Religiosity correlates with racism

[Underseer]

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-secular-life/201408/secularism-religion-and-racism

I know this is older (the article was posted in August) and that it might seem strange to post this information in the religion vs. science forum.

However, one common claim made by creationists is that belief in evolution causes racism.

Largely, this is based on the general claim that evolution is the cause of all immorality in the world and that creationism makes people become morally superior:

...but it also comes from a variety of specious claims by creationists that Darwin was racist. Darwin may very well have been racist by our standards. After all, back then, even the liberals who argued for better treatment of other racism often held views we in the modern world would find incredibly racist. However, Darwin's own words give no indication of racism, and creationists often make false claims about his statements in order to make him appear racist.

It is for these reasons that I bring up the metaresearch in the first link. Most studies show a correlation between religiosity and racism. It's not just that religious people are more racist than atheists, but that the more devout a religious person is, the more likely they are to be racist.

While the "evolution causes racism" argument by creationists is obviously an appeal to consequence fallacy (even if true, that would not disprove evolution), I think it is very important to confront any creationist who uses this argument by showing him or her that precisely the opposite is true.

This is also relevant to any number of other arguments that traditionally involves conservochristians. For instance I have also run into plenty of "abortion = racism" arguments in various forms.

 

[Underseer]

Related:

 

[Perspicuo]

 

[ideologyhunter]

If genocide is the most indisputable form of racism, what does that make Biblegod?

 

[ronburgundy]

It is for these reasons that I bring up the metaresearch in the first link. Most studies show a correlation between religiosity and racism. It's not just that religious people are more racist than atheists, but that the more devout a religious person is, the more likely they are to be racist.

This highlighted part is especially important. Religious apologists and those who deny inherent intolerance in Abrahamic monotheism, commonly point to "liberal" religions like American Judaism, Catholics, and mainline Protestants as counter-examples of the religion-intolerance association. However, this ignores that most "adherents" to those sects are significantly less religious than those of "conservative" sects, meaning that they keep the label but are far less certain about their beliefs in God and other tenants, do not get their values and beliefs from religious texts or authorities, and report much less consideration of their religious views in their daily life. IOW, some sects of religion are not just "different" but less religious in any psychologically meaningful sense, and it is that lesser religiousness that explains why they are more tolerant and less racist.

 

[Sarpedon]

I think its a mistake to assume much about religions: Religious leaders choose (or seem to choose) different strategies to guide their sects. Some choose the small cult/high degree of control model, with the tiny, isolated community, where every aspect of life is controlled by the cult leader, some choose the big, relatively moderate, low control model, like say the Catholic church, which gives a high degree of prestige and social acceptance, at the cost of not really being in control of their followers.

Likewise, the choice between racism and acceptance seems to be entirely tactical. Racist cults lend themselves to higher control, while accepting cults are rewarded with more followers, social acceptance, and prestige. Everyone wants to hear what the pope has to say, no one asks about that guy who runs the black israelite church.

 

[Underseer]

I think its a mistake to assume much about religions: Religious leaders choose (or seem to choose) different strategies to guide their sects. Some choose the small cult/high degree of control model, with the tiny, isolated community, where every aspect of life is controlled by the cult leader, some choose the big, relatively moderate, low control model, like say the Catholic church, which gives a high degree of prestige and social acceptance, at the cost of not really being in control of their followers.

Likewise, the choice between racism and acceptance seems to be entirely tactical. Racist cults lend themselves to higher control, while accepting cults are rewarded with more followers, social acceptance, and prestige. Everyone wants to hear what the pope has to say, no one asks about that guy who runs the black israelite church.

Sorry, but how does any of that explain away the correlation between religiosity and racism?

The more devout a population is, the more racist it is. The less devout a population is, the less racist it is.

 

[Sarpedon]

Is it meant to explain it away? I'm not surprised that religiousity should correlate to racism, given the across the board radicalization of religion these days.

 

[ronburgundy]

Is it meant to explain it away? I'm not surprised that religiousity should correlate to racism, given the across the board radicalization of religion these days.

Monotheism is inherently "radical", and also inherently authoritarian and intolerant. A single un-elected entity in charge of everything and who is the source of all morals and thus all laws is as authoritarian and idea as any human can imagine, and intolerance of deviance and personal choice are defining attributes of authoritarianism. Thus any promotion of monotheism promotes authoritarian intolerance, and even polytheisms are prone to do, so long as any of the dieties are considered a form of authority.

Also, any set of beliefs founded upon an epistemology of "faith" (the definition of anti-reason) must be intolerant, as aggression and suppression are its only defense against challenges. Thus, even "religions" that are not theistic but promote ideas that require "faith" to believe in are disposed toward unreason and intolerance toward alternatives and doubt.

You are framing "religions" as though they have no defining features other than being some form of "group". If that were true, then we wouldn't have the word "religion", because it wouldn't mean anything that they word "group" doesn't capture. To the extent the word has meaning, it reflects particular sets of ideas and values upon which the groups are built and guided. Those ideas have inherent negative psychological relations to the ideas of liberty, tolerance, equality, and reason.

 

[Sarpedon]

You are framing "religions" as though they have no defining features other than being some form of "group". If that were true, then we wouldn't have the word "religion", because it wouldn't mean anything that they word "group" doesn't capture. To the extent the word has meaning, it reflects particular sets of ideas and values upon which the groups are built and guided. Those ideas have inherent negative psychological relations to the ideas of liberty, tolerance, equality, and reason.

That is incorrect, I view 'religion' as essentially being a con, one committed by an individual or small group (which I term the clergy) against a larger group (which I term the laity or congregation). Collectively, these two groups form a single group, which can be called the 'religious group.' The exploitative social structure includes misinformation, peer pressure, threat of being cast out, isolation, siege mentality, violence etc. Through these means and others, the clergy controls the laity. It is this structure that defines a religion; nothing else is inherent to it, not even belief in god or the supernatural. The same defective structure can be seen in politics, religion, business, academia, even within families.

I have repeatedly voiced my contempt for words and semantic arguments. Perhaps you missed it. But I put no weight on any argument that applies a label and then makes an assumption based upon that label. Religious groups and their beliefs are remarkably fluid, and practically all their permutations can be explained in terms of how the clergy controls the laity, how changes in the laity forces changes to the clergy, conflicts within the clergy and how they effect the laity, etc. None require this notion that there is such a thing as 'monotheism' and that it has certain qualities. For me, the so called 'monotheist' religions are simply those that shared a certain origin point, and that have changed and broken apart and affected each other according to the rules I just alluded to. To talk about 'monotheism' as if it were a thing is to blind yourself to the subtle flavors that have come and gone within the long struggle. Gnostics, Bogomils, Sufis, Sikhs, and many others are all products of this phenomenon, that can't really be shoehorned into one of your rigid definitions. I talk about religions as groups of people, because that is what they are. There is no god, and we've seen how scriptures and holy books are misinterpreted or ignored whenever needed. They are irrelevant. Only the group and its character is relevant. The fact that people who have misconceptions about what religions are make up certain words to express their misconceptions is irrelevant. Words are noises we grunt at one another in an attempt to communicate. What matters is the ideas behind them, and how well these ideas are communicated. Some people think words ARE ideas. This is not correct.

I consider religion to have been radicalized recently due to the fact that liberals and intellectuals have been leaving them for a while, causing the remainder to swing sharply to one side. According to my rules of religion, it is perfectly reasonable to see the dogmas of the religions change in the same direction as a result.

 

[Perspicuo]

If genocide is the most indisputable form of racism, what does that make Biblegod?

The enemies of Jehovah deserve it.
And if you keep doing that thinking stuff, you do too. Wait and see.

 

[Underseer]

If genocide is the most indisputable form of racism, what does that make Biblegod?

Conservochristians believe in objective morality and reject moral relativism, therefore it's good when God does it, but it's bad if you were to do the same thing.