Islamaphobia?

[Onnedheil]

So, as feminists, women, fighting against patriarchy, against rape culture against male violence to women. My question is this.

Are we suddenly now supposed to be supporting a religion that is an actual rape culture, Openly accepted paedophilia, actual supremacy of toxic masculinity an actual patriarchy Which is responsible for female genital mutilation , based on a the word of a paedophile warmonger who propagates a monotheist singular God who is male .

And when Anyone, speaks out about these things We're labelled as a racist and as islamaphobe and told to silence our voice for the religion of peace?

Have I ended up in the twilight zone or something?

[Debbriana1]

You do need a psychopath to sell capitalism. A nice person would not manipulate you into buying what you will never ever need or use.

[niminypiminy]

Easy.

Ok I'll remember that when next I am faced with a hungry person and I only have a pound in my purse. Or when I don't want to go and see my elderly neighbour because they're a bit smelly and I'd rather be sitting on my sofa. (Those are two hypothetical examples: I am not claiming I'm better than anyone else - just trying to suggest that if being good was easy then we'd be in a much better state in this world than we currently are.)

[MephistophelesApprentice]

niminypiminy

The 'easy' bit is understanding the basis for atheistic (or a-religious) moral behaviour. The hard bit is making yourself do it, but that's something the religious struggle with as much as those without faith. I've been both and know both.

[niminypiminy]

Are religious societies any more or less 'moral' than secular ones?

I don't know. There is consistent research that shows that within secularised societies religious people give more to charity and volunteer more than people of no faith. But in any case, my point wasn't that religious people are better than atheists. My question was, what helps atheists when living out their morality gets hard?

[BertrandRussell]

And I answered you.

[niminypiminy]

that's something the religious struggle with as much as those without faith.

I agree that's the hard bit, absolutely. And what I was asking was, what is there to support atheists in that struggle? Religious people have motivations offered by their faith - duty, or imitation of Christ, or even (mistakenly) reward. What gets atheists through?

[niminypiminy]

And I answered you.

Minimally. And not very satisfactorily. After all, there's plenty of rubbish on the internet.

[MephistophelesApprentice]

What gets atheists through?

The same thing as any animal; Increased likelihood of survival and reproductive success.

[niminypiminy]

How is my chance of reproductive success increased by going and chatting with my elderly neighbour?

How is my own survival guaranteed by giving my last pound to a hungry person?

[BertrandRussell]

Wow I have no idea what I did to deserve that!

[EnaSharplesHairnet]

Love. Compassion. The usual stuff.
Duty is very important to me too, self imposed I suppose but inspired by ethical codes that may be thought of as religious but can be used without faith in a deity or afterlife.

It is like asking - If a person believes all will be forgiven by their deity where is their motivation to be ethical before confessing on their deathbed?

[MephistophelesApprentice]

How is my chance of reproductive success increased by going and chatting with my elderly neighbour?

How is my own survival guaranteed by giving my last pound to a hungry person?

If others are aware of your socially positive behaviour, they're inclined to direct more socially positive behaviour in your direction as they see the greater benefit to themselves. Socially positive behaviour usually increases the chance of survival or reproductive success.

If others are not aware of your behaviour, behaving in ways that you are aware would be socially rewarded alters your self perception, creating signifiers of confidence and internal security that cause others to direct socially positive behaviour towards you.

[grimbletart]

What gets atheists through?

Can't speak for anyone else, but for me it's a persistent, nudging voice in my head that says x or y is the right thing to do (or x or y is the wrong thing to do).

Maybe that inner voice (conscience) is what some think of as God?

[niminypiminy]

If a person believes all will be forgiven by their deity where is their motivation to be ethical before confessing on their deathbed?

I take it you're talking about Christianity here, since Islam doesn't have that idea of forgiveness as central. In that case, you've got Christianity wrong, because forgiveness is all about new starts not about altering the past. And anyway, ethical action in Christianity is about imitation - becoming Christlike - something everyone who tries it falls short at.

Mephistopheles: would, say, devoting your life to outcasts and never having your own family be universally seen as socially positive behaviour? What are these signifiers of confidence and internal security do you mean? And if you were behaving in selfless ways that you were aware might not be socially rewarded would you still have them? If, say, you were helping destitute asylum seekers?

Maybe that inner voice (conscience) is what some think of as God? That's CS Lewis's argument in 'Mere Christianity'.

[grimbletart]

Maybe that inner voice (conscience) is what some think of as God? That's CS Lewis's argument in 'Mere Christianity'.

If you say so. I'm not familiar with it.

[BertrandRussell]

Some people do charitable things for entirely selfless reasons- pure love of humanity. Others do it for heavenly "brownie points". Others for worldly acclaim. Others for the personal satisfaction and self esteem boost it gives them. Others as a hostage to quid pro quo. Others to assuage guilt. Who knows why someone else acts in a particular way?

[niminypiminy]

Lewis says that conscience, that inner voice, is what indicates to us that there is a God.

[laurierf]

Lewis also said

there is the fact that these people, even when separated widely in space and time, have a suspicious knack of agreeing with one another in the main - almost as if they were in touch with some larger public opinion outside the pocket. What is common to Zarathustra, Jeremiah, Socrates, Gotama, Christ… and Marcus Aurelius, is something pretty substantial

I don't see why this needs to come from "outside the pocket" - I see it as evidence of shared human values that are evident across cultures and ages, stemming from the human capacity for rational thought and reflection and - of course - our biological make up. These shared human values are support enough for many with the need of a divine stick/carrot.

Lewis further said:

we are only creatures: our role must always be that of patient to agent, female to male, mirror to light, echo to voice. Our highest activity must be response, not initiative

[laurierf]

without the need of a divine stick/carrot

[MephistophelesApprentice]

would, say, devoting your life to outcasts and never having your own family be universally seen as socially positive behaviour?

Mother Theresa would be an excellent case in point. Yes, religiously motivated, but then really religious motivation is just a pre-scientific rationalisation of the processes I've already described.

What are these signifiers of confidence and internal security do you mean?

People who feel confident in their morality often convey that confidence in their external behaviour. Moreover, there is a body of evidence that suggests that pro-social behaviour triggers the same neurochemical structures as are triggered for less abstract benefits as food and mating. Such neurochemical rewards often have progressive physical benefits that are linked to health and therefore increased survival and mating likelihood.

And if you were behaving in selfless ways that you were aware might not be socially rewarded would you still have them? If, say, you were helping destitute asylum seekers?

All social behaviour is subject to internal interpretation. Doing something that the majority suggest is anti-social, but that you are utterly convinced is pro-social, is likely to trigger the same reward response as a pro-social act with collective recognition.

[grimbletart]

Lewis says that conscience, that inner voice, is what indicates to us that there is a God.

That's a fanciful extrapolation. It's certainly not a logical one.

[moonstruckl8]

I found that link on game theory really interesting slugs especially the parts on reciprocal cooperation/defection, parochial altruism, and the part you mentioned that it's more profitable to cooperate when you will meet the person again. It had me thinking on religious cooperation and how that links in with this, I found the part where it said that even when there are negligible chances of seeing each other again computer modelling showed cooperation could increase if they recognised an arbitrary characteristic common to both- it used the example of a green beard but I wondered how extravagant religious rituals/dress would serve as those arbitrary common characteristics to increase cooperation amongst strangers.

The prisoners dilemma was the most interesting though Id not known of it before. I related it to the various ROSCAS iv been involved in over the years with other women in my religious community. They serve various functions: having money moving through the group whilst people save rather than everyone keeping their money at home and not spending, lending without interest which is prohibited in Islam, even keeping family money out of careless husbands hands or his grasping relatives too! They operate by mutual cooperation and trust that everyone will keep up their payments into the group for the agreed term (no. Of months corresponding to number of members) and that people won't just take their money their month then cut and run out on everyone else. They do require nerves of steel though especially long ROSCAs! but iv never been in one that collapsed, various social mechanisms are used to underpin them and along with religious exhortations on keeping promises and debts they still remain going strong.

[laurierf]

I'm not sure what moonstruck has said that conflicts with game theory? (I'm a bit wary of posting here so just pointing out that it's a genuine question). It's been a while since I studied Game Theory but I do remember there being a number of psychological studies at the time showing it can be a poor predictor of human behaviour so it presumably still has some limitations as a theory).

All human societies have had some form of religion. I think moonstruck's right to say that the method of organising and enforcing social cooperation has changed in many societies, but the groundwork was laid by religion and the ladder is being kicked out in circumstances where "God stuff" is no longer necessary/ palatable/ viable.

moonstruck: Cooperation also helps in competition as groups that have better cooperation within themselves makes them better at competing with other groups … which is pretty handy for crusades and conquests...

[laurierf]

ah x post moonstruck