Reply to post: Re: I used to be nice to christians, not any more

Data brokers amass profiles of pregnant women – and, of course, it's all up for sale

Michael Wojcik Silver badge

Re: I used to be nice to christians, not any more

there are even those who don't have any all-powerful boss you have to blindly obey

Sure. Sikhism, though it's technically monotheistic, rejects the idea of a monopoly on absolute truth, for example. Hinduism and Shinto give you a whole catalog of gods to pick from.

On the other hand, while Sikhism historically hasn't been used to motivate religious oppression (rather the opposite in fact), Hinduism and Shinto have. Neither monotheism nor the concept of a single supreme authority are necessary for abusing religious beliefs as an endorsement of violence.

Personally, I don't invest in untestable hypotheses (which is what, by definition, any belief in the supernatural is). But I think the vitriol directed against religion is a bit misplaced, because what history shows is that ideologies can be grounded in many sorts of beliefs, and can be harnessed to oppress regardless of the ontological status of those beliefs. Take for example the eugenics and scientific racism movements, neither of which were yoked to religion.

I do think there is something to be said for programs in rationalist thinking, even though we know humans will never be very good at it; and I even agree with Richard Rorty (against, for example, Stanley Fish) that non-substantive commitments to certain philosophical ideas can help people be better. But on the whole it's really easy for people to justify being shitty to one another, and getting rid of religion wouldn't change that.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon