With or without religion

@ragwort said
I think the topic is really about the mechanics of group psychology and the ideas and beliefs that drive it.

Shorter version:

I am willing to accept that the topic is "really about the mechanics of group psychology and the ideas and beliefs" only if those "mechanics" have been turned into actual rules that group members actually have to obey, as with something like religion.

@ragwort said
@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.

... And we all know why slavery was easy to justify for people:

At first, it was a better fate than what awaited most people who were POWs or starving on the street in the days before welfare and charity.

Later, it really wasn't that much of a worst fate than those who were poor their whole lives...

And, of course, there was always a buck to be made and a shortage of labor...

Imagine thinking of yourself as an "intellectual" who understands things but you look at slavery in the 19th century and think "Aw, yes, religion must've done this! They're the ones to blame!"

Some serious eyerolling is in order.

@fmf said
Shorter version:

I am willing to accept that the topic is "really about the mechanics of group psychology and the ideas and beliefs" only if those "mechanics" have been turned into actual rules that group members actually have to obey, as with something like religion.

Well there you are then! 😁

I don't think it needs as much as a written rule before pressure to conform to group's ideal - or act with bravado to show one's dedicated support for an idea - might drift towards doing bad things. Religion is only one supplier of these group ideals.

@fmf said
FMF: There's nothing about the doctrine underpinning "being a Christian" that necessitates either abusing a child or covering it up.

Ragwort: I didn't say there was. I hope you are not trying to strawman me.

It's not a strawman, no. But, instead, it's me indicating that your analogy fails. Or that you are not catching my drift.

I got a little lost in the analogy, but I think, or at least my take on on what Ragwort was trying to say is that within the species “football fans” there is a genus of “football fans” called “Arsenal fans” who use thier Arsenal football fanism as an excuse to do non Arsenal football fanism evil things.

The quote in OP seems to be saying that without “Arsenal fans” these evils non football fanism things would not occur, when we know of course that any football fan is capable of doing them. It’s a bit like Man Utd fans claiming that Arsenal fans are the trouble makers when they are all equally as bad.

Sonhousian™ quotes are typical of this perspective; e.g. “it’s all bullsh^te” when so much good work is done in the name of religion, or more pertinently “without religion there would be no wars”, a statement which denies the warmongering nature of human kind and also conversely attaches a sense of living active evil to to the very idea of believing in a god or gods.

@philokalia said
... And we all know why slavery was easy to justify for people:
At first, it was a better fate than what awaited most people who were POWs or starving on the street in the days before welfare and charity.
Later, it really wasn't that much of a worst fate than those who were poor their whole lives...
And, of course, there was always a buck to be made and a shortage of labor...

There could have been one of the Ten Commandments that said something along the lines of 'Let market forces do its thing by all means, and pay the poor and unfortunate as little as you possibly can if you want to, but thou shalt not own human beings as chattel.' However, despite Weinberg's objection to slavery seemingly being the topic that triggered his quote, this need not become yet another thread about slavery.

@divegeester said
I got a little lost in the analogy, but I think, or at least my take on on what Ragwort was trying to say is that within the species “football fans” there is a genus of “football fans” called “Arsenal fans” who use thier Arsenal football fanism as an excuse to do non Arsenal football fanism evil things.

The quote in OP seems to be saying that without “Arsenal fans” th ...[text shortened]... ike Man Utd fans claiming that Arsenal fans are the trouble makers when they are all equally as bad.

"Arsenal fans" don't have "laws" that make them do "bad" things.

@ragwort said
I don't think it needs as much as a written rule before pressure to conform to group's ideal - or act with bravado to show one's dedicated support for an idea - might drift towards doing bad things. Religion is only one supplier of these group ideals.

I may well be an agnostic atheist and an ex-believer who lacks belief in supernatural causality and divine beings - but I still do acknowledge that religious belief is, for many adherents, an ideology [definitions, rules, obligation, hopes & fears, identity & purpose] that is on 'steroids', as it were, and so is elevated to a different plane of psychological imperatives than most other ideologies. And, this is the right forum on which to ponder this. [I can's see or use emojis with my browser]

@fmf said
"Arsenal fans" don't have "laws" that make them do "bad" things.

Strictly speaking correct, but that position assumes that there are no other social or psychological pressures which cause “Arsenal fans” to behave in an “unlawful” or evil way.

@divegeester said
Strictly speaking correct, but that position assumes that there are no other social or psychological pressures which cause “Arsenal fans” to behave in an “unlawful” or evil way.

I don't feel the need to approach this through analogies. From page 1: A devout Muslim man, for instance, might ostensibly be a "good" man - in a range of ways - in terms of family responsibility, contribution to the community, with charitable acts etc. but he might also engage in domestic abuse or FMG and do so - or believe he is doing so - in accordance with his religion.

@fmf said
I may well be an agnostic atheist and an ex-believer who lacks belief in supernatural causality and divine beings - but I still do acknowledge that religious belief is, for many adherents, an ideology [definitions, rules, obligation, hopes & fears, identity & purpose] that is on 'steroids', as it were, and so is elevated to a different plane of psychological imperatives than most ...[text shortened]... s. And, this is the right forum on which to ponder this. [I can's see or use emojis with my browser]

It was a smiley.

I can't see why a specifically religious ideology should necessarily differ in its psychological imperatives to a secular one. To my mind there is just as much zeal in an animal rights protestor at Brightlingsea docks, anti-nuclear weapons protestor at Faslane or Greenham Common, or a Suffragette at a horse race, none of whom were above carrying out criminal acts or put their lives at risk in response to their beliefs. If you believe that religion is man-made then it can only be psychology at work - and there should be sufficient examples in the secular world to show that.

@ragwort said
It was a smiley.

I was more concerned that my ostensibly doctrinaire "...And, this is the right forum on which to ponder this" might have been misunderstood! [emoji here]

@fmf said
I don't feel the need to approach this through analogies. From page 1: A devout Muslim man, for instance, might ostensibly be a "good" man - in a range of ways - in terms of family responsibility, contribution to the community, with charitable acts etc. but he might also engage in domestic abuse or FMG and do so - or believe he is doing so - in accordance with his religion.

Did you mean FGM? Just asking to clarify. I agree with your post.

@ragwort said
I can't see why a specifically religious ideology should necessarily differ in its psychological imperatives to a secular one.

I understand exactly what you mean but it is not how I see it. I think the fact that there are perceived wishes or instructions [laws] laid down by an external supernatural creator being who stands guard at the gateway to some sort of eternal life - rather than mere matters of personal conscience shaped by secular nurture - makes too much difference to be to too casually lumped together too. [No emoji called for -except perhaps due to the word "casually".]

@fmf said
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?

The line "...good people to do evil...", assumes there are those that are good, good compared to what, just those that do a lot of evil? Are these good people good all of the time which would make them good? I think that statement assumes all people don't fit in both groups from time to time, doing good, and doing evil.