Episode Transcript
Speaker 0 00:00:00 I'm Scott Schiff with the Atlas Society. I'm happy to introduce Steven Hicks and founder David Kelly, both senior scholars, uh, discussing the role of religion today. While they're offering their thoughts, feel free to raise your hands with questions and we'll bring you up to ask once they're done with their openings. Uh, I encourage everyone to share the room. Steven, I think we said we'd start with you.
Speaker 1 00:00:28 Yes. So just give the cue and I'll get going.
Speaker 0 00:00:31 Okay. And, uh, what is the role of religion today?
Speaker 1 00:00:39 Well, the idea for this, uh, clubhouse session came from, uh, from David. So, you know, he's been thinking over the years a lot about this, but he developed this very interesting chart, which is, uh, posted as part of a short article at the Atlas Society site, uh, I believe about a month ago. Maybe a little less than that. Maybe you can share the link and, uh, hoping people can have a look at that. But what, what's driving the, the chart is this question that, uh, you know, if, if religion not true, we'll put in that hypothetical form right now. Uh, if it's not true, it's nonetheless true of religion that it seems to have a lot of cultural people have been arguing for and against religion for, for, for centuries. And whatever it is that religion is doing for people, uh, seems to operate independently of whether the particular religion is true or not.
Speaker 1 00:01:39 So I think David's question was then to say, well, what, what is religion doing for people? And develop an interesting list of, uh, uh, possible functions that religion can, can, can serve. So we're gonna be, uh, working our way toward that. I wanted to, uh, start today cause I wanted to put that specific question in some historical context. Cause the, the formal title is, you know, what is the role of religion today? And if we emphasize the today part, uh, uh, one of the things that can drive that is that most, uh, surveys done on people's religious beliefs show a, a downward trend, a downward trend in, uh, in, uh, uh, attendance at religious services. And then, uh, when you, uh, push a little further and you, uh, of, of the people who do attend and who, uh, who do believe, if you ask them about the strength of their commitment or how, how powerfully invested, they're in various formal commitments that go with, uh, with being part of the religion that also shows a, a, uh, a weakening.
Speaker 1 00:02:49 So, uh, today, uh, more people seem to be non-religious, or they seem to be less religious. Uh, these are North American surveys that I'm most, but I know at least in Western Europe, they're there, there are similar trends there as well. And then objectivism is, uh, is a, is a non-religious philosophy, or it's an atheist philosophy. And so when, uh, engage with issues of religion and we argue with, uh, people who are religious, we, uh, we tend to take, of course, an argue approach, which is to say, we focus a lot on the, the arguments for and against religion. If we do it a little more formally, maybe there are six or seven, depending on how you slice them, major arguments for and against, against, uh, uh, uh, the existence of a God. Uh, and then, uh, uh, if we're not focusing on those arguments, in many cases, uh, people who are religious will have, uh, historically retreated from the idea of arguing for religion.
Speaker 1 00:03:51 They'll adopt religion for non-rational reasons. They'll turn to mysticism or they'll turn to faith. So we as objectives then spend a lot of time arguing about, you know, the, the, uh, the illegitimacy of faith in that non-rational sense, mysticism and so on. I think all of that, that's important. Um, but, uh, I think it misses a lot nuance when we pitch religion and arguments against level abstraction. So one of the things I is talk about that nuance matters and why, uh, uh, particularly these days, uh, uh, when we have a much more diverse society, culturally, intellectually, and so on, uh, when people talk about religion, it's not clear that they're as monolithically committed to, uh, the same set of ideas the way if we were in medieval Europe or, or whatever a thousand years ago. Uh, we know that people by and large are, are on the same page when it comes to, comes to religion.
Speaker 1 00:04:58 Now, uh, when I was preparing my, uh, thoughts for, for this, I was reminded on this, this nuance issue of a kind of a funny taxonomy of, uh, of Christians. And, uh, I've heard it a couple of times over the years, but actually, I first heard it when I was young from one of my uncles who was a, uh, Pentecostal preacher, you know, real fire breathing, uh, fundamentalist. But he did have sense of humor and twinkle his, and talk about religion. Some, sometimes. And this anecdote always stuck with me when he said, uh, you know, uh, Stephen, there are, there are threes Christians said, Christians are Christmas Christians, good Friday Christians, and Easter Sunday Christians. And he went on to explain what he, what he meant by that. So, what does Christianity really mean to people? And for the Christmas Christians, uh, who think of themselves as, as good Christians, what, uh, what Christmas represents as the most important day of the year is this idea of there being, uh, a birth right, a coming into existence of a, a new, new person.
Speaker 1 00:06:14 They also think is, is of God. But we're celebrating birth and this whole life, uh, ahead, that comes with birth. And we're also celebrating, you know, fellowship and, uh, singing songs and eating too much good food and exchanging pre uh, presence. And we've got, of course, this Santa figure who's this benevolent kinda overseer of the so's driving. Uh, here is idea being benevolent, wants us happy, and we're celebrating birth and growth and, uh, uh, uh, you know, all of the good things that come with fellowship, uh, and surrounding Christmas and so on. But then he says, there's another kind Christian, and this is the, the Good Friday Christians. And for them, of course, you know, celebrate Christmas. But the real action in, uh, the Christian religion for them is on Good Friday. Cause Good Friday is the day that Jesus was killed. He was crucified, he was martyred.
Speaker 1 00:07:22 He, uh, he, he suffered a lot. Blood was shed. And for these Christians, this is the most significant day of the year. What that, uh, is indicating, right, is that for them, uh, what's really driving their ship, again with that metaphor is that it's about suffering. It's about sacrifice. It's about, uh, uh, uh, pain and martyrdom and being willing to die for your cause. That's what Christianity really is all about. And then if we turn to the Easter Sunday, Christians, right, the, these, uh, Christians for whom this is the most significant day of the year, the one that they most resonate with and find themselves thinking about, that of course, is the day when Jesus is said to have risen from the dead and to send it up into heaven. And so what this day represents for them is the hope that they too upon death will be resurrected.
Speaker 1 00:08:28 That there will be, uh, an afterlife for them, that theyll go to heaven. And so what's really driving Christianity for them is their hopes for an afterlife. Now, they will subscribe to Christmas, they'll subscribe to good, but this is really the heart, soul, uh, very important issues to each of these, these. But, and it's not clear that people who are Christmas Christians are in the same psychological religious space as people who are Good Friday Christians. And it's not clear that either of those is in the same space, that people who are in the Easter Sunday, Christian, for one, it's, uh, the religion is about a benevolent deity and living good life here. For the others, it's very different space, completely different, focused on sacrifice and suffering and martyrdom. And then for the third group, it's not really about either of those. What really is the religion is all about is the hope for a kinda immortality.
Speaker 1 00:09:44 Now, at a very high level of abstraction, of course, we would say, you know, all Christian, so if we made a formal list of, I dunno, 10, 12, 15 things that you have to believe if you're gonna gonna be a Christian, say, here's this list, and you gave it to the Christmas Christians and the Easter Sunday Christians and Good Friday all say yes, yes, I believe, I believe all of those things. But that high abstract, not really. The is for, for so point then, for this, this necessarily religion, uh, uh, high level abstract stuff is important. But very quickly, we need get down to specifics, get down to particulars. Particularly if we're interested in speaking to a particular individual or particular group of Christians for the conversation. Uh, to be productive, we have to know where they're coming from. So if we come in with high level abstract arguments, but we're talking with people who are, are, uh, really oriented in terms of those high level abstract arguments, we really are just wasting our, our times, right?
Speaker 1 00:10:58 Or if we come in to argue against altruistic sacrifice and Marty, but the Christians that we're dealing with really are Christmas Christians, then they're gonna say, well, you know, that's not really, uh, that's not me. Uh, you know, I hear what you're saying. I know that there are some other people out there, but your points don't really resonate. They don't have any traction against my understanding of what Christianity is all about. Ok. So, uh, with that, uh, you know, uh, slightly humorous, uh, taxonomy, but I think there's a certain amount of, amount of truth to it. Uh, um, I wanna, uh, just to pause on that and then go on. Uh, more historical point to, uh, to help frame frame David's chart way to approach this is, uh, in terms of the history of philosophy where I, where I spend a lot of my time, if you look at the history of the philosophy of religion as far back as we can go, there have been debates between, uh, people who are more naturalistic, people who are more super naturalistic, who are, are, are atheist or theistic.
Speaker 1 00:12:04 And so the debates, uh, particularly in philosophical circles, tend to focus on whether it's true that there is a God or or whether there are gods. And then much of the history philosophy of religion is careful presentations of arguments and counterarguments divide. Some think the arguments work that metaphysical, uh, part of, rather than the history of philosophy is trying to establish whether really out there in reality, we need to understand reality as, uh, involving God or the gods or not. Another part of the important part of the history of philosophy, uh, focuses on people who, uh, various reasons say the idea that they're gonna argue for or against the existence of God. And so they'll shift the, uh, the discussion to epistemological issues and say, religion really is just a matter of, of faith. It's not a matter of reasoning and argumentation, or it's a matter of, uh, mystical insights.
Speaker 1 00:13:09 And I have had certain mystical experiences, or you have, and in case it's not worth arguing with you about. And that, uh, occupies a huge, uh, amount of time in formal history of, uh, philosophy of religion. My reading, uh, that reached its peak in the, uh, 17 hundreds, the, uh, the age of the Enlightenment. And it really was astonishingly sophisticated century or so debate, uh, about all of the arguments against existence of God and the epistemological issues surrounding reason, faith, mysticism and, and so forth. But then a very striking thing happened toward what we now think of as the end of the, uh, by the time we, the, of almost all major philosophers, agree that the arguments for the existence of God don't work. And that had never happened before, to my knowledge in the entire history of philosophy. So we think about who the most famous philosophers are, as we get into the latter part of the people like David Hume, and it's people like Emmanuel.
Speaker 1 00:14:24 And of course, there are gonna be gonna be others if we spread on into the eighteens early eighteens. We have people likeer, and, and these are all now giants in history of philosophy. And what's interesting is that two of them end up being atheists. That's Hume and Uher. They're very strong atheists, and of them end up being religious ki and Kant, although Kant is a somewhat nonstandard in, in his religion, but nonetheless, he's defending the kinda kinda religion. So basically we have two non-religious giants of philosophy and two religious giants of philosophy. And they're all within a generation or so of each other, all agreeing that religion is not, uh, true. That's right. And further that it cannot be based on argument, right? What, so what whatsoever now then, uh, that is kind representative of where the history of the philosophy of religion at that time.
Speaker 1 00:15:28 And you have a wholesale abandonment then by significant number of people of arguments for the, for the existence of God. But then very quickly, uh, the, the question that's on David's Kelly's mind, uh, chart came to be, well, if religion is not true, and it's not argued to be true, we don't, we can't, we can't prove that it's true. What explains its staying power. And this coincides with pragmatic turn in philosophy, uh, early pragmatism, uh, is launch itself. And what we find is increasingly, people who are interested in religion, stop asking the big question about whether religion is true and start asking the question about what, uh, uh, what religion functions, whether religion works or not. And that's the, uh, the pragmatic term. So the operative question point is to say, let's not worry. So whether true or let's ask functions, religion is independently its truth or not.
Speaker 1 00:16:43 So religion is, uh, then seen pragmatically, uh, or it's seen in functional terms. And then what I, before I turn things back, David or over David, is just over the course of next century, again, names that are very important here in what I think of as this functional slash pragmatic, uh, uh, turn to understanding philosophy. Uh, so if you take someone like, uh, Karl Marx, who famous here, Marx's hostile religion, but nonetheless, he's recognizing that religion is, is, uh, is, uh, is serving role and since wants religion role propping up whatever the political economic system of the time is. So, you know, on his analysis, you know, it's the rich versus the poor and rich exploiting the poor, poor, their lives are miserable and alienated and they're suffering. And isn't it coincidental that you have this religion, Christianity that comes along to the poor, weak and not worry about money, uh, that good stuff know they're supposed to suffer in this life and good stuff is gonna come to the, in the next life.
Speaker 1 00:18:12 And then the richer gonna get the, you know, their punishments in the next life, so forth. And you should turn the other cheek and be forgiving and blah, blah, blah. And Mark then point is to say that obviously this is serving a function. This is a, a, an ideological tool that is being used by the oppressive class, uh, to, uh, to keep the, the, uh, the oppressed masses in line, to throw them bone to chew on, but it's gonna keep them complacent and, uh, and easily manipulable. Now, uh, pairing that, uh, with, with Tocqueville who came and studied the United States, who also is, as far as I can tell, he's not a particularly religious guy. He's a man of the enlightenment. What's interesting though, when you read democracy in America is that he provides an endorsement of religion, but he does it in kinda pragmatic and again, functional terms.
Speaker 1 00:19:08 But what he wants to argue is that Americans especially need religious need to religious, not cause religion is true, doesn't even seem particularly care about what particular religion doesn't wanna get into any of the debates over which religion is better, worse. The idea here is that he says, you know, Americans are very practical people. They're very busy. They're building this new country. They don't have time for getting educated and Hebrew and all the ins and outs of theological debate. That's just gonna confuse them. Instead, what religion does is it gives people a general framework. It gives them a kinda moral code. And, uh, it's important for people who are busy, who gonna build decentralized democratic or less shared set of moral and political principles, undergirded by something that thinking is, is true, even if it isn't true. So here again, we have someone who is talking about religion, PurelyFunctional and pragmatic terms was talking religion, pragmatical terms.
Speaker 1 00:20:17 One of them though, was endorsing religion. And the other is quite, quite hostile to, to religion. The s instead of the, and elements of in the political, there's, uh, an increasing psychological turn and an interest in the psychological role, uh, that religion or that religion has. So, Friedrich Nietzche, for example, who's also an an atheist, uh, nonetheless, notes that religion seems to have a significant staying power, but that staying power and the people who are very religious aren't necessarily, you know, busy working people, and they're not necessarily poor oppressed people in many cases. It's people who have leisure and wealth, and they're quite comfortable. But what to notices is that people who turn to religion seem to have a certain psychological type. And so he goes on argue that some people, of course, are born with various kinds of weaknesses. They're not very vital, they're very unsure of themselves, and so, uh, they're more comfortable believing in or turning to religion to believe that there's some sort figure out there that has power, is after them, and giving them guidance and so on.
Speaker 1 00:21:36 So that this, uh, this, this religious, uh, uh, function is serving a psychological need in a particular kinda individual. And each, of course, is scathing about, you know, these psychologically weak people, seeing them as pathetic and so forth. But nonetheless, he's offering an interpretation of religion, not in terms of its truth, but rather in terms of its functionality. In this case, its psychological functionality. And then just in the next generation, and this is where iud, uh, is also famous, even though heist for giving psychological interpretation of religion as NIE was giving a psychological interpretation. What's interesting about FUD is that heist and ends up endorsing religion for psychological needs. The reason for that isud is pessimist. He thinks, knows, uh, you know, that we can't really get through religion without various kinds of crutches that we've developed, all sorts of sorts of crutches, you know, to drugs, to drink, to gambling or whatever.
Speaker 1 00:22:49 Its some people, if they're really smart, can, uh, to science, to art, you know, and art, you make these imaginary realities and you lose yourself in, in, in, in these fantasy realms. But Freud wants to argue that, uh, uh, most people aren't smart enough, or they're not created enough to become, become, uh, scientist or artists. And drugs and, and alcohol are obviously destructive. So what Freud argues is that religion does serve a functional role of giving people a crutch. And it's a crutch that he endorses because he thinks most people need something like that in order to get through the day. He thinks it's silly, he thinks it's ridiculous, there are no arguments for it. But nonetheless, it's, uh, serving an important functional role. And those of us who are intellectual, as he wants to argue, should, uh, kinda engage in the, the noble, you know, promote religion in society, uh, for the, for the psychological health of people. So those are, uh, some of my, uh, my framing remarks, uh, for, uh, for David's chart. So I'll, uh, I'll stop there. Turn over, David.
Speaker 2 00:24:03 Okay. Um, thank you, Steven. Uh, let me just, uh, confirm that I can be heard.
Speaker 1 00:24:10 Yes.
Speaker 2 00:24:11 All right. Good. Um, as some of you know, we've had, uh, I've had some difficulties with the, uh, audio on my phone, but anyway, I'm, I'm glad to hear that things are functional. So let me pick up, um, just say a word about where this chart came from that, um, uh, Scott has shared. Um, and I hope you all will take a look at it, because that will be the, kind of the centerpiece, uh, uh, hopefully of our discussion. Uh, it's an analysis that I developed, um, over really a couple of decades, uh, of when I've touched, I've come back, I keep coming back to this issue about the role of religion and, um, both, you know, sociologically what, um, uh, I think my first, uh, effort on this back in 1997 was, uh, develop the idea that there are, there are cultures really can be divided into enlightenment people, and then preen, enlightenment and post-enlightenment or modern, uh, people who have a, a modernist focus, uh, versus the pre-modern and the post-modern.
Speaker 2 00:25:26 And one of the things was that, um, the, the, my conception from a lot of reading and analysis at the time was that, um, there is a large block of people who I would describe as enlightenment types, but many of them are religious. The difference between them and the pre-modern, um, more people who are more serious about religion was that, um, you know, they didn't let it get in the way of getting rich, uh, having fun, going on great vacations, raising their kids to, uh, um, be, you know, e even better off in their generation and prepare them for worldly success. Um, and the other worldly stuff was kind of, you know, like Steven was saying, Christmas, um, or Hanukkah or whatever. Um, it was, and I've come, I've come back to this from time to time, and I've seen changes over these years, uh, since nine 11 in particular, I've been aware and many people have of that, that religion seems to be coming back in, um, the, the more serious form, the, the Serious Believers Forum.
Speaker 2 00:26:44 Um, we see this a bit in the, uh, among conservatives in the United States. Uh, we certainly see it with Islamic extremism, um, and which you, you know, rear its head on, um, on nine 11, and really focused our attention on that part of the world and that cultural element, um, in Islam, which, you know, had started long before, uh, as we now as, uh, at least, you know, a lot of, uh, analysts that have now pointed out. But it, um, came to a four and it seemed to be rising and spreading. Um, ed Crane, who was a long time founder and longtime head of the Cato Institute once described the event as the ultimate faith-based initiative. He was, uh, riffing off of, uh, uh, the first, uh, George Bush president anyway, uh, and also in India we see that, um, Modi is, you know, the head of the, uh, of the Hindu oriented party, and he get, gets reelected by major, major, um, majorities.
Speaker 2 00:27:56 So that's very different from the Gandhi years, um, you know, going back in history. So religion does seem to be active. Um, I don't have anywhere near the, um, intellectual, you know, background that Steven just outlined, um, but I did focus it in, in a similar way on, um, what role is this playing in our lives? Um, so the, the chart that I hope you all have access to now is, um, it lists, um, a number of human needs. And I consider these real human needs. That is, they have to be satisfied somehow for people to be happy if flourish and, um, have any, any degree of success in life. But they can be, be met in different ways. And that's what, uh, philosophy, uh, tries to do. Uh, and as I ran off and said, religion is a primitive form of philosophy, trying to answer those same issues.
Speaker 2 00:29:06 So in the chart, you'll see, notice that, uh, the, uh, the first line, first, uh, a bunch of batch of lines are deal with basic philosophical issues, understanding man's place in the universe, uh, or understanding the origin of the universe, understanding nature, controlling nature, which is very important, um, in the, uh, if you go back in the history of religion, uh, understanding life and death, that's a huge one. Uh, so these are, uh, really fundamental questions that any philosophy would have to answer and address. Uh, then we get to more specific things like the conduct of marriage or, um, the, um, uh, rights of passage in life, you know, becoming an adult, getting married, uh, et cetera. Having a, a, a baptism in children. So, um, in, in, in each case, what I did was to, you know, take account of everything I knew. Um, and as I said in the piece that we published, um, this is my intuitive as assessment.
Speaker 2 00:30:22 Um, I'm, I'm not claiming that it's based on extensive, um, empirical research, uh, of which there is quite a bit, and I've seen some of it. But, um, this is just my integration of, of lots of different inputs, uh, about the, does what role does religion play on each of these, uh, human needs? And I divided that into, in some cases it is the main provider for that need. As, for example, um, uh, I assigned that role to moral ideals. I think religion is still the main source for many people's moral ideals, even if they're not, you know, uh, um, dedicated believers. Um, they still tend to accept altruism, which is a religious, has a religious foundation as the moral code, um, that they accept morally to operate on. Um, in some cases though, um, religion has a significant role to play, not Maine, but significant.
Speaker 2 00:31:33 Um, but the, and that's because there are other elements in the culture, other forms of knowledge or practice that, uh, are, can also serve that need. And in some cases, religion just has a minimal role. It has some role, but it's not, it's, it's overwhelmed by some of the, by the other, um, uh, ways of satisfying the need. And finally, in some cases, religion has no role at all. Um, uh, for example, in, uh, understanding nature at this point, um, that's all science now. And, um, you know, the old, you know, we're long past Galileo's uh, conflict with the church about, you know, whether the earth goes around the sun or the sun goes around the earth. So, I, I wanna ask, um, I wanna just pose a couple questions and then open for discussion. Um, my questions are, are my assessments, um, about the role of religion?
Speaker 2 00:32:36 Are those plausible? That's question one. Question two, are there additional roles that, uh, are not included here, but should be? Um, I was trying to think through, you know, all the different things that, um, uh, roles that religion plays in people's lives. Um, but I'm not ent <laugh>, I'm not infallible. And, uh, you know, I'd be very interested in, uh, any additional things. And then there's a final question here that, um, I think Steven touched on a bit to the extent that people embrace religion nominally anyway, you know, they'll say in, in polls by the Pew Center or whatever, that they, they, you know, they're Christian or they're Jewish or Islamic, but they, uh,
Speaker 2 00:33:34 The question is whether the appeal of that religion for a given purpose is sort of by default, that as religion's the only game in town where else you're gonna look for help in raising your kids or giving them some, you know, some idea of what the world's like, or is it, does it really have a, uh, positive, um, draw that it distinguishes it, that people, that makes people want to go with religious explanations as opposed to, you know, secular ones? Uh, philosophical ones. So that's a third, uh, third question. Um, and with that, I want to open the discussion up, um, and talk through, um, the, these various things. Um, any questions about, of course, the questions for Steven as well as for me. Um, and, uh, question, uh, as well as questions about the, um, uh, the role of religion. So I'm gonna turn it back to, um, Scott's Moderation.
Speaker 0 00:34:43 Great, thank you both, uh, great openings. Um, you know, David, uh, the first thing that I thought about, I'm a fan of Abraham Maslow, and, uh, you know, one of his things was that as needs are met, higher level needs arise. And I'm wondering how that plays a role that even, you know, as, as technology advances that, uh, that's changing what people need.
Speaker 2 00:35:11 Well, I think that's probably true, um, uh, in, in, in a very large sense that is, uh, and 1, 1, 1 example of that that's not particularly connected with the religion is, um, risk. Um, you know, you don't have to go too far, far back in, um, history when the major risks that people faced were diseases that killed them. Cuz there was no cure. There were droughts that killed their crops and they starved. Um, we don't deal with that anymore. Uh, we have advanced medicine, we have, um, uh, food supply that is, uh, amp amply abundant, uh, at whatever income level you have. So people, but, uh, I, I think people have a, a kind of internal set point for anxiety. If, if they're not worried about, um, a plague or drought anymore, well, they'll worry about something else, like, uh, kids getting stolen on the street or, uh, you know, uh, pedophiles everywhere or the, um, various conspiracy theories that arise that, um, kind of provide people with some, oh, okay, I, now I have something to worry about.
Speaker 2 00:36:34 Um, so, uh, in that sense, I think technology as, um, has in advancing our standard of living has also raised the, um, had the effect of shifting the locus of, of people's fear of risk. But that's a, there's kind of a side point here. The, I I think MAs, there's a lot to be said for Maslow's, uh, hierarchy. Um, but at the same time, historically, religion goes back, uh, long before, as far as we can tell, archeologically long before the earliest civilizations, people have always believed in some form of supernatural being, uh, who needed to be, um, uh, addressed, prayed to supplicating with sacrifices, et cetera. Um, and this is at a time when people were, you know, in the hunting gathering phase. So they had no, um, you know, they, they were still struggling to meet their, you know, biological needs, uh, for food and shelter. Uh, so in that sense, I don't think, um, religion is a, uh, quite the spiritual luxury that, um, you might think if you're going solely by Maslow, I think it is, uh, has much deeper roots in human, um, human nature and human society.
Speaker 0 00:38:02 Well, um, I'll, uh, I'll get back to that. I wanna invite others, uh, but I, I can, uh, I definitely have some questions as well, Steven, I really appreciate you, um, talking about how there are different degrees and, and differentiating, uh, between how religious someone is. I feel like too many, especially in the Liberty movement, will just say, you know, make these bla blanket statements like, uh, religious people can't be for liberty, and things like that. And it just, it doesn't apply to someone like a, a, you know, Christmas Christian, for example. And it, uh, you know, when they're like that, I mean, it, is it necessary to, uh, spend so much time, you know, trying to convert them versus trying to see where we can get value from each other.
Speaker 1 00:38:58 Um, yeah, I think the, yeah, the immediate implication from what you're saying is a kind of rhetorical point. Um, yeah, I think a lot of times people are engaged with religion issues and they've come down on one side or the other of the arguments, and then when they get into discussions, they're much more focused on articulating their own views, uh, uh, rather than listening to the other person's, uh, views and, and context. So once you get past that phase, and you know, what you think, if you're genuinely interested in having, uh, you know, discussions that are gonna go somewhere with, uh, people with whom you disagree, it's necessary to spend some time getting to know, in particular what religion means to them, what particular doctrines they subscribe to. And then as, as you suggested, even that comes in degrees. Cause, uh, some people are more or less committed to, uh, to particular doctrines. And that takes a, a certain amount of work.
Speaker 1 00:40:08 I mean, I wanna say, sometimes it goes the other way. Uh, you know, the irritation, uh, that I know a lot of religious people have, it's not just people in the liberty movement, but people who are atheists who will just say religious people are all cut from the same cloth, and then a standard set of dismissive arguments. The same thing goes the other way. People who are religious will say, oh, you're an atheist. And then they've got a very, uh, you know, truncated, uh, uh, abstract understanding of what it means to be an atheist. You know, not recognizing that, uh, atheism actually doesn't predict very much about what a person's positive beliefs are gonna be. And people can still be all over the map.
Speaker 0 00:40:55 Great.
Speaker 2 00:40:56 Just add, add something to, to Steven's point. Um, I think that's absolutely right. Atheism tells, you know, if someone says, I'm an atheist, it says, what? I don't believe, it doesn't tell you anything about what he does believe. Um, but related to that, I think many, much of a certain portion of the hostility, I, I won't, you know, try to specify how much, but a certain proportion of the hostility that religious people feel toward atheists is they interpret atheism is mean as meaning. You don't believe in anything. You don't have standards. And one way that I've, um, I've tried to address that when it's come up in my own discussions with people is, yeah, I believe in something. Um, I think there's an objective right and wrong, and, um, some things are true and some things are not true. Um, I, I just don't have the same anchor. I, I don't believe in the same anchor that you do. And that puts that our, our approach, I think into the same context as, you know, uh, Christians typically don't make that claim against, um, the Jews, for example. You don't believe in anything. Of course, they believe in something, um, or Buddhists for that matter. Um, so, uh, I, I I think it's the, um, uh, the honey negative and disreputable nature of, of pe what people assume about atheism. Um, that is the problem, not the real, um, not the real philosophical issues.
Speaker 0 00:42:41 Great. Uh, we'll go to jp. Jp, thanks for joining. Thank
Speaker 4 00:42:46 You, Scott. Um, so I, I, I, um, was born Catholic, and, um, I went through a lot of cognitive dissonance when I was a kid. I never bought into religion very much. And, uh, it was only after my formative years that I became agnostic, I would say. And I was, I, I've been agnostic for a long time, and when I found philosophy and I found objectivism, and as a new actual source of morality, I, I've been feeling content about the whole thing. Uh, but that said, I've always felt that, um, I am a cultural Christian, and that, um, that aspect of my, my value system and my worldview has been useful. And, and I think it, I don't know if it was, uh, Richard Dawkins or or Christopher Hitchens that said that the net effect of religion in humanity and civilization has been positive, even with all the inco and the Holy Wars and everything that has everything bad that can be attributed to religion in the end for society and for Western civilization, Christianity has, has been a net positive. What what are your views on that?
Speaker 1 00:44:30 Uh, Steven, do you wanna start out on that? Um, okay, that's a, that's a, that's a huge question. Um, so I'm gonna take the, the easier one, the net effect of religion. I wanna say, uh, yes, I'm more sympathetic to that. Cause I think if you go, you know, 300,000 years of human history, um, humans do need to believe in something rather than believing in nothing. And if you have a, uh, a worldview that is religious, that's gonna be better than nothing. And so just having that is gonna enable human beings to, to advance. Um, so the, the thought experiment then would be to imagine human beings not having had any religion ever versus having had some religion. And my sense is that religion has been a net positive force in that way. My, uh, uh, and again, there's a huge amount history that needs to be, uh, through and integrated is say that when religion starts to become clearly a, uh, a net negative is when, uh, it gets more sophisticated and entrenched.
Speaker 1 00:45:55 And then, uh, there's a doubling down on the more irrational elements. So if you have, for example, a society in which people have, say, a more naturalistic religion, and they have, uh, you have certain rights of passage and they believe, say, an animal deities, but that the world is kinda cause and effect. Uh, and, and so they have a religion that's giving them a cause and effect understanding of the world. It's giving them some sense that they can interact with the, with the causal forces and get them on their side. And so a little more optimistic, they've got some, some rules that help their society hang together. That's, that's not, not bad, but if you then have a more sophisticated society, and people start saying things like, well, is it really true? And then lots of people start to say, well, maybe the arguments aren't very good, but the advocates of the religion then turn to non-rational methodologies.
Speaker 1 00:47:00 They say, exert a power play and say, well, uh, stop asking those questions. Those are dangerous questions. And we're things, uh, just accept things on faith. Uh, and to the extent that theyre successful and that kind of, uh, power play and cognitive undermining, then, uh, they're starting to, uh, introduce more negativity, uh, into that culture and making it ultimately less, less, uh, less functional. So I think those sophisticated power play religions and ones that are more explicitly non-rational are more dangerous than the more primitive religions. And to the extent that they start to become more dominant than in those times and places, religion is gonna be a net negative.
Speaker 0 00:47:58 It's like when the Medici became the Pope <laugh>. Um, I, I love the idea of invoking causal forces. That's a good generalized way of asking for help. David, did you wanna say anything?
Speaker 2 00:48:17 Um, yeah, I just, I'm gonna launch a quick thought. Um, that's, uh, very broad too. Uh, I think, um, what Steven is saying is, you know, agrees with everything I understand about the history of religion, but at the same time, if you look at any religious tradition, Christianity, Islam, uh, and I assume it's true of the, um, Eastern religions, Hinduism and, and Buddhism, which I know less about. Um, what you see when you look at any, anyone, is that over the, over the centuries that it has, uh, that religion has existed and been practiced, it takes very, very different forms. And those forms are, uh, reflect other cultural factors. So that, um, you know, in, in, in the light, in the enlightenment, as you know, even people who were quite serious about religion tended still to be, you know, favorable to reason and, uh, you know, in favor of, of maximizing human, um, human enjoyment and success in, in this world. Um, as opposed to, and you could say same thing of, of, uh, Islam in a, in the, um, eight hundreds, nine hundreds, um, there were some great philosophers, um, of Islam. It was very open, it was Hungary for insight from all other kinds of traditions, both from Greece, uh, to the west and India to the east, uh, before it closed down and became monolithic and an exclusionary. And then it eventually took the form today as it did sometimes in the past of, of being, um, uh, militantly, dogmatic and violent. So the, um,
Speaker 2 00:50:14 But that, that, that's my only point, really. And, um, you know, just to bring it up to today, I think what we see is that, um, many people will say they're Christian or they're religious, um, but that doesn't, they don't, very few, um, murderers sitting on, on pillars out in the desert. We have a few nuts who do that. But, um, you know, you just don't see, uh, people doing that a lot. Um, and why, because because the children of the enlightenment, uh, in America, uh, to take that example, but of, you know, we of Western values and, uh, western, um, you know, uh, view of life. So anyway, I'll, I'll, I'll stop there.
Speaker 0 00:51:05 One of your points is about, you know, uh, social network, uh, support network, social connections, and yeah, that's interweaving and I think plays as much of a role about whether a religion is maybe, uh, playing the, the good guy role or the bad guy role with, as with many, uh, social hierarchies. But, um, you've got, uh, another one about, uh, understanding life and death. And I, I think to some extent, I think fear of death is a major thing that, that has driven people into religion since we've been able to understand the concept.
Speaker 2 00:51:49 Well, I think that's, that's, that's absolutely true. Um, and you know, I've, I've talked to religious people that I've, I I've been, you know, close enough to, to, um, you know, talk about some of these more intimate questions. And, uh, one of them, one of the questions is, you know, what, what does religion do for you? And very often the answer will be the first answer, not the only one, but the first answer will be, um, I'll get to see my, my husband again, or I'll get to see my parents again. Um, not quite like, I'll get to see Aristotle and shake his hand, but, um, what, it was just my dream. But, um, otherwise, you know, the idea that, um, oh, even, even today, I think that has a bite. If you go back in time to the medieval period, there was a, you know, a sense, Steven, you, you weigh in on this cuz it's historical, but, um, that this life is a veil of tears. And, um, but you should practice virtue, um, be a good believer and you'll be rewarded in the next life because this life sucks. So I think that's an important issue. Yeah.
Speaker 0 00:53:20 Is that the basis of almost the kind of platonic world of forms? There are two worlds, one better and one terrible in base.
Speaker 2 00:53:35 I suppose there's a relation I wouldn't have thought of that. So I'm just gonna pass, let that, let that one slide. It's deserving more thought. Or someone like Steven who knows more <laugh>.
Speaker 0 00:53:53 Well, uh, I do wanna, uh, let's go to, uh, lunatic libertarian. Thanks for joining us.
Speaker 5 00:54:01 Thank you for having me on stage. I really appreciate that with society. Uh, I would say that when it comes to a religious aspect or any, uh, rule of morality is, is what we're talking about. So the rule of morality to one culture or one religion is different to the next, uh, when we live in the United States, the, the freedom of religion or the freedom of assembly gives you the practice of your tradition regardless of anybody other's opinion under the law of the Constitution. So if, if we look at, if religion is morality and morality driven by religion, where, where, where, where's the moral compass for humanity when there's such a difference across cultures of what's acceptable and what is not acceptable across morality?
Speaker 2 00:55:04 Well, I'll, I'll, I'll get, get us started on that. It's a great question. I'll get us started on that. Um,
Speaker 2 00:55:14 One of the things I remember back when I was writing about the, uh, the culture wars, um, was a conservative writer who said, it's important to believe in, to accept a religion, to believe in a religion. It doesn't matter which one. And I thought, well, that kind of says it all, uh, <laugh>, I was surprised to find so bold the statement because you know, what it's saying is that religion, it's not which religion is true. Um, like we would ask about, you know, which, uh, scientific hypothesis is true, but rather just religion as such. And, but I think there's a point, uh, there's a kind of, uh, rationale behind that because if you look at the ethical systems of most major religions, they're very similar. I mentioned altruism before. That's common across every religion. Uh, as well as a whole lot of secular, philosophical, ethical theories.
Speaker 2 00:56:12 Um, uh, you a lot of, uh, you know, morality has to do with, um, uh, child racing families, rites of passage and obligations of parents to children, children to parents and so forth. And, you know, uh, whatever you're, that that's, that's a fact about human life. And it's something that almost every religion will deal with in one form or another. But there that, I think the differences be between, among religions, um, are broadly speaking maybe even less than the differences within religions, because those get down to details like, um, what's the proper role of jihad? Is it just means the internal struggle, or does it mean killing the, the in fiddles? Um, but I'm, um, that's not quite a detail. Um, I don't mean to mean it, but you still, you know, Islam is still defined by the, uh, the five articles. I can't remember all of them, but, um, you know, giving away a 10th of your income or something like that is, uh, one of the five principles recognizing Allah, uh, not that different from the 10 Commandments in Judaism or the, you know, Christian, uh, uh, what is it called? The, uh, a Apostles Creed.
Speaker 0 00:57:41 Steven, is your hand up? I,
Speaker 1 00:57:46 Yes. I'm trying to signal that I have a, I have a question to get on the queue.
Speaker 0 00:57:50 Sure.
Speaker 1 00:57:52 Uh, I also have a question for, uh, for David's chart, which i, I like very much. Um, but I wonder if adding a couple of lines, uh, emphasizing more cognitive, uh, uh, rules for religion, uh, and these might be ones that cut across some of the content lines here. So if say, for example, the idea of the felt need for certainty in one's life or whatever your beliefs are, that it's not enough to, uh, just have sort of probabilistic theories or rough and ready things, you, you need to have certainty. So if we take, for example, moral rules, the person might say, well, you know, absent God, we might in a naturalistic way get some rough and ready practical rules that we would all abide by, but there wouldn't be anything that, that made them kinda certain or absolute right? Or in the category of understanding nature, yes, you know, science can do a lot to help us understand nature, but you know, maybe science is, it's changing all the time and it's, it's probabilistic, uh, and I want something that's more robust.
Speaker 1 00:59:08 I want to have a, uh, an understanding of nature and where the world came from. That's, and I can believe it certainly, so would need for certainty, uh, count as another kinda role that religion provides. And then related, related point, if I could just put this one while I'm, the, another thing is that in many cases, uh, philosophy and science can provide, uh, all of these things here. But typically science is very hard and mathematical philosophy is very abstract and general. And that what religion is doing is, uh, satisfying all of these needs. But the religions, uh, uh, in providing their answers, pitch them at a more concrete level and a more perceptual level. So it's not just a bunch of general moral, you know, principles that you need to exercise judgment on their very concrete rules. It's not general, uh, principles of physics and biochemistry that the universe operates in terms of rather the, it's a, it's a personified being a God or the Gods. And so what religion then is doing is providing, in this case a cognitive need to have, uh, one's philosophy of life presented in a more perceptual and and concrete level form.
Speaker 2 01:00:46 Yeah, those are great questions, Steven. Um, I th I, I agree completely with the, um, the idea that religion provides a kind of certainty. Um, it's, you know, it's one thing to say, for example, why should you not steal from your neighbor? And objective is will give you, you know, even in, in short form a three page paper. Um, and the Christian will say, cuz God said so 10 commandments. Uh, and that is, um, both, it feels more certain. And because it doesn't, you don't have to analyze an argument and, or, you know, the complicated inference. But at the same time, it, uh, it's easy. I, it is a phenomenon that I think cuts across a lot of fields, not just religion, human beings. Um, you know, one, one thing about cognition is that it takes effort and some people don't like effort. And so there, uh, in every field, in every question we can raise, uh, or discuss, there is what I call a phenomenon of get certain quick by analogy with get rich quick.
Speaker 2 01:02:04 I wanna take some kind of shortcut to, uh, you know, get to that, get to the goodies, which in this case would be certainty. Um, but it's, it's fully comparable to people who want to get rich quick by, um, cutting all sorts of corners. However, I do think that certainty is a, is a genuine need. And, um, uh, I'll have to think about adding it to the chart because as you said, it does, um, it does apply to so many of the things on the chart already. So it's, it's kind of like a meta, uh, value, but that it's really important. Um, I just on and the second point, um, about religion versus science, there's actually been a fair amount of, uh, psychological research on this. I mean, there's a huge field of psychology, of religion, uh, which I'm far from an expert in. But one of the things, one of the points that, um, is made sometimes, um, is that religion is just easier.
Speaker 2 01:03:08 And why is it easier, um, easier to grasp in science? Well, religion, um, is just based on some things that everyone gets from childhood on that. Um, it's, uh, you know, we, we think in terms of Asian causality, that's our first form, first awareness of causality. I did it, or mom did it, it, that's why it happened. So it's very, um, natural to think that whatever happens in the world, someone's doing it. Someone's responsible for it, someone's to blame for it or whatever. Um, we are very, uh, attuned psychologically to other, you know, other minds and understanding, uh, other minds as, as people as themselves. Not only visit, you know, causal agents, but, um, cognitive agents. And so, you know, we expect, um, that the source of knowledge may trace, trace back to, um, a cognitive agent, a supreme being who's omniscient and, and, uh, uh, you know, who's never wrong, knows everything there are, uh, whereas science is hard.
Speaker 2 01:04:27 It's not natural in the same way. You have to learn enough. Um, you have to detach from the agent centered, everything is caused by some de deliberate agent in nature, um, to no causality is, um, the basic part of physical nature. Um, and we study it, uh, on its own terms. So, but that's not natural. And then specific, the, the whole epistemology of establishing particular scientific, uh, conclusions, even at a fairly low level, like, um, uh, gravity took human beings, um, centuries to do. And I, I don't know how many people would, could give you the, uh, proof of Newton's law of gravity, um, or the evidence, you know, what led him to that? It's hard. Uh, it, it requires a lot of study. So that makes religion, the argument here is that religion comes much more naturally to people cognitively than science does. Um, and so I think that's a factor also.
Speaker 0 01:05:41 Great. Uh, well, I want to give Richard a chance, senior scholar Richard Salzman is joining us. Thanks for being here. Richard, do you have a question? Well,
Speaker 6 01:05:53 I, this is a great conversation. Thanks, both of you. Just following up on what, um, David just said that, uh, uh, Ayran famously in an interview said, um, something like religion is a primitive form of philosophy. Something like, it gives you canned answers to like real, genuine questions. So I think that's one of the, one of the great things about what you've achieved David in the Atlas society, is this appreciation for religious folk who are looking for philosophy, view of the universe, the origins, ethical codes. And then of course, then the idea would be, yeah, but we need a rational set of, and the, the difficulty, I, I hadn't heard it put that way before. It's very interesting because she's, she, and by the way, those are from the Tom Snyder interview, if you wanna look it up. I think it's 1979 TV interview. Fascinating, cuz Snyder, himself was a Catholic.
Speaker 6 01:06:56 And the conversation between him and Randolph is fascinating because the fear of death issue does come up. And she quotes, I think Lucretius and others saying, well, why would you fear that where you are death is not, you know, where death issue or not. It's like, you're sleeping. Why would you be aware of it? So, and he was, he's quizzical about listening to it. He was interested. And she also said something interesting about, wouldn't you treat every moment of your life more special if you knew there was no afterlife? And that really influenced, so just from the standpoint of talking with a religious person, that interview with that five minute segment on just religion is fascinating because she doesn't get mad at him. She doesn't ridicule him. But the other thing I'm thinking, David, here's my real question. She was also asked many times, um, how much an objective this really has to get into philosophy.
Speaker 6 01:07:47 And I think she said, or Leonard might have said something like, there's philosophy for Hugh Axton and there's philosophy for weird. And the idea was Ru's philosophy, we all need philosophy, but she acknowledged that we needed at different levels. If you're a professional philosopher, that's different than, you know, if you're a steel magnate. But if you continue that argument and go further and say, you know, philosophy for the truck driver, philosophy for the waitress at the diner, is this really what's happening? Could it be just simply that at that level people need a quick and dirty, you know, gimme a code, gimme a 10 list code of what to do. It's not philosophy for reardon or accident. It's philosophy for the waitress, if you will. And that makes it more plausible, doesn't it?
Speaker 2 01:08:41 Um, I see
Speaker 6 01:08:42 That they would hold to it.
Speaker 2 01:08:44 Yeah. I, I see the, um, the spectrum. You're, you're laying out. But I think there's, it's not, there's more than a quantitative difference between, um, axton, there is one between axon and ridden, but between ridden, let's say in the truck driver or, you know, um, I don't know. My experience is that I've, I've seen mental initiative and curiosity about the world and people of all different traits. I had a builder working on a house I owned for a while, and we had great conversations. Um, and um, cause he was curious. He wanted to know everything. And more career is more open-minded than a lot of people, uh, with PhDs that I've met. So the, um, I'm not sure, but I it, but yes, uh, some people going about their ordinary lives who maybe are not, um, intellectually as gifted, um, still need a philosophy. And, but I still think, you know, you don't need to go to the mythology of religion to have that.
Speaker 2 01:10:10 Um, I mean, think about, think about kids. You know, the Santa Claus myth. Well, until you're, you know, four or five or whatever, say you can't, oh my god, mom put the cruise out. Santa's coming. And uh, and then you see packages in the morning. They just, where do they come from? Santa Claus. Well, at some point you realize, you know, you're told or you come to the realization, no, there's no Santa Claus. Mom and dad did that. Uh, yeah. Yeah. And it, it's not a, I think for most people it's not a huge blow. It's just, uh, <laugh>, uh, a different explanation. And in the psycho psychological literature, which I was referring to before, there are also people who say, um, children are much more willing to believe in unobservables that are in nature. Like, um, you know, the, uh, water vapor in clouds or something.
Speaker 2 01:11:10 Then they are to believe in, um, something out of nature. Super net natural. Yeah. Uh, unobserved, uh, for that they need cultural input from parents, teachers, culture at large. So I think, um, I think people can get to at least a simple form. My life is mine. I'm gonna live at the best I can. Um, you know, we use my mind, what else have I got? And, um, you know, I, fairness is in, in treating people is not, it kind of comes naturally. Anyone who comes out of a family has some experience of fairness and unfairness. Um, so I'm not sure I would, um, mm-hmm. <affirmative>, give religion as much credit, uh, on, on that score.
Speaker 6 01:11:59 And your, your follow up, your earlier point about the conservative David, any religion, just have some religion. If the, the alternative, if the alternative is nihilism, if the alternative is, if you see spreading today, okay. The polls show that people are becoming less religious, but they're not substituting for that say, objectivism, but rather nihilism, the postmodern movement, all that. Nothing is knowable and everything is, yeah. Up some gender and all that stuff is, you could see why someone would say, could you please believe in something however primitive rather than nothing, which is thoroughly destructive. Um, maybe that's where he's coming from. Uh, anyway, thanks David. Thanks, both of you are really learning a lot here. Thanks.
Speaker 0 01:12:47 We'll go to Steven then. Lunatic.
Speaker 1 01:12:51 Thank you, Scott. I have another, uh, question for David about his, his great chart. And it focuses on the, the last line, which is, uh, artistic experience, uh, which I think is, is a, is a need. And then the assessment of the role of religion now, uh, as, as minimal. And, uh, I was thinking about that. It strikes me that, uh, religions historically and even to this day, are really, uh, polarized in an almost schizophrenic way when it comes to, uh, art. There are some religions that seem to see art as a, as an enemy, perhaps. Cause art is such a powerful provider of, uh, certain needs that we have that they see it as a, a competitive threat, so they want to stamp it out. So all of the, the, the early history of Christianity of, you know, uh, uh, smashing sculptures and bonfires of the, of the vanities and so on.
Speaker 1 01:13:55 And that, uh, uh, replicated in, uh, the Taliban in, in, uh, in Afghanistan going into the museum in Kabul, and literally with hammers, you know, smashing as many, uh, uh, artistic, uh, uh, pieces as they, as they possibly could, or in some religious traditions, having explicit prohibitions on, on creating visual imagery and sta. And so, uh, so it's like the, the need is important. And in that case, uh, religion says, we want to provide all of the needs in this area. So we're gonna eliminate art as a, as a competitor. Um, and then other religions seem to go the other way. They, uh, embrace religion and build beautiful cathedrals and, uh, uh, you know, to the point of barness stuffing them every, with art, with gorgeous stain glass windows and, and carvings and using art, uh, in an integrated way with their religion, uh, and music as well. Incorporating music seriously into their, uh, into their thinking of churches in gospel where there's a huge amount of music. And, uh, almost the entire ceremony is, is built around that kinda artistic experience and a lot of theater in the way the preacher speaks in, uh, many of the Southern Baptist. So there's theater and music and statuary and, and all sorts of aesthetic elements with respect to the clothing. So, so I guess my general question is we say, um, is that accurate or does it depend on religion?
Speaker 2 01:16:02 Yeah, that's another great question, Steven. I, I worried about that, um, and went back and forth on that line. Um, you know, minimal or, um, significant. It, it certainly, historically it has been hugely significant. Um, and, you know, at times the main source of artistic experience. And, you know, all you have to do is walk into, you know, as you were saying, you know, walk into a cathedral like Notre Dame or, or, uh, St. Patrick's in New York, and it just blown away by the, uh, the visual iconography, the visual, uh, detail. Uh, and then the music, um, is just, it's some of the, you know, by my amateur standards, um, some of the best music ever written. Um, and
Speaker 2 01:16:55 So art was a, what I mean, I, I take that as a reflection of a point Ran, made that art is a conization of your view of the world. And churches that, um, religions that, uh, have, have made a lot of use of that to Concord eyes, the stories, and, um, just hold the attention of people who may not be able to follow the, uh, you know, the whole sermon. But they're looking around. And even Islam, which, uh, of course, uh, and the earlier some forms of Christianity with the i, uh, iconoclast people who were breaking up the icons in, um, Islam, which for, for bad any representation of a human being, because only God can create a human, uh, much less of God himself. All, uh, but Islamic art, there's a, you know, they just put their artistic ability in, in another form. Um, and if you look at, um, some of the mosques, uh, and other things in Islamic, Spain, um, the part of Spain that was Islamic or, uh, in, uh, Baghdad, if they're still there, um, there was, it was, it was artistically sophisticated.
Speaker 2 01:18:19 Um, it just didn't take the form of visual representation of human beings or anything that could be modeled as a human. So I think that was a, um, just a point of that, that Islam took that direction, um, as against icons, um, and rather than Christian view, which was against icons for, for at certain times and certain branches, but, you know, made peace with it and then went on and made a lot of it. So I think that, um, historically art artistic experience was maybe at, at some times was the main source of, uh, artistic, uh, satisfaction. But today, I don't think the, that religion is generating kind of art, art has just, my sense is that it's kind of separated off. We have, um, you know, look at the paintings of the 19th century and 20th century, the music, um, music. I don't see a strong connection with religion there. Um, I'm not an expert, so this is a kind of, um, judgment on which I would, uh, you know, like, like a better opinion.
Speaker 0 01:19:37 All right. Well, uh, lunatic, thank you. I know you've been waiting with another question.
Speaker 5 01:19:43 Uh, uh, thank you again for, uh, having me on stage. I really appreciate it. Um, uh, I, the first thing I'm gonna say is I think this is a very monotheistic, uh, uh, I ideology, um, as far as history is concerned, um, I'm a Norris Pagan. So, um, my religious philosophy drives off of, uh, um, quote unquote myths from, uh, certain 15th century, uh, writings that we know as the pros, Edith or, um, any other of the, the monks that wrote about, uh, the Vikings during that time. And the Vikings is, it's an occupation of a certain people. So, um, it's a, it's a very, uh, uh, condensed version of, of history. But what I wanna say is that, um, I, I, I think that idea ideologically, when you talk about religion and going, what I presented before, when it comes to about, uh, morality, uh, one of the things that brought me to the Norris Pagan religion is, uh, military experience.
Speaker 5 01:20:55 Uh, military experience is something that, uh, will show you if, if, if you talk to any veteran, especially in a group sense, say you got like 10, 12, uh, vets, uh, uh, from occupations that are documented, uh, worldwide as far as, uh, um, the scripture for the Department of Defense. But, um, uh, it, it's funny, if you talk to those veterans and you wanna talk about a symphony of music, right? We would, they, they talk about, um, uh, weapons, fire and stuff like that. So, and then if you talk about ideology or idols that you worship it, it, it, it, then it turns into what do I, what do I worship Is, is my, uh, a weapon because it's a part of my survival. So when you can manipulate the brain to say that we have one religion versus another, which has been propagated as I'm not saying that's what it is, a monotheistic, uh, ideology versus another monotheistic ideology, then you can have a, uh, a holy war or a jihad, right? So, um, that's across countries. Then when we talk about what give a chance, answer, I, but I'm not, uh, gimme 30 seconds, I'm not done yet. Um, when it, when it, when it comes to the, uh, philosophy of morality and how a person's survival or a human being's survival is derived from that morality, how is religion the baseline for that is my question, whether it's monotheistic or, uh, uh, polytheistic or whatever.
Speaker 2 01:22:54 Well, um, question I want to defer to Steven, um, and others who are more con, more conversant with it. But, uh, it seems to me that, um,
Speaker 2 01:23:08 You know, I just, I think of the, um, jihadist who, uh, you know, blow themselves up. They're going to meet aah, they're going to, uh, the heaven. Uh, so that, that idea of a survival that, you know, you know, dying in battle is an honorable thing. Um, partly for secular reasons. That is, it shows your courage and your, um, commitment to, you know, the standards, whatever they're, whatever they are, chi, religion or whatever. But, um, it, there's so many examples of people saying, people feeling, um, yeah, uh, I'm willing to risk that because there's an, a life beyond. I'm not, I'm not sure I got understood the question fully, but I, let's let, um, anyone else jump in on that.
Speaker 5 01:24:04 Well, hold on. Uh, the, the question really was, is how do we manipulate the brain to have a predetermined outcome for the action that the body presents? I, I guess that's what it really boils down to.
Speaker 2 01:24:21 Uh, well, it's a psychological question and military has spent a lot of time on this. Um, I just think you had a lot of discipline, a lot of training, and, um, my understanding is that people go into very dangerous occupations like police farm and, uh, military soldiers, um, are not trained to face to go out and get killed. They're trained to avoid death by careful, uh, expertise. But, um, I, let me turn it back to Scott, cuz I know we were getting short.
Speaker 0 01:24:57 Tom. Uh, yeah, I just had, uh, one final question because you alluded to this idea that, you know, these people say that without, uh, religion, you know, anything goes, or there'd be no morality. And, you know, obviously as objective as we don't see it that way, but can you appreciate that Christians may look at it and say, okay, well, since we went away from religion, we've, you know, let's look at how well atheist Russia has done for human rights, or atheist China, or, you know, Hitler wasn't particularly religious, and so that's what they've, they've come to see as, as this, you know, what the fall of religion has done for humanity.
Speaker 2 01:25:41 Well, the short answer to that would be, uh, yeah. Um, you could <laugh> there was an equal horror in Nazi Germany, and they were, uh, uh, I, they had some kind of spiritual, uh, believer quasi religion. But, you know, the test of it, here's a, here's a empirical test you could run. Um, just take a cross, uh, a survey of people, um, across different points of view, different philosophies, and, uh, Christian, um, Muslim, uh, and objectivist, and look at the rates of, um, broken families, um, uh, minor crime. And I bet objectives will come out fairly good on that. I mean, you just don't see a lot of objectives holding up seven elevens. Um, and, uh, granted, we're a small group, but, um, we, we have, you know, the same cross section of, of, uh, demography I think. So, you know, that's just a bad argument, it just really bad argument,
Speaker 0 01:26:55 But it's what they've come to. I'm trying to understand why, you know, someone like a Dennis Prager, you know, becomes a skeptic of the enlightenment, and it's because he is tying people like K or Rousseau into it and the, you know, and, and they're just looking at these consequences of, of, of socialism that came after it. But, um, this has been, uh, a really good topic. Uh, I'm glad that you both, uh, chose to do it. Any, uh, final thoughts on, um, you know, your chart and things to look for or, uh, for suggestions?
Speaker 2 01:27:42 Well, I was just, uh, go back to the questions I asked before. Um, are there, uh, additional needs that should be added to the chart and are the different assessments that I made intuitively, um, about the role of religion for each of these needs, uh, are, are those plausible? We've talked a bit about the, uh, art and artistic, uh, experience. Uh, that's a great one to think about. And, uh, so, um, you know, my, my information is, and I think all of our information is, uh, contact information is on the Atlas Society website, so I'd be interested in hearing.
Speaker 0 01:28:25 Great. Yeah, they can definitely, uh, email me scott atlas society.org. I'm happy to forward, uh, any kind of information if, uh, if yours isn't on there. But, uh, again, thank you both so much for doing this. Uh, next week, uh, Tuesday at 4:00 PM we're having a special happy hour clubhouse, Lawrence and I will be talking to the founder of Liberland v Jed Leeka. That should be good. And then, um, actually Tuesday after that, uh, the Atla Society is going to be doing its first Twitter space. That's gonna be Tuesday the 27th at 6:00 PM Eastern. Uh, that's gonna be with our C E o Jennifer Grossman and Rob Rasinski on what is self-interest. So, uh, definitely looking forward to both of those. Uh, we will, uh, see everybody next time. And, uh, again, thanks everyone who participated and just joined.
Speaker 8 01:29:25 All right, thanks everyone.
Speaker 0 01:29:27 Take care.
