(requested by Revolutionary.) I'm rather intrigued by the premise. So how are moderate believers more dangerous than extremists? I'm not aware of any moderate suicide bombers!

This message was deleted by the player at 17:50, Tue 08 May 2012.

The critique of moderation will focus on 3 areas.

I Moderates provide cover for extremists and becomes indistinguishable from religious infighting

II Moderate faith is self-contradictory

III Moderate faith is a deterrent to creativity, progress, and human wellbeing.

It’s hard to say which aspect of moderate faith produces the biggest disadvantages for the world.

However, it’s the quality of religious moderation that makes it seem “reasonable by virtue of being in the middle” that is the most harmful.

Why?

Because it successfully markets and package “faith based reasoning”.  The more paletable something is, the more likely it will be adopted.  However, palatability is not a “truth finding principle” (in fact, truth seems to be uniquely unpalatable and while still evolving will never become “intuitively neat and tidy”; take for example the idea of light being “both and neither” a wave/particle)
Having said that, to the degree that moderate belief functionally provides cover for extremist faith it ends up carrying with it all the problems of extremism as well.

So let’s start the critique there.

Of course, “religious moderation” is not a position on which all agree.
Does belief that Jesus was a “good man” and a “messanger of g-d” make you a moderate Christian?  Or does it go so far as to make you an atheist with respect to Christianity?  Can you person really be a “Catholic” and deny the virgin birth?  And if so, does it mean anything to be a “Catholic” at all other than as a label for my identity tribe?

The fact that religious moderates cannot agree seems to suggest that the actual extreme position is the acceptance of propositional truth via religious/faith based “methods” such as “revelation”, “authority”. or “intuition” which moderates find “more sever” than the ones to which they hold by in many cases the same methodology.

As such, religious moderation actually provides cover to religious extremists, (by allowing approximate middle ground, as well as, fertile soil for recruitment), while simultaneously lacking a basis on which to question the claims of religious extremists.

A rationalist non-believer (and there are irrational non-believers too) can openly criticize the conclusions of an extremist on their derivation.  A moderate cannot, and worse, seems to see the threat as merely misguided, rather than the process as fundamentally and universially capable of “really bad conclusions”.

Next, “really bad conclusions”, this time meaning ones that are unfounded, seem to characterize and define religious moderation.  After all, if one takes on a religious view that it is important to “love your neighbor as yourself” because it is found in the bible, and simultaneously decides there is some other reason to ignore the claims that you shouldn’t “suffer a witch to live” (which can also be found in the bible) there is either direct contradiction (Authority of the Bible Matters & Authority of the Bible does Not Matter) or merely a false explanation and intellectual dishonesty (Authority is NOT why s/he believes something).

The problem of a logic system that is based on contradiction is well know.  Essentially with it you can conclude anything—and that includes extremist views.  Moderation does nothing to stop this progress and has no logical / rational basis on which to oppose it.

It is also self-contradictory in a more troubling way. To believe, for example, that “giving away all you own” is a requirement for salvation while seeking an ecumenical “commonality” appeal, is to, provided the moderate believes ANYONE goes to “hell” (ceases to exist, or any kind of less than optimal outcome) is ethically and social bankrupt by their very act of moderation.  That is, “terrorism” that bring the infidel “under Islam into death” is actually a more merciful, and thus seemingly moderate valued position than to allow someone to die “outside a state of Islam (or grace)”.

Essentially, religious moderates are either frauds (they act as if they’re cool with you when in fact by their beliefs it’s harmful to you to do so—and harming someone isn’t being “cool  with them”) or bankrupt objectors (they have no basis to claim any faith tradition, including the extreme ones have any fundamental flaws).

Finally, in closing the opening to this discussion (debate?) all of humanity is harmed by religious moderation because of the time and attention given to squaring the circle of “just how moderate can/may things be”.  That is, religious moderation sets into our psyche the idea that the solutions to our current problems might just have solutions in a Bronze Age thinking and literature.   Or might just be found in prayer.  Or might just be found in “inspiration” rather than perspiration.

While, as a practical matter, most of the “big problems” of the world are BETTER now (contrary to many claims of the faithful) than at any other point in history…and perhaps even because of it, contemporary problems need to be free of the weight of faith based, medieval baggage… After all, it will be hard enough to overcome with our modern baggage!

* In response to the specific claim there are not moderate suicide bombers, this again depends what we mean by moderate, if we're talking faith moderates, many suicide bombers STARTED there.  Further if we mean ideological moderates, maybe less so.  And finally, it's very likely that some of the war on Iraq was fueled by faith moderates using or playing to faith extremist voting blocks

Sort of sounds like you're saying "look at the bad things extremists do!  Moderates help make that possible, so they're even worse."  Doesn't really seem conclusive to me.  You've really only listed the ways moderates enable extremists here, and then listed the bad things that extremists do.  The exception, I suppose, being the idea that moderates stop us from abandoning religious thinking altogether, and that will hinder our problem solving in the modern world, but I don't see how that's a unique trait to moderates.

Put another way, do you really feel the world would be a better place if the religious moderates suddenly became religious extremists?  It sounds more to me like what you're actually opposed to is religious belief in general, rather than the moderateness of some of those who have it.  To me it sounds like a more accurate title of your position would be "the danger of belief (moderate, extreme, or otherwise)."

That is fair, and I can try to address the challenge.

I should have focused on the "mushy middle" and "mob" behavior more.

Part of the unique challenge of moderates is that it reduces the direct costs to belief (while keeping many of the assumed benefits) which means it's "more attractive"

One positive of a suicide bomber is it's a self-correcting problem.

But a religious moderate voter who thinks it's a "sin" to "play god" and donates to an anti-stem cell candidate, hurts us again and again.

Than you for the critique.

I would also echo Tycho's comments. Your focus really seems to be 'what is wrong with faith-based reasoning' (which is a fair critique, but is independent of moderates/extremists).

Specifically addressing the issues you bring up:
-- You seem to be addressing moderates of an extremist religion. I don't think you could argue that moderate Buddhists normalize extremist Buddhist attacks (because there are none).

-- I think you also ignore the tempering effect moderates do have on extremists. Extremists of any bent almost always have limited contact with the 'real world'. Moderates are that bridge. Yes, they can help insulate the extremists, but more frequently they provide an example of reasonable living, and pull the extremists out. Or failing that, they report the extremists when they become a threat. There are examples of Muslims calling for government assistance when an extremist neighbor seems to be getting dangerous, or of Christian preachers telling their flock (extremists and moderates alike) that regardless as to the sinfulness of abortion, violence is NOT justified. I don't know how you'd compare the effect of the 'good moderates' vs. the 'bad moderates', though.

I'm not sure I agree with your statements that a believer who believes the current understanding of the faith, but not the faith as scholars speculate it was in 2000 BC are somehow deceiving themselves. I think that's like saying a college student who doesn't ask permission to go to the bathroom is breaking the rules, because those are the rules that were set in Kindgarten. If you believe in a living God and a living world, it's sensible to believe that God changes His guidance to fit that world. (And of course, we're assuming that the scholars, or just your Sunday school teacher, are correctly portraying the beliefs of an ancient and foreign culture's beliefs and practices in the first place.)

This is an argument Christopher Hitchens has made.  I forget the exact details of his argument, but it was something like 'moderate believers provide a respectable cover for extremists right up to the point that they get violent.'  I'm not sure I buy it.  Mao was an extremist version of Bertrand Russell, but I don't think Bertrand Russell is responsible for the Cultural Revolution.  But maybe he is, I don't know.

As for extremist Buddhists, there certainly have been cases.  The kamikaze pilots were examples of suicide bombers who used the rhetoric and beliefs of their Buddhist philosophy to justify their actions.  Maybe there have been no extremist Jains?  Here is a discussion about extremist Jains:

http://mahavir-sanglikar.blogs...ist-jains-do_12.html

Comparatively harmless to a suicide bomber, I suppose.

I don't know enough about anyone's particular beliefs to comment on whether or not adhering to the 'original' version of a religion is appropriate or not.  It has always struck me as odd though that God, despite being timeless and omniscient, didn't think to put approving comments of slavery or sacrifice or any of the other grotesqueries in the Bible in some sort of context.

I've read a number of books which suggest that, without slavery, early civilization would not have been possible. However, early Hebrew laws did have many protections in place on behalf of slaves.

In reply to katisara (msg #8):

The only issue there is "Slavery" is still very much alive and well.

I do agree that there is very good evidence without historic slavery there would be little here as we understand it today. Though I stand firmly on the side of Reparations, So ...I accept the premise and I guess it only means we owe the descendents of slaves more.

In reply to Revolutionary (msg # 9):

Again we see it is the Moderates who are calling for the abridgement of free speech on an utterly unwatchable movie because as on put it recently:  "Islam has the right to be free of insult".

I hadn't heard anything about that.

I feel that the moderates are a problem for a different reason: Extremism is NOT a bad thing: in all cases. Moderation however is at the root of all the problems with religion.

With an Extremist you know where they stand and have a clear choice: Are they on the same side you are, or are they part of the enemy.

Keep in mind that Gandhi was just as much an extremist as Bin Laden; just in the opposite direction.

With the moderate however you have no idea where they stand, largely because in five minutes they could be on the opposite side of an issue from where they were when the conversation started.

"The Lord knows the danger that lurks in the vacillation of the weak fool."

Moderates are dangerous because they are too weak or stupid to chose a side and say: "Here I stand, I will not be moved."; because with those who can make such a statement if you can once show them that they are truly and incontestably in the wrong they will move heaven and earth to repair the damage they have done by being wrong.

A moderate will shrug and go on with their day, leaving the mess they have made for someone else to clean up.

This is compounded by the fact that an increasing focus is placed on moderation, rather than trying to lift up people to the pinnacle of Positive Extremism.

There are fewer Saints today not because the age of miracles is past but because there are fewer people capable of the strength of character where they can draw down the power of heaven to perform miracles, fewer people who really are saints.

In conclusion I have this to say about moderates: "Even the Devil himself cannot abide someone who can blow hot and cold with the same breath."


(Sorry if this post is somewhat disjointed, my wife is blasting classic rock in the next room such that the base makes it feel like there is an earthquake. I trust you are all intelligent enough to suss out my meaning.)

This thread could use some concrete examples. I'm unclear on what sorts of moderate behavior or belief you are against.

For example, is someone a "dangerous moderate" if they change their beliefs based on firm scientific evidence? This includes those (such as RC) who reject YEC and accept evolution.

Is someone a "dangerous moderate" if they believe in the principles of secularism ("the state has no right to force specific religious belief or non-belief on anyone")?

Is someone a dangerous moderate if they apply different standards of truth to different parts of the bible?

I would qualify the last one as being such, but I don't know about the OP.

I really like your post, Alexei. It invites thought.

I'd agree though that when it comes down to concrete examples, we may see things differently.

When ordering pizza, the moderates are best, because they're easiest to please. Two opposing extremists will never agree. And indeed, it's generally the extremists, not the moderates, who sustain wars.

But it seems like it's the extremists who have the best chance of finding spiritual truth. Most moderates fall into whatever is easiest. I don't know a lot of moderates willing to go on spiritual fasts or pilgrimages to find truth.

The flip side to my statement that not all extremism is bad is that it is not all good either.

To quote or paraphrase a demon who kept rather lax security on his personal correspondence and records: "These two sects were eternal enemies in life, now forced to co-mingle in eternity and still hating each other, it comes through as a fire in the wine, dark fire! A toast gentle devils! Remember always that some of your best tempting can be done on the very steps of the altar!"
~ Screwtape.

This is very true, BUT, and here is the key: It is the moderate, not the Positive Extremist, where such tempting will find fertile ground to take root and grow.

Moderates are easily swayed, and often can be swayed to the cause of darkness, because to quote the wisest of all Muppets: "No, not stronger: Quicker, easier, more seductive." Speaking of course of the lure of dark power.

Moderates as has been pointed out will often chose the easiest way, like water flowing down hill, and arrogance, bigotry, prejudice, and hatred are so very easy.

Further even in the bible itself it warns against moderates: Revelation 3:16 "So because thou art lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spew thee out of my mouth."

It has always been known, "A mind without purpose will wander in dark places." and this is the very core of 'moderation': if they had strong purpose they would cease to be moderates and take up strong position on one side or the other, and in this day and age would be called extremists for it.

Therefore I say give me a dozen extremists over a single moderate. The extremists I can work with, the moderate, he is like soda, tasty perhaps, but you can neither build upon him nor nourish yourself by him.

Yes, precisely because they make it seem "okay" to believe some things on insufficient evidence. And they make it specifically worse... ...because they make a "good case" that "faith" is okay... look at me, after all...

In fact, they're even more dangerous because they're "more" persuasive...and...ultimately made some decisions based on faith, which then gives them no consistent position from which to oppose the religiously extreme.

There are very few actual extreme Xians today.

There are ones that seem "more" extreme than others in terms of things like "abortion" or "anti-gay" sentiment...etc.

But ultimately, none of them are radical xians. They think ideas like "Jesus" is your friend, a buddy a personal g-d, these are all ultra-modern, fundamentally heretical ideas.

Anyone who is a xian is a person of moderate faith relative to the faith though they may well be "hard line"

I have to disagree with this.  Really, the idea strikes me as rather absurd.  The extremists are killing people, but because some unspecified moderate says "let's not insults those guys" they're the problem?!  You really prefer the guys who murder people to the ones who try to avoid insulting the murderers?  You say "well, murdering is bad and all, but at least we know where they stand," and think that as long as there isn't any confusion about the murderer's views it somehow less bad?




I consider a willingness to have your mind changed one of the greatest traits a person can have.  You seem to view it as a negative, because it makes it harder for you to classify and categorize someone.  People are complicated.  Making them simple doesn't make them better, it just makes them simple.  Yes, it'd be easier for you if there were only two "sides," and you could put everyone into one side or the other in just a few seconds of talking to them, but that would be a pretty lame world to live in.  Easy, but lame.


I disagree.  Show an extremist proof they're wrong, and they tend to be even more extreme.  There's an interesting story where a person had worked their way into an UFO cult to see what would happen when the leader's predictions about the mothership landing turned out to be false.  The leader was telling his followers that the aliens would land on a certain day to save the cult members from the world ending, and the person who had worked their way into the cult wanted to document how people dealt with having their beliefs shown to be false.  What was interesting was that before the cult the members generally didn't talk to outsiders about it, they just kept to themselves, and didn't try to win converts.  On the day the ship was supposed to arrive, the leader say "oh!  It looks like we were so devoted, we saved the world, so the aliens didn't need to come save us!  Go us!"  After that, some of the cult members started going out, preaching the word of their leader, trying to win converts.  Extremists don't accept proof that they're wrong, they just twist everything into an elaborate story to keep their beliefs intact.


The world could do well with more people shrugging and going on with their day, instead of deciding they need to kill someone.  It'd be great if more people who killed abortion doctors would just shrug and say "I disagree, but I should probably let the political process work," if more terrorists thought "American really pisses me off, but killing people over it isn't the best way to do it," if more PETA members thought "yeah, I really wish people would stop eating meat, but probably throwing paint on them isn't really going to change their mind," the world would be a better place.


You can't "work with" extremists. You're either with them, or against them, and that's all there is.  They're either on your side, or you fight them.  There's no swaying them, no coming to a reasonable compromise, there's just a fight.  You can hope your side is stronger, and therefore wins the fight, but that has nothing to do with the strength of your position.  If two people are trying to get the moderate to join their side, however, the one with the more convincing argument is likely to come out ahead.  The one who's side sounds more likely to be correct, rather than the one with the most guns, gets the extra help for the moment, which sounds much better to me.

In my view, a bit of doubt is a good thing.  I saw a quote from Charles Bukowski the other day that said something like "the problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubt, and the stupid people are full of confidence," which I think hits the nail on the head.  People who think they've got it all figured out tend to be the problem.  People who think everything is simple and easy, tend not to be seeing the full problem, and tend to come up with oversimple solutions (e.g., "let's just nuke'em!", "we'll just kill them first!", "let's just ban it!", "why should we care what they think?", etc?) that don't work well in the long run.

Sure, there are times when moderates don't stand up to extremists, and it's easy to say "if only they'd join my side, those extremists on the other side would be driven out, and the world would be a better place!"  But the thing you need to realize, is that if all those "spineless" moderates were replaced with extremists, there's no guaranteeing that they'd all pick your side.  It could just as well be your side that's wiped out.  So instead of viewing the moderates as "allowing" the bad guys to exist, consider that they're just as likely to be the only thing keeping your side from being wiped out.

It is okay to believe some things on insufficient evidence. That's part of tolerance, and secularism, and part of the reason this group exists.

Right, I actually prefer them because they're much "easier" opponents. One cannot deal with moderate xians without seeming to be tyrannical.  And it is moderate believers who give cover and in many ways KNOW they must give cover.

I am NOT saying that "murder" is less "bad" when the person is clear about it and I know they're a murderer.  I'm saying, they get much less sympathy when I dispatch with them.




And for moderates it doesn't matter that they respond to proof...because they only do it sometimes. Or worse, they do it "in the service" of their personal faith/delusion.

So we have the Big Bang Theory being accepted by the same church that incarcerated Galileo and holding it out as a marvel of the power and glory of their father g-d.



The world is only "significantly" better if those doing the shrugging are also secular.



No, less activism doesn't make the world a better place.  Quote to the contrary.  There was no civil rights victor for people of colour BECAUSE of moderates like MLK.  It was because of the existence of the Nation, Minister Shabazz (Malcolm X) etc. ...that the "powers that be" didn't want to deal with so they "compromised" with MLK.



Exactly!  All the more reason to prefer them.  If they're right, you want them to be extreme and not to compromise (aka PETA) if they're wrong, you don't want them getting "sympathy" as one of the "world's great religions"

Many extremists are smart enough to appear less so to avoid getting unwanted attention. In some circles that's called 'the grey man'.

I'm also not sure that the argument 'extremists are better because it's okay for me to crush them' is really compelling.




I don't know, I'd think that accepting evidence sometimes is better than excepting it nevertimes.

I'd also say that someone who is open to new information will come to a more accurate, more mature, more useful understanding, which is an advantage for moderates. The only exception is the case where the extremist is given all true knowledge from the get-go, but no way to prove it.

But I also know several extremists who have accepted new information and have modified their views. A willingness to use extreme methods in defense of one's beliefs does not preclude learning and modifying those beliefs.