The Problem with Religious Moderation

[Scarabin]

Winstonm's view is cynical. Science posits tentative models of reality that help explain bits of it. Some "moral" behaviour seems instinctive (e.g. mother-love). Skinner might explain conscience in terms of operant and avoidance conditioning. These may be reinforced by belief in heaven and hell.

 

Most people, however, live by moral/ethical beliefs (e.g. belief in human-rights) with no scientific basis. The step from "is" to "ought" is a leap of faith. IMO, if unprovable religious or ethical beliefs stop us all becoming psychopaths, then good for them! :)

 

I am puzzled why obviously intelligent posters find this and similar posts offensive and insulting. To me it seems merely to state the obvious - "an extra sanction is an extra sanction" - without invoking moral judgment. Perhaps one can read it as an underhand attack on one's convictions but the "sanction" can be religious, cultural or even parental and while I am a sceptic I do not take it personally. :D

 

Surely it is possible the poster may consider the discussion has got out of hand and want to restore it to an even keel, with a relatively mild contribution? :rolleyes:

 

My experience of life and my reading of history have convinced me people who adapt, and I equate this with having moderate views, are wiser than those with fixed convictions :)

Edited October 21, 2013 by Scarabin

[Trinidad]

From the start, I've consistently argued with Trinidad that ethical systems aren't based simply on science. They seem to be predicated on unprovable ethical assumptions (that I dubbed beliefs).

I absolutely agree with this.Well, I might not agree with calling them beliefs, but I agree with the concept. They are choices, or approaches to life, or commitments, or perhaps they are beliefs. But there is no chance at all that they can be proven through logic or through science.

I don't get this. IMO one of the most important ethical standards is the "Golden rule". It comes in a variety of forms, but you see in many religions as well as among atheists that it is a good idea to treat others the way you like to be treated yourself.

 

Where does this rule come from? Does it come from an Almighty God or something like that? Or does it come from the combined experience and wisdom of our ancestors?

 

I (obviously) think the latter. Now I readily admit that our ancestors probably didn't use advanced scientific methodology to come to the conclusion that it is a good idea to treat others the way you like to be treated yourself.

 

But I do think it came from observations leading to conclusions (call it primitive science if you must) on the one side and evolution on the other side (people who follow the "Golden rule" have a better chance to produce offspring).

 

Rik

[Trinidad]

I am puzzled why obviously intelligent posters find this and similar posts offensive and insulting.

 

It lies in the implication in the following line:

 

IMO, if unprovable religious or ethical beliefs stop us all becoming psychopaths, then good for them! :)

 

It suggests that "unprovable beliefs" stop us all from becoming psychopaths. (Okay, "psychopath" is a theatrical exageration, but change "becoming psychopaths" to "doing bad things" and the theatrics are gone.)

 

It is a mystery to me why and how an unprovable belief stops us all from doing bad things. I would rather say that unprovable beliefs have caused us all to do some pretty bad things, of which some can certainly be characterized as psychopathic.

 

Proven rules (e.g. the Golden rule), that have little to do with religion or believe, have helped us in being better people. Some religions, or perhaps even many, have adopted the obvious and incorporated it into their doctrine, but that doesn't make the Golden rule a religious, unprovable belief.

 

Just because Jesus said that we should love each other, doesnot mean that loving each other is an exclusively Christian thing. If I say "The leaves turn colors in fall." then the coloring of the leaves is suddenly a Trinidadian religious thing? Or is it still just stating the obvious?

 

Rik

[mikeh]

 

My experience of life and my reading of history have convinced me people who adapt, and I equate this with having moderate views, are wiser than those with fixed convictions :)

 

I agree with the notion that people whose opinions are prone to change in the face of new knowledge are generally wiser than those whose opinions won't, but where you and I differ is how this correlates with the moderation of one's beliefs.

 

Moderation is no virtue in and of itself. In say 1900 USA, a moderate might hold that women were entitled to some education and maybe some minor role in politics, while the extremists held that women either ought to remain as chattels or, on the other extreme, have equal rights with men. Being moderate might well be 'better', viewed from today's perspective, than one of these views, but still meant being a chauvinist. Similarly with racial issues.

 

While one can categorize people in all kinds of ways, one way is to consider that people see the world either in terms of revealed knowledge, or justified belief, or in terms of provisional knowledge, subject to error-checking and modification in light of experience, including the experience of others.

 

The former is religious thinking. Religion ALWAYS requires that the believer accept as 'given' and as 'fixed', at least pending a new revelation from god, the basic tenets of the faith. The believer cannot discover new things for himself or herself, at least not that contradict the revealed truths, and may not accept as true any such discoveries by others until they have been endorsed as revelations.

 

The latter lives free of such intellectual chains.

 

Both can seem extreme in their passion for their views of the world. However, the believer is indeed intellectually constrained while the other is not, and can more readily adapt to new information.

 

It is a profound error to consider the two categories as equivalent and to assert that there is some middle position, that can be described as moderate.

I suspect you equate moderation with occupying the middle ground, but on many important issues about the universe, there is no habitable middle ground. Religion says one thing and evidence based knowledge says something different. Claiming both are right is often nonsensical.

[Trinidad]

Moderation is no virtue in and of itself. In say 1900 USA, a moderate might hold that women were entitled to some education and maybe some minor role in politics, while the extremists held that women either ought to remain as chattels or, on the other extreme, have equal rights with men. Being moderate might well be 'better', viewed from today's perspective, than one of these views, but still meant being a chauvinist. Similarly with racial issues.

These lines are really important. They show that we were "wrong" in the past and how we improved. In a more recent past, we were still wrong, and we improved.

 

It is highly likely that today we are still wrong. We just don't know how yet, but we will find out.

 

Rik

[billw55]

I agree with the notion that people whose opinions are prone to change in the face of new knowledge are generally wiser than those whose opinions won't, but where you and I differ is how this correlates with the moderation of one's beliefs.

 

Moderation is no virtue in and of itself. In say 1900 USA, a moderate might hold that women were entitled to some education and maybe some minor role in politics, while the extremists held that women either ought to remain as chattels or, on the other extreme, have equal rights with men. Being moderate might well be 'better', viewed from today's perspective, than one of these views, but still meant being a chauvinist. Similarly with racial issues.

 

While one can categorize people in all kinds of ways, one way is to consider that people see the world either in terms of revealed knowledge, or justified belief, or in terms of provisional knowledge, subject to error-checking and modification in light of experience, including the experience of others.

 

The former is religious thinking. Religion ALWAYS requires that the believer accept as 'given' and as 'fixed', at least pending a new revelation from god, the basic tenets of the faith. The believer cannot discover new things for himself or herself, at least not that contradict the revealed truths, and may not accept as true any such discoveries by others until they have been endorsed as revelations.

 

The latter lives free of such intellectual chains.

 

Both can seem extreme in their passion for their views of the world. However, the believer is indeed intellectually constrained while the other is not, and can more readily adapt to new information.

 

It is a profound error to consider the two categories as equivalent and to assert that there is some middle position, that can be described as moderate.

I suspect you equate moderation with occupying the middle ground, but on many important issues about the universe, there is no habitable middle ground. Religion says one thing and evidence based knowledge says something different. Claiming both are right is often nonsensical.

I think there is some false dichotomy in there Mike.

[ArtK78]

With all due respect to the many who have posted on this thread, there is a common theme in most of the posts which is consistent with the saying that one of our secretaries has on the wall next to her cubicle:

 

YOU CAN AGREE WITH ME

OR YOU CAN BE WRONG

[mikeh]

With all due respect to the many who have posted on this thread, there is a common theme in most of the posts which is consistent with the saying that one of our secretaries has on the wall next to her cubicle:

 

YOU CAN AGREE WITH ME

OR YOU CAN BE WRONG

True, but unhelpful.

 

Some of us say: we think such and such based on what evidence is currently available: we expect that much of what we 'know', including some things that we believe very strongly, will eventually be shown to be in error, and if and when that happens, we will be delighted.

 

Some of us say: we believe such and such based on current interpretations of works of questionable accuracy that purport to ascribe all matters of importance to the existence and behaviour of a supernatural entity, and no amount of evidence will get us to change our mind, unless an authorized representative of that supernatural entity assures us that he (and it is almost always a 'he') has had revealed to him a new version of truth.

 

While 'moderation' may be a comfortable way of refusing to choose between world views, it is ultimately an acceptance of the religious viewpoint about a concept that Deutsch refers to as justified belief.

 

You can best appreciate the flaws in advocating that there is a middle ground, of moderation, when one contemplates some of the major issues that have divided secular thinkers from religious thinkers. I am most familiar with Christianity so my examples come from the religion.

 

In the time of Galileo, scripture was interpreted by the leading scholars of the RCC as requiring that the earth be the centre of the visible universe, while observations using the newly discovered telescope strongly demonstrated that this was not so. The observations that, for example, other planets had moons, and the relative motions of the planets themselves suggested that the earth orbited the sun.

 

So one school had the sun orbiting the earth and the other the earth orbiting the sun.

 

This wasn't simply an issue about planetary mechanics. It went directly to the significance of the earth, and thus of humans, in the universe. Moving us away from the centre of the universe, to an object orbiting the sun, downgraded our apparent importance. This was why the RCC banned the publication of the heliocentric theory.

 

One could either accept the evidence or accept scripture. Where was the ground for the moderate?

 

With the discovery of the theory of evolution by natural selection, another paradigm shattering decision had to be made. Prior to then, it was generally accepted that humans were fundamentally different from all other animals: we were created in god's image, which no other animal was. We were special, privileged in creation.

 

The implications of Darwinian evolution included the concept that we shared a common ancestor with other primates. This was impossible to the religious establishment of the day.

 

Where was the ground on which a moderate could, on this question, say: this I believe?

 

The history of the enlightenment, in which we are still arguably living, is replete with these sorts of paradigm shifts, and moderation (if viewed as an attempt to accommodate two conflicting views of reality) has no legitimate role to play.

 

We are not, for example, dealing with moral positions. Is capital punishment appropriate?

 

Historically it was seen as appropriate for a wide range of offences, including some property offences. Today, in the US, some see it as appropriate for kidnapping or sexual offences, and others see it as immoral in all cases. Moderates might see it as ok for specific types of murder, but not for rape or kidnapping, etc. There can be a spectrum of opinion, and that is when moderates have an important role to play, and indeed I like to think that I am relatively moderate on many social issues, with a somewhat left-wing bent on some.

 

However, one's approach to understanding the world as it 'is' at the most fundamental level is not one where this sort of middle of the road approach has much application.

 

Believing in a god of hellfire and eternal damnation for non-believers and the absolute inerrancy of scripture is one extreme. Rejection of any supernatural explanation is the other, so it would seem. But where is the person who shares with the fundie the common belief that all is due to 'god'? Merely substituting a more benevolent god is not a move to the middle ground of moderation.

 

The difference is binary. When asked to choose between a zero and a 1, there is no option to choose a fraction.

[Codo]

It lies in the implication in the following line:

 

 

 

It suggests that "unprovable beliefs" stop us all from becoming psychopaths. (Okay, "psychopath" is a theatrical exageration, but change "becoming psychopaths" to "doing bad things" and the theatrics are gone.)

 

It is a mystery to me why and how an unprovable belief stops us all from doing bad things. I would rather say that unprovable beliefs have caused us all to do some pretty bad things, of which some can certainly be characterized as psychopathic.

 

Proven rules (e.g. the Golden rule), that have little to do with religion or believe, have helped us in being better people. Some religions, or perhaps even many, have adopted the obvious and incorporated it into their doctrine, but that doesn't make the Golden rule a religious, unprovable belief.

 

Just because Jesus said that we should love each other, doesnot mean that loving each other is an exclusively Christian thing. If I say "The leaves turn colors in fall." then the coloring of the leaves is suddenly a Trinidadian religious thing? Or is it still just stating the obvious?

 

Rik

 

First of all: I understood Nige different: Religion is one way to give you some ethics, but he did not claim, that it is the only or even the best way.

 

Second: It is quite a common mistake to compare the reality of what religious belivers do with the theory of how a perfect atheist will act.

We can compare the theories of different beliefs and atheism and we will find some marvellous ways of living in these theories and some big errors.

And we can compare the reality of theists and atheists civilizations and see which look better.

 

So, saying that believers made psychopatic things is quite fruitless. Of course they did. A billion times. So what? Is this different in atheists societies? Well maybe yes- but maybe not in the way you would like it to be. But it would be pointless to discuss who brought morre evil- muslims, buddhists, christians, atheists or however. It is hard to count anyway. It would make more sense to discuss how we all can become moderate and tolerant people, no matter what nationality, relgion (or non-religion), colour or political background we have.

 

But maybe this discussion would be less entertaining and would need more self reflection then the current one.(This point is not particular pointing towards you- I would bet that your self reflection is among hei highest standards we have here.)

 

 

What you call the golden rule is quite interessting. From a sole selfish point of view, it is sure NOT the best way of living. For you personally, for your tribe, your nation, whatever, it is much better to have your own set of rules and have the others killed, as slaved, as dependents. There are millions of examples in history that can proofe this fact.

So, why do you and I agree that this is the golden rule and that it would be nice to live according to it? Obviously there must be different ways in reaching this knowledge- or this ethics.I cannot see any logic leading to this behaviour. In a strict darwinistic way, we better kill our neighbors and take their food, money and females.... I am quite happy that we left this stadium in evolution behind...

[Codo]

This really troubling aspect of Christianity to me is that the need to be forgiven stems from the fact that we are all born as human beings, that, according to the dogma, being born a human requires a blood sacrifice by an all-powerful being in order to make us "worthy". Excuse me, but I am just fine without your forgiveness for being born, thank you.

 

Maybe Christianity in your world is quite different from Christinaity in mine. At least here, I do not need a blood sacrifice for being born. Do you mind to backup your statement with something like a fact, maybe n URL or something like that?

At least here, we are taught, that our SINS will be forgiven, if we really regret them.

[Vampyr]

What you call the golden rule is quite interessting. From a sole selfish point of view, it is sure NOT the best way of living. For you personally, for your tribe, your nation, whatever, it is much better to have your own set of rules and have the others killed, as slaved, as dependents.

 

Not everyone believes in group selection, but I think I do, so I believe that groups that were compassionate and altruistic had a better chance of survival. I think that would also apply to groups that preferred to kill other groups, since these groups would all eventually kill each other off.

 

I realise that there is a flaw here, in that the mean groups could have killed off the nice groups, but it is possible that the nice groups defended themselves, maybe even banded together, and that the mean groups split into factions and self-destructed. Eventually they would have been seriously outnumbered.

 

So, what I think is that most survivors were, eventually, the golden rule groups.

[Vampyr]

Maybe Christianity in your world is quite different from Christinaity in mine. At least here, I do not need a blood sacrifice for being born. Do you mind to backup your statement with something like a fact, maybe n URL or something like that?

At least here, we are taught, that our SINS will be forgiven, if we really regret them.

 

It is the latter that most versions of Christianity rely on the blood sacrifice for.

 

Here is a link, and many people would think that this is one of the cornerstones of Christianity. I guess your branch of Christianity does not believe this, and I find this surprising.

[Winstonm]

Maybe Christianity in your world is quite different from Christinaity in mine. At least here, I do not need a blood sacrifice for being born. Do you mind to backup your statement with something like a fact, maybe n URL or something like that?

At least here, we are taught, that our SINS will be forgiven, if we really regret them.

 

Sorry, but being American I automatically use our evangelical Christian views, assuming everyone understands. The evangelical dogma is that everyone born is stained by original sin - and hence in need of forgiveness. Try this

[gwnn]

Maybe Christianity in your world is quite different from Christinaity in mine. At least here, I do not need a blood sacrifice for being born. Do you mind to backup your statement with something like a fact, maybe n URL or something like that?

At least here, we are taught, that our SINS will be forgiven, if we really regret them.

I went to church in Romania, Hungary, the UK, Denmark, Iceland, ... They always explained very clearly that Christ died for your sins. They also serve some hot chocolate in my town (NL) in exchange for my listening to them telling me the same thing. Sorry but in my experience the same is being preached in most of Europe as well, although perhaps not so simply and clearly as in the US. Why else is John 3:16 is the most quoted Bible verse?

[gwnn]

On

http://www.ekd.de/english/faith.html I see the Nicene Creed that states "For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven, was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the virgin Mary and became truly human. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried."

 

On

http://www.nak.org/faith-and-church/creed/ I see article 7 partly begins with:

"I believe that Holy Communion was instituted by the Lord Himself in memory of the once brought, fully valid sacrifice, and bitter suffering and death of Christ. "

 

These are the biggest two Protestant groups in Germany, the Catholics clearly believe in Christ's sacrifice for our sins. Unfortunately the next few Protestant groups don't have such a clear website, maybe you could show us one such church that clearly states that Christ was not a blood sacrifice to atone for our sins? And what % of the German Christians are members of those groups?

 

edit:

OK I found this: http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive//ldn/2009/apr/09042107 which apparently has a Catholic Archbishop denying Christ's sacrifice, instead saying it was just an act of solidarity. I have no idea how you can reconcile that with the doctrine of the Catholic Church... Of course the Vatican just recently said that the Pope himself isn't infallible when he talks about God, he is sometimes just philosophically musing, not really meaning it literally.

[mikeh]

 

 

 

And we can compare the reality of theists and atheists civilizations and see which look better.

 

I don't know of many 'atheist' societies. It is arguable that China is close to atheistic these days and clearly much of its recent history contained atrocities and it to this day deals with human rights issues in a way that we in the West see as improper. However, it is probably best to see China's problems as stemming from being an authoritarian state rather than an atheistic state. In the early days, post revolution, it was governed by a group of rulers in love with another 'ism': a political philosophy that claimed that human nature was malleable and that by the imposition of certain rules and modes of behaviour, a proletarian paradise would evolve.

 

If there ever was evidence to support this philosophy, it has long-since been revealed as erroneous.

 

Soviet Russia was another secular state in which the rulers professed a form of atheism, but the atrocities it committed were not in the name of atheism but, as in China, in the name of a now-discredited political philosophy.

 

This is no surprise, because atheism, being simply the lack of acceptance of a particular kind of delusion, carries with it no goal or purpose. Atheists don't need 'leaders'. That there are 'leaders' within the atheist world is simply a happenstance arising from cultural forces, such as access to media, willingness to write books, etc. There are no seminaries for atheists, no 'church' in the hierarchy of which one can rise and so on.

 

Bill accused me earlier of a false dichotomy: this attempt by believers to portray totalitarian states, be they Germany in the 1933-45 era, or the Soviets and so on, may convince the believers but reveals far more about their ignorance than it says about the effect of atheism on public morality or government practices.

 

 

 

What you call the golden rule is quite interessting. From a sole selfish point of view, it is sure NOT the best way of living. For you personally, for your tribe, your nation, whatever, it is much better to have your own set of rules and have the others killed, as slaved, as dependents. There are millions of examples in history that can proofe this fact.

So, why do you and I agree that this is the golden rule and that it would be nice to live according to it? Obviously there must be different ways in reaching this knowledge- or this ethics.I cannot see any logic leading to this behaviour. In a strict darwinistic way, we better kill our neighbors and take their food, money and females.... I am quite happy that we left this stadium in evolution behind...

 

It appears to me that you have done very little, if any, reading on this issue.

 

You are simply wrong to state that 'in a strict Darwinian way.....'. All you reveal by making that statement is that you have no clue about this subject.

 

A moment's thought should point out the errors of your ways.

 

Imagine 3 groups, identical in all aspects other than their approach to cooperation. One is a winner take all group while the other two espouse cooperation.

 

In the case of military conflict, the two cooperative groups rate to win, by force of numbers.

 

In the case of technological progress, so long as the groups are open to innovation, the cooperative ones will soon surpass the go it alone one, because they will share ideas.

 

Your notion that selfishness is the best evolutionary strategy is correct only if one assumes that there are never more than 2 players, or that the selfish player is at least a strong as all the cooperative ones put together.

 

That is not the way the world works. Yes, strength and selfishness can gain a temporary upper hand, but consider this: when it comes to the success of, say, nation states, while history shows that empires were founded and in some cases lasted for many years, cooperation within those states was essential. There has never been an empire founded by anarchists, or people who refused to cooperate.

 

I suspect that this mistaken 'understanding' of the implications of evolutionary theory is part of the reason for the nige's of the world, supported by the Codo's of the world, feeling that the natural state of humans is psychopathy or the urge to rape, kill and steal, and that we need some external force to stop it. A belief in a god being a big one, with a reluctant concession that maybe we atheists have some other source of moral sense.

 

We do. We have exactly the same moral sense as you do.

 

You dress it up as divinely inspired, but there is compelling evidence that most believers make their god espouse what they, the believers, want to be true, rather than vice versa. We make our gods in our image, and we tend to obey them only when they tell us things we already want to believe.

 

However, you and all but the damaged people we call sociopaths or psychopaths share an innate sense of morality that is remarkably uniform across cultures and religions or the lack of religion. Dawkins, in The God Delusion, referenced some fascinating studies to that effect.

 

It seems likely that this innate moral sense is therefore a product of the way our brains are formed and this means that some form of evolutionary effect has given rise to this. I don't personally find the notion of group selection to be very convincing, but I have only a semi-educated layperson's understanding and am hardly qualified to assert that one expert is right and the other wrong. The level at which evolution works is not especially relevant: the notion that it works at some level or levels is enough. Interestingly, it is possible that in moral terms, the evolutionary process is not genetic at all. We may be dealing with memes, rather than genes. A meme is a self-replicating idea. However, the fact that morality appears to be relatively standard across the entire species suggests, to me, a genetic component.

[billw55]

However, you and all but the damaged people we call sociopaths or psychopaths share an innate sense of morality that is remarkably uniform across cultures and religions or the lack of religion. Dawkins, in The God Delusion, referenced some fascinating studies to that effect.

 

It seems likely that this innate moral sense is therefore a product of the way our brains are formed and this means that some form of evolutionary effect has given rise to this.

It sort of reminds me of Matthew 5:5.

[Vampyr]

Imagine 3 groups, identical in all aspects other than their approach to cooperation. One is a winner take all group while the other two espouse cooperation.

 

In the case of military conflict, the two cooperative groups rate to win, by force of numbers.

 

In the case of technological progress, so long as the groups are open to innovation, the cooperative ones will soon surpass the go it alone one, because they will share ideas.

 

.......

 

I don't personally find the notion of group selection to be very convincing,

 

Perhaps not, but as your thought experiment, similar to my comments above, shows, it is a fairly logical and simple mechanism. For me that is enough to suggest that it is probably, at least partially, correct. I realise that this is not a very popular point of view.

[mikeh]

It sort of reminds me of Matthew 5:5.

Matthew 5.5 has long been part of the inculcation of obedience in the flock, which ties in well with the secular sociological view of organized religion as primarily a means of gaining and holding power over people.

 

However, meekness is a completely different attitude than is cooperation.

 

I suspect it to be quite clear that I don't personally consider that being 'meek' is a desirable trait, but I am a very strong believer in the advisability of cooperation in most spheres of human activity.

[blackshoe]

Some years ago, I read James Q. Wilson's The Moral Sense, the premise of which is that all humans have the same innate moral sense, that it is part of our makeup as humans. I'm going to have to re-read it, as I don't recall much more than that.

[billw55]

Matthew 5.5 has long been part of the inculcation of obedience in the flock, which ties in well with the secular sociological view of organized religion as primarily a means of gaining and holding power over people.

 

However, meekness is a completely different attitude than is cooperation.

 

I suspect it to be quite clear that I don't personally consider that being 'meek' is a desirable trait, but I am a very strong believer in the advisability of cooperation in most spheres of human activity.

Some translations use "gentle" instead of "meek," which is not the same thing. There must be hundreds, perhaps thousands, of cases like this is the Bible, where the original meaning may have been altered during translation.

 

Anyway, I wasn't thinking of it in regard to cooperation, but rather in contrast to violence and choas. It has been suggested here that a moral/ethical system (regardless of its source) which discourages such behavior may be an evolutionary advantage - in which case I find the verse quite fitting.

 

Not that this implies anything about the provenance of the verse, one way or the other. Just an observation.

[Fluffy]

FWIW, I have never heard of anyone losing their faith and then going on a killing spree. I wonder why not?

 

I can think of a couple of reasons, but I supose you wouldn´t buy them.

 

In my country once or twice a year I see on the news that someone has killed his entire family before commiting suicide, I am very sure those guys are not sharing my religious views at that moment. Obviously they aren´t following your ethics/morale either, but that´s not what we are talking about. If he stopped believing just before starting the carnage we cannot know.

 

Its hard to generalize but I would say that most people who kill their wife and all his sons with no exceptions, before killing themselves, are doing it for ´the benefit´of them. I mean, they truly believe it is better to be dead than alive. If vengance or hate was the source of the insanity they would probably leave someone alive who is not hated that much.

 

oh ***** htis is going straght to were we had that strong argument last year...

[mikeh]

I can think of a couple of reasons, but I supose you wouldn´t buy them.

 

In my country once or twice a year I see on the news that someone has killed his entire family before commiting suicide, I am very sure those guys are not sharing my religious views at that moment. Obviously they aren´t following your ethics/morale either, but that´s not what we are talking about. If he stopped believing just before starting the carnage we cannot know.

 

Its hard to generalize but I would say that most people who kill their wife and all his sons with no exceptions, before killing themselves, are doing it for ´the benefit´of them. I mean, they truly believe it is better to be dead than alive. If vengance or hate was the source of the insanity they would probably leave someone alive who is not hated that much.

 

oh ***** htis is going straght to were we had that strong argument last year...

No it's not :D not from my p.o.v. anyway and I didn't see your comment that way either.

 

As it happens, I know a little bit about situations in which men kill their family and then, usually, themselves. Several years ago a man had been barred by a Court Order from being near his wife and child, but broke into the house in the early morning hours and stabbed his parents-in-law, his wife and his young son to death before stabbing himself in the heart, fatally. I'd never even heard that one could kill oneself that way...but he did.

 

I was involved in the Inquest and heard a lot of evidence about this kind of violence, which happens quite often.

 

The man invests so heavily in the relationship with his wife that having her reject him is unacceptable. She needs to die, else she might end up with somebody else. His life is at an end without her, so he needs to die as well. Once both he and the wife are dead, the children are going to be left traumatized, helpless and dependent on strangers, so they are better off dead.

 

In this case, the parents in law were not really discussed, in terms of trying to understand motive. It may have been merely that they were in the way (one of them was up and about, perhaps in response to the break-in and was actually on the telephone with the police operator when she was stabbed...the recording was horrific to hear) or that he blamed them for his wife's alienation from him.

 

Anyway, it seemed to be generally accepted, amongst those expert in these matters, that the motivations came from within the killer's personality, and his psychological inability to deal with rejection by his wife. I heard nothing that said it had anything to do with cultural or religious or ethnic, etc, factors. So I do remain of the view that this type of killing would not normally be seen as arising from loss of faith. I have heard of it being triggered by the loss of a job or business: the man apparently fearing that he has become worthless in the eyes of his family.

 

Women almost never perpetrate these killings, so it is possible that a cultural attitude that men have to be the protectors and providers, and also maybe the 'masters', of women and children plays a role, but I am simply speculating now and I don't recall any of the experts at the inquest saying anything about that other than the fact that some of these killings seem to be triggered by these sorts of economic problems.

[Vampyr]

In my country once or twice a year I see on the news that someone has killed his entire family before commiting suicide, I am very sure those guys are not sharing my religious views at that moment. Obviously they aren´t following your ethics/morale either, but that´s not what we are talking about. If he stopped believing just before starting the carnage we cannot know.

 

Deranged people can be any religion, or none. Sometimes people kill because they think their god or religion demands it, and we have seen an awful lot of that in recent years, but I don't think that gynecologist-killers or suicide bombers are representative members of their religions or of believers in general. So I think that the connection between belief or lack of it and murder can result only in a pretty fruitless discussion.

[Codo]

I went to church in Romania, Hungary, the UK, Denmark, Iceland, ... They always explained very clearly that Christ died for your sins. They also serve some hot chocolate in my town (NL) in exchange for my listening to them telling me the same thing. Sorry but in my experience the same is being preached in most of Europe as well, although perhaps not so simply and clearly as in the US. Why else is John 3:16 is the most quoted Bible verse?

 

Thanks to you, Stefany and Winston, obviously I made my statement false, as we simply agree:

 

According to christian beliefs, he died for our sins, not for our lifes.

I understood Winstons posting different.