Revisiting Steven Weinberg's assertion

[2Dbunk]

JAG television series (CBS’ “Judge Advocate Corps� by Donald P. Bellisario, Executive Producer – Ninth Season, Disc #5, entitled “Fighting Words,� (one hour)

IS--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

the BEST DRAMATIC PORTRAYAL OF STEVEN WEINBERG’S ASSERTION:
Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.�

Rarely are very good examples given in asserting an argument, but when presented they win the day. “Fighting Words� fits that description as the series’ protagonists Commander Harmon Rabb goes nose to nose with prosecuting attorney, USMC Colonel Sarah MacKenzie (the former defending an over-zealous two star Marine Corps general who, in military uniform, disparages Islam from the pulpit of his church’s congregation). The Colonel wins, and the general gets his hands slapped.

This is the best example that I’ve seen on screen of a good man inadvertently trying to destroy the notion that our Constitution is sincere in protecting all religious belief.

Yes, the “unmatched wisdom� of our current president has muddied the waters a bit
when he insinuates that there are “good Nazis� as well as bad; and that white supremacists might make for good neighbors. If that is the case, what was WW II all about?

Was the court decision wrong in this case? If so, can you put forward an example to counter Weinberg’s assertion? OR, another example that supports Weinberg’s assertion?

[Mithrae]

Consider the idea that your neighbor is a homosexual or a Muslim.
Now that I have been set free from my religious beliefs, I can truely be Christ like and love my neighbors as myself. Even if they are homosexual or belong to another religion.

Jesus said nothing against homosexuals or Muslims... though he did seemingly go out of his way to associate with sinners, prostitutes, Samaritans and the like. Even as a Christian lad it occurred to me that churches' vocal fixation on homosexuality and suchlike was most likely a case of looking at the speck in others' eyes rather than the log in their own; the kind of hypocrisy and displays of outward piety Jesus most abhorred.

[2Dbunk]

Sorry for being late answering the critiques of my OP, but I’m recovering from going under the knife (please, no prayers necessary, though I know you mean well).

I answer several below--

JW post #4-- How about just a logical person utilizing ethics, as DI might say?

1213 post #5-- It can be if it becomes a peeing contest of whose religions are unnecessarily being compared.

EarthScienceguy post #10— ‘Good’ as is defined in your language’s dictionary.

1213 post #17--

One reason why I believe what the Bible tells is that no one has been able to show real error or contradiction in it. If it would be purely from people, it would have many mistakes.

Many debaters, many times on these forums, have shown your above quoted two sentences to be untrue.

Bjs wrote in post #14:

The obvious counter to this which comes to my mind is the events in the USSR and the People’s Republic of China. Millions of religious people were persecuted, imprisoned, intentionally starved to death, or outright murdered in order to decrease religious faith in increase atheism in these nations. Millions of non-theists actively took part in these purges, and millions more passively gave consent and support to such actions. These historical facts seem to destroy the idea that for good people to do bad things takes religion.

these events were not undertaken by good people, but by a form of political evil in the guise of 'good for the society.' It makes no difference that the perpetrators were theist or non-theist, but that they acted without ethical conscience to do evil.

[Mithrae]

these events were not undertaken by good people,

Which most likely is what you or Weinberg would say in response to every example of apparently 'good' people doing seemingly 'evil' things without religious motivation: Nah, they weren't really good. No true good person would do evil without religious motivation.

But by the same token, I'll wager that you cannot prove even a single case of a 'good person' doing evil because of religion either. Weinberg's assertion is unsubstantiated blather.

[Tcg]

Jesus said nothing against homosexuals or Muslims...

Correction, we have no record of Jesus saying anything against homosexuals. Of course he didn't say anything about Muslims, they didn't yet exist, but he said plenty about Pharisees.


Tcg

[2Dbunk]

these events were not undertaken by good people,

Which most likely is what you or Weinberg would say in response to every example of apparently 'good' people doing seemingly 'evil' things without religious motivation: Nah, they weren't really good. No true good person would do evil without religious motivation.

I should have said: These events were not undertaken by people of good ethic.

But by the same token, I'll wager that you cannot prove even a single case of a 'good person' doing evil because of religion either. Weinberg's assertion is unsubstantiated blather.

Your opinion my friend. I listed a very good example in the first line of my OP, and stand by it. This fictional one hour courtroom drama parallels a similar situation at the US Air Force Academy several years before, and undoubtedly has played out in numerous pulpits around the country over the years -- the uniform providing gravitas to the delivery.

Readers were asked to give examples of situations countering Weinberg's assertion. Can you provide proof or documentation that his assertion is only blather?

[Mithrae]

these events were not undertaken by good people,

Which most likely is what you or Weinberg would say in response to every example of apparently 'good' people doing seemingly 'evil' things without religious motivation: Nah, they weren't really good. No true good person would do evil without religious motivation.

I should have said: These events were not undertaken by people of good ethic.

But by the same token, I'll wager that you cannot prove even a single case of a 'good person' doing evil because of religion either. Weinberg's assertion is unsubstantiated blather.

Your opinion my friend. I listed a very good example in the first line of my OP, and stand by it. This fictional

Your best example is a fiction? Okay then. In any case, those events were not undertaken by good people, but by a form of political evil in the guise of 'good for the society.'

[Willum]

[Replying to post 23 by Mithrae]

But by the same token, I'll wager that you cannot prove even a single case of a 'good person' doing evil because of religion either. Weinberg's assertion is unsubstantiated blather.

We can cite entire NATIONS:

The Nazi Oath was to God:

"I swear: I will be faithful and obedient to the leader of the German Reich and people, Adolf Hitler, to observe the law, and to conscientiously fulfill my official duties, so help me God."

The Manifest Destiny was supposedly a divine destiny.

Frankly I am surprised you would make a statement like that.

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 27 by Willum]

You're providing examples of 'good people' who were primarily motivated by nationalism to do evil. As such, Weinberg and his fans would undoubtedly assume that, actually, they were not really good people after all

Personally I would say it's a bit of a non sequitur to talk about 'good people' to begin with: At most, we might talk about people inferred (by their behaviour or by statistical averages) to rate above some arbitrary threshold on a scale of some 'good' value such as empathy/compassion for others. But more importantly, given that arbitrary threshold, there's no reason whatsoever to suppose that religion is any more common as a motivator to do 'evil' for those people than things like nationalism, greed and so on. The likely Weinbergite response that "if their motivation is greed, they weren't good people" is seen to be obviously fallacious once we clarify the only meaningful sense in which someone can be categorized as a 'good person.' If anything, as others have already pointed out, most major religions teach as their primary values things which we generally consider good - love, compassion, don't kill, stop being greedy etc. - so even in cases where a religion is placed to the fore as a pretext for evil actions, that's often not the same thing as being the primary motivator. Though certainly there are cases of religion being a genuine motivator for evil.

[marco]

But by the same token, I'll wager that you cannot prove even a single case of a 'good person' doing evil because of religion either.

I think Abraham is regarded as a model of goodness. Muslims, Jews and Christians admire him. Because he was religious he took his son and bound him with the intention of murdering him. I think this is an example of a good person doing evil because of religion. That he was stopped from carrying out the act is irrelevant: his preparatory actions were wicked.

Lot was seen by God as a righteous individual, fit to be spared from destruction. What person offers his own children to be abused? But Lot made the offer because of his religious beliefs.

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 29 by marco]

More fictions? Neither Abraham nor Lot were motivated by religion, in any case. The voices in Abraham's head supposedly became the grounds for a later religion, but he himself belonged to no religious community and so far as we know had no system of beliefs.