Witchcraft as a metaphor for religion

[niffe9]

Sam Harris recently used witchcraft as an analogy for religion in his most recent article called In Defense of Witchcraft and at the end of his most recent debate with Chris Hedges. (Both are linked from his site www.samharris.org)

Sam Harris would say we invented witchcraft and religion to explain what we didn't know and give reason to sickness,difficult to accept/strange things,etc. Sam Harris would argue that the end of religion would be beneficial for the same ways that the end of witchcraft was (witches/infidels would not be unjustly killed, people would look to doctors and science to cure disease instead of blaming witches/sinners,etc) Clearly religion is more powerful and satisfying than witchcraft(for the mere reason that it is still prevalent). It also covers the human struggle with death and the afterlife and gives something constant and unchanging for people to lean on.
How apt do people find this comparison?

[Lestat]

It depends on how you look at it. To me, both religion and witchcraft are simply superstitions. You can lump them in with astrology, numerology, et.al. The difference is, religion is taken seriously in much higher numbers so it garners an automatic respect that other superstitions do not. The question is, is such respect deserved? To me it's the epitome of irony that a Christian can laugh at an astrologist with a straight face.

[Bill Haywood]

Despite being an atheist, I am usually annoyed when religion is called superstition. Not because it's not technically true, it is, but because its a misguided rhetorical device.

When religion is called superstition, it is always for the purpose of discrediting it. But their are plenty of religious people who are wonderful, both personally and in their social beliefs. Calling religion superstition over estimates the damage from religion, and underestimates the damage from materialist beliefs (materialism as philosophy, not consumption).

Compare the good work done for the poor by liberation theology, and the bad work by the atheist materialists of the Khmer Rouge.

When someone calls religion superstition, it's a sure sign that they have an arrogant belief in the moral superiority of rationalism. But compare the materialists Stalin and Pol Pot to Mother Teresa, and you see that there is NOTHING inherently moral about materialism. Materialists are prone to all the same stupid mistakes of politics and nationalism, they just rationalize them differently.

Dawkins should go after the materialist British Labor Party for its senseless war in Iraq, and leave the Fellowship of Reconciliation types out of it.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue">But their are plenty of religious people who are wonderful, both personally and in their social beliefs. </font>

There are also plenty of wonderful people who believe in their horoscope or won't walk under a ladder.

I'm not sure what your point is. ??

[niffe9]

I agree with your point that there is nothing inherently moral about materialism. In general, a person will adopt a set of beliefs that affirms their actions.

I always grimmace when someone points out that a world without religion would not be a utopia (getting rid of religion = getting rid of all evil). From what I see, atheists don't believe this at all. We simply don't like the immutable morals of religion and would instead endorse more of a free market of belief systems where discussion, criticism, and peer review are better supported.

BTW, you might actually be able to find a more moral theist than Mother Theresa. After reading some Hitchens, watching a Penn and Teller Bull!@#$ segment on her, and doing some other research it seems that she could very well have avoided saving millions from death because of her "obsession" with suffering and its ability to bring one closer to god.

[btmagnetw]

find a children's book, replace santa/north pole/lumps of coal with god/heaven/burn in hell and see if anyone can tell it wasn't originally a religious work. this works with anything, including witchcraft.

[luckyme]

I've been re-reading "Europe, a History" by Norman Davis. Really reading it properly for the 1st time because my 1st reading was more at the novel-reading level. A recent passage covered superstition and religion in the middle ages. I don't have the book here, but Davis made two points that I can remember - one was the much lower level of importance of religion in the lower levels of society than we tend to think and the other was the elevated level of importance/power of various superstitions.

My take would be at that time ( Middle Ages in Europe), it would be much easier to see the similarities between those two subjects than it is today, even though the similarities are still there.

It's certainly not a metaphor for religion, it is a related species, the argument would be how related.

luckyme

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Despite being an atheist, I am usually annoyed when religion is called superstition. Not because it's not technically true, it is, but because its a misguided rhetorical device.

When religion is called superstition, it is always for the purpose of discrediting it. But their are plenty of religious people who are wonderful, both personally and in their social beliefs. Calling religion superstition over estimates the damage from religion, and underestimates the damage from materialist beliefs (materialism as philosophy, not consumption).

Compare the good work done for the poor by liberation theology, and the bad work by the atheist materialists of the Khmer Rouge.

When someone calls religion superstition, it's a sure sign that they have an arrogant belief in the moral superiority of rationalism. But compare the materialists Stalin and Pol Pot to Mother Teresa, and you see that there is NOTHING inherently moral about materialism. Materialists are prone to all the same stupid mistakes of politics and nationalism, they just rationalize them differently.

Dawkins should go after the materialist British Labor Party for its senseless war in Iraq, and leave the Fellowship of Reconciliation types out of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

For the most part I agree with your post here. It just reminded me of a point I've been thinking about that I haven't made here before.

Why are the people who claim evolution is a religion and rationalism is a religion always the first to trot out the Stalin and Hitler defense when the argument goes to the "damage caused by religion," as you've put it. Surely Stalinism and Nazism and these other 'atheist' groups are FAR more similar to a religion than the evolution gang. In fact, it isn't religion at ALL that we are talking about with this "damage caused" idea, its this fanatical, irrational, dogmatic totalitarianism that we are talking about. Stalin is every bit as good of an example of what we are talking about as Torquemada. Religion is the square, this greater evil is the rectangle.

Just for clarity's sake, I'm not saying all religions are violent tyrannies akin to Stalinist USSR. The majority of the time, the majority of religious groups are doing more good than harm. Probably. I'm not even a big fan of this argument anyhow...religion should stand or fall on its own merits, not because it is beneficial or harmful. It is just the unimpeachable and unquestioned authority that religion embodies that is important.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Despite being an atheist, I am usually annoyed when religion is called superstition. Not because it's not technically true, it is, but because its a misguided rhetorical device.

When religion is called superstition, it is always for the purpose of discrediting it. But their are plenty of religious people who are wonderful, both personally and in their social beliefs. Calling religion superstition over estimates the damage from religion, and underestimates the damage from materialist beliefs (materialism as philosophy, not consumption).


[/ QUOTE ]

The 'but.." doesn't fit the prior sentence. It's not related to it at all. Whether or not religion is a superstition or a close cousin is just a matter of how superstition is defined and what fit religion has to it. How any specific person behaves who believes they should throw salt over their shoulder or say three hail mary's has nothing to do with .

[ QUOTE ]

When someone calls religion superstition, it's a sure sign that they have an arrogant belief in the moral superiority of rationalism.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it's a sure sign they think that religion is closely related or equivalent to superstition. It's an observation of the situation... the judgment about moral value may follow in subsequent comments, it's not part of the comparison.

luckyme

[Lestat]

Intersting posts by yourself and niffe, but I'm obviously missing something.

What's any of this got to do with religion being like any other superstition, folk lore, or wive's tale, and that Bill Haywood is most assuredly wrong about my motive/intention for stating so?