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]
