lpetersson

that program was great. can't wait for the next one.
that ex jew, fundamentalist islamic dude was very very scary indeed...

From:

He was, but I thought that he was an almost exact mirror image of the scientist. But yeah, the things he was saying was amazingly scary.
Exactly the kind of person who makes me dislike religion...

From:

thats not a bad thing. i found it quite amusing that there was a great similarity between him and the paster that was interviewed, although they certainly would despise each other

From:

I thought it was amusing as well.
Escpecially since their positions could so easily have been reversed...

From:

camillat.livejournal.com

Oh damn, I saw the trailer for this and wanted to watch it. But I forgot!! Bah! It looked really interesting.

From:

It was ok, but it was ruined by the presenter...

From:

really. i liked him. i thought it was presented in a very positive way, and he certainly had a decent knowledge of both his point of view and religous history...

From:

Oh, I was surprised he wasn't foaming at the mouth, but hey, that was just my impression.
I was actually beginning to suspect that the program might have been funded by the religious right, as I thought the presenter was making himself and scientists look decidedly negative...

From:

Good men do good deeds, Evil men do evil deeds, but for good men to do evil you need religion. Too true...

But who decides what is a good/evil deed?

I might have watched the programme, but was watching 'Life on Mars' on the other side - whilst not brilliant, it didn't have Dawkins ranting in it either.

For an alternative perspective, there is a new series on R4:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/whokilledchristianity/pip/it6tm/

From:

That is of course a good point, but there are some things which most people can agree are good/bad.
Helping the needy versus killing innocents and suchlike...
Good people happily do the first while evil people happily do the latter.
And good people will happilly slaughter innocent men, women and children in the name of religion, but it is still an evil thing to do...

From:

What about innocents as collateral damage?
The Hiroshima argument?

Archbishop of Beziers during the Cathar Purge (aka Albigensian Crusade)
"Kill them all! God will choose his own"

From:

That one can be difficult...

The archbishop is quite clearly an evil man in my eyes...
Hiroshima is very similar in the way that a civilian target was chosen for destruction.
There's a big difference between specifically bombing civilians and targeting a military installation and accidentally killing some innocents who were visiting...

From:

Then again, does (indeed should) morality feature in a war?

From:

In my opinion, yes...
It was right and just to fight Hitler, but it wasn't right or just to conquer Europe as Hitler did.
It was a right and just thing to go to war during the first gulf war...
But it was wrong to invade Kuwait.
I'm not saying there can never be secondary motives, but the primary one has to be one that can be described as just and right beyond cultural boundaries.
Most human societies can agree on such things as long as you don't bring religion into the picture...

From:

It was right and just to fight Hitler
Even though this was at least in part self-defence?

I can't agree that morality plays a primary (or even secondary) role in war. It may well be held up as justification later, but not at the time.

Vide Cold War - actions such as Afghanistan did not occur because the Soviet action was wrong, they were held to defeat the USSR.

The primary reason for action has to be for the benefit of the state (or at least the powers in charge).

From:

Ahh, you misunderstand me...
I'm not saying that morality currently plays a role in wars, I'm saying that it should...
Some wars, as I pointed out above, had a least a degree of justification while others didn't.

From:

Why should morality play a role?
Who's morals do we decide to use?

Surely by bringing morality into it, we leave ourselves open for modern 'crusades'

From:

Well, my morals obviously... :D

But seriously, morality should play a role as otherwise, as

leehee said, the door is open for all manner of evil.
And this is where all thought of religion should be checked in at the door so we can discuss morality from the very simple stand point that some things are bad and some things are not. It's when religion gets into it that things get muddled.

The crusades were evil. But as they were based on religion, that shouldn't really surprise anyone.
If we could ditch religion, then we would be a long way towards avoiding the kind of crusades we have seen in the past (And will see again if the religious hardliners in the east and west get their way)...

Religion is the destroyer of morality as it brainwashes otherwise perfectly rational and sane people into believing that all manner of evil is ok, because it is visited upon others who do not worship their god.
I would like to think that after several milennia of religious warfare, maybe we can put this to rest sometime soon...

From:

Whilst actions should be assisted by morality, they shouldn't be defined by it.

I don't know if it's just religion that muddles the issues:
Country A - it is morally right that we should have access to sufficient resources to allow us to function.
Country B - to allow you to access these resources would be to prevent our own country from functioning. This would thus be immoral.

The Crusades weren't based on religion, that was merely the justification for creating a pressure-valve on a very tense Western Europe.

When you say religion, do you mean include belief? Is it the very faith in something that you wish to remove, or merely the institution that 'regulates/defines' that faith?

From:

leehee.livejournal.com

If you don't feature morality than you're falling into a bottomless pit - rape, massacre, Hiroshima, for that matter, people tortured, the list is long...

Wars are horrible anyway you look at itb, if you take every sense of morality away, they're much worse.

From:

Surely this depends on pragmatism.

Did the Japanese lose because they were hideously immoral (by our terms) in war, or was it because of poor technology, a lack of resources, being overstretched etc.

Equally, the Pacific war was won by mass devastation wrought on 'innocent' civilians. Was this right?

From:

No, it wasn't right.
There's a very true saying that goes: 'The road to hell is paved with good intentions'
Not that there's a lack of ad ones, but still...

It may have shortened the war, but it was still not a right to mercilessly bomb innocent civilians like that.

From:

There's a very true saying that goes: 'The road to hell is paved with good intentions'

So morality can lead to bad actions.

What about the fact that such acts prevented further atrocities?

Consider actions like the carpet bombing of German territory in Europe in WWII - this did have a strategic impact and arguably led to the shortening of the war. Consequently many innocents lives were spared.
Do the needs of the few outweigh the many?

From:

leehee.livejournal.com

The fact that Hiroshima was not needed in order to finish the war is mostly agreed on, it might have taken a few more days (not many), but many lives would've been spared.

"What about the fact that such acts prevented further atrocities?"

You don't stop a fire with fire. I've been living in a sort of war most of my life, and I've heard people use this argument so many times. Most of Israel's actions in the occupied territories are justified by the claim that they prevent terror attacks. Should a million Palestinians be sealed at home, go through very long searches whenever they want to leave, be held in siege, have their streets patrolled with tanks, and bombed, so that 6 million Israelis would be able to go on a bus "without" a risk.

Should a bomb that weighs a tone be dropped on a house and kill 13 innocent people in order to kill one terrorist?

I think that it shouldn't.

From:

The fact that Hiroshima was not needed in order to finish the war is mostly agreed on, it might have taken a few more days (not many), but many lives would've been spared.
Really? In general the accounts I am aware of state that the island hopping campaign the US was forced to undergo was incredibly costly in terms of soldiers' lives and resources.
(NB I freely admit that this is not my period of history, and boy do I hate defending the US).
Staying with Hiroshima/Nagasaki for a moment; from an American point of view the bombs were the right action to follow as it saved their own countrymen. That is why it is the correct path to tread. That is why I say morals should not decide courses of action.

The situation in the Pacific is very different to Israel-Palestine though, a closer WWII analogy could arguably be Germany v. whichever resistance you want to pick (be it French, Dutch, Greek etc), or, to a degree, the 'Troubles' in Northern Ireland.
The treatment of Palestinians is short-sighted to say the least, if only by generating more hatred and animosity.

With regards to your last question; [IMHO] at the end of the day, some courses of action, whilst distasteful and morally ambiguous, can justified by the end result. I don't think a state can exist without getting it's hands dirty.

From:

leehee.livejournal.com

Regarding Hiroshima, that's exactly why I do believe that a sense of morality should be maintained. So that thousands of people won't be massacred like this.

De-humanization of people at the times of war is a rather easy thing to do, and a useful tool for the leaders, morality at times of war means keeping in mind the fact that while those people might belong to the other side, they are still human beings.

The end result was 13 innocent people who died, that's the result. One dead terrorist isn't worth it. The result weren't life that were spared, but life that were taken.

From:

Perhaps,

But without those massacres, it is highly likely that many more would have been injured/killed with an invasion of the Japanese mainland - needs of the many against the few, if you will. I agree that such an action was horrific, however, one could argue that the US provided reparations to help Japan after the war.

I must confess, I would rather necessary violence was used, in order to bring a shorter end to a conflict, than have a long protracted action that causes more grief, division and festering hatred.

With regards to dehumanising the enemy, every group in a conflict tries to portray their side as the better one - I sincerely doubt you will ever find someone encouraging their armed forces with "come on lads, what we're doing is wrong, there's no need to do it anyway, and they're a much better people than us".

Surely, the real testing point is how each side acts in war and victory, hence the adoption of 'War Crimes'; for the last 150 years there have been the Geneva Conventions laying out guidelines for the treatment of wounded etc.

IMHO, knowledge that the other side are human beings is irrelevant - or rather that's a given. I don't subscribe to a mentality that makes an enemy out to be a base lifeform, however, I will pay attention to their desires and motivations. Put simply, I wouldn't support a war against an untermensch, but would against an aggressor - effectively Desert Storm was right, the "2nd Gulf War" (aka US business's middle-eastern expansion) has been horribly wrong.

Returning to the 'Collatarol Damage' argument, I agree with it if necessary; however, to develop my response (and entering Hollywoodland) such an action would be justified (IMHO) if said terrorist was immediately about cause the deaths of many. If it was just a case of the terrorist residing in a building (even if ensconced there) but not actually about to cause an action, then dropping a bomb on the building would not be justified.

From:

[Sorry, just a quick addition]

Just thought I'd better send you this as a bit of an explanation about my 'discussion-style'.

"Rules of Engagement"

I hope you're enjoying this discussion as much as I am.

From:

I read that article a couple of months back, it makes some very good points that I happen to agree with. Unfortunately I missed the documentary as I was in a pub, but it's main thrust was supposed to be "should we now abandon religion to save humanity?", a rather extreme and alarmist point of view, but it has it's merits.

We now have people in this world that are so zealous they are prepared to cast the world back into another dark age. I don't just mean the Islamic fundamentalists, their counterparts in the states are just as devout and extreme in their idealologies. Just look at the debate over Intelligent Design (a politically dressed up "creationism"), that is trying to replace evolution (a theory based on empirical research) in the US classrooms. This is worrying.

About 2,000 years ago they burned the libraries at Alexandria in the name of religion, setting science, maths, medicine and a wealth of recorded history back a 1,000 years. It took till the renaissance for humanity to get back on track.

Let us hope we are not seeing a resurgence of superstition overpowering science.

From:

if you'd seen the docu, your last sentance might be retracted...

From:

I'll try to catch the second part next week.

From:

blakeshell.livejournal.com

Many of the texts in the alexandra library were religous texts as well. They were burned in the name of christ, not religion. You might know more about it than I, but Ghandi set idia free based on religous principles and set the progress of that country ahead 100 years. Mao Tse Tung also hated religion, but set up his own religon. It is the politics and tribalism that causes all the ailements that you speak of, not religion as a concept.
The idea that any type of religous schooling being allowed in the us is alarming, but happining anyway.

From:

I totally agree, the problem isn't religion but political interpretations and justifications based on religion. I also understand and welcome religion on it's moral and cultural merits - it serves a vital role in society and enriches people's lives, or at least for those people who gain comfort and enlightenment through their beliefs. Not to mention the shared spirit of faith which is a powerful glue for building societies, something that science (by it's nature a pragmatic and sterile application) cannot hope to replace.

Despite this I am against religion, and only because of the current climate of religous bigots and extremists. I'm not saying that these people wouldn't exist or do the things they do if it wasn't for religion, it's just that it lends them a credibility and false air of "righteouses" that they would otherwise not be able to hide behind.

President Bush saying he invaded Iraq because "God told him to" amounts to the same as me saying "I stabbed some guy because my imaginary friend Bob told me to". Religion and faith are social and personal things and shouldn't be confused with the practicalities of science, ecomonics, politics and especially not war (when such a thing as war becomes necessary).

We are now living in an age where we have become so confused and confounded by rheteric that it becomes difficult to seperate religion from practical necessaties. Extremists around the world are taking advantage of semantics and political-correctness gone wrong.

Science is something that generations have contributed to, replacing it with something that belongs in a more philosphical field is tantamount to a decline in human progress and endeavour.

From:

blakeshell.livejournal.com

It is eacactally that kind of black and white thinking of people as "good" and "evil" that allows people to do evil things. The fact that people seem to think that science and religion are incompatible are really just affirming that they are treating science like a religion and therefore making themselves the kind of closeminded dogmatist that we usually mistakenly assume religious people of having.
I am religous, or certanly spiritual, but I think "good" and "evil" are best reserved for roleplaying games.

From:

Indeed, some of the most gifted and prolific scientists to have ever lived were very devout in their faiths and quite spiritual too. These men (like Newton) never allowed themselves to think in simple terms of "black and white", they simply carried on with their work, understanding that their faith and their work were two seperate things - compatible if not reconcilable.

Good and evil are simply subjective concepts, labels which are always in motion. They serve some purposes but should never be attributed to anything as absolutes. Unfortunately religous interpretation can, and has been, a very absolute field. This either stems from use of religion (in the past) as a form of control or the more simple uneducated deductions of zealots who find it easier to deal in incomplete simple truths. Unfortunately men of science seem to make this mistake too.

From:

They serve some purposes but should never be attributed to anything as absolutes

WTF?
Rape, genocide, cold blooded murder of innocents...
Go on, explain to me how these actions can not be described as evil...

From:

There is good and evil in the descriptive sense (in which matters such as rape are of course evil), and then there is "good and evil" as concepts that are propagated. It's the latter that should never be used as absolutes, because they are used as a form of classification - a container to stuff any of those things which may be considered "evil". Homosexuality was considered an "evil" in that sense, and still is by some. Is it really evil? Not at all. Genocide on the other hand is descriptively and morally completely evil, but try telling that to any regime that has practised such as thing, their PR/political/religous/whatever campaign would mark it as "good" and probably call it "ethnic cleansing", or any number proactive, wholesome sounding words.

So the definition of evil is fine to use as an absolute, but not the concept of evil which is a more vague and complicated thing.

From:

And so you see how we return to religion being the root cause of evil...

From:

No, that is too naive and myopic an interpretation. It's like saying "binge drinking is the root cause of crime". All these things need to be examined in more detail, lest we ourselves become the very thing we denounce - extremists without the ability to approach things with depth and understanding.

And that would just make us hypocrites at best, and small-minded bigots at worst.

You can't use "root cause of evil", evil is not like liver disease or cancer - where you can study and pinpoint a root cause, or at least the biggest contributing factor to those things.

From: