Is Scott Atran Full of Shit?
Offline There are four segments of this video that can be accessed at baneoffafnir 's youtube page.
For those of you who don't know who Scott Atran is, he is an American Anthropologist that studies "the ways scientists and ordinary people categorize and reason about nature, on the cognitive and evolutionary psychology of religion, and on the limits of rational choice in political and cultural conflict. His work has been widely published internationally in the popular press, and in scientific journals in a variety of disciplines. He has briefed members of the U.S. Congress and the National Security Council staff at the White House on the Comparative Anatomy and Evolution of Global Network Terrorism and on the The Devoted Actor versus the Rational Actor in Managing World Conflict, and he has been involved in conflict negotiations in the Middle East."(wiki)
He has attended both Beyond Belief Seminars and clashes with Sam Harris over the idea that religion is a primary motivator for violent extremism and terrorism from extremists that are Muslim. He sees religion as a primarily benign force that can be used to do bad things, but that it is not necessarily one of the major underlying reasons for Islamic extremism/terrorism. He has done a number of studies in the Arab world talking to Muslims and the families of suicide bombers and portrays the causality for their actions as basically soccer friends in small tigh-knit neighborhoods with a commonality that get together on soccer fields and coffee shops and form bonds together. They see images on AL-Jazeera of Arabs getting killed on tv by Americans and want to strike back. He feels that the Islamic religion is not really part of this, but rather that many of the suicide bombers are not religious at all and know nothing about the Koran. He feels that most of these suicide bombing terrorists are not recruited by anyone, but rather it is a spontaneous act by people disgruntled by the lack of morality and justice they see when their fellow Arabs are killed.
Here is Atran's speech at Beyond Belief 2.0 that iterates what I have stated above.
For Sam Harris' final refutation of Scott Atran from Beyond Belief 2.0, check this out. They both allude to having a possible debate(maybe with Ayaan Hirsi Ali) about the role of religion and terrorism in the Islamic world.
So I guess what I am asking is, Do you think Scott Atran is full of shit or does he have some valid points? Has anyone read his books? Is anyone familiar with his work that can validate his ideas, because they seem quite radical and contrary to most of what the common consensus on the subject says.
Here are his books if you have not heard of them
The Native Mind and the Cultural Construction of Nature
“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.” Yoda
Never heard of Atran, but I am reading Robert Pape, who makes similar arguments.
I'll watch the vids tonight.
You're not thinking, you're merely being logical -Neils Bohr to Einstein
Yeah its kind of a lot of info, but what if there is some serious merit to what Scott Atran is saying with regard to the motivation for extremists/terrorists in countries that are predominantly Muslim? This would completely change the worldview that I think most Atheists and Christians have(without direct experience of Muslim countries themselves).
“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.” Yoda
While Atran's credentials are laudable, I'm not seeing any of the evidence he's presenting (& there's certainly quantity if not quality) as particularly compelling. His smugness doesn't erase the historical evidence that runs completely contrary to his conclusions. Hostility toward women's equality and violence toward them are not derived from soccer matches gone wrong. The imprisonment and murder of gay people are not a result of cultural differences. They are religious based. It would take a while to go through all of the videos, but I don't see too many Muslims killing each other over soccer matches.
I do frequently see these types of news bites:
- Bomber: I am doing what I'm doing for the sake of Islam.
- christians attacked by Muslim rioters in nigeria.
- Praise for "Holy Wars" paper found at home of airline plotter.
- 75 young people arrested for immoral behavior (Iran)
- Iran vows to lash women who attend political rallies.
- Yemen votes to continue female castration.
- Man has hands and foot chopped off over adultrey.
- Ahmadinejad: "We have no gay people in Iran"....(Yeah, because you've killed any that you could actually find).
So, in conclusion: Is Scott Atran full of shit ?
..................Yes.................
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
George Orwell
Yes, was my default position. I would like to read some of his stuff and look at its merits and the methodology, but so far everything he is saying just seems the opposite of reality. Its like he has become an Atheist apologetic for the Islamic world because he genuinely likes the people. I am not saying you can't like people you study, but when that liking could be construed as losing your objectivity, then you are no longer following the scientific method. It would be interesting, if once I read his stuff I was convinced of his ideas, but the evidence would have to be compelling, and have unparalleled methodological constraints being utilized to counter all of conventional wisdom and evidence.
I was just wondering if anyone here agreed with him? I doubt it, but that would be interesting to hear their perspective on such matters.
“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.” Yoda
Before they ask me how my son could do something like that, they should ask what the conditions were that led him do it. Why do people kill themselves? Are they fond of death? Is it a fashion? Since 1948, the Jews have taken more and more of our land. My son wasn't a radical person, he was radicalized by anger, by humiliation. Look before your eyes. We are living in a jail. I wouldbe a liar to say I feel sorry for the people who are oppressing us day by day.
Quote by father of suicide bomber, as quoted in Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic Of Suicide Terrorism by Robert Pape page 233.
So yeah, I see his point that terrorism is in response to occupation and oppression.
You're not thinking, you're merely being logical -Neils Bohr to Einstein
But, occupation and oppression by what? Another group with the overall defining identity of a particular religion. They certainly don't think that it's a bunch of bakers or mechanics or Arnold Schwarzeneggar fans taking their land, it's 'those jews'
And why do the jews claim the land... because god gave it to them
How's about the Israeli defense force?
A 'Jew' is a common term for the people of Israel. They're probably refering to the soldiers in the IDF.
IIRC Palestine was a British colony, (Lebanon was French colony BTW.) and then they cut down Palestine and proclaimed a good portion of it Israel.
Then Israel invaded Lebanon, since they thought it was theirs in the first place.
I'm pretty sure that's the conflict, but I don't the exact history, I'm pretty sure it's something like that. Someone took over, the French adopted Lebanon as a colony, British didn't give Israel back all it's land etc...
You're not thinking, you're merely being logical -Neils Bohr to Einstein
How does one get from a soccer match to a Fatwa against a cartoonist? I'm not seeing the connection.
Do soccer players have a higher than normal rate of being suicide bombers in secular countries? They love soccer in the Netherlands, and I can't remember the last time I saw a Dutchman lopping off the head of an infidel.
Are soccer moms in trouble in America?
I'm casting my vote for "Full of Shit."
Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo. -- H. G. Wells
I feel a little dirty for some reason, but there is a point to be made that terrorism is much more prevalent among poor, occupied, oppressed peoples. I want to be careful to avoid a false dichotomy here. I'm not saying that either side is completely right or wrong on this. I disagree with a good bit of Sam's alarmist writings. I don't think religion is potentially the end of the world as we know it. Clearly, there is more to war than religious motivations, in any case, and either side could produce anecdotal evidence all day long that such and such was motivated by politics or religion.
Realize that I view politics and religion as very much the same thing in religious states. To say that a war involving an Islamic country is either political or religious misses the point completely.
The reason religion is so prevalent is that people feel it is relevant to their lives. In a country that is religiously dominated, the soldiers cannot help but feel the impact of the religion, but they're shooting guns at real people who are shooting real bullets back. Does belief in Allah make it easier to be a suicide bomber? I don't know. The Japanese found lots of Kamikaze pilots without Allah.
I guess the bottom line for me is that it's completely dishonest to say that religion doesn't play a part in many wars. Of course it does. It is one of many justifications that people use to go to war. How much? I don't honestly know. I'm sure it varies from culture to culture and war to war.
For Sam to say that religion is THE cause of most war is dishonest, and for Atran to write it off as an insignificant cultural bauble is dishonest. It's somewhere in between.
Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo. -- H. G. Wells
I think Sam and Hitchens tend to overdramatize the threat of Islamic Fundamentalist extremism, but it is a very palpable concern. I would say religion is not the sole cause for most wars, but often goes hand in hand in the in-group vs. out-group mentality in play there. There are some wars that have been caused by religion.
As far as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, there are a ton of disparate issues at hand, but to take religion out of the equation as Atran does, is wholeheartedly deluding oneself to the realities on the ground. True, I think anyone who feels they have had their land taken from them and are being occupied unrighteously by a set of people with an opposite worldview would be drawn to violence. To say that the only reason these people have been fighting is because God was indian-giving realtor in his holy lands provides an underlying reason, but does not address the entirety of the issues.
Scott Atran is so smug, I have been watching some of his responses to others in Beyond Belief and his ideas and rationalizations seem to show quite a bit of compartmentalization at work. The things he says about Al Qaeda are quite fascinating if they are true.
The answer probably does lie somewhere in between, but I think having discourse on competing opinions and vetting them out is the best way to get closer to the truth.
“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.” Yoda
Well, religion played an absolutely core role as engines for WWI and WWII. The Japanese found plenty of Kamikaze pilot without belief in Allah, but they were simply using another form of religion (adhering to various 'codes of honor', at least where it was convenient to do so). Nazi and Fascism were essentially their own self-contained religions, and Stalin... well, Stalin basically projected himself as a deity.
Small scale wars might be fought over resources, but personally, I think the largest ones really need religion to feed them onward.
CAUTION:
This human being has more accumulated hours playing GI Joes in the bathtub than he has sleeping, owns more polyhedral dice than he does articles of clothing and has invested more money into his personal computer than most people do on their cars.
Communicate at your own risk.
You have no idea how much this argument pisses me off.
If everyone were atheist, Communism will still be with us. It is NOT a religion, it's a fucking political ideology.
It pisses me off when people apply to people like Stalin or Hoxha, because it comes off as 'Well, see, they weren't actually atheists, they had religions of their own.' or 'Well, they projected themselves as Gods.' and even 'See, it's still religion's fault!!!'
Calling something a fucking 'religion' does not make it so.
You're not thinking, you're merely being logical -Neils Bohr to Einstein
Stalin was not practicing Marxist communism. His regime was entirely totalitarian. 'Communism' was crudely thrown over it as a mask.
I, personally, still have huge problems with Marxist communism, but yes - I respect it is merely a political position.
And Stalin clearly did see himself as above and beyond normal men. For fuck's sake, there's a good hunk of evidence that the man thought he could literally rewrite history. Stalinist Russia had 'dogma' written all over it, even if said dogma came without a creation story attached. People worshipped their leader as an idol, and held his views as the 'be-all, end-all' correct way of seeing the world.
Curiously, Russia actually did it's best in WWII when Stalin took himself off of his pedestal for a moment to let his generals run the show (a superior tactic to Hitler's idea that all final orders must come from beneath his own moustache). This suggests that at least Stalin knew he wasn't omnipotent (nothing like a rampaging Blitzkrieg to motivate rational thinking) at some points in his life, but one need only look at the correspondence exchanges he had with Adolf to see how what he though of himself deep down when the waters weren't so rough.
CAUTION:
This human being has more accumulated hours playing GI Joes in the bathtub than he has sleeping, owns more polyhedral dice than he does articles of clothing and has invested more money into his personal computer than most people do on their cars.
Communicate at your own risk.
There is a good point that these people have a lot to be angry about. The US government was not particularly nice in the ways it went about fighting communism and screwed over quite a few countries. The middle east also had several crusades thrown at it. Plus anyone growing up in a war zone who has seen family and friends die is going to be more than a little screwed up and upset.
However I think it is primarily religion that is driving it forward and not letting wounds heal. All of Europe was at each others throat for thousands of years and they are getting along much better now. The US also fought a war against the British empire, but they are both buddies now.
It is religion that feeds the Palestinian belief that Israel should be wiped from the face of the earth (I'm not saying that Israel are the good guys, there are no good guys in that conflict). I have seen videos of kindergarteners with guns shouting they they want to die for allah at a school assembly (I think the link was on Gisburne).
There are also christian terrorists in some of the muslim countries.
Jesus said, "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division." - Luke 12:51
The main obstacle of Peace on Earth is religion.
What do you really think, that is a cause of the muslim problem? Is it their crazy religion, which tells them to blow up themselves and stuff around? Are they just dumb and retarded? Damn weird people, in weird desert place, who wants our stuff?
I hope this is NOT what most of Americans really think.
People are focused on effects, but the original cause is injustice.
Islamic countries once were beacons of science, culture and art in world of barbarianism, all the european scholarschip came from Arabians (who got it from India). Islamic countries are able to exist relatively peacefully. Islam, just like other religions, can be used for good or bad purposes. Imagine, that you're happy in your life (if you aren't). Would you abandon all this to go and become martyr? Hardly. The reason why some muslims are so easy to become suicide bombers or terrorists is, that there is a great injustice commited on them.
Let's see a simple statistics.
Top 2% of world population owns 51% of the world.
Lower 50% of world population owns less than 2% of the world.
This is the injustice and all the economic system, all the movement of global market does it even worse every moment. There must be victims, in fact, a half of humankind is the victim. Arabians are one of them, but there are more, all this is designed to put more of wealth into hands of less people. Don't look at problems with muslims, look for those, who did it to them.
There is only one truth, which will set you free. Yours.
It's hardly the "fault" of religion, but the human tendency toward religious thought is what these guys were tapping, there's no doubt about it. Just look at the policy of Stalin, Hitler, Kim Jong Il or Saddam Hussein of plastering godlike pictures of themselves on every available wall. Each with different professed political ideologies, all with the same mechanisms of authority. Whether you want to call it "state religion" or not doesn't change the fact that the behaviours are exactly the same.
Tell that to the Scientologists. They're getting a tax break just like every other religious organization. And they've never stopped being an unlicensed mental health clinic.
Will: no gyration without funkstification.
The human tendency towards social conformity is what they were tapping. We evolved as social beings. If everyone stuck together, they could share food, shelter etc.. and have a better chance of survival.
Anyway, religion is a form of social conformity, not the only form.
Their both ideologies, but different forms of ideologies, tapping into the same thing.
You're not thinking, you're merely being logical -Neils Bohr to Einstein
If that were all it was, then there wouldn't be the extra aspect of veneration of a single individual. It's definitely social conformity, but that doesn't explain the veneration and focusing all "justification of effort" on the leader.
Of course, but religious and political conformity in those cases look an awful lot alike. In fact, it's very difficult to tell them apart.
Will: no gyration without funkstification.
Right, first there would seem to be a requirement to demonstrate a certain amount of allegiance to the current government enitity/entities (unless theocracy is the rule of the day, in which case the two would be one in the same). Of course this is only for religion that has interest in government approval. If not, your religion is free to be marginalized into insignificance or whither away and die over time due to lack of adherents.
The specific beliefs themselves don't seem to be an issue in and of themselves, whether you dance around golden tablets, golden calves or an alien warlord are pretty much inconsequential.
All you actually need (beside the aforementioned government approval) is a comprehensive belief system that provides a framework for total devotion and a certain measure of hostility toward any critique.
I'm sorry, were we talking about Religion or Communism ?
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
George Orwell
The 'justification of effort', it could be nationalism, or kinship. A better life for your nation or kin (Remember, it's not just you, it's your genes and offspring.) All the leaders offered that (hence the veneration..), so it was a game of follow the leader for a better future for you, and your family.
To wit:
Do you know of parents who want the best possible life for their child and will make personal sacrifices to achieve it?
What about people who want the best for the people in their nation or even the world and will make personal sacrifices to achieve it?
Now this leader comes along and offers this. The best nation, the best people. All you have to do is follow him.
I'm not the one who brought it up.
You're not thinking, you're merely being logical -Neils Bohr to Einstein
I'm curious. Has there ever been a president who came out with bumper stickers after he got elected? Maybe I've got this wrong, but all those "W" bumper stickers seemed to get really popular after the appointment... er... election.
Truthfully, I don't understand why anyone would get their panties in a bunch because someone calls dogmatic admiration of political ideology and government leader(s) religious, or at the very least, analogous to religion. Hell, lots of writers, some famous, have called it religious zeal.
Having read a bit of dogmatic political ideology (I'd rather read the bible, believe it or not... at least it's blatantly make believe) I can find no significant difference, other than the absence of an undefined god. Both appeal to emotion. Both appeal to ignorance. Both insist on blind faith. Both punish dissent or doubt.
I want to make something perfectly clear, by the way. I believe that religion is the easiest way to sell war to poor people. You need the poor people to shoot your guns for you, so you have to convince them to join the army if you're not going to force them into it.* Theism is better than State-ism because God loves you and wants you to kill the brown people in the sand whether the economy is going great or not. Setting up state worship is more tricky because really bad economies tend to make people upset at the ideologue who made it that way.**
So, bottom line: I agree that irrational political ideologies would exist if theism did not exist. Both irrational political ideologies and theism are irrational belief systems based on faith. In this respect, they both have religious qualities. I don't give a rat's ass if you want to invent another word that means "having religious qualities" if your panties bunch up at calling state worship a religion.
* I don't think it's coincidental that atheists are having to sue the army. Do you think the Rethuglicans are unaware of the power of an army where everyone is the same religion?
** To put a finer point on it, theism tends to do better the worse things get.
Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo. -- H. G. Wells
... in heaven.
... on earth as it is in heaven?
... and you get to go to heaven.
The mechanisms are so similar that they're almost indistinguishable. People willing to submit and follow are drawn to religious and totalitarian "safety" in equal numbers. It's very appealing to believe in safety. Religious movements thrive on the belief that a safe afterlife can be promised, just as totalitarianism thrives on the promise of safety on the earthly plane. Both are illusory, but highly appealing.
Will: no gyration without funkstification.
Godless regimes of the state do not employ eternity and mainly focus on this life as the only one you get. So falling prey to the cult of personality or being mesmerized by rampant politically dogmatic propaganda on safety and the leader's greatness can be as controlling and appealing as a religion. I do think the view of an afterlife, with this life being a mere transitional hell we must pass through as a test for our immortal soul's resting place, can be more of a motivator for violence of the self inflicted variety(suicide bombings). Obviously there are exceptions, Kamikazes etc., but the current status of predominantly religious zealots motivated to become martyrs by performing violent acts against others as a means of fulfilling a 73-way orgy in the next world, if truly and zealously believed as fact, is almost an unparalleled motivating force when compared to secular nationalist propaganda.
I think the afterlife belief, if properly exploited for religious purposes, is more potent than any propaganda tools.
“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.” Yoda