Chaos and the End of Religion

[Angry Floof]

But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.[/I] -Steven Weinberg.

I always wince when I see that one.

I don't buy it. Lots of things can lead to a 'good person' (whatever that is) doing evil things. Money, for example. Jealousy. Lust......

Yep, and lack of self-reflection, selfishness, callousness, having an authority installed in your head where a conscience should be, tendency to blame others, bias, group identity, conformity, weak executive function, fear, self-righteousness...

The list goes on. Every human has the capacity for these weaknesses, but some ideologies, mainly religious and right wing, serve to reinforce them while suppressing the traits that can actually mitigate these cognitive pitfalls.

I love this topic! Yes, let's talk about what ideologies and beliefs reinforce cognitive error and what kinds of thinking serves reason and humane world views.

 

[bilby]

A rigid and authoritarian ideology is necessary to limit chaos and lawlessness in a world in which the investigation of crime is almost completely ineffective.

A criminal in the Middle Ages had only to evade immediate detection and capture in order to have a very high probability of escaping any penalty or sanction for his actions. To prevent theft and robbery from becoming highly popular, two approaches were taken - Disproportionate punishment of those few persons who were caught; and an ideology, reinforced weekly in mandatory indoctrination sessions, that claimed that nobody really gets away with a crime, because they will inevitably and unavoidably be punished after their death, if not during their life.

In the modern world of forensics, personal ID, and professional police forces with criminal investigation specialists, the need for these things is dramatically reduced. Sentences can be equally effective if lenient but likely, as they are if harsh but unlikely; And indoctrination that capture and punishment are inevitable in some fantasy realm is not needed, when capture and punishment are likely in reality.

 

[Angry Floof]

A rigid and authoritarian ideology is necessary to limit chaos and lawlessness in a world in which the investigation of crime is almost completely ineffective.

A criminal in the Middle Ages had only to evade immediate detection and capture in order to have a very high probability of escaping any penalty or sanction for his actions. To prevent theft and robbery from becoming highly popular, two approaches were taken - Disproportionate punishment of those few persons who were caught; and an ideology, reinforced weekly in mandatory indoctrination sessions, that claimed that nobody really gets away with a crime, because they will inevitably and unavoidably be punished after their death, if not during their life.

In the modern world of forensics, personal ID, and professional police forces with criminal investigation specialists, the need for these things is dramatically reduced. Sentences can be equally effective if lenient but likely, as they are if harsh but unlikely; And indoctrination that capture and punishment are inevitable in some fantasy realm is not needed, when capture and punishment are likely in reality.

Yes. In other words, people learn that it's other human beings who actually hold them accountable if they can't do that for themselves.

Like all the religious leaders and their various scandals - God supposedly watched their every transgression but they didn't seem inspired to stop until other human beings were looking.

 

[Jobar]

But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.

I always wince when I see that one.

I don't buy it. As Tom says, almost any ideology will do. Also, lots of other things can lead to a 'good person' (whatever that is) doing evil things. Money, for example. Jealousy. Lust......alcohol.......oh by the way, have you seen the Stanford Experiment and the Milgram experiment?

Say then instead that for good people to do evil things, it takes some idea which is held religiously; unquestionably, dogmatically, unchangeably. Go read my post; I *did* mention the 'force of the historical dialectic', which was communist dogma. I could add that capitalism, if held as an unquestionable economic philosophy, will result in evils of its own.

 

[Juma]

But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.[/I] -Steven Weinberg.

I always wince when I see that one.

I don't buy it. Lots of things can lead to a 'good person' (whatever that is) doing evil things. Money, for example. Jealousy. Lust......

Yep, and lack of self-reflection, selfishness, callousness, having an authority installed in your head where a conscience should be, tendency to blame others, bias, group identity, conformity, weak executive function, fear, self-righteousness...

The list goes on. Every human has the capacity for these weaknesses, but some ideologies, mainly religious and right wing, serve to reinforce them while suppressing the traits that can actually mitigate these cognitive pitfalls.

I love this topic! Yes, let's talk about what ideologies and beliefs reinforce cognitive error and what kinds of thinking serves reason and humane world views.

Right wing? I would say it is strong on both wings... it is in every ideology that doesnt critically inspect ANY part of itself.

 

[bilby]

Yep, and lack of self-reflection, selfishness, callousness, having an authority installed in your head where a conscience should be, tendency to blame others, bias, group identity, conformity, weak executive function, fear, self-righteousness...

The list goes on. Every human has the capacity for these weaknesses, but some ideologies, mainly religious and right wing, serve to reinforce them while suppressing the traits that can actually mitigate these cognitive pitfalls.

I love this topic! Yes, let's talk about what ideologies and beliefs reinforce cognitive error and what kinds of thinking serves reason and humane world views.

Right wing? I would say it is strong on both wings... it is in every ideology that doesnt critically inspect ANY part of itself.

Sure; but the USA hasn't had a left wing for a LONG time. Americans have been dominated by right wing politics for so long that they think the Democratic Party is an example of 'the left', and that centrists like Bernie Saunders are 'far left'.

 

[Angry Floof]

The "both sides are the same" bullshit is a copout. Right wing authoritarianism is a real thing, it's a virulent disease, it's not just any belligerent attitude in contentious times, it's not just people you don't like, it's not demonstrated equally across any population, and it thrives where "both sides are the same" is a popular and convenient excuse for not thinking.

Say what you want about "the left," or whatever passes for that in whatever country you want to criticize, but the most dangerous elements of right wing thinking do not exist among liberals (lowercase "l" liberal) to any significant degree.

As I said, every human has the capacity for these traits, but not necessarily the tendency or the fear-based group identity to reinforce it if they do.

It's not liberals* imprisoning their fellow human beings, or denying them rights, food, healthcare, or targeting the vulnerable in the policies they support. It's not liberals doing their best to destroy public education and media. It's not liberals trying to turn schools into military zones. It's not liberals crawling up into every woman's uterus and controlling women through limiting their healthcare options.

*Except in Australia, where the uppercase "L" Liberal party are actually the right wing authoritarian followers.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Iceland is almost 100% atheist in population...

Perhaps that explains the extraordinarily high suicide rates per capita and consumption of anti-depressant medication.

"Extraordinarily high"? They're at 10.1 suicides per 100,000 and the US is 10.4 per 100,000. Of the 26 countries listed, 14 have a higher rate than Iceland and 11 have a lower rate.

To get an "extraordinarily high" rate, you have to go to South Korea.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/suiciderate.html

One can commit suicide if one is still alive to do it. That's just one reason we should refrain from drawing conclusions on the basis of suicide rates.

I was interested to look into the suicide rates of young people in different countries (WHO study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1414751/table/T1/).

So, in the case of the U.S, it moves from 10.1% in the general population to a lower 8% in young people aged 15 to 19. However, it also moves from a ranking of 18th out of 26 countries, a low ratio of 0.35, to a ranking of 34th out of 90 countries, which makes a much higher ratio of 0.63.

France moves from a rather high rate of 14.6% to a much lower rate of 5%, the ratio going down from a high 0.81 to a low 0.44.

Similarly, South-Korea moves from a very high rate of 24.7% to a low rate of 5.4%, the ratio this time going down from a topmost ration of 1 to a much lower 0.47 (i.e. below average).

And I think we should be more concerned with suicides among the young than among the elderly.

Also, many countries should be expected to have poor recording rates which produces a bias against more closely managed countries.
EB

 

[Angry Floof]

"Extraordinarily high"? They're at 10.1 suicides per 100,000 and the US is 10.4 per 100,000. Of the 26 countries listed, 14 have a higher rate than Iceland and 11 have a lower rate.

To get an "extraordinarily high" rate, you have to go to South Korea.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/suiciderate.html

One can commit suicide if one is still alive to do it. That's just one reason we should refrain from drawing conclusions on the basis of suicide rates.

I was interested to look into the suicide rates of young people in different countries (WHO study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1414751/table/T1/).

So, in the case of the U.S, it moves from 10.1% in the general population to a lower 8% in young people aged 15 to 19. However, it also moves from a ranking of 18th out of 26 countries, a low ratio of 0.35, to a ranking of 34th out of 90 countries, which makes a much higher ratio of 0.63.

France moves from a rather high rate of 14.6% to a much lower rate of 5%, the ratio going down from a high 0.81 to a low 0.44.

Similarly, South-Korea moves from a very high rate of 24.7% to a low rate of 5.4%, the ratio this time going down from a topmost ration of 1 to a much lower 0.47 (i.e. below average).

And I think we should be more concerned with suicides among the young than among the elderly.

Also, many countries should be expected to have poor recording rates which produces a bias against more closely managed countries.
EB

Even so, Lion's argument was bullshit.

 

[Speakpigeon]

"Extraordinarily high"? They're at 10.1 suicides per 100,000 and the US is 10.4 per 100,000. Of the 26 countries listed, 14 have a higher rate than Iceland and 11 have a lower rate.

To get an "extraordinarily high" rate, you have to go to South Korea.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/suiciderate.html

One can commit suicide if one is still alive to do it. That's just one reason we should refrain from drawing conclusions on the basis of suicide rates.

I was interested to look into the suicide rates of young people in different countries (WHO study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1414751/table/T1/).

So, in the case of the U.S, it moves from 10.1% in the general population to a lower 8% in young people aged 15 to 19. However, it also moves from a ranking of 18th out of 26 countries, a low ratio of 0.35, to a ranking of 34th out of 90 countries, which makes a much higher ratio of 0.63.

France moves from a rather high rate of 14.6% to a much lower rate of 5%, the ratio going down from a high 0.81 to a low 0.44.

Similarly, South-Korea moves from a very high rate of 24.7% to a low rate of 5.4%, the ratio this time going down from a topmost ration of 1 to a much lower 0.47 (i.e. below average).

And I think we should be more concerned with suicides among the young than among the elderly.

Also, many countries should be expected to have poor recording rates which produces a bias against more closely managed countries.
EB

In the case of Iceland, the rate of suicides goes down a bit from 10.4 in the general population to 9.1 in young people. But the ranking move from 15 to 27, and the ranking ratio moves up significantly from 0.46 (average) to 0.7 (not so good). So slightly less young people commit suicide than the overall population, but the rate of suicides relatively to other countries is definitely worse in the case of young people. The conditions of life on the island, compared to most other countries, can perhaps explain a good chunk of that ratio.

The point here is not to suggest which country does best. To do that would require an in-depth study and therefore an access to the relevant data, as well as of lot of time. Rather, I wanted to point out the very substantial effect of changing just one simple variable, such as the age of the suicides, on how good or bad the figures look.
EB

- - - Updated - - -

Iceland is almost 100% atheist in population...

Perhaps that explains the extraordinarily high suicide rates per capita and consumption of anti-depressant medication.

So, yes, that's just bollocks.
EB