Big brains and brutality
The Sunday Times carries an article about a new book, Everything Bad is Good For You by Steven Johnson, which controversially claims that the traditional bête noires of the censorious right, computer games and television, are actually making people more intelligent.
John Beyer is unmoved:
All these advances are morally neutral in themselves. But if you become skilful at brutally killing people on screen, it dulls the brain and the conscience and may damage the psychology of the player. We become desensitised and are less likely to be shocked when we see it in real life.
comments the smut-campaigner.
Yeah Beyer’s right. After spending hours slaughtering people on my mate’s PC copy of Doom 3 my brain was dulled and now I want to go around killing everyone I see.
Oh and when I hear on the news of people being killed I think “Oh how funny is that!
YEAAAAAAAAAAAAAH RIGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHT!
Twat!
If you’re planning on killing people…why don’t you take a trip down to Christian Voice and let out your anger there…
If you really want to go out and kill people, become a dogmatic religious beleiver.
Look at the examples, from Hypatia, through the crusades, the Inquisition, the wars of religion, down to the killing fields of Cambodia and the twin towers …
All following the holy cause …..
Amen to that. Though the connection is neither necessary nor sufficient. A morerounded picture would include: Some of the greatest atrocities were performed by atheist communists. Some of the greatest ppl of peace were powered by their faith.
How typical, equating communism with great atrocities and thus implying that atheism thus makes things worse than religion.
The religious are usually silent about fascist atrocities, mainly because they were supported by the catholic church and the predominantly arab world.
The only reason greater numbers of pepople were killed in the 20th century in not necessarily overtly religious wars (although the Spanish civil war hada stron religious element, with the catholics supporting and harbouring the nationalists) is because of the mechanisation of killing.
If you’re relying on swordsmen on horseback or on trebuchets, then you’re not going to kill as many people as with tanks and aeroplans and machine guns.
Also, the reason totalitarian states (which is the real problem, not any particular political ideology) were able to get away with killing so many of their own is because they lacked a foundation in human rights. It’s the freedoms that acceptance of these give us that provides security from unwarranted molestation by the state.
Exactly! Totalitarianism is the problem. The division into so-called ‘religious’ and ‘non-religious’ obscures the issue (Ive never been able to understand the term ‘religious’, and what it means.). The common denominator is that ppl have ideologies which they hold to dogmatically rather than in a reasoned manner.
If I detect a tendency to maximise what you call the religious and minimise the non-religious, that gives me cause to pause: of such stuff are agendas made. Rather, each case should be treated on its own merits.
The OED gives a pretty fair definition
Put ’em together and you’ve pretty much got what religious means to pretty much everyone who speaks English
Oh, and it’s not about trying to minimise the non-religious crimes against humanity, it’s just about identifying the thing which links all inhumane regimes together, namely a lack of respect for human rights. you say that totalitarianism is wrong, yet you also scorn one of the fundamental safeguards against it. What’s the deal with that?
Has anyone ever read a Dylan Thomas poem entitled something like ‘The hand that signed the paper dropped the bomb’?
There’s no serious evidence for the idea that people are numbed by computer games or violent TV. The whole selling point is that they know it IS a game or a movie and no-one will get hurt. You enjoy it because ‘you’ always win and the ‘bad guy’ loses – unlike the real world!
By comparison, if you study any of the great atrocities of the 20th century, what is remarkable about it isn’t the extreme preaching of the charismatic leader (Hitler, Stalin etc.) but the way in which millions of people play a part, even though they think they are doing nothing more than their job. If there is a numbing of the senses, it’s more to do with the way that anyone, however well meaning, can be part of a genocidal act because few of us know what the real end ‘product’ of our work is.
According to the definition given, Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism etc are not religions. Finding a catch-all definition has proved difficult. The Encyclopedia of Philosophy 1967 (ed. Paul Edwards) cites ‘religion’ as a classic example of a vague word (article ‘vagueness’) & I would agree.
Re: human rights
One should not scorn human rights per se. The world would be a million times worse without them. Of course, the whole idea of rights (esp rights without responsibilities) can mean ppl playing the system.