and second class people in their own land. Probably more than half of the worlds schools, all of which claim to be about education, are in the business of indoctrination and repressing education.

I could go on, there are thousands of examples. A friend of mine always used to joke that you could always tell which countries are horrible repessive dictatorships, because they always have 'democratic' in their title.

@Fernapple
We all get to choose what we call things, but for my money, when democracy is no longer democratic I stop calling it democracy. Autocracy is not democracy. Hate is not love. And practices that glorify egos are not religions.

anyway,
"In 1676 an anomaly in the orbit of Io, Jupiter's innermost moon, led the astronomer Ole Roemer to make a very specific prediction. Io would appear from behind Jupiter at 5:37 pm on November 9, 1676, he said--and that would prove light travels with a finite speed. Roemer's mentor, Jean-Dominique Cassini, head of the Paris Observatory, rubbished the idea; light spread instantaneously, he said. His beliefs () led him to a different prediction. According to Cassini, it would be 5:27 when Io appeared.

Io appeared at 5:37 and 49 seconds. On hearing of this, Cassini announced that the facts fit with the story he had presented (faith). Although Cassini had made his (erroneous) prediction at a public gathering of scientists, not one of them demurred when he denied it; they all backed him up. Roemer had to wait fifty years to be vindicated; only after Cassini had died did scientists accept that the speed of light was finite."
[books.google.com]
@Fernapple

3

They go under the radar and feel oppressed for not being able to spread hate unchecked. Until a charismatic leader rally them and show that they are still in big numbers.
This brings us to a problem. If you change society too fast you will suffer this reactionary waves as people are "left behind". That happened because the change was in some way forced upon those people.

This can happen in 2 situations.
The first is if the majority wants the change and the minority (in the sense of numbers not power) does not accept and keep being butthurted.
This can only be solved by showing that the change was done, was part of democracy and is beneficial and needed for society, otherwise the "losers" will feel that their freedom is being threatened (and it becomes more evident in a culture like USA where self entitlement is mixed with freedom).

The other way and more difficult to justify is when the representatives do not reflect the majority opinion and despite lack of popular support they impose some new rule or politic of incentives.
This will feel as the powerful trying to impose something on the people (and this time it really is). Than it might be correct in the numbers and results, but still will be against the will of the people and people have right to be idiots and the vote and will of an idiot should have the same weight of the vote and will of an enlightened.
The is the burden of the enlightened to convince the idiot until the big number is on the enlightened side and not to force the idiot to comply.

In both cases the only way to avoid the reactionary wave is have open discussions always explaining and not confronting those who were "left behind". Always have in mind that their vote weights the same as yours and the faster the society moves the more "left behind" will exist until they gather critical mass for a charismatic leader to harness power from them.

1

Short answer, yes.. As long as people will swallow narratives hook, line, and sinker, without consideration for facts, morality, or objective reality religion and politics will propagate hate and lies. You are what you eat, we think what we see and hear. I wish it was different. I wish hate and evil were not self reinforcing with the media and social networks people consume. If I believed in wishes instead of science I would not be here.

4

With evolution there is no given. Evolution tends to adapt to conditions present during a given time. It has been shown that a specific organism could change with a changing environment but then revert back to the original organism when the conditions revert back to where it was at the first. Another fact is that physical changes are the slowest to change but social one are the second slowest to change. Hate politics can dominate given the right conditions. Imagine the conditions if the Nazis had won?

4

There will always be people who are looking for easiest answers to hard questions, and those who are willing to commit themselves as true believers to any conspiracy theory or total system ideology to avoid feeling powerless and ignorant.

Yes my point is not whether such people exist, but where in the future you would be best placed to find them if you want to go looking.

@Fernapple That depends on what intellectual and emotional scam is offering the seemingly best easy way out of the existential dilemma.

"Most people would die sooner than think — in fact, they do so.” — Bertrand Russell

5

No offense, but what is the support for science saying that there is no support for hate and what does that mean? Culture and psychology support the practice of hate and has since before recorded history as this report about what might be the earliest evidence of warfare:

[smithsonianmag.com]

The concept of the "Other" exists in all cultures to varying degrees and the the Other is generally hated and feared. The goal of early humans might have been to pull together to ensure the continuation of the species, but when humans splintered into groups, the the Other sometimes became the enemy; outsiders within the groups were shunned and even expelled from the group.

Tribes/clans competed for food, land, and necessities. The competition also went beyond necessities as humans have always been selfish. Religion became a tool of the powerful.

No, none of this is going away any time soon.

No it is not support from science, when I say, science does not support hate, I am merely noting that science is totally indifferent to hate either way. That hate is not going away is part of the point, human nature does not change with the passage of time, but the ways we use hate, and the institutions we use to forward it may change. My premise was mainly just to set up an observation on the future role of religion.

Because of course all human institutions have to find a human need to fullfil if they are to survive. So that in a world where governance and law, take care of the moral, economics the matierial, medcine physical and mental health, the state education, science curiosity and the search for truth, where does religion go looking for a need to answer. Like you say hate is not going away, but the corner in which it takes its next stand is up for grabs, and role will go to the institution which needs that support most, and has the least interest in objective truth. So which one would you bet on ?

@Fernapple Gotcha on the science issue.

My bet is that even if religion does go away (and it isn't), humans will continue to have "religion" in the form of nationalism or other "isms."

@Gwendolyn2018 Very true. Though I do not think that it will go away. Religion will almost certainly remain a useful term for a long time to come, if only because all terms can be changed over time to an infinite degree. As epicurian originally meant self denying, and an aesthetic philosophy, yet came to mean hedonistic, at least in popular culture. So in perhaps a hundred years from now 'religion' will come to mean more or less the same thing which we use nazi or fascist for today, but the word will still be in use.

@Fernapple Words change meaning, people do not change! One of my passions is myth, and myth shows that that human nature has remained the same since we began to record history.

1

Well yeah, its been happening since the Enlightenment. And here we are today. I think weve hit an equilibrium. Today, if you're a hate filled sexist bigoted adult there is no safer haven than religion.

1

We put them on a reservation. No offense intended to our Native American brothers & sisters. As a matter of fact, we should give Native Americans all the property of the hate class we put in the reservation.

4

I hear and understand your question. However, in my view, the dark forces of hate, evil and prejudice are strong and doing well. They controlled the USA for four years and are fighting hard to do it again. Their defeat is not certain by any means.

1

Who cares where they go, fuck them. Let them die. And take their religion with them.

2

Majority opinion is easily manipulated and often wrong. Christianity is declining, which I think is a good thing, especially since it seems to be getting replaced by secularism. However, there is bad news to go along with the good. Islam will continue to grow, and it is expected to equal Christianity in size by 2050. Also, officially atheist China needs no religion to justify trampling human rights.

[Muslims are the fastest-growing major religious group, largely because they have the highest fertility rate and the youngest population. As a result, the Muslim population is expected to increase from 1.6 billion people (23% of the world’s population as of 2010) to 2.76 billion people (30% of all people in 2050). ](http://[pewresearch.org]

True, but I was addressing religion including Islam and not just Christianity, and I think that you will see the same trend in Islam, in that moderate moral people, will increasingly leave, or fade in their support for it, and it will be increasingly hyjacked by the hate filled minority.

@Fernapple I think there are glimmers of hope, but is it really the minority? I think those who would act out violently is in the minority, but a strict interpretation of the quoran and hadiths is all that's needed to reinforce hatred, misogyny, homophobia, etc.

@OldMetalHead Without a doubt, who is the 'true' follower/ believer, the violent minority or the moderate majority is another issue, but I would agree that the hard line violent minority certainly have a much better claim.

A disturbing prediction. Unfortunately @Fernapple I strongly suspect the moderate majority enable the violent minority. Everyone wants their team to win, deep down.
I have Muslim in-laws, have read the Koran and am not speaking from ignorance. Islam is dangerous and political in nature.
Any feminist with some integrity, should be attacking Islamic ideology, with force.

4

the absolute uni - thought strict party line nature of both the posts and comments, coming out of agnostic.com today (this presumed bastion of free thought) on the subject of the twin revolutions is terrifying. to find uni - thought absolutism like this in earlier history one has to go back to stalin's purges of "left / right deviationism", to hitler's purge of decent from 1934 on, or to the dystopian "fiction" of george orwell and aldous huxley.. both these famous critics of uni - thought posited a public straw man black hat - bad guy opposition used like a pinata to ostricise any oppositional thought. more scary than this post itself, is the " imprinted duckling" uniformity of the comments. all mention of past riots, crime statistics, male suicide rates, female admission favoritism across the board, or anything not among the feminist / blm talking points, is dismissed as trumpism or from the religious yahoos. one of huxley's key thoughts was the idea of twin mind tyrannies using each other as justification. here that is today, even on agnostic, and its shameful.

Yes I agree with you, and I would be the first to point out that religion does a lot of good. Yet there is an observable trend, and trend is a none absolute word, for religion to become the last refuge of just that mindless dualistic hate culture as it becomes increasingly unacceptable in so many other places.

I am sorry if it came over as absolutist, but I was being brief and taking shortcuts because, I am more interested in the deeper reasons behind the thing, and peoples opinoins on them, than the thing itself.

@Fernapple ... well, youre a lot brighter than i first thought you were! im a dedicated complexist, but like Sisyphus still need to push stones up agnostics hills. ..so , id like to refer you to an old american somewhat crappy novella about this present political correctness, BONFIRE OF THE VANITIES by the latterday tom wolfe. but speaking of " the deeper reasons behind the thing, and peoples opinoins on them, than the thing itself ", and much more importantly, the seminal film KOYAANISQUATSI, without which no understanding of these, the complex last days, is possible. the film is 1' 30. here's a vimeo link to to it

[vimeo.com]

. do me and yourself this one favor. happy trails. ....... ps... "religion does a lot of good " ?

@Fernapple vimeo144433981

damn these computers!

@holdenc98 Wisdom is nuance.

3

I question the post's premise a bit. I think we can perhaps say the "idea" of human rights is spreading around the globe, but to say the "adoption" of said rights is becoming "...the norm" seems to me to be woefully premature. Hate remains alive and well. e.g. Trumpism, Brexit, neo-nazis in Europe, anti-lgbtq violence everywhere but also encouraged by governments such as Russia, Nigeria, Uganda, Jamaica, etc.
Hate may actually be an instinctive response to fear of change and fear of diversity. Even flocks of birds often bully individuals with unusual coloring, for example.

I think you may well be very correct. My premise was mainly just to set up an observation on the future role of religion, human nature does not change with the passage of time, but it does find different ways of expressing itself, and institutions may change their roles over which part of it they express.

3

As we progress and get better and better where does hate go? It hides. Hate hides until something or someone comes along and tells it to come out and express itself. It might even be said that this is normal and then you see hate run for public office. There might even be flags to support police deaths or shirts with writing that declares six million was not enough. Because we do want a basic human dignity this sort of thing will happen in cycles. Many of us will feel that it does not exist to this degree and will tend to forget it. Hate wants what you have. We should never forget that.

Indeed yes, hate is a normal part of all animals lives, but of course it can express itself in many ways , sometimes to good effect, ( I hate to see people starve, I will give to a charity, or ask my govermment to send more aid. ) But hate can be destructive of course, and as you rightly say, it loves to hide until it can pounce. My point therefore, was to ask, where destructive hate's next main hiding place is likely to be.

And of course all human institutions have to find a human need to fullfil if they are to survive. So that in a world where governance and law, take care of the moral, economics the matierial, medcine physical and mental health, the state education, science curiosity and the search for truth, where does religion go looking for a need to answer. Like you say hate may be a natural need.

3

Evolution takes a LONG time, whether it's physiological or emotional/intellectual.
There will always be those who lag behind.
They're usually the ones who get culled from the herd through one means or another.

3

I'm not sure science doesn't support hate, aggression seems to confer evolutionary advantage and teasing the two apart seems challenging. I don't have to hate someone to kill them and take their stuff but I end up with their stuff. While the world's major religions claim to offer moral guidance they have failed spectacularly, worse than nothing really there does seem a need in humans to follow authority. I think your initial question is cause for hope not despair, respect for human rights is increasing. In the era of chattel slavery is wasn't the norm.

3

To human nature, yes. 😣

1

If you’re trying to portray politics as hate-free I may have a hard time suppressing a chuckle.

If the “world” is increasingly adopting good attitudes, that means it’s increasingly letting go of bad attitudes. If there is a fixed proportion of the population that is continuing to hate, then the world is not improving. Pick one.

Meanwhile, best not turn Sny into a synner. 😁

skado Level 9 Feb 23, 2021

I did not say that politics is hate free, I said that it at least demands respect for majority opinion, (some of the time ) which is not much, but it is something however trivial. And, since a lot of political hate is religiously inspired, touche'.

"If the 'world' is increasingly adopting good attitudes, that means it is increasingly letting go of bad attitudes. " Yes that follows, but that does not mean that bad attitudes may not persist, nor shift their location. Indeed if those holding them are a diminishing minority, or feel threatened by a improving world, then you would expect them to regroup, back away and cluster in an evil refuge of their own making. That is the point of the post.

Nor did I say that they were a fixed proportion, but the argument works, whether they decrease, increase, or remain the same. The world (as a whole ) may well improve, despite a bad minority growing more evil and more numerous. Paragraph two, shows some very bad logic.

I mention syntiger6 because these thoughts here came up as a comment on one of his posts, and I wish to give him credit for the inspiration, plus explain to members who have seen that, why a similar one appears twice.

@Fernapple hi, in regards to your first paragraph, I don’t think politics respects public opinion at all. They may act like it at times but politics is just the art of manipulating public opinion.

@Canndue Perhaps you are right, that is a whole other ball game to a degree, but I was using poloitics in the widest sense, including especially international politics such as the bill of human rights etc.

@Fernapple

It's not hard to see where one might get the impression that political hate is religiously inspired, but I've not seen any scientific studies that support that claim. Maybe you can supply some.

Seems much more likely to me that hate is just a part of human nature, and it's going to seep into everything we humans do.

I'm also not aware that "politics" demands respect for majority opinion to any degree whatsoever. That may appear to be the case in countries whose culture embraces democratic values, but politics (the distribution of power) is by no stretch of the imagination inherently democratic.

All human institutions are working against the background of our human (animal) nature, which is perennially loath to be tamed. But that very taming is the last of religion's many fields of endeavor not to have found a secular home, as did science, politics, health/medicine, education, business, art, etc.

If you want to sink religion's ship, let's be sure to offload its most valuable cargo yet before we do. When we have established a secular enterprise whose aim is to counterbalance our animal instincts in order to accommodate the unnatural living together in peaceful cooperation of millions of strangers under a single group identity, then "religion" will no longer be a useful term, and its authentic activities will be called something else.

Until then, let's work to reduce hate in the world wherever we find it, be that in religion or politics or in science, or indeed... in hating the haters.


syn = sny

@skado I am not saying that hate is religiously inspired, except at second hand when it works to inspire political hate. What I am saying is that hate is moving into religion, because that is where it finds the most suitable environment, where it can grow and prosper. Whilst most other human enterprizes become less friendly towards it, just as religion is doing the opposite.

I would contend that we have created a secular enterprize which can counterbalance the worst of our animal instinct , or at least that we have now got closer to doing that within the secular environment than we did within religion, even at its best. Religion will almost certainly remain a useful term for a long time to come, if only because all terms can be changed over time to an infinite degree. As epicurian originally meant self denying, and an aesthetic philosophy, yet came to mean hedonistic, at least in popular culture. So in perhaps a hundred years from now 'religion' will come to mean more or less the same thing which we use nazi or fascist for today, but the word will still be in use.

@Fernapple
I’m aware that it’s a popular notion that religion is friendly to hate, but I’ve not seen studies to back that up.

It certainly wasn’t the case with the religion I grew up in, or in religions I know anything about today. The Westboro Baptist Churches and the occasional outrageous pastor who gets on the news are not the entirety of “religion”. They are just the “newsworthy” examples.

And of course, every former religious person has a story or two of bad experiences. Meanwhile, an overwhelming majority of the human race are convinced they are getting something positive out of the experience.

The churches I have attended did welcome haters, but only in hopes of influencing them away from hate.

If religion truly has increasingly no role in the global debate, why are their numbers, as a percentage of the population, growing worldwide?

Nobody is hate-filled at birth. It’s not like there is a requirement that hateful people exist at all. They are made hateful by mistreatment or neglect.

You asked the question, so here is my vote: No. I don’t think “religion” is where the haters will collect.

In my view, the measure of whether the world is indeed increasingly adopting ideas like human rights, and respect for human diversity, would be the degree to which the world stops giving people reason to hate... whether that enterprise be secular or otherwise. And in this task both the secular and the sacred have failed so far.

@skado Once religion was everything, you performed a ritual before you started work, or when you gave birth, you went to the shaman when ill, unhappy, in need of advice or in love. But over a long period of time better ways have been found to do almost everything for which humans have a need, leaving religion on the sidelines. Better to see a doctor if you are ill, a psychologist or philosopher if unhappy, an engineer and a navigator if you want to cross the sea, social welfare if poor, a school for education, etc. etc. the list is endless. At which point you have to ask, what in the end will be left to religion, and what is even today observably left to religion ? It can only be that which more rationally constructed institutions can not, or do not, want to do, in other words criminality, with which religion always did have the most deep connection.

Of course, many people get a positive experience from religion, or they would not do it. But people also inject themselves with toxic chemicals, anorexics starve themselves, and flat earthers spend vast amounts of time trying to prove the ridiculous, because they feel they get a positive experience from doing so.

It is arguable that religion is growing in the world, I have heard a lot of statistics to the opposite, but what is certain is that almost all of the growth is in Islam. A far bigger share than the shrinkage elsewhere accounts for perhaps. And Islam is the most shameless at promoting a divisive and dualistic world view, even shameless nationalistic hate, which may not account for all its growth, but it certainly is a big attraction for many people.

@skado I like this last, will make it a post perhaps.

3

Well, nobody has only faults or only qualities. People many times have the need of making others look bad and think they are righteous to harm others because they don't like them, see them as evil or whatever, not realising that they're being evil themselves. Speaking for myself, I wish I could say I have only done good deeds but, unfortunately, I can't. I admit to have done wrong things to people in the past. Does it make me evil by nature? I wouldn't be surprised if there were other people who can say the same about themselves.

I think we all have a dark side that we often don't like to admit to. I can accept this is true as part of our nature so long as it doesn't get used as an excuse to harm others.

@RussRAB, I agree. The best thing is to acknowledge it and try not to harm others.

Yes I agree we all have done harm and have a dark side, me included. But while most people would like to improve, and put their weaker pasts behind them, a few would like to celebrate it and promote it to others, whence they seak a platform.

4

Religion was created by people to control people.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:578130
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.