OJBs Web Site: Blog Page

Note: You are currently viewing my old web site. There is a new version with most of this content at OJB.NZ.
The new site is being updated, uses modern techniques, has higher quality media, and has a mobile-friendly version.
This old site will stay on-line for a while, but maybe not indefinitely. Please update your bookmarks. Thanks.

Add a Comment (Go Up to OJB's Blog Page)

Victimless Crime

Entry 1072, on 2009-08-13 at 20:34:40 (Rating 4, Religion)

I noticed something on the internet today which really appealed to me. It was "International Blasphemy Day", and was promoted as being "not just a day. It is a movement to dismantle the wall which exists between religion and criticism."

This was partly prompted by Ireland's new laws on blasphemy which can impose fines of up to 25,000 Euros. I don't think those laws have any real meaning because it has been pointed out that they are never likely to be used and exist only because of a requirement of the constitution but I still think its worth trying to eradicate them.

So the objective of the day isn't really to go around making inane, blasphemous statements like "God sucks" or that sort of stuff, its more for reasoned criticism of religion through the same mechanisms of criticism which everything else is open to.

On a (possibly) related topic, I heard a podcast this morning which discussed a scientific study of the human decision making process. It said a few interesting things, including that everyone has instinctive reactions but some people are better than others at overriding these using reason; sometimes emotional, instinctive reactions work well, especially when there is so much information it can't be easily managed; and, emotional decisions are the ones which should not be decided using emotional responses.

So that is quite counterintuitive. Decisions involving emotional subjects should be thought about more carefully and logically than others, presumably because its just too easy to make the wrong decision based purely on emotion.

This relates to religion, of course, because that is a very emotional subject and that might explain why people's decisions and beliefs in that area are so poor (I think I'll give all my money to this cult, we shouldn't teach evolution at school, those people who believe in another religion are evil, etc).

So by making people's attitude to religion more sensible we might be able to strip away some of the really bad stuff and still maintain the better aspects if it. Yes, even as an atheist I think religion does have good points: providing a social center, doing charity work, and maintaining a fascinating historical mythology, for example.

But I think those good points are really nullified by the bad. If religion was open to more rational criticism then the bad points might lose their power. If people realised that there was nothing special about their beliefs then they might be more accepting of others, for example.

So "constructive" blasphemy is important because it continues the recent trend to making religion accountable. And I think religions which react violently to criticism deserve it even more. If millions of people simultaneously blaspheme against these then there's not a lot they can really do, is there?

When you think about it the idea of blasphemy is pretty silly. If there is no god then its a victimless crime. If there is a god then I kind of think he might have more important things to worry about than what someone is saying about him. In reality having to have blasphemy laws and other ways to dissuade criticism of a god is really just another way to say that god has a fairly pathetic, weak personality and can 't look after himself!

Of course, no one likes to have their cherished beliefs criticised, but really they should welcome this. Another finding of the study I mentioned above is that the best way to decide whether an idea is a good one is to deliberately look for things that are wrong with it. This is very similar to the scientific method where new ideas only survive if they can withstand criticism from experts.

So I'm not saying let's go out there and make inane, offensive remarks about religion and I'm not saying we should do away with religion completely. What I am saying is let's get far more critical about religion and see if we can make it better through a process of fair criticism which is already acceptable any other areas of life. That kind of blasphemy is good!

If you are interested, International Blasphemy Day is 30 September 2009 and the web site is www.blasphemyday.com, alternatively you could take the Blasphemy Challenge at www.blasphemychallenge.com.

Comment 1 (2411) by SBFL on 2009-08-20 at 10:39:32: (view recent only)

I would say that blasphemy is taking the Lord's name in vain. Contructive criticism of religion is a different kettle of fish altogether so I would suggest a name change. And maybe you should realign your intent.

Comment 2 (2414) by OJB on 2009-08-20 at 11:06:52:

You give one definition then point to a reference which gives a quite different one. So which is it then? Most constructive criticism is too boring and easily ignored. That's why it needs to be done in a form which attracts attention, hence the blasphemy theme.

Comment 3 (2419) by SBFL on 2009-08-20 at 12:38:26:

I don't follow. It is one and the same according to the link I gave. If you find constructive criticisim boring then maybe you are a sensationalist idealogue worthy of little. Attracting attention is your theme, I prefer finding the truth. We are not on the same plane today.

Comment 4 (2421) by OJB on 2009-08-20 at 13:21:41:

You said "taking the Lord's name in vain", they said several things, the most relevant being "impious utterance or action concerning God or sacred things". Those two aren't really the same. Your definition is far narrower.

Its possible to make the truth more attractive by adding a bit of entertainment or shock value to it. This has been a topic discussed quite a bit in the skeptical community recently: how to make the message attractive without diminishing its accuracy.

Comment 5 (2422) by SBFL on 2009-08-20 at 22:22:49:

Well actually they are the same as you just demonstrated. Sorry I didn't provide a fuller definition myself, maybe that's why I provided a link..???

Point being you have lowered yourself to gain attention. Pretty sad tactics from the anti-religionists I would say. Got any other rippers up your sleeve?!

Comment 6 (2423) by OJB on 2009-08-20 at 22:27:57:

Whatever. You say they are the same when anyone can see they are different. I give up! In what way have I lowered myself? I haven't said anything which is untrue. I haven't made any pointless, personal insults. What exactly is the problem here?

Comment 7 (2429) by SBFL on 2009-08-25 at 07:13:58:

You haven't really added anything so I refer you to my comment #5. And once again you are playing silly semantics and trying to see things in black and white only. I really don't have the energy for this type of debate sorry.

Comment 8 (2432) by OJB on 2009-08-25 at 11:02:45:

I have explained that I don't see the two definitions as the same but instead of justifying why you do you just repeat your previous objection. I ask what's wrong with using a bit of entertainment and rhetoric to achieve an effect and you don't even answer. This is a technique you have used many times in the past: don't answer the question when it gets too hard. As I said in comment 6, I give up too!

Comment 9 (2437) by SBFL on 2009-08-25 at 11:55:35:

Actually you haven't explained why. Silly comments like "when anyone can see they are different" as if everyone is on your side just don't cut it! You said my definition was far narrower. Well so what? They weren't to be compared. I provided a link to expand on my point (in comment #1), which you veered of with the silly semantics. Why not stick to the original point I raised which is that blasphemy and constructive criticism of the church are not he same thing?

Re sensationalism, rhetoric, well I have responded to that in comments #3 and #5. In fact I have already answered the question so I don't know why you asked it again. You added some irrelevant stuff at the end of comment #6 which I wasn't even questioning so I didn't bother to take it any further. As you know I don't like going in circles. I don't bother with questions off-topic or already asked.

You raise some interesting topics OJB, and give some interesting views but life (even internet time) is too short for this type of "debate".

Comment 10 (2438) by OJB on 2009-08-25 at 12:02:31:

Well I guess we'll just have to leave it there then. If blasphemy was just taking the "Lord's" name in vain then it would be more difficult (but not impossible) to defend. if it also includes criticism of the church and other stuff then it is far more useful as a debating method. That was my point.

You don't think its appropriate to use debating techniques to make a point against religion whereas I do. This isn't science, its a debate and I don't see the harm in making points in ways other than just using hard, dry facts.

A good example of how this works is Richard Dawkin's book, "The God Delusion". I readily agree he pushes the facts and indulges in a bit of rhetoric. He would never get away with this in science but in a book designed to make a point and stimulate debate it has worked brilliantly.

Comment 11 (2442) by SBFL on 2009-08-25 at 12:33:36:

But it doesn't include criticism of the church does it. That is what I raised.

Please, please stop putting words in my mouth!! Why do you always do this? Where did I specify that your sensationalism should only be inappropriate when making a point against religion? WHERE? I never said this. What "debating technique" do you call this misrepresentation? Is there a term for it? I'll tell you this, it's very [insert expletive] annoying!!

Comment 12 (2444) by OJB on 2009-08-25 at 12:59:13:

I interpreted this: "impious utterance or action concerning God or sacred things." a bit more widely than you. Maybe I interpreted it a bit too widely. If I did, sorry for the confusion. BTW I do think the narrower definition also has its place in a debate.

Now you're doing it too. I never said that you said that that it should *only* be wrong to use it against religion, did I? And I think you are now doing what you often accuse me of: quibbling over trivial semantics!

Comment 13 (2446) by SBFL on 2009-08-25 at 13:29:52:

So? What has that got to do with criticism of the church?

You said to me "You don't think its appropriate to use debating techniques to make a point against religion whereas I do." (my stress). This is a clear misrepresentation and I have a problem with it. It is never trivial when you misrepresent someone. Don't try and turn it around. If I did this to you I would apologise when the misrepresentation was made known to me.

Comment 14 (2448) by OJB on 2009-08-25 at 13:54:24:

Criticising gods and sacred things as a way to criticise a church - you see a link maybe? Anyway, you are now getting into semantics and that's something you claim to be tedious when I do it so I can't see much point in taking this further.

You seem to have a problem with using blasphemy to make a point but that might just get back to our differing views of what I meant by blasphemy (both I and the sites mentioned had a far wider view than yours but I accept that yours is closer to the dictionary definition).

On the other hand, I do think real blasphemy has its place. For example, is this blasphemy: "if god really did design the world then he's a really incompetent moron because he sure didn't do a very good job did he?" (I would use stronger language normally but I like to keep it toned down here).

Now that isn't really a criticism of a god (how could it be when they don't exist, hence the title "victimless crime"). Its a criticism of the church which encourages the belief that god created us. See my point now?

Comment 15 (2450) by SBFL on 2009-08-25 at 18:38:04:

No I don't have a differing view to the dictionary, I agree with the dictionary. I provided their definition. My original comment was to point out that you are ridiculously off the mark in your post. At least now we are back to the original comment I made. You truly are a master of obfuscation!

Comment 16 (2452) by OJB on 2009-08-25 at 19:57:53:

Since the words you used and the words the dictionary used aren't identical you can't say your definitions are the same. I've already said your definition is closer to the dictionary than mine so surely we can just leave it there.

Did you see my example of the use of blasphemy to make a point above? So do you understand the sort of thing I'm talking about now?

Comment 17 (2454) by SBFL on 2009-08-26 at 05:29:30:

They weren't supposed to be identical and I never said they were the same. Please stop distorting the thread with this irrelevancy. It is irrelevant because the point I made back in comment #1 (should you actually choose to engage) is that criticism of the church and blasphemy are not the same thing.

So you made up a sentence that blasphemes and criticises the church. So what? It only proves that you made up a sentence that both blasphemes and criticises the church. Doesn't really prove that they are the same thing does it? In fact having re-read your example I actually doubt there is any criticism of the church. You only imply it yourself.

Comment 18 (2456) by OJB on 2009-08-26 at 20:30:23:

We've both decided that the definition of the word is irrelevant so can we please move on from this! The sentence I gave was an example of what I was originally talking about. Did you see how blasphemy can be used as a means of criticism or not?

Comment 19 (2458) by SBFL on 2009-08-26 at 22:36:06:

No your tangential criticism of my comment number 1 is irrelevant. Anyway you seem to think that blasphemy includes criticism of the church, I do not. I provided an external definition that doesn't mention criticism of the church. You example isn't convincing so we will have to agree to disagree.

Comment 20 (2460) by OJB on 2009-08-27 at 15:50:35:

I have already agreed that my original definition was too wide - although criticism of the church could be included, it would be a stretch. What I wanted to show was the type of criticism both I and the sites mentioned were condoning. Maybe blasphemy isn't technically the right word but its the one they used (maybe for rhetorical reasons which I don't believe makes the idea any less valid).

You can leave comments about this entry using this form.

To add a comment: enter a name and email (both optional), type the number shown above, enter a comment, then click Add.
Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous.
Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry.
The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.