Lucretius Knew
‘Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum,’ Lucretius remarked* (that’s one of my few Latin tags. I failed Latin one year. You didn’t fail things in my school, it wasn’t done, but I managed it. I was quite good at failing things when I was fifteen) about what Agamemnon did to his daughter at the behest of a god (he killed her, that’s what, just to get a wind for sailing to Troy). What evil religion can persuade us to. He was right, old Lukers.
There’s this hajj business for instance. Brilliant. Make it a pillar of your religion that if you can make the trip to Mecca, you have to, once in your life. Keep that rule in place when the relgion it’s a pillar of goes from being that of some people in Arabia to being that of many people all over the damn planet, and when the population at issue goes from being – what? a few thousand? – to a billion or two. Then watch the fun. To make sure, arrange some bottlenecks along the way. Millions of people heading for a smallish place, all of them in a hurry – oh, oops, somebody tripped, oops, this fool behind me is pushing, oh shit I’m stepping on someone’s chest, oh hell oh hell oh hell I’m standing on someone’s face, I’m not having an easy time breathing myself –
Very spiritual, isn’t it. Uplifting. Meaningful. Millions of people throw stones at a pillar because ‘the devil’ once appeared there to Abraham – the story goes. Well that’s a good reason for everyone else to go there and throw a stone, and for them to do it on the same day. Yes, very good. Good thinking. And the police can’t do anything about it, because if they tried, there would be an even worse stampede. Well, god forbid anyone should just decide that the hajj is not an obligation after all and end the whole mess. I heard someone gently suggest something similar on the World Service – not even end it, but just maybe spread it out over the year perhaps? No, no, couldn’t do that. But it’s not an actual obligation is it? Yes, it’s an obligation, if you have the capacity, if you have the money and health, it’s an obligation. Oh.
And then there’s this pastor in Tottenahm. He’s very spiritual too.
A London-based pastor has been arrested on suspicion of inciting child cruelty following an investigation into allegations of witchcraft at an evangelical Congolese church in Tottenham. Dr Dieudonne Tukala, 46, from the Church of Christ Mission, is being questioned over claims that he diagnosed several children as “witches”, advising their parents to beat the devil out of them or send them back to the Democratic Republic of Congo so that he could pray for them to be killed…Dr Tukala was accused of telling one couple that their nine-year-old son was possessed. The boy’s father was jailed for five years at Snaresbrook Crown Court in November 2003 after branding his son with a steam iron and forcing chilli powder into his mouth “to drive the devil out”.
Branding his child with an iron. To drive the devil out. People trample other people to death in their eagerness to throw stones at a stone, in the belief that it has something to do with the devil, and other people burn children with irons and beat them, in the belief that they will drive the devil out. There are some things so stupid or so cruel that only religion can persuade people to do them.
Yes, but did you see the documentary on the Rochdale ‘satanic abuse’ cases? That was social workers and the local council, not pastors.
You simply can’t dump everything in religion’s lap. It is childishly easy to refute the charge. Just take a brief glance at the twentieth century in Europe. What’s the point of fighting irrationality and simplification with irrationality and simplification?
As for G.T’s points, to which I cannot myself offer a definitive answer, I would simply say that it is perfectly possible to state the following:
1. Some do claim to ‘detect’ a God (you don’t define detect. I presume you don’t mean ‘hiding behind the aspidistra’) They may be wrong but your saying so doesn’t make them so.
2. All sweeping generalisations are blackmail (“Anyone who doesn’t agree with this statement must be a fool or liar, ergo you are a fool and liar”)
3. True, they were not made by dogs and cats. Yes, human beings – both male and female – have constructed and modified religions, but according to your point 2, they will all have been fools and knaves. I am not sure why I should take your word for this. A more useful question would be why, and out of what material, did they construct and modify their religions.
4. You’re the scientist. Prove it. Try proving or disproving a statement like “Kindness, as such, has no physical effect on a person’s well-being”.
5. All societies kill, enslave and torture. They don’t specifically need religion to do that.
And why do you think that sheer hostility is of any use whatsoever? Especially now in a post-Anglican British society where you are in no danger of being strung up on the word of the vicar.
The case Ophelia quotes – I have heard of other such cases – has quite specific cultural roots. It is a little unfair not to mention that.
I’m not sure that I see the parallel between social workers who believed (wrongly) that children were being abused in a quasi-religious context, and who sought to stop it, and a pastor urging the abuse of children in a religious context.
Actually, G, I think you could make a plausible case for prayer being effective, the placebo effect is demonstrably real.
Unfortunately, despite several attempts there has never been a really satisfactory trial. Partly because a negative result can be interpreted as God choosing not to answer this particular prayer, perhaps because being tested (like so many other things) really pisses him off.
That Hajj catastrophe – “More useful is the assurance by Syed, Islamabad, that the stone throwers will go directly to Paradise.”
That’s alrighty then…
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?threadID=715&&edition=1&ttl=20060114132414
Don – the social workers were presumably secular. They were not obliged to believe in the devil. The beliefs of the families they broke up is not known, but the fact is that they were eventually found not guilty of ‘satanic abuse’.
The analogy stands, I think, because secular forces pursued a more or less literal witch-hunt, much as the pastor did. It was the secular authorities who introduced the name of the devil into the proceedings. The families never mentioned it.
The point is that witch-hunts of the more metaphorical but destructive sort can be conducted by anybody, religious or not. The tabloid press gives us pretty good examples of it.
I objected to this particular pastor being used to represent pastors at large. I do not think the Rochdale social workers represent social workers generally.
Of course the origin of the satanic abuse hysteria was in the US where Christian beliefs played a big part.
But I don’t see the parallel either, the satanic abuse scandal was that the idea that there were large numbers of satanic rings abusing children which had its origins in the US where the Christian context allowed these ideas to be incorporated into child welfare thinking. As with many things this belief was imported into the UK child welfare circles as a largely secular belief. People involved in child protection then allowed their false belief to lead them into false accusations and over interpretation of what children were saying (a bit like the whole hypnotic regression stuff). Fortunately, when forced to adhere to the standards of the good old secular legal system the hysterical basis of the whole thing was exposed.
This contrasts rather nicely with the pastor whose crazy beliefs were allowed to reign unchecked.
George,
‘the social workers were presumably secular’ Dunno, maybe. Is there information on this or are we happy with ‘presumably’?
‘They were not obliged to believe in the devil.’ I am not aware that they did. They apparently believed children were being abused by people who did (or purported to) believe in the devil. Such people exist so the assumption is not irrational, although it was mistaken.
‘…secular forces pursued a more or less literal witch-hunt, much as the pastor did’. The key difference was that the pastor was urging harm on a child because he believed in supernatural entities. The social workers thought they had discovered such a case.
A witch-hunt is conducted by people who believe in witches.There are no witches.
The social workers were searching for child abusers with a religious twist. Such people exist. The social workers did not torture the families or seek to encompass their deaths – they initiated an investigation which showed they were wrong. That is surely a crucial difference.
I do not dispute that the system failed at some points, some of those involved showed bad judgement, insensitivity, an inability to evaluate evidence etc. But they were not acting under the delusion that they had divine sanction. They may have been incompetent, they were not irrational.
Sorry, the analogy does not stand. However, I agree that the pastor does not represent pastors at large. I didn’t read the post as saying that. Religion is not necessary for people to abuse children, or any other evil. It does, however, allow such abuse to be presented and accepted as virtuous.
From the figures given on the BBC news page, I calculate that since 1987, on average 170 people have died taking part in the Hajj pilgrimage every year. If it were not the most important holy site of a major world religion, I think Mecca would have earned a reputation as a deathtrap by now.
Yes, what Don said – I wasn’t saying that pastor represents all pastors. That would be an odd thing to say. I did say there are some things so stupid or so cruel that only religion can persuade people to do them –
And, actually, that’s not true, is it. It’s not that hard to think of equally cruel things people have done for non-religious reasons. Okay – I take it back!
“If it were not the most important holy site of a major world religion, I think Mecca would have earned a reputation as a deathtrap by now.”
Exactly. This bugs me.
There was a mass death by stampede during a Hindu ritual a few years ago, wasn’t there? Baptism in the Ganges or something, was it?
G.Tingey,
The point I was making is that your ‘testable hypotheses’ are transferable and vague. The word ‘religion’ could be replaced by various other words. Your criteria are nowhere defined. The terms of reference – ‘look at history or today’ – are vague.
‘Get on with the testing’ you say. But what tests are we applying? What do you suggest? The burden of proof cannot be on me as I have made no claims. I have not put forward a hypothesis to be tested. I have not claimed that God exists or that prayer is effective. I have offered possible critiques of your five hypotheses. You made the claims: it is up to you test and prove that God does not exist and that prayer has no effect. When you have conclusive proof of God’s existence or non-existence, or of the conclusive inefficacy of prayer with the appropriate research, let me know. But I am not sure why you should bother to prove these things to me as I wasn’t claiming they were true. What I was questioning was whether your five hypotheses were EXCLUSIVELY true. And therefore read on just a little further.
You offer three different kinds of hypothesis. That concerning the existence of God is of one kind (the argument would, I imagine, be about the meaning of the word ‘existence’). The second concerning the effectiveness of prayer is of a different kind, because here the test might be in terms of a survey of claims. The third kind is embodied in your points 2, 3 and 5. These are unclear as to whether they are intended to apply absolutely and exclusively or comparatively.
I suspect the tests for 2, 3 and 5 would be comparative not absolute, as it is perfectly possible to maintain that:
various other forms of society have played on blackmail and fear (dunno about superstition, though that’s a term that defines itself, and you don’t have to be religious to be suprstitious);
that religions other than Christianity or Islam etc, which are indeed patriarchal and one would have to be a bit daft to claim otherwise, were formed as much by women as by men (it is possible to argue that women have just as many and just as intense religious experiences or perceptions as men – there are considerable numbers of female mystics, and a great many outside the compass of conventional religion – but that under most circumstances, cultural or other, it is men that have tended to systematise these experiences and perceptions, the notion of ‘wicca’ and ‘covens’ being a potential exception (and yes, they exist, right now, read the websites);
that all ideological systems kill, enslave and torture. In terms of sheer numbers it is possible to maintain that Mao, Stalin and Hitler between them killed, enslaved and tortured more people in the 20th century than religions did, maybe even cumulatively more than several centuries of religion did. This is a sorry commonplace, I know. Refutation of the commonplace would however have to be comparative and could only be comparative.
If you wanted to cumulate numbers and prove to me that twentieth century popes have been directly responsible for five, five hundred, five thousand, or five million more examples of murder, enslavement and torture, by all means get counting. You might be right in your hypothesis. Myself, I dunno. I suspect that in case 5 you would be on a loser, but the very fact you’d have to count to establish your hypothesis would be to disprove it the way it stands with its implied claim to exclusivity. And it was you who made it stand that way.
I could further argue that not all religions have done what you say. That Catholic Franciscanism, Quakerism, Buddhism and Gandhi’s Hinduism, to take a few examples off the top of my head, are no more associated with killing, enslaving and torture than is Trollope’s Warden with Osama Bin Laden.
That wouldn’t of course be because I wanted to persuade you to become a Franciscan or a Quaker, or because I myself wanted to be one.
But, by heaven. Enough already.
Should we post a **Category Failure Alert**?
Some religions actually chop limbs off children with the intention of using them to get money by acts of magic. (Zimbabwe mutu)
Therefore, we can blame religion for much evil.
Christianity is a religion.
Please move to an obvious but unstated conclusion.
Thank you, ChrisPer. Bless you, guv. That’s much neater and far more to the point than my rather creaky refutation in particulars. Good post on Pinker too.
There are all these cases where motives are mixed. Whether I agree or not, I can at least understand why some people, for example, see the Mid-East conflict as more territorial than religious. And when cases come along which are so clear-cut in showing that nothing but religion has been responsible for an unmitigated evil, my thought is not that one should balance the picture by mentioning ways in which religion has benefited mankind, but that this is precisely the time to ask the most pointed questions about how true religion is or can be. Is there anything “bad” that doesn’t benefit somebody? Can or should that ever be an argument in favour of anything?
Well, apart from “nothing but” religion (life is rarely as simple), I think you’re right, Stewart. But will you then do the opposite in the opposite circumstances? I mean in a case where “nothing but” religion could have conferred a certain benefit.
I imagine you would deny that such circumstances exist.
“Nothing but” cases are hard, especially if you use such a broad term as ‘religion’. See ChrisPer above.
I cannot, in all conscience, claim to know that no case could exist in which benefits are conferred that could only have been conferred by religion (please, let’s not open up the definition business again; I do hope my point wasn’t lost just because I didn’t go deeply into it). But, assuming such a case exists, I still hold that whether or not the beliefs involved are true (as in: more true than the orbiting teapot) is a relevant question, relevant enough to make the benefits questionable, even if for that reason only. I genuinely think that truth is important enough to take precedence over the benefits that may accrue from ignoring it or not asking the hardest questions about it. I won’t take the easy way out and say there could be no benefits worth having that only religion (or unevidenced beliefs or faiths) could confer and the reason I do not choose to take that way is precisely because of my belief that truth is important. Simply backing the atheist side by asserting there could be no such thing is a lazy, dishonest cheat. In fact, I far prefer to assume there could be such cases, in order to assure myself I’ve done my thinking well. Asserting the convenient is easy and doesn’t have much to do with thought. This line of argument reminds me of the problem Fritz Lang is reputed to have had when preparing his first American film, “Fury” (1936). In the finished picture, clean-looking, white, innocent Spencer Tracy is accused of an assault he did not commit and comes back after having been assumed killed in a jail fire set by a lynch mob. Not much of an argument against lynching, when you get down to it. Apparently, Lang wanted to make a picture in which the protagonist was an ugly, unsympathetic black man who had definitely committed the rape of which he was accused and use that set-up to argue against lynching. It’s either wrong or it isn’t. It can’t be less wrong for someone guilty than for someone innocent etc. Of course, they wouldn’t countenance him making the movie he wanted to, but still…
And despite all that, I still don’t think Orhan Pamuk and David Irving make for suitable comparison…
“These will invariably be associated with the dominant religion”
Not absolutely invariably. There have been long-lasting societies that don’t have much religion – China for one.
“‘Hey, our God said ‘Don’t steal’. You would never have thought that one up for yourselves.'”
Exactly. That’s what that whole ‘Christianity is where you get all these Enlightenment ideas!’ trope amounts to. You never would have thought up equality without Xianity! Yeah, right, because it’s such an obscure idea…