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.

[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.

[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?

[Bill Haywood]

[ QUOTE ]
Bill Haywood is most assuredly wrong about my motive/intention for stating so?

[/ QUOTE ]

You also asked:

[ QUOTE ]
is such respect deserved? To me it's the epitome of irony that a Christian can laugh at an astrologist with a straight face.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you saying that you do not see religion as primitive and backward and a subject for derision? And are drawing merely a technical connection between Methodists and witchcraft? If so, I stand corrected.

vhawk wrote:

[ QUOTE ]
Surely Stalinism and Nazism and these other 'atheist' groups are FAR more similar to a religion

[/ QUOTE ]

I hear this a lot, and I consider it a definitions game. When materialists do good works, it is defined as rational and super. When materialists do bad works, it is redefined as actually being religious.

Well, when you define the terms that way, you can't lose the argument. It's like religionists saying that if priests molest children, it is not the fault of the church culture, its the influence of the devil. It's a cop out. This approach makes one group (materialists) superior by definition, rather than by what they do. I could just as easily say that when materialists use science for bad, they are following materialism, but when they do good, they've subconsciously listened to an angel.

When you look at materialism and religion as social discourses, produced by living communities, the separation falls apart. 60 years ago, mainstream scientists, following standards of the day, were certain of the superiority of the white race and used all kinds of flawed evidence to prove it. This field of scientific racism was quite important in enabling the Holocaust. Sure, you can say that when Nazi scientists did this, they were acting as religionists, not materialists. But that lets them off the hook for what they did. As a community participating in a discourse, materialists have done all sorts of rotten things. As a community, I do not see them as more moral and less prone to nationalist excess than theistic communities.

My fundamental point is that materialists are so easily prone to mob mentalities and atrocities (the Neocons come to mind) that any alleged social superiority over theists is obviated.

And to the person who said Mother Teresa was really a biitch, I agree -- she was a hasty example. How about Florence Nightingale?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
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?

[/ QUOTE ]

My points had nothing to do with the OP, and only a little to do with the post I was responding to, Bill Haywood's. It was just something thats been bothering me for a while and his post reminded me of it.