Violence and Religion

People, usually atheists, often use the many examples of violence and forceful behaviour that have plagued religion for centuries as a good argument against it. Sometimes members of one religion will just single out another religion, as often happens today with Christians and Islam.

Theists then point out the atrocities committed in the 20th century by atheist dictators, mostly Communist. It's a sufficient counter argument, but not a good argument at all. If we step back and look at the bigger picture, the truth becomes clear.

Totalitarianism (I won't call the regimes of Stalin and Mao et al communist) and religious institutions have one major idea in common; the idea of unfaltering belief in some piece of dogma. Religions it may be a holy book or holy man, totalitarianism it is usually the leader, perhaps some fuzzy concept like national strength or the common good.

It's this unfaltering dogmatic belief that really causes violence to occur. Dogma can't change; especially when it's bound in a book or is a single person. This unwillingness to change goes against a basic truth of life; change is constant.

When you get something that doesn't want to change coming up against the force of change, unrest and violence occurs. People who speak out against the leader are killed, new theories (weather scientific or equally dogmatic, like a competing religion) that contradict the dogma are and must be quashed violently in order for the institution to survive.

Another important point is based around the difference between what an institution stands for and what it actually does. Given the dogmatic nature of both totalitarianism and religion, it becomes easy for one person or a group of people to gain control.

It's patently obvious how this happens in a dictatorship, and is just as obvious when you look at an institution like the modern Catholic church, the early Christian church or even just your local church with it's one pastor, reverend or priest. The same goes for Mosques and Mullahs, the Synagogue and the Rabbi or the Buddhist Temple and it's head monk.

The ease at which a small group of people can control entire faiths or countries leads to them easily being corrupted; Marx never foresaw the gulag just like Jesus never preached about the Inquisition, and they or their teachings certainly shouldn't be blamed.

As we have seen, the actual systems in itself aren't really at fault. The Bible never killed anyone and the Communist Manifesto never enslaved millions. It's the dogmatic nature of both these systems that will always lead to violence.

At the end of the day, people either struggle to cope with their holy book being undermined by progress and lash out violently, or just use the institution as a vehicle for their own evil ways. People are the problem, weather ignorant or evil, but that shouldn't surprise us.

Why Saddam Deserved To Live

I don't support the death penalty, whatever the crime, whoever the criminal. Seeing as Saddam Hussein was hanged just recently, it's a good time to explain why I will never support it. First I'll outline why I disagree with it generally, then in terms of Saddam.

The death penalty is supported for a variety of reasons, three main ones: 'eye for an eye', protection of society and preventing further crime via deterrence.

The 'eye for an eye attitude' is an ancient one, and not coincidentally barbaric. The idea of fairness is an idea that every human holds on a very primitive level; most complaints arise this way, especially in children (and the ignorant/socialists). I don't agree with the eye for an eye principle mainly because you lower yourself to their level by 'punishing' them for their crimes. Isn't it plainly ironic punishing a murderer by killing them?

Secondly is the idea that killing a criminal who has proved themselves dangerous protects society. It's true that a dead man can't kill again; it's also true that a man in prison for life can't either. Why go to the extreme of killing someone when we have a perfectly good alternative?

The last reason the death penalty is supported is the claim that further violent crimes will be prevented by making the penalties harsher. This claim is not supported by evidence, a study by William Bailey (1998) in Oklahoma found that the death penalty provided no deterrence for murder over the period it was in effect compared to when it wasn't. Indeed it found that murder increased after it was introduced.

The reason that people believe the deterrent effect is quite obviously that people won't risk being caught and killed, but they will risk it for life in prison. This seems logical, but the fact is many murders are in the heat of the moment, unplanned or committed by people who are willing to risk anything. People don't really sit down and think about killing another human.

However, the most important reason for not supporting the death penalty is the imperfection inherent in any justice system. Innocent people will be convicted, guilty people will go free. It's always going to happen.

With the death penalty, there is no turning back. You can't set a dead man free. You can release a man in prison for life. Here again evidence shows this, with 123 people being released on death row since 1973 in the United States. Until we have a perfect justice system, we cannot have a death penalty.

With regards to Saddam. The latter two arguments for the death penalty, protection and deterrence are easily rebutted in this case. It's unlikely Saddam would ever escape imprisonment, and even if he did it's preposterous that he would ever rise to power again. I also doubt that other dictators such as Kim Jong Il are going to be deterred from further totalitarianism after Saddam's execution.

Another point that doesn't really relate to any of the arguments relevant to the debate on the death penalty in general is the effect that Saddam's execution will have on Iraq. As I've said above, it will calm the fears of many Iraqis of Saddam coming back to power, however irrational that fear is. It also is likely to stir violence in the state, Saddam still had many supporters despite his atrocities. Even though the execution was ordered and performed by the Iraqi government, the feeling still will be that this was the United States meddling once again.

The third argument, the idea that the death penalty is a just punishment for heinous crimes, is a stronger one in this case. I hardly doubt Saddam was innocent; his atrocities are well documented and numerous. The question of wether a man should be punished for his crimes by another man, by death especially, is a moral one, which will be answered differently by everyone. Given in this case that his innocence is hardly in doubt, the only real dilemma is wether death is a suitable punishment.

I still do not support Saddam's execution, or murder, whatever term you want to use. He was a bad man, but aren't we for using his methods? The death penalty reeks of barbarianism, primitive emotions ruling the light of reason. The point of having principles like human rights is that they apply to all, not just the model citizen but the psychotic murderer too.

In fact it's the rights of the murderer that need protecting, not the common citizen. No one is going to trample the rights of John Doe.

Goal Setting: Big or Small?

I was reading a post over at Cultivate Greatness, an excellent site, that claims setting harder and bigger goals is better than smaller, more attianable goals. The one quote that got me was

...that your goal should be so big that it both scares you and excites you at the same time. Your goal should be so big that you have no idea how you’re going to do it, you just know that you will.

It's a very inspiring piece. This however sounds more like a dream than a goal. Dreams to me are the fuzzy things, often very emotional, fixed on one certain aspect of a series of goals. An example would be dreaming of standing on top of Everest, looking down at the land below.

The main problem with this idea is that there is no real actions involved. It's hard to know where to start if your only goal is 'Climb Everest'. If the goal was 'Go to the shop and get an ice axe', it's much eaiser to accomplish.

I do agree with the main jest of the article, that big goals are important to motivate and stimulate. It's easier to get excited about being on top of the highest peak in the world, not so easy to get exicted about going to the gear shop.

In the end, like most things in life, the middle path is the correct one for success. You need both the big dream and the small steps to attain your goal. Use the emotion and good feelings you get from the dream to fuel your somewhat mundane but important small steps.

Science vs. Religion

Science and religion are often compared as complete opposites. They often seem at odds with each other; religion holding back scientific progress, science destroying some of religions most precious claims.

I don't think that science and religion are totally at odds. They do operate for the most part in separate areas of society, and usually don't clash. Many prominent scientists are deeply religious, often it's only because atheist scientists shout louder that this isn't well known.

POLAR OPPOSITES

There is one important area where religion and science are polar opposites, so important that it's the very mechanism by which the two move.

Religion almost always contains a piece of unquestionable dogma; the Bible in Christianity for example. This body of information is usually claimed to be touched by God, and therefore perfect in everyday.

Science starts with nothing, just the scientific method. It then starts to build up a body of information that reflects the natural world. Science can be viewed simplistically as trial and error. Having a glance at a small time line in physics shows the progress from classical to relativistic to relativistic/quantum.

To sum up: religion starts with a claim of perfect knowledge, science starts with nothing and builds up to perfect knowledge.

PROBLEMS

The claims of perfection by religion is a huge problem. How can a religious text, written in the language of man, be perfect? Are the translations perfect?

Furthermore, how come every religious teaching is interpreted differently by everyone? How can it be perfect if it is so ambiguous?

What happens if new findings contradict the teachings in a religious text? If we look at history, violence is often the answer, as per Galileo in Catholic Italy. You can't exactly go and rewrite the word of God can you?

Science too has flaws. The constant doubt of the current theory in any given field is paradoxically science's greatest aspect and it's fatal flaw. Great in that it allows the knowledge to change with new findings, flawed in that we never know if we are truly right.

CONCLUSION

Both science and religion are fundamentally flawed. Science seems to always be imperfect and incomplete, and we can never know when it is perfect. Religion claims perfection without any regard to it's environment or new findings.

We shouldn't be surprised that both science and religion are so deficient in our search for truth; they both involve us.