Something that's come to my attention, partly on a Christian forum, but also on a thread here recently, and this is something that I find very troubling, but I'm not sure if I'm reading into it too much. On the Christian forum, I was conversing with a Christian about love, friendship, and compassion; and he seemed to believe that a non-Christian's capacity for these emotions and sentiments were somehow lesser or inferior compared to the emotion and sentiment of a Christian. And here on this forum, in a thread about Dignity, again a Christian is arguing that a non-Christian either does not have dignity, or that dignity is inferior compared to that possessed by a Christian.
I feel that the arguments are stupid, and insulting; but worse than that, it feels insidious and demeaning in a very dangerous way. It never occurred to me that my basic humanity would be questioned, within the context of not being a Christian. Does this appear to others as a de-humanizing practice, or am I being alarmist? I feel confident in my basic humanity, it just worries me that these are the sort of people you can't persuade that their attitude is a the first big step along a very harmful path.
Anyone have thoughts on this? See it differently? Experienced similar attitudes? I don't like the way this looks. :(
Any "us versus them" mentality, with clear divisive lines can dehumanize or lessen the other side - the one that isn't us. The problem is that religion often infiltrates itself into aspects that define humans, such as the capacity for such emotions, worth as a species and so on. So yes, they do dehumanise, and by extension justify, in their minds, the persecution of others that aren't part of "them". I agree that it's tribalism (ironically a primitive behaviour that is part of human nature, not anything that would be seen as 'divine' as in humans surpassing themselves) that can get a bit dangerous.
Religions certainly latch onto that natural psychological and social tendency.
I wonder if Islam or Judaism goes for this kind of thing? Approaching it delicately, I have to believe that Jews have a heightened awareness of which direction de-humanizing attitudes can lead other human toward in their actions. I know that there's a certain amount of de-humanizing that goes on in wars, and combat situations; to a certain degree this make soldiers capable of fighting their opponent, yet to a greater degree this can lead to war crimes and so forth.
I think I remember one of Pat Condell's videos on youtube saying that Christianity (and Islam) are really hung up on their obsessive need to be The One True Religion. It's just awful, because I don't come here, and go to the Christian Forums to play an "Us vs. Them" game. I don't play to win (or I usually try not to); I prefer to play in a way so that everyone wins. This is really creepy.
The root of this issue is in-group, out-group behaviour rooted firmly in our competitive tribal history. Dehumanizing or demeaning a group that opposes your groups world view is intended to reinforce one's feelings of superiority over the 'other' group. In extreme cases it can lead to genocide in the cases of the Nazis and the 'Final Solution' to deal with the 'Jewish Problem'. Of course that is an extreme case used to illustrate the point.
Any group generalisation intended to demean a group follows the same trend, "All Christians are stupid.", "All atheists are immoral." are classic cases of creating de-humanised categories that allow one to feel superior to the out-group.
Once you have de-humanised a group you can ultimately start killing people in that group secure in the knowledge that you aren't really killing people.
I don't think you're reading too much into things at all, I think there is a genuine problem with this sort of behaviour from Christians, but I've also experienced similar statements from followers of other religions too.
I think it's because they claim their dignity or campassion or love or whatever derives from their god, therefore it's obviously so much better than a mere mortal like us could experience ::)
It can indeed lead down a very dark path. For a large part of Christian history, non-believers were considered to have forfeited their lives if they believed in any other 'false' god and didn't convert to Christianity.
This is a human issue, not a religious one exclusively. It comes from our basic tribalistic nature from our evolution. It was a survival strategy to be able to distinguish between "us" and "them." "Them" were always considered as possible enemies. It exists today in totally non-religious contexts: Democratic v. Republican, black v. white, even in high school football. Two towns in Texas that are 5-10 miles apart can grow fierce rivalries that often end in violence - the "Eagles" vs. the "Bulldogs", or some such. It exists on atheist fora, as well (not talking about this one). On the Sam Harris forum, for example, I was called a "paramecium," a "turd in the punchbowl of life," a "human vermin," and "mentally ill," - all because I expressed views on my faith. At times, I responded in fully human fashion and engaged in name-calling myself. All such activity dehumanizes a person. Humans dehumanizing humans is in our bones.
I agree with xSilverPhinx about the "us versus them/those" attitude, though I would like to add that I dubt religion is causer in this, just a tool or excuse would be more correct.
i started to think about this for a while, and came to the conclusion that there are basicly three kinds of "dehumanising"...hmmm, systems, should we say? First is National, which in my opinnion would include things like ones pride on ones home nation and "race"-thinking. The second is Idological system which would include religions and, unsuprisingly, ideologies. And lastly a combonation of the first two.
For example, a basic example of national dehumanising is over the top natinalism, where ones country and people are better in every aspect to any other. You might think that US is a good example of this, but it can barely hold a candel to the type of fervor that existed in the European contries in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, especially the most powerful countries like Great Brittain and Germany. As a Finn I can also say that our attitude would also be a prime example, as we were still under Imperial Russian rule until 1917, and there was a system called "russification" being used by the General-Governour. This meant that we would have been made russians in culture, language and every aspect of our culture would have been whisked away. It was not a popular system and the General-Governour was infact assainated in 1904.
(Warning! GODWIN'S LAW! Warning!) Another, and I might say the most extreme National dehumanising system was Nazism. Not only did it state that the "Arian race" was a race superior to all, it also combined the idea that it was specifically chosen by a creator (wheter this is suppose to mean the Abrahamic one or not, can be discussed in another thread. My point is the inclusion of a "creator" and it's "chosen people"-ideas, while the emphasis being on "race" and nationalism).
A strong contestor to the "most extreme" position is communism. Now, as I've understood it, the original marxist idealogy did not base itself on nationality but purely ideology that the workers who were down trodden in mid to late 19th century would make idologically superior rulers, or rather a better social system, hence socialism, that made the workers and socialists superior to anyone else. Do correct me if I'm wrong here though, I can only hold my attetion on goofy ideologies for so long ;) In any case, the more nationalist outlook only took root later, perhaps first envisioned by Lenin, but most certainly advocated by Stalin, as well as the over the top "war on classes"-ideology.
Lastly, I think I should mention the European nobility and royalty, who saw themselves, and perhaps even were seen as, "divinely chosen". And they most definately had strong connections to the church be it on land ownership to crowning seremonies to securing a place in heaven by donations or building a new church. After all, in those times the catholic church had it's testic....err, I mean tentac....err, butter fingers in pretty much everyone pie...*innocent whistleing* Anyway, my point it that they were also in a certain way dehumansing the "lower classes", based upon a religiously toned ideology.
So, I wouldn't say that dehumanising is in anyway a "religion thing", though religion does offer a strong excuse or even fuel for such thinking. Mostly I would blame the ambuguity of certain peices of scripture coupled with peoples desire to make them feel special but also because some people just can't understand difference from what they think is "old and safe", and this fear of the new outbursts as a form of arrogance, agressivness and even as hate. Is this what is happening with atheist being dehumanized? Possibly, since as Greta Christina noted in the vid posted by Asmo, we athesit have become more and more visivle and vocal over the past few years, so we are the "new guys with the new thing", dispite the fact that there have almost certainly always been atheists. Though that's just my opinnion.
Did I ever tell you guys that psychology is another dear hobby of mine? ;D Though I have to admit, it's more on a philosophical level then something based on studies and what not....(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F209.85.62.26%2Fhtml%2Femoticons%2Fdry.gif&hash=158f1eaabe2d56a97d393b3d93f38fc0e8ed8bb9)
Also, two history rants in such a short time!? :o
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on December 13, 2011, 04:25:54 PM
This is a human issue, not a religious one exclusively. It comes from our basic tribalistic nature from our evolution. It was a survival strategy to be able to distinguish between "us" and "them." "Them" were always considered as possible enemies. It exists today in totally non-religious contexts: Democratic v. Republican, black v. white, even in high school football. Two towns in Texas that are 5-10 miles apart can grow fierce rivalries that often end in violence - the "Eagles" vs. the "Bulldogs", or some such. It exists on atheist fora, as well (not talking about this one). On the Sam Harris forum, for example, I was called a "paramecium," a "turd in the punchbowl of life," a "human vermin," and "mentally ill," - all because I expressed views on my faith. At times, I responded in fully human fashion and engaged in name-calling myself. All such activity dehumanizes a person. Humans dehumanizing humans is in our bones.
Wow, that's harsh, but another dehumanising feature is anonymity (talking about internet fora) ;) If what you see from people are writings on a screen - a username with no nonverbal displays of emotion, then people generally empathise less. Might explain why there's an even more aggressive tendency to seek like-minded individuals (an "us" of an ideological tribe) than others.
Quote from: history_geek on December 13, 2011, 04:56:12 PM
Did I ever tell you guys that psychology is another dear hobby of mine? ;D Though I have to admit, it's more on a philosophical level then something based on studies and what not....(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F209.85.62.26%2Fhtml%2Femoticons%2Fdry.gif&hash=158f1eaabe2d56a97d393b3d93f38fc0e8ed8bb9)
Me too :D
One of the major reasons why evolutionary psychology (yes, we evolved and we do have these deep-rooted psychological mechanisms, despite what fundies say ::) ) is that it's easier to spot these sorts of problems. I wouldn't switch the chance to understand for some thought of having "divine dignity" for anything. ::) It's rather useless, IMO, unless of course you want division for your own reasons.
Quote from: Too Few Lions on December 13, 2011, 04:00:14 PM
I think it's because they claim their dignity or campassion or love or whatever derives from their god
They have been reprogrammed, reading the bible, going to church, Sunday school, bible study, bible camp, it all results in a programmed person. Their words have different meanings to us, generally having god injected into the meanings.
Some of them truly struggle to understand how an Atheist can come to love, dignity, compassion without a god.
Some of them certainly struggle to understand why Atheists don't go around killing people because we don't have god's morality to stop us.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on December 13, 2011, 05:23:59 PM
but another dehumanising feature is anonymity (talking about internet fora) ;) If what you see from people are writings on a screen - a username with no nonverbal displays of emotion, then people generally empathise less. Might explain why there's an even more aggressive tendency to seek like-minded individuals (an "us" of an ideological tribe) than others.
I think that's true. The hardest thing is to look another human being in the face and then dehumanize them. Any form of communication that removes the possibility of looking another person in the eyes increases the likelihood of dehumanization. Sitting down with another person and just hearing their story usually softens the heart, except for psychopaths and the truly insane - usually. Any form of mask that we can put over our faces and the faces of others increases the likelihood of demonizing and dehumanizing others.
Just social dynamics that have been at work since the dawn of social animals - in-group/out-group bias and homogeneity as well known in the socials sciences. If it weren't religious belief, or lack thereof, it could very well be some other social characteristic with the same social-cognitive actions at work.
I agree about many of the comments that people have suggested here about the process "othering" . Might I add that it's part of the reason why I like the civility rules that are in place at HAF. We're all people and I've never had a taste for tearing other people apart (even just verbally) on masse.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on December 13, 2011, 04:25:54 PM
This is a human issue, not a religious one exclusively. It comes from our basic tribalistic nature from our evolution. It was a survival strategy to be able to distinguish between "us" and "them." "Them" were always considered as possible enemies. It exists today in totally non-religious contexts: Democratic v. Republican, black v. white, even in high school football. Two towns in Texas that are 5-10 miles apart can grow fierce rivalries that often end in violence - the "Eagles" vs. the "Bulldogs", or some such. It exists on atheist fora, as well (not talking about this one). On the Sam Harris forum, for example, I was called a "paramecium," a "turd in the punchbowl of life," a "human vermin," and "mentally ill," - all because I expressed views on my faith. At times, I responded in fully human fashion and engaged in name-calling myself. All such activity dehumanizes a person. Humans dehumanizing humans is in our bones.
I agree with this, sad as it is and unhappy as it makes me with myself whenever I give in to it. I'm sure at some point in our history the "us vs. them" mindset was very useful but now it seems like a deathrace to outgrow it in time.
Quote from: Tristan Jay on December 13, 2011, 02:44:39 PM
Anyone have thoughts on this? See it differently? Experienced similar attitudes? I don't like the way this looks. :(
I had similar thoughts about the Dignity thread, I posted there before I saw this thread.
Quote from: Squid on December 14, 2011, 12:26:23 AM
Just social dynamics that have been at work since the dawn of social animals - in-group/out-group bias and homogeneity as well known in the socials sciences. If it weren't religious belief, or lack thereof, it could very well be some other social characteristic with the same social-cognitive actions at work.
Probably/possibly but religion as espoused by some is so freaking weird.
Maybe you could have reasoned with a Nazi under different circumstances, but the far out theists are off the planet, I almost said literally.
I don't think we'd tolerate a Nazi here for too long anyway, not that I want way out theists banned. I don't expect any meaningful exchange of ideas, just a chance to observe a bizarre, perverse and deluded creature in action, it could be a mutual feeling.
Elitism. Elitist.
Just sayin'. The words hadn't yet appeared on this thread, so I thought I'd add them. ;)
Elitist: "Heaven for me, hell for you, serves you right, you stupid atheist you. Jesus for me, Satan for you, if I didn't have Jesus, I'd be no better than you. Boy am I lucky, sucks to be you, God loves me like offspring, discards you like poo."
Thanks for the replies, everybody, it's really helped me to organize it, perspective-wise, in my mind.
QuoteOnce you have de-humanised a group you can ultimately start killing people in that group secure in the knowledge that you aren't really killing people.
Further reflection on this issue reminded me of a concept that I was introduced to at university. The ironic effect of a person or group who de-humanizes others is that they are diminishing their own humanity as well (because they've broken down a barrier that restrains one human from harming another, moral clarity/humanity has been set aside with regard to a targeted human). I don't know if I'm articulating this effectively...
Quotei started to think about this for a while, and came to the conclusion that there are basicly three kinds of "dehumanising"...hmmm, systems, should we say? First is National, which in my opinnion would include things like ones pride on ones home nation and "race"-thinking. The second is Idological system which would include religions and, unsuprisingly, ideologies. And lastly a combonation of the first two.
This is part of what was so helpful in sorting out my understanding of this phenomenon. I was alluding to the Nazi genocidal final solution, I am glad you set it out for clear consideration, since that is such an extreme outcome that could be at stake if people travel far enough down that road.
As soon as I started throwing out the de-humanization term, it brought recollection of studying international justice/injustice, and how politics and ideology factors into this, rather than it being a religious thing. I think what gets to me are the people within the religion who are not challenging themselves to think beyond a simplistic interpretation of their doctrine, and they're coming at this from the perspective that perfect morality cannot be allowed to be challenged; so they are entrapping themselves in the mindset. It makes things worse, I think. Objectively, a soldier can see evidence that his country is not perfect, and a "good" politician can consider the perspective of his opponents and refine their position; but with religion, Sacred Holy Perfection makes it harder to break free of a mindset (especially if you think your immortal soul is at risk if you do). Stevil talks about the programming component as well, which just exacerbates the problem. :(
QuoteDid I ever tell you guys that psychology is another dear hobby of mine?
QuoteMe too
I like psychology as well! Fascinating stuff. :)
QuoteWe're all people and I've never had a taste for tearing other people apart (even just verbally) on masse.
I feel this way, too, DeterminedJuliet. Even for people I'm wary of, I still don't like to see them diminished. On the "Dignity" thread, I get a strong impression of the OP, Egor; yet it pains me seeing him trying to diminish other people's humanity, and in a sense, attacking his own humanity (maybe I'm wrong, and perhaps he doesn't see it that way, yet this is what my educational background leads me to conclude).
QuoteI had similar thoughts about the Dignity thread, I posted there before I saw this thread.
I noticed you bringing that up in that thread, and was glad you focused on that; I had wondered about that. Same idea, same wavelength! :)
Pharaoh Cat, that's a catchy little poem about religious darkness, did you make that up?
Thanks again for all the responses.
Quote from: Tristan Jay on December 14, 2011, 02:52:33 PM
Pharaoh Cat, that's a catchy little poem about religious darkness, did you make that up?
Yup! Who else would end a poem with "poo"? ;)
Quote from: Pharaoh Cat on December 15, 2011, 02:20:07 AM
Quote from: Tristan Jay on December 14, 2011, 02:52:33 PM
Pharaoh Cat, that's a catchy little poem about religious darkness, did you make that up?
Yup! Who else would end a poem with "poo"? ;)
It is...quite an image.
Quote from: Tristan Jay on December 13, 2011, 02:44:39 PM
I feel that the arguments are stupid, and insulting; but worse than that, it feels insidious and demeaning in a very dangerous way. It never occurred to me that my basic humanity would be questioned, within the context of not being a Christian. Does this appear to others as a de-humanizing practice, or am I being alarmist?
No, you are not being alarmist and you pretty much nailed the situation.
I used to give Christians the benefit of the doubt when they engaged in this sort of hateful rhetoric, but not any more - they are not as ignorant as I thought they once were. Over the years, I've seen these self-loathing Christians again-and-again engage in this type of rhetoric as a excuse for the persecution in which they are so willing to engage, and my tolerance for it has gone to ZERO. As a result, every time I hear a Christian engage in this type Psychological Attack, I give them 10x worse than they deliver and make them very shy about trying the same tact again on another party - it really shuts a lot of them down for good (or at least for a long time).
Quote from: Tristan Jay on December 13, 2011, 03:01:36 PM
I wonder if Islam or Judaism goes for this kind of thing?
I would have to think that it does. Not in the sense that it is a basic tenet, but that the religion itself can lead interpretations down that path. Take Iran's position toward Israel. They have made no excuses for their intention of wiping Israel off of the map, right? I don't know enough to judge this to be true, but from what I have read that is the general consensus I get.
Quote from: Happy_Is_Good on December 15, 2011, 03:27:51 AM
Quote from: Tristan Jay on December 13, 2011, 02:44:39 PM
I feel that the arguments are stupid, and insulting; but worse than that, it feels insidious and demeaning in a very dangerous way. It never occurred to me that my basic humanity would be questioned, within the context of not being a Christian. Does this appear to others as a de-humanizing practice, or am I being alarmist?
No, you are not being alarmist and you pretty much nailed the situation.
I used to give Christians the benefit of the doubt when they engaged in this sort of hateful rhetoric, but not any more - they are not as ignorant as I thought they once were. Over the years, I've seen these self-loathing Christians again-and-again engage in this type of rhetoric as a excuse for the persecution in which they are so willing to engage, and my tolerance for it has gone to ZERO. As a result, every time I hear a Christian engage in this type Psychological Attack, I give them 10x worse than they deliver and make them very shy about trying the same tact again on another party - it really shuts a lot of them down for good (or at least for a long time).
That's pretty much my feelings towards religious fanatics of any degree. Zero tolerance. :)
I've been bouncing around in different forums on the 'net for a while, though still stopping in. I posed a question on two Christian forums regarding the capacity for non-Christians to have the same depth of emotions, empathy, compassion and so forth. On the more mainstream Christian forum, there was some interesting back and forth; I don't think I concluded that I agreed or disagreed with anything they discussed.
On the other Christian forum I posted a topic that was practically verbatim, it was a forum that belong to an old Christian friend of mine; though I have not discussed the particulars of my current stand point, simply let the question stand as a point of curiosity.
One thing that came up during the course of the discussion on my friend's forum was a concept called "Total Depravity" which I've never come across before. I can't figure out if I wish that no one ever came up with this kind of stuff; the only thing that comes to mind is the quote from Frank Herbert's Dune, spoken by Paul Atreides and directed towards an enemy, "This being has Human Shape, and therefore deserves Human Doubt." Offhand, I have an image in my mind of me grabbing God roughly and painfully by his head hair and shoving his face in the direction of these mental gymnastics and demanding clarity for all of us what's really true so there's no more justification head games. A couple of sharp tugs, and an extra shove or two for emphasis.
Beyond that gut reaction, I don't know what to make of the Total Depravity thing, trying to digest it from the context of their discussion on my friend's forum; I looked on wikipedia to read about it a little, too. I can't figure out if I'm overreacting, because I don't think I'm processing it at all. I keep coming back to a basic notion that we shouldn't even be questioning or justifying or marginalizing things in this realm.
I suppose this doesn't really add anything to the discussion. I'm maintaining genuine detachment from this toward the humans engaged in these discussions, pleasingly ironically, by some very basic Buddhist calming mentality. On a Buddhist forum, it was suggested that I let go of the idea of God as a delusion, a useless fabrication that it would be more productive to let fade away.
Reasonable human doubt is accorded without question more readily here and on Buddhist forums, while the Christian forums are buzzing back and forth about the fine points of a non-Christian being able to maximize Human Potential. Some of the arguments are fascinating, but they give way to the fact that there's an argument going on in the first place.
Quote from: Tristan Jay on January 12, 2012, 03:04:34 AM
One thing that came up during the course of the discussion on my friend's forum was a concept called "Total Depravity" which I've never come across before.
Let me give you a little background on this subject. "Total Depravity" is the first point of Calvinism's "five points" which are generally known by the acronym "TULIP": 1)
Total Depravity; 2)
Unconditional Election; 3)
Limited Atonement; 4)
Irresistible Grace; and 5)
Perseverance of the Saints.
Total Depravity does not mean that everyone is a total moral failure. It simply means that each person's "image of God" (
imago dei) is fractured in some sense, so that none of us perfectly reflect God's image. We are all flawed. God's solution to this is the
unconditional election of certain persons to be saved or redeemed. Christ's sacrifice was a
limited atonement only for the elect. These elect receive a revelation of divine presence through
irresistible grace. These elect will persevere through faith unto salvation. There are New Testament proof texts for each point. Calvinism's "five points of grace" (named after John Calvin, a Reformation theologian responsible for all "reformed" churches, such as Presbyterians), are a standard subject of discussion among Christian theologians. A relatively small number of Christian theologians accept all five points, but many accept total depravity. It mainly means that none of us can come into a relationship with God on our own efforts - we need a savior.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on January 13, 2012, 03:14:29 AM
It mainly means that none of us can come into a relationship with God on our own efforts - we need a savior.
It sounds like the Protestants got rid of the intervention of the pope and priests, and then found they needed to replace them.