Re: Richard Dawkins on Suicide Bombings - some food for thought
Two curiously correlated events: On Sunday, I attended church - not something I do often, but at times like this I find the community provides a certain comfort. In his sermon, the priest compared the terrorists to abortion doctors who kill as many children every single day. Yesterday, the Animal Learning and Behavior listserv featured a post from one of our eminent scholars, comparing the terrorists to those who bomb abortion clinics. I find it ironic that each side in the abortion debate has seen the face of terrorism in the opposition, at the same time claiming with absolute conviction that their own side is beyond criticism. As much as I hate to admit it, while I view both abortion doctors and militant anti-abortionists as equally murderous, at least the abortion doctor is acting within the bounds of the law. The abortion terrorist is not, and has no biblical basis for carrying out such violence. Biblical teachings are quite clear that a Christian has every right to refrain from an action he/she deems unbiblical, but at the same time has no right to terrorize those who endorse, engage in, and perform that same action. Jim Guinee, Ph.D. Director of Training Adjunct Professor President, Arkansas College Counselor Association University of Central Arkansas Counseling Center 313 Bernard HallConway, AR 72035USA (501) 450-3138 (office) (501) 450-3248 (fax) if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land. 2 Chronicles 7:14 **
Re: Richard Dawkins on Suicide Bombings - some food for thought
At 10:22 AM -0500 9/19/01, Jim Dougan wrote: I thought people might find this thought-provoking. It certainly has that old Dawkins flair, does it not? Would they fall for it? Yes, testosterone-sodden young men too unattractive to get a woman in this world might be desperate enough to go for 72 private virgins in the next. While his description of Skinner's Pigeon in a Pelican is reasonably accurate, the current suiciders don't seem to match the traditional profile. * PAUL K. BRANDON [EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Psychology Dept Minnesota State University, Mankato * * 23 Armstrong Hall, Mankato, MN 56001 ph 507-389-6217 * *http://www.mankato.msus.edu/dept/psych/welcome.html*
Re: Richard Dawkins on Suicide Bombings - some food for thought
My reaction... Of course, this assumes that people place a value on self-preservation over everything else. No matter how hard we try, and how careful we are, we will eventually die. Knowing and accepting this fact leads some to ask the question What's the point? Well, the answer is often leaving some sort of legacy behind by which you will be remembered... and generally this would take the form of taking some action that improves the lives of others. So, if you feel that you can make the lives of your friends, family, etc. better by killing someone, then committing this act would leave a positive legacy because of the good you see it bringing to people. It doesn't matter if you die or not, because you know you will die eventually anyway. You would be becoming a martyr or hero for a cause, and that cause does NOT have to be religion. So, even without religion, it would not prevent people from committing such acts. The premise his argument is based on is one of self-preservation and that religion provides a means of overriding the instinct of self-preservation. Religion is not the only thing that can override it leading to actions such as what happened. To me this appears to be nothing more than the exploitation of a great tragedy to attack religion. Religion is also the coping mechanism many have been using to deal with this tragedy. As such, it has given many people the strength to go on under extremely adverse conditions. Without their belief in religion, I think an argument could be made that many of the rescue/recovery workers would not be there and that people would not be returning to work. So, despite the possible evil that has been done under the guise of religion, lots of good has come from it as well. Just my two cents for the day... - Marc G. Marc Turner, MEd, Net+ Lecturer Head of Computer Operations Department of Psychology Southwest Texas State University San Marcos, TX 78666 phone: (512)245-2526 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Richard Dawkins on Suicide Bombings - some food for thought
I don't want to come across as necessarily agreeing with Dawkins' essay, but I think that part of the point has been missed here. G. Marc Turner wrote: My reaction... Of course, this assumes that people place a value on self-preservation over everything else. No matter how hard we try, and how careful we are, we will eventually die. But the point was that many people - most if not all of those we refer to as religious - do NOT believe that they will eventually die. Or rather, that they will die, but that's not the end of things for them, which is really the same thing as not dying (better, in fact, as not only does your consciousness goes on, but you're also in god's presence, reunited with lost loved ones, get umpteen black-eyed virgins, whatever...). This will turn out to be central to his essay... He continues: So, if you feel that you can make the lives of your friends, family, etc. better by killing someone, then committing this act would leave a positive legacy because of the good you see it bringing to people. It doesn't matter if you die or not, because you know you will die eventually anyway. You would be becoming a martyr or hero for a cause, and that cause does NOT have to be religion. So, even without religion, it would not prevent people from committing such acts. The premise his argument is based on is one of self-preservation and that religion provides a means of overriding the instinct of self-preservation. Religion is not the only thing that can override it leading to actions such as what happened. That argument may be necessary for those without religion to die for a cause, but it's not the one that Dawkins intended for those who DO have religion. His point, again, was that on top of that possible reason for a suicidal action in support of a cause, religion may also allow people to believe that they can commit such an act WITHOUT DYING (or more accurately, again, without one's self coming to an end, which is essentially the same thing). Leaving a legacy, but being gone is one thing. Supporting your cause with a suicide attack, leaving a legacy, AND not actually dying is another thing entirely. The point wasn't that without religion, no-one would be willing to die for a cause. It was that religion provides a way to convince people to knowingly die for a cause while at the same time believing that they're not dying for a cause. Whether or not believing that one survives (in essence) such an action is a contributing cause to suicide bombings is a question we'll probably never have an answer to, and I agree that Dawkins seems to have gone overboard here, as he appears to just _assume_ that it is the case. But on the other hand, it is a reasonable conjecture (oh, and one that is independent of the question of whether or not religion also brings good, for example in the form of comfort, stamina, or motivation). I would guess that it _would_ be more difficult to get volunteers for this kind of action out of a pool of folks who believe that death is the end of consciousness. Again, though, I doubt that we'll ever know, and I'm not sure that I want to. All of that being said, I think it is irresponsible of Dawkins to have written and published this right now. Were I religious, I probably WOULD find it as bad as Falwell's odious comments. Oh, and Paul Brandon's point that these men did not fit the standard profile is not a trivial one - it seems pretty damaging to the parts of Dawkins' argument that refer to testosterone-sodden young men too unattractive to get a woman in this world. Another reason not to jump in so quickly with this kind of blame. Paul Smith Alverno College Milwaukee
RE: Richard Dawkins on Suicide Bombings - some food for thought
At 05:17 PM 9/19/2001 -0500, Paul Smith wrote: But the point was that many people - most if not all of those we refer to as religious - do NOT believe that they will eventually die. Or My point was that it doesn't matter whether someone believes in the afterlife or not. They will still be willing to commit the acts. I agree that religion can be a cause of such behavior, but I objected to it being singled out in this case. That argument may be necessary for those without religion to die for a cause, but it's not the one that Dawkins intended for those who DO have ... thing entirely. The point wasn't that without religion, no-one would be willing to die for a cause. It was that religion provides a way to convince people to knowingly die for a cause while at the same time believing that they're not dying for a cause. I think I understand this, but my point is simply that you don't have to convince people of an afterlife to have them commit the act. Whether or not believing that one survives (in essence) such an action is a contributing cause to suicide bombings is a question we'll probably never have an answer to, and I agree that Dawkins seems to have gone overboard here, as he appears to just _assume_ that it is the case. But on the other hand, it is a reasonable conjecture (oh, and one that is independent of the question of whether or not religion also brings good, for example in the form of comfort, stamina, or motivation). I would guess that I simply added the part about some of the good that can come from religion to help balance his point about the evil that can come from it... it _would_ be more difficult to get volunteers for this kind of action out of a pool of folks who believe that death is the end of consciousness. Again, though, I doubt that we'll ever know, and I'm not sure that I want to. I'd actually bet you could get a fair number who were willing to put their lives at risk, or even give their lives, in the name of the right cause (e.g., defense of personal freedom, fighting terrorism, etc.) I agree that we will probably never know for sure, and although I can think of some ways to try and find out... I don't think the IRB would approve the study. :) All of that being said, I think it is irresponsible of Dawkins to have written and published this right now. Were I religious, I probably WOULD find it as bad as Falwell's odious comments. As someone who is somewhat religious, I still find Falwell's comments worse in nature. The reason, for those interested, is that Falwell's comments were, in my opinion, designed to inspire anger and hatred towards certain groups in addition to exploiting the tragedy. My object to Dawkins comments was simply the exploitation of the tragedy. I guess it's that Falwell specified certain groups, and although Dawkins did say: To fill a world with religion, or religions of the Abrahamic kind, is like littering the streets with loaded guns. I don't feel he was targeting specific groups to the same extent as Falwell. Falwell gets two strikes, Dawkins only 1 :) Okay, now I have to figure how I ended up a day ahead in my stats class and what I get to do with the extra day... - Marc G. Marc Turner, MEd, Net+ Lecturer Head of Computer Operations Department of Psychology Southwest Texas State University San Marcos, TX 78666 phone: (512)245-2526 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
