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)

Criticise the Idea

Entry 1861, on 2017-06-22 at 23:15:50 (Rating 4, Comments)

I've been thinking about some of my recent blog posts and I have come to realise that they could be interpreted as me having a rather simplistic view of some of the topics I have discussed, especially in relation to beliefs I disapprove of, like capitalism and Islam.

There are two major nuances regarding my thoughts on these topics: first, nothing is ever entirely bad, or entirely good; and second, even if I think the belief is wrong that doesn't mean I condemn all of the people who practice that belief.

So the anti-capitalism rant in my previous post wasn't meant to suggest that all business owners or other people who participate in the capitalist system (which is all of us to some extent) are bad. What I meant is that capitalism has a lot of negative consequences, along with some good ones, and that I believe that, on balance, we could do a lot better.

There are a lot of greedy, self-centered, sociopaths who are deeply involved in capitalism, but there are many reasonable, hard-working, moral people too. The problem is that the core tenets of capitalism include pursuit of maximum profit, winning against competition, and minimising non-monetary elements of doing business, and by systematising and normalising what I (and a lot of other people) see as negative attributes it encourages anyone who has an existing propensity towards them.

So if a person has a natural tendency towards what otherwise might be thought of as anti-social behaviours, like greed, then that will be rewarded by participating in a capitalist system. That person will do well in such a system where a more generous, sharing person might fail.

There are some possible good outcomes of being greedy too. It might drive a person towards creating a bigger, more efficient company which might employ a lot of people or produce products more effectively, for example.

As I said, it's about balance and I think that on balance we could do better than capitalism. But that's not to denigrate the efforts of the minority of participants who used it for positive ends. There are a few obvious, high-profile examples, such as Steve Jobs and Elon Musk, but I'm sure there are many others we never hear about, as well.

And exactly the same argument applies to Islam. Many Muslims are great people but I believe that the underlying philosophy of Islam (and most other religions) leads to many negative consequences.

Religions tend to encourage people to believe their core dogmas and not look for anything better. It makes them think they already know everything worth knowing. Humanity has progressed through exactly the opposite attitude to this.

And they tend to make their followers feel like an "in-group" and everyone else is in some way inferior because they don't share the special knowledge pertaining to that religion's beliefs. Surely, we don't need any more reasons to separate people into competing cliques than what we already have.

And they discourage free thought. Religions tend to tell people the facts are all recorded in a holy book or in the beliefs of religious leaders. If someone believes that why would they ever question potentially dangerous or incorrect beliefs? There's a very good reason the metaphor of sheep is often used to describe religious followers.

So again there are plenty of religious people who haven't fallen into any of the traps I described above, but undoubtedly religions make that far more likely, simply because of their underlying nature.

In summary, nothing is all bad or all good, but that doesn't mean that criticising things that are bad on balance can't be justified. And criticism of an idea does not automatically equate to criticism of people who hold that idea, but if the person is implicated in by an idea they hold that is just an unfortunate side effect. I always try (but don't always succeed) to criticise the idea, not the person.

Comment 1 (4740) by richard on 2017-06-23 at 16:38:14:

I do enjoy reading your posts, and don't like to always disagree, but hey -
in the very spririt of this post, it's sometimes important to encourage free alternative thought! :)

Of course religions tend to encourage people toward their core 'beliefs'. Given the very scope or religious ideas (the big world-view questions and their implications), any religion that instead suggests they don't really know what they are talking about so check out the others wouldn't (and shouldn't) be taken seriously at all. Would you tend to trust a doctor who took that approach?

Simply stating a belief as religion does (and those that are anti-religion for that matter) has nothing to do with restricting free thought, i.e allowing people to analyse those beliefs and make up their own mind.

Neither does it make people think they already know everything worth knowing. The fact that the majority of the scientists who made the most significant contributions to scientific advancement in the past 300 years or so were religious, demonstrates that clearly. In fact, it's because of their religious (or philosophical) belief in a purposeful 'designed' order to the natural world, that they were motivated to discover more about how it works. Although those religion specific questions and their answers/implications are obviously important, they are only a portion of the potential knowledge we can gather.

Finally, Religion does nothing more to make people feel like an 'in-group that have special knowledge' than any other non religious group that shares their groups beliefs. Just read some of your religion posts and see if you don't think religious readers aren't 'made to feel a little inferior because they don't share the special knowledge' you are imparting. That's not a criticism of your posts by the way - I am merely pointing out that that potential is just an inevitable by product of sharing a particular set of knowledge with others. It's not something that can be attributed just to religious groups. Cheers.

Comment 2 (4742) by OJB on 2017-06-24 at 12:45:11:

Unlike many people I have debated with recently I welcome contrary views, especially when I "start the debate" with my sometimes controversial opinions. I recently debated the issue of race relations in NZ after a Facebook friend posted a controversial, political statement. But she was totally unwilling to enter into any discussion about it. It was pathetic. I would say, if you're not prepared to debate your position then don't post controversial stuff!

Comment 3 (4743) by OJB on 2017-06-24 at 13:12:02:

Well both of us are really debating this from personal anecdotes, philosophies, and beliefs rather than using real evidence, so I guess either of us could be right. I would just point out though that most surveys of religious belief show that a significant fraction of believers do have the sorts of attitudes I mentioned. For example many (so-called moderate) Muslims believe Jihad is an appropriate response to insults to Islam.

There is another point I would make too, although I'm sure you will disagree. That is that people who overturn the established "truth" in science are given Nobel Prizes. Those do do the same thing in religion are usually executed!

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.