I'm reading a book called The Chrysalids, this book is an amazing example of religious extremism. How far is one willing to go in the name of God? For example, in the book, they live after some sort of nuclear holocaust and anyone born different then "The Norm" is executed at birth or, if they are discovered more then a certain time after birth they are exiled to the wastelands where they are sure to die. The people justify this by saying that all those that are not created in the perfect image of God are the children of the devil and must be treated as such. So really it leads me to believe this quote: No man will be happier to kill then if they do so in the name of God. Really this is the main reason I believe religion is disgusting, it causes people to do things that are beyond normal human ethics and morals.
That was the principle of eugenics proposed in the 1930s in scientific communities. Only the church was opposed to it.
It's really not eugenics, there is nothing wrong with these people, some have extra fingers and toes, some are just overly hairy, one even just has unnaturally long arms.
Normal? It's subjective. Regardless, their practices are only justified by religion, not created by religion, therefore it is irrelevant. Their practices could have come about or have been justified through any other means.
The practice was brought on upon finding the only book that was left after the holocaust, The Bible, before then they never did any of that As for SAM, i believe eugenics is weeding out the mentally and physically handicapped, I do not believe that an extra toe or too much body hair is grounds for death on the base of eugenics, I am not, however trying to support eugenics.
Well, religion is fixed by a text, making this theoretical practice a permanent condition. Science, because it is meant to be subject to further analysis and change, would not support such a practice. Although science used to be misinterpreted, we now know many factors that contribute to deformities. Genetic problems can be carried by apparently normal people. Otherwise normal people exposed to radiation can become deformed.
So you are basing your concerns about religious extremism no a book of fiction about what happens in a post-Apocalypse world. Have I got that right?
This is a strange dichotomy. Science vs. Religion. I can see why some people have this split, but others....? Science is simply an approach to gaining knowledge it is a methodology. One that religious people can and do use. They use it to make weapons, etc. Non-theist nations, governments, groups and individuals have used technology and scientists to help them kill, sometimes in great numbers. Theist nations, governments, groups and individuals have also used science and technology and scientists to kill, sometimes in great numbers. This is apples and hammers. (ie. oranges, only more so) People can be extremists.
The book only amplified my concerns, if religion can cause good people to do such horrific things (Of course it is only fiction but look at human history and tell me i'm wrong) then religion is dangerous.
Basically religion becomes dangerous when it discards philosophy ... much like science becomes dangerous when it discards a sense of the absolute.
Religion gives you reason to kill that you would not otherwise have unless you were a sociopath. That is the problem with it. That's one of the problems with it. But extremism like the kind you see displayed in the book mentioned in the OP...that stuff has existed everywhere, since the beginning of time. Extremism is not a religious invention. The United States used to force black people to sit on the back of the bus; would you not call that extremism? I would. And despite how much more furiously it was followed and enforced in the Bible Belt, religion had absolutely nothing to do with it. Superstition is the more likely culprit. Superstition is brought on by a nasty mixture of fear and lack of understanding. But it's not religion.
Sure, in history, during which pretty much everyone was religious, religious excuses and justifications for horrific things occured. As more of the world became less religious in the 20th century, well, horrific things occurred. We have done horrific things and we find reasons, whatever reasons will work.
hence it is required to be controlled by something outside of itself to avoid becoming dangerous .....
seriously dude, what portion of homicide is directly related to religion? (particularly religion that has a prominent sense of philosophy about it) Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
...that makes no sense whatsoever. Science is not an entity, it is a method. Have you ever read the Bible, or do you just listen to what your pastor preaches? I'm not saying that the "true" message of any religion is to murder, but if a person needs to find a cause, they can find it in a religious text.
and lo and behold, methods are applied by what? Charles Manson also found a cause to murder in a Beatles song Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Sure the world has started to lose it's religion but the multitude of problems in the world are still related to religion, look at the war on terror, most of the terrorists are from extremist religious cults. And even if you want to look at peaceful things, in this years election there was a HUGE amount of gossip that Obama was a muslim (I'm not sure if this turned out to be true) but why should that matter when choosing a leader?
Nice dancing, but that isn't what you were driving at. You said that science needed to be controlled so that it would be become dangerous. Unless you worded it wrong, the implication I took from it was that you were saying science in and of itself is dangerous, and left to its own devices would be dangerous. And that's why I said religion gives you cause you wouldn't otherwise have unless you were a sociopath. I never implied that religion was the only cause of persecution or murder on a grand (or even small) scale; I simply meant that it can make otherwise good people do very bad things. And I never said it was the only institution that can claim this. But let's not pretend that it doesn't.
