12 Feb '19 02:30>
With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil — that takes religion. ~ Steven Weinberg
Is there some truth in this?
Is there some truth in this?
@fmf saidWow, five upvotes over lunch. Impressive feat there!
With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil — that takes religion. ~ Steven Weinberg
Is there some truth in this?
@philokalia saidHe's just appealing to his base. Like someone else we know.
Wow, five upvotes over lunch. Impressive feat there!
---
@philokaliaSo, yes there is some truth in it or no there is no truth in it?
@suzianne saidWhat about the quote in the OP?
He's just appealing to his base. Like someone else we know.
A person's gotta know his audience. This is how one makes it look like he knows what he's talking about and gets some ego-stroking at the same time. Like someone else we know.
@fmf saidThese is some truth in it, but as a statement it is not true in my opinion.
With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil — that takes religion. ~ Steven Weinberg
Is there some truth in this?
@suzianne saidWho are the two “someone else’s” referred to in your post?
He's just appealing to his base. Like someone else we know.
A person's gotta know his audience. This is how one makes it look like he knows what he's talking about and gets some ego-stroking at the same time. Like someone else we know.
@ragwort saidIt's certainly easy to pick it apart for being simplistic and generalizing.
@FMF
It appears he made those remarks in relation to using religion to justify slavery but I'm not convinced that he has applied the same rigour to that pronouncement as he might to his particle physics. If there is such a thing as good and bad people rather than just people who can act either way, then there are all sorts of social narratives, not just religious ones, that can be used as justification for bad behaviour in otherwise good people.
@ragwort saidI think the topic here is doctrine. There's no doctrinal obligation connected to being "an Arsenal supporter" that necessitates kicking anyone's head [in connection with club affiliation] and there's nothing about the doctrine underpinning "being a Christian" that necessitates either abusing a child or covering it up.
@FMF
Agreed those things happen but is it any different to an Arsenal supporter who uses his football fervour to kick the head in of a Liverpool supporter or a business man who uses capitalism to exploit a workforce? Weinberg's statement is like someone who blames the church for child abuse because that's what they want to attack, whilst ignoring the fact that it occurs in secular youth organisations too -and that inadequate child protection measures exist in both.
@fmf saidI didn't say there was. I hope you are not trying to strawman me.
here's nothing about the doctrine underpinning "being a Christian" that necessitates either abusing a child or covering it up.
@ragwort saidI think the topic is really about the mechanics of group psychology and the ideas and beliefs that drive it. Calling it doctrine doesn't change anything.
@FMF
I think the topic is really about the mechanics of group psychology and the ideas and beliefs that drive it. Calling it doctrine doesn't change anything. There is socialist doctrine, environmental doctrine, capitalist doctrine as well as religious doctrine. Weinberg brought his atheism front and centre into his pronouncement when his objection could have been applied to philosophies across the board.
@ragwort saidFMF: There's nothing about the doctrine underpinning "being a Christian" that necessitates either abusing a child or covering it up.
I didn't say there was. I hope you are not trying to strawman me.