Cool Runnings and Richard Dawkins

[anan_ab]

I have to say that my advisor is sweet. Although, I am completely amused and beside myself when I go see him in his reggae band. There he is, drinking, dancing, and rocking out the night. And rocking is very much a double entendre in this case. His body rocks back and forth as he stomps and bobs his head, while rocking out on the acoustic guitar.

Comments

[the_brain_47]

While I agree that Dawkins makes a thorough argument, I'm nowhere near as compelled as most people who've read this that the absence of religion would mean peace. But since I could not care less about what most people believe (hence my agnosticism vs. atheism), this is my argument to you:

From what you know about attitudes, belief, prejudice, and the way people attend to their needs and the ways in which they vigorously defend their concept of the world, do you really think that subtracting religious belief systems will end conflict? Do you think that hatred, witch hunts, retribution killings, genocide, and other conflicts you've described would end with the end of religion? Or does it stand to reason that in the absence of a religious system of belief, individuals would conjure up other belief systems to take their place and use those to justify atrocious behavior on a large scale? Beneath religious motivations are deeper (perhaps even psychoanalytic) reasons for why the terrible things in our world occur. Underscoring many religious conflicts are racial competitions, disputes over land and resources, etc. - these wouldn't end with religion, people will continue to be irrational without religious justification. So in light of Dawkins' argument, I ask you: What's the point?

[anan_ab]

The absence of religion would not eliminate conflict. It may eliminate the most common absurd motivation to conflict, but that certainly does not mean the other motivations to conflict would vanish. Research on the three primary intergroup relations theories in social psychology all provide explanations that include, but are not limited to religion. First, realistic group conflict theory suggests that people fight over realistic goods and objects (e.g., oil, land). Second, social identity theory suggests that people will fight over identity concerns, which often involves religion, but can very easily include nationality, ethnicity, or whether or not someone calls themself a dot-underestimator in a microcosm where dot-overestimators exist. Lastly, terror management theory suggests that the mere presence of groups who are different from you leads to an increase in anxiety and a drive to defend one's own beliefs (whether they are religious or otherwise) and one's own way of life.

So, in sum, a world with no religion would still be a violent world. People still have their arbitrary and random group memberships and that is enough to cause conflict. However, you would not have people using the absurd excuses they use today (e.g., " I love my neighbor, but because they're Muslim and not Christian, I am going to bomb the hell out of them until the convert."). Sure, new absurdity would arise, for people are, by and large, absurd beings.

The point is that the world will never be without religion for most... but it is acceptable to be an atheist. Many brilliant minds were/are and that atheism is not something that should be squelched anymore than any other beliefs (e.g., being a feminist, a homosexual, a liberal).