Lecture on the Psychology of Suicide Terrorism

[Tankbuster]

This is a great lecture by Andy Thomson at AAI2007 on the history, psychology, and evolutionairy roots of suicide terrorism, and the elements of it that are part of our biological make-up. Which we all share.

Dr. Andy Thomson is a professional psychiatrist who is one of the main proponents of evolutionairy psychology today. He specializes in human evolution and its impact on everyday life, the psychology of religion, and clinical psychology in a psychiatric context.
It is this new lens of evolutionary psychology that informs his work on a comprehensive psychological formulation of suicide terrorism. While explaining the phenomenon he passes over the psychological traits that evolution has given us; many of them enable violence, religion, and suicide. He argues that their combination can culminate into a fertile ground for suicide bombers.

I don't agree with everything in the lecture, and some of his ideas need to be fleshed out more (as you can see in the actual question session) but he provides plenty of food for thought and lays out a strong case for the biological roots of group violence and suicidal behaviour, particularly by explaining how it is that so many suicide bombers are quite rational and often highly qualified. Highly recommended.

(Should you want to skip the introduction, go to 2:20. It takes a a few minutes for Dr. Thomson to warm up and get to the meat of the lecture, but hang in there).

Enjoy.

[motiv-8]

Thanks TB, I'll comment soon since nobody else has. This is a vastly important topic and it should be interesting to compare it to what Pape claims in Dying to Win. Of course, one enjoys being free of the constraints of time.

[Nietzsche]

Some problems with his ideas:

1. He faults religious thinking as “hijacking” the minds of people to enabling them as bombers, yet only one religious-cultural group has an influence and prevalence for suicide bombing; Arab/Islamic Nationalists. The Kamikaze of Japan is the sole anomaly in this regard. However, his statement that the Kamikaze was recruited by Buddhist and Shinto priests is factually incorrect, if not an outright lie. They may have been prayed over or considered blessed, but there is no evidence they were recruited by them. Rather they were recruited by the own superiors and emboldened by the nationalist speeches of their leadership.

2. He seems to want to tie the American occupation of Islamic land as the chief reason to the proliferation of suicide bombers while further implying that our foreign influence on their territory has created this phenomenon. This ignores history. The Americans didn’t even involve themselves in the Middle East on any scale until the last 50 years. Before that, they were helplessly pulled apart by the self-interested powers of Britain, France, Russia, Italy, Germany, and the Ottomans. What’s his reconciliation for that?

3. He continually ties suicide bombing and terrorism to religion. What about other acts of terrorism? How do they fit into the Male Bonded Coalitionary Violence model?

4. He creates cultural equivalences that are fallacious. For example; the equivalence between a suicide bomber and one who kills for more wives. Those two motivations are radically difference in both scope and outcome.

5. His knowledge of history is suspect. His statement that in 1500’s 2/3’s of the world was hunter-gatherer flies in the face of logic. Those were the years the great empires were emerging. Empires abounded on every continent. Unless he’s talking about land mass, this is a distortion and anti-thesis of his proof.

6. His penchant for hyperbole is mystifying; suicide bombing is a phenomenon "far exceeded anything in history.” What?

7. His characterization of religion is almost ludicrous. Assigning it as “childhood credulity or as an expectation of reciprocity shows a marked lack of understanding of religious texts, even religion itself. It smacks rather, of an Ivory Tower sneering down from above and, like all elitists it characterizes all believers as nothing but either ignorant children or hapless souls hoping for 70 virgins (which he and his self-righteous audience had a good laugh at). Obviously, he is playing to a very specific crowd, with very specific beliefs. There doesn’t seem to be much objectivity in a large portion of his argumentation.

8. More importantly his statement about religion breaking down family loyalties is incorrect. It’s actually quite the opposite. Western religions are vehemently pro-family, only they posit God as the head of the house. His biblical quotes are taken completely out of context.

9. Finally, his statement that religion is a dangerous man-made phenomenon seems to ignore his own admission that we are vulnerable to supernatural belief. If we are already predisposed to that kind of thinking, is there not, perhaps, a natural reason for it? Is it his assertion that it must be educated against? How do you educate against your own psychological predispositions unless you are conditioned? How is this conducive to free society and preventing the very horrors he opposes?

10. It was a profoundly disorganized lecture that was improperly edited. In particular, was the part where he begins to talk about religious thinking, but suddenly cuts to his parable of the ants? Why was this edited? Even more importantly, how is this analogy appropriate to the topic of discussion? Is indicating that suicide bombers are just drones acting under an external influence to kill people really helpful in determining the root of the issue? Why is there no conversation about the people who sent them to die? They too are part of the event. It seems highly suspicious to leave them completely out of the conversation.

11. The real highlight of this entire lecture was the elder gentlemen in the audience suggesting we are creating a factory of Qtubites in Guantanamo and that will be a stain on our history.

Given the credentials of the presenters, I was hoping for a great deal more. How very disappointing.

EDIT: Was finally able finish the video after browser problems.

[Copperknickers II]

Some problems with his ideas:
1.He faults religious thinking as “hijacking” the minds of people to enabling them as bombers, yet only one religious-cultural group has an influence and prevalence for suicide bombing; Arab/Islamic Nationalists. The Kamikaze of Japan is the sole anomaly in this regard.

Not true. Suicide bombing is a method, the method is unimportant. Most religions have encouraged people to die for them, do not single out Islam unnecassarily.

2.He seems to want to tie the American occupation of Islamic land as the chief reason to the proliferation of suicide bombers while further implying that our foreign influence on their territory has created this phenomenon.

Which it has. The USA is to blame, simple as that.

[Nietzsche]

Most religions have encouraged people to die for them, do not single out Islam unnecassarily.

As far as I know, they did not specifically promote the slaughter of innocents to that end. Encouraging one to die for a belief, did not contain the assumption that you would commit suicide. Dying for a belief was usually taken in the context of not forsaking what you believe under duress or inquiry.

Which it has. The USA is to blame, simple as that.

How about reading the rest of my statement. Where was this animosity in history? I believe there are other forces at work than American Imperialism. I will add that even the lecturer indicated that most suicide terrorist acts are perpetrated by Muslims against other Muslims.

'Psychology of Religion' is a new religion in all but name.

... As Nietzsche said above: he, like every other whacko selling "ideas" for a cent, adopts a defensive posture towards religion and bases his work on assumptions of faith. Like "religion is irrational", "religion is coercive", "religion is violent", "religion is intolerant"... And finally, chief of them all: "Religion is WRONG", and "I am irreligious".

I don't think a proper religion needs a deity to be considered so. Religion springs wherever an unproven or partial assumption is made into an axiom, and therefore all human beings are religious. Particularly evangelistic atheists and the men who follow their line, like this one.

QFT

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

'Psychology of Religion' is a new religion in all but name.

... As Nietzsche said above: he, like every other whacko selling "ideas" for a cent, adopts a defensive posture towards religion and bases his work on assumptions of faith. Like "religion is irrational", "religion is coercive", "religion is violent", "religion is intolerant"... And finally, chief of them all: "Religion is WRONG", and "I am irreligious".

I don't think a proper religion needs a deity to be considered so. Religion springs wherever an unproven or partial assumption is made into an axiom, and therefore all human beings are religious. Particularly evangelistic atheists and the men who follow their line, like this one.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

Suicide bombing is a method, the method is unimportant. Most religions have encouraged people to die for them, do not single out Islam unnecassarily.

So do political doctrines, and even mild things like cheating your wife and disrespecting your father. Anything that involves belief, may involve standing up for them in a particular way.

Which it has. The USA is to blame, simple as that.

That's a statement that, in lieu of historical and actual facts, does not carry any credibility.

[Copperknickers II]

That's a statement that, in lieu of historical and actual facts, does not carry any credibility.

The suicide bombers of al-Qaeda attack the west because they dislike the invasion of their homeland spearheaded by the USA. You may refute that, but al-Qaeda themselves have stated that.

[motiv-8]

. He faults religious thinking as “hijacking” the minds of people to enabling them as bombers, yet only one religious-cultural group has an influence and prevalence for suicide bombing; Arab/Islamic Nationalists. The Kamikaze of Japan is the sole anomaly in this regard.

Haven't managed to watch the video yet (won't till tomorrow) but this is factually incorrect. Hindu Tamils operating under a nationalist banner had a "great influence and prevalence for" suicide bombing, helping to pioneer it and then assisting with further development of tactics in Lebanon. The latter, as the second great campaign of suicide bombing, was an interesting case in that the majority of suicide bombings were by communists and ten percent of them were performed by Christian Lebanese. Suicide bombing reflected the nature of the war there -- cross-sectarian and pervasive throughout all layers of society.

Suicide bombing as the hall-mark of the Islamic terrorist is a rather new thing, ie 2001 and beyond. Notice how in 1993 the WTC bombing was not a suicide attack despite being performed by al-Qaeda. Then notice how when the next attacks occurred -- The embassy bombings in 1998 -- they were suicide attacks, and much more effective. Something prompted the change in tactics, despite the apparent subtlety between a bomb planted and exploded remotely and a bomb exploded by persons on the spot.

You say Japan is a sole anomaly and thus imply that it should be disregarded -- however, this is borderline intellectual laziness because it IS in fact useful to understand how the idea of kamikaze developed, how it was employed practically and why, and finally how it fit in with greater society and culture. You can then find comparisons and contrasts with the later use of similar tactics. I don't mean to insinuate a direct link between the two because that would require delivering proof that the later studied the former intently and with a mind to copy, and that's foolish -- the idea is to observe and cogitate on the thought processes involved.

[Nietzsche]

Haven't managed to watch the video yet (won't till tomorrow) but this is factually incorrect. Hindu Tamils operating under a nationalist banner had a "great influence and prevalence for" suicide bombing, helping to pioneer it and then assisting with further development of tactics in Lebanon. The latter, as the second great campaign of suicide bombing, was an interesting case in that the majority of suicide bombings were by communists and ten percent of them were performed by Christian Lebanese. Suicide bombing reflected the nature of the war there -- cross-sectarian and pervasive throughout all layers of society.

Apologies, my understanding of the Tamil is that they were culturally associated with the Islamic Nationalist movements. By your admission they were, but appears I am in error. I was aware of the Lebanese connection, but did not consider chronology.

In any case, defining the phenomenon of suicide bombing as an exclusively religiously driven vehicle is a complete farce. It completely ignores the other cultural factors of nationalist movements as well economic factors of those involved. Suicide bombing as a recent development is a result of technology merging with malicious purposes. I think characterizing the activity as strictly religious is ridiculous and only makes the man who delivers such a message look foolish and naive. I see in this lecture nothing more than theorizing an activity to fit into an already determined worldview.

My strongest objection is the lecturer characterizes these people as having strong religious ideals. Yet, they were for all intents and purposes conditioned for the job of destroying themselves (The Hamas leader quote is in the lecture indicates this point). I don't see a damn bit of difference between the conditioning the Hamas used on obviously vulnerable and weak person to destroy others and the conditioning the lecturer himself advocates to eradicate religious ideology from the Earth. It's still forcing people to except a specific worldview in furtherance of one particular ideology or agenda.

There is a diabolical advantage toward using human guided bombs. They can study their targets, improvise, and take advantage of opportunity. Soldiers are trained in similar ways. I can use the same arguments the lecturer used to condemn the training of soldiers everywhere. Aren't they too conditioned to die for their State/Flag/Country/Leader?

I won't deny that suicide bombing has psychological aspects, but attributing the idea specifically to the influence of religion is intellectual dishonesty. We are not one dimensional beings.

In summation, suicide bombers do nothing more to discredit religion than AGW discredits science or American politics discredits the principles of democracy. It's using the function of a small and specific group of evil doers as an scapegoat to discredit them all. I can think of a number of instances that used such means to marginalize an entire group of people... much to our horror.

I think you gave a good breakdown but this isn't completely correct. Both Jesus and Mohammad (who totally didn't copy) mention the need to break away from family if they don't follow the faith and to fight them if they try to stop you (no I don't have the various passages #'s).

Religion is very pro family, unless of course your family doesn't like your religion

However, those same religions also stressed the need for patience and the virtue of humility and prayer to bring the philistine/infidel around (especially if one "came to" the faith after the marriage) Leaving your spouse and/or family was a last resort. In both cases, religious persons were expected to marry others of the faith to prevent such a thing from occurring. It is not a neat solution, but human problems never have neat solutions.

Further, you didn't find it inappropriate that he quoted biblical chapters when lecturing about Islamic suicide bombers? Maybe I should give speeches on Federalism using the Magna Carta as source material.

[cfmonkey45]

In any case, defining the phenomenon of suicide bombing as an exclusively religiously driven vehicle is a complete farce. It completely ignores the other cultural factors of nationalist movements as well economic factors of those involved. Suicide bombing as a recent development is a result of technology merging with malicious purposes. I think characterizing the activity as strictly religious is ridiculous and only makes the man who delivers such a message look foolish and naive. I see in this lecture nothing more than theorizing an activity to fit into an already determined worldview.

If I am not mistaken, weren't there a number of atheistic/nontheistic revolutionaries in the 1800s that carried out bombings (such as the assassination of Tsar Alexander) and suicide attacks (Franz Ferdinand; if I recall correctly, they were given cyanide capsules if captured; perhaps not a true suicide-attack, but they were willing to die for their cause nonetheless), among others; and let's not forget the Jacobins of France. I'm sure their zealotry for their Cult of Reason prompted them to execute innocents en masse.

I find this somewhat bereft of only examples supporting the thesis, than one simply trying to identify the problem. But I figured that's what I'd get when I saw that this was supported by a socio-political action group.

Further, you didn't find it inappropriate that he quoted biblical chapters when lecturing about Islamic suicide bombers? Maybe I should give speeches on Federalism using the Magna Carta as source material.

I found that odd too. He also meshed sources and intentionally fudges details to fit with his premise.

[Tankbuster]

I'm grateful that motiv-8 has stopped this thread from slinking away into the depths of anonimousness. For a while I thought nobody would respond!

Now, to answer some of the things that have already come up in the thread: it's quite clear that this is indeed a lecture by an atheist to a group of atheists (if the name 'AAI 2007' didn't give that away, the introduction of Richard Dawkins probably did). Therefore a certain number of assumptions are made that are agreed upon by the entire crowd, such as: (i) religion is a man-made phenomenon and (ii) religion does not correspond with anything in reality but is solely generated by the brain.
That doesn't need to ruin his talk for theists, I think. You might not agree with these assumptions but the conclusion of the lecture nor its premises hinge on that: even if you're a theist you can accept that there are certain structures in our brain that enable us to be religious and that certain psychological traits are used by religion.
Whether or not you believe God put those structures there or whether religion actually corresponds with reality, is besides the point for this lecture.

Furthermore I don't think this speech is meant as the 'ultimate debate-ender' on suicide terrorism. To the contrary; when I said that his ideas needed to be further fleshed out, I wasn't just joking around.
The value of the lecture is not that it gives us definite answers per se, but that it gives us a pathway to answers. Dr. Thomson breaks suicide terrorism down to certain certain traits that he believes constitute a 'recipe' for the phenomenon.
That I think is much needed: rather than looking at each specific political situation we need a certain recipe of components that can lead to suicide terrorism, and then we look at each situation in particular and see why and how the conditions are satisfied in each case. As motiv-8 said: "the idea is to observe and cogitate on the thought processes involved". That's I think exactly what we're doing.

That's why he also doesn't say that religion is the sole way suicide terrorism can come to exist. Those who think that must not have listened very well: he lists the different psychological traits and instincts that make us vulnerable to the phenomenon precisely to show that religion is only one of the systems (albeit he deems it the most powerful) that can use these innate instincts for less than good reasons.

'Psychology of Religion' is a new religion in all but name.

... As Nietzsche said above: he, like every other whacko selling "ideas" for a cent, adopts a defensive posture towards religion and bases his work on assumptions of faith. Like "religion is irrational", "religion is coercive", "religion is violent", "religion is intolerant"... And finally, chief of them all: "Religion is WRONG", and "I am irreligious".

I don't think a proper religion needs a deity to be considered so. Religion springs wherever an unproven or partial assumption is made into an axiom, and therefore all human beings are religious. Particularly evangelistic atheists and the men who follow their line, like this one.

These aren't just "assumptions of faith", mate. Did you miss the MRI's and the studies he cites or something? The psychology of religion is actually being researched by people in the field.
So that this is all meaningless conjecture based on unproven assumptions is total garbage. And that this is now becoming a new religion is just plain ridiculous.

So anyway... did you just jump to that intriguing conclusion without watching the video? As if it's your, ummm, religion?

Please, say something useful next time.

Some problems with his ideas:

1. He faults religious thinking as “hijacking” the minds of people to enabling them as bombers, yet only one religious-cultural group has an influence and prevalence for suicide bombing; Arab/Islamic Nationalists. The Kamikaze of Japan is the sole anomaly in this regard. However, his statement that the Kamikaze was recruited by Buddhist and Shinto priests is factually incorrect, if not an outright lie. They may have been prayed over or considered blessed, but there is no evidence they were recruited by them. Rather they were recruited by the own superiors and emboldened by the nationalist speeches of their leadership.

2. He seems to want to tie the American occupation of Islamic land as the chief reason to the proliferation of suicide bombers while further implying that our foreign influence on their territory has created this phenomenon. This ignores history. The Americans didn’t even involve themselves in the Middle East on any scale until the last 50 years. Before that, they were helplessly pulled apart by the self-interested powers of Britain, France, Russia, Italy, Germany, and the Ottomans. What’s his reconciliation for that?

3. He continually ties suicide bombing and terrorism to religion. What about other acts of terrorism? How do they fit into the Male Bonded Coalitionary Violence model?

4. He creates cultural equivalences that are fallacious. For example; the equivalence between a suicide bomber and one who kills for more wives. Those two motivations are radically difference in both scope and outcome.

5. His knowledge of history is suspect. His statement that in 1500’s 2/3’s of the world was hunter-gatherer flies in the face of logic. Those were the years the great empires were emerging. Empires abounded on every continent. Unless he’s talking about land mass, this is a distortion and anti-thesis of his proof.

6. His penchant for hyperbole is mystifying; suicide bombing is a phenomenon "far exceeded anything in history.” What?

7. His characterization of religion is almost ludicrous. Assigning it as “childhood credulity or as an expectation of reciprocity shows a marked lack of understanding of religious texts, even religion itself. It smacks rather, of an Ivory Tower sneering down from above and, like all elitists it characterizes all believers as nothing but either ignorant children or hapless souls hoping for 70 virgins (which he and his self-righteous audience had a good laugh at). Obviously, he is playing to a very specific crowd, with very specific beliefs. There doesn’t seem to be much objectivity in a large portion of his argumentation.

8. More importantly his statement about religion breaking down family loyalties is incorrect. It’s actually quite the opposite. Western religions are vehemently pro-family, only they posit God as the head of the house. His biblical quotes are taken completely out of context.

9. Finally, his statement that religion is a dangerous man-made phenomenon seems to ignore his own admission that we are vulnerable to supernatural belief. If we are already predisposed to that kind of thinking, is there not, perhaps, a natural reason for it? Is it his assertion that it must be educated against? How do you educate against your own psychological predispositions unless you are conditioned? How is this conducive to free society and preventing the very horrors he opposes?

10. It was a profoundly disorganized lecture that was improperly edited. In particular, was the part where he begins to talk about religious thinking, but suddenly cuts to his parable of the ants? Why was this edited? Even more importantly, how is this analogy appropriate to the topic of discussion? Is indicating that suicide bombers are just drones acting under an external influence to kill people really helpful in determining the root of the issue? Why is there no conversation about the people who sent them to die? They too are part of the event. It seems highly suspicious to leave them completely out of the conversation.

11. The real highlight of this entire lecture was the elder gentlemen in the audience suggesting we are creating a factory of Qtubites in Guantanamo and that will be a stain on our history.

Given the credentials of the presenters, I was hoping for a great deal more. How very disappointing.

EDIT: Was finally able finish the video after browser problems.

I appreciate the reply. You are throwing up a couple of red herrings though.

1) As pointed out by motiv-8, it's a stretch to call the Tamils Islamic nationalists. I'll research whether or not Shinto priests were themselves involved (though the ideology certainly was used to motivate recruits).

2) I'm guessing that the invasion of Iraq was perceived much different by Arabs than the meddling of French, English, and other forces.
Anyway, why one situation generated no suicide terrorism and the other did, is a good question.

3) As I said above, he says that religion is 'the most powerful system for leading to suicide terrorism'. You can debate on whether that's true or not (kinda what this thread is for), but he's most definitely not saying that it's the only way of spawning it, let alone the only way of producing terrorism in itself.

4) If you thought he was equating the two or even saying that they are equivalent, then you need to watch it again. He's pointing out that both actions can have certain reasons and impulses and that there's a certain overlap into what creates both behaviours.

5) It probably depends on how you define hunter-gatherer. I don't think you'll deny that even in the 1500's the majority of the world was still living in relatively small communities that were largely self-reliant: it's not a very large stretch to characterise the average rural town of the 1500's as a hunter-gatherer society: especially in a pyschological context.

6) That's a particularly clumsy missapprehension of what he was saying. He said that the suicide bombing in Iraq (which happened at the rate of two a day for a while), has exceeded any other episode of suicide bombing in history. Pay attention.

7) He certainly is talking to an audience that accepts these suppositions. But his talk does not hinge on those assumptions, so I'm asking you to ignore them: whether religion actually corresponds to reality in any way is besides the point for this lecture.

8) Whether or not this is Biblically or Qu'ranically justified is again, a red herring. That's not relevant to the case that group psychology (and religious group psychology) plays a role in isolating recruits from their family.

9) The same way we expect people to surpress other predispositions we have: those for rage, those for credulity, those for xenophobia. Difficult? Perhaps. Impossible and/or futile? Most certainly not.
Again an irrelevant red herring though: the lecture is not about how we plan on surpressing these instincts.

10) This is a very good criticism (particularly the part about it being poorly edited). He also spends little time talking about how the mechanisms he proposes are used by recruiters to indoctrinate other people.

11) Interesting. I take it you agree with that idea?

Your other reply was interesting too, however it hinges upon the idea that he's saying that religion is exclusively responsible for suicide bombing, which he's simply not saying.

Haven't managed to watch the video yet (won't till tomorrow) but this is factually incorrect. Hindu Tamils operating under a nationalist banner had a "great influence and prevalence for" suicide bombing, helping to pioneer it and then assisting with further development of tactics in Lebanon. The latter, as the second great campaign of suicide bombing, was an interesting case in that the majority of suicide bombings were by communists and ten percent of them were performed by Christian Lebanese. Suicide bombing reflected the nature of the war there -- cross-sectarian and pervasive throughout all layers of society.

Suicide bombing as the hall-mark of the Islamic terrorist is a rather new thing, ie 2001 and beyond. Notice how in 1993 the WTC bombing was not a suicide attack despite being performed by al-Qaeda. Then notice how when the next attacks occurred -- The embassy bombings in 1998 -- they were suicide attacks, and much more effective. Something prompted the change in tactics, despite the apparent subtlety between a bomb planted and exploded remotely and a bomb exploded by persons on the spot.

You say Japan is a sole anomaly and thus imply that it should be disregarded -- however, this is borderline intellectual laziness because it IS in fact useful to understand how the idea of kamikaze developed, how it was employed practically and why, and finally how it fit in with greater society and culture. You can then find comparisons and contrasts with the later use of similar tactics. I don't mean to insinuate a direct link between the two because that would require delivering proof that the later studied the former intently and with a mind to copy, and that's foolish -- the idea is to observe and cogitate on the thought processes involved.

Precisely.
The idea here is to find the mechanisms and find out how and why they can be used.
As you say, Islamic terrorists started using suicide bombings since 2001. Why? What changed? How did they get people to do this? How come this became so popular despite it being ostensibly in contradiction with basic human desires? These are all questions we need to answer and psychological studies help us tremendously with this.

I find this somewhat bereft of only examples supporting the thesis, than one simply trying to identify the problem. But I figured that's what I'd get when I saw that this was supported by a socio-political action group.

It's certainly amusing how everyone is pretending that he's saying that religion is the sole cause of suicide terrorism, or that he's claiming that atheists would never do it.
To the contrary: he's saying it's one of the systems that does it best, but it's far from the only one. The reason he's singling in largely on how religion propogates suicide terrorism is because of (i) his audience and (ii) because it's the kind probably most relevant to our present situation.

[Nietzsche]

I appreciate the reply. You are throwing up a couple of red herrings though.

1) As pointed out by motiv-8, it's a stretch to call the Tamils Islamic nationalists. I'll research whether or not Shinto priests were themselves involved (though the ideology certainly was used to motivate recruits).

2) I'm guessing that the invasion of Iraq was perceived much different by Arabs than the meddling of French, English, and other forces.
Anyway, why one situation generated no suicide terrorism and the other did, is a good question.

3) As I said above, he says that religion is 'the most powerful system for leading to suicide terrorism'. You can debate on whether that's true or not (kinda what this thread is for), but he's most definitely not saying that it's the only way of spawning it, let alone the only way of producing terrorism in itself.

4) If you thought he was equating the two or even saying that they are equivalent, then you need to watch it again. He's pointing out that both actions can have certain reasons and impulses and that there's a certain overlap into what creates both behaviours.

5) It probably depends on how you define hunter-gatherer. I don't think you'll deny that even in the 1500's the majority of the world was still living in relatively small communities that were largely self-reliant: it's not a very large stretch to characterise the average rural town of the 1500's as a hunter-gatherer society: especially in a pyschological context.

6) That's a particularly clumsy missapprehension of what he was saying. He said that the suicide bombing in Iraq (which happened at the rate of two a day for a while), has exceeded any other episode of suicide bombing in history. Pay attention.

7) He certainly is talking to an audience that accepts these suppositions. But his talk does not hinge on those assumptions, so I'm asking you to ignore them: whether religion actually corresponds to reality in any way is besides the point for this lecture.

8) Whether or not this is Biblically or Qu'ranically justified is again, a red herring. That's not relevant to the case that group psychology (and religious group psychology) plays a role in isolating recruits from their family.

9) The same way we expect people to surpress other predispositions we have: those for rage, those for credulity, those for xenophobia. Difficult? Perhaps. Impossible and/or futile? Most certainly not.
Again an irrelevant red herring though: the lecture is not about how we plan on surpressing these instincts.

10) This is a very good criticism (particularly the part about it being poorly edited). He also spends little time talking about how the mechanisms he proposes are used by recruiters to indoctrinate other people.

11) Interesting. I take it you agree with that idea?

Your other reply was interesting too, however it hinges upon the idea that he's saying that religion is exclusively responsible for suicide bombing, which he's simply not saying.

I don't think them to be red herrings. I find my objections intimately related to the material at hand. That the lecturer made no attempt to anticipate or refute the arguments suggests he's completely unprepared. His misrepresentation of some key points is crucial to accepting his overall thesis. A thesis I find surprisingly lacking given his credentials.

1) You are wrong. Japan never had a great spiritual strength. It's strength was always in patriarchal obedience. The vast majority of Kamikaze recruits were obtained by commanders and inspired by nationalist rhetoric.

3) However, in his summation he pretty much concludes that the eradication of religious thinking would go a long way toward ending this phenomena. My argument is that conclusion is so intellectually despotic and in opposition to the principles of liberty he would actually create more fanaticism in his attempt to erase it. You may believe this is not a subject of the lecture. I disagree. The conclusions are every bit subject of criticism as the thesis itself. His solution to the problem paints a very evil picture of a man who, for all intents and purposes, seems to mean well.

4) There is overlap in all human behavior. This doesn't excuse the use of equivalence. He is attempting to slip in shoddy reasoning in support of a preconceived conclusion. I'm not buying it.

6) ...

8) Wrong. The assumptions he is making regarding religion and the passages he uses to support those assumptions are very central to the point he is making. That sir is not a red herring. He is deliberately misconstruing key facts in advancement of his notions.

9) Um... I hope you aren't seriously equating rage, credulity, etc with religious, nationalist, patriotic, or any other symbolic or idealistic thinking. The very idea that he wishes to excise this type of thinking, that he himself has admitted is a function of our evolutionary heritage, suggests he simply wants to replace one type of conditioning, with his own. This is purely despotic ideology and the anti-thesis of what he seems to want to do- set people free. You cannot set them free by removing choices. That is an absurdity.

11) Yes, I do.

[Phier]

8. More importantly his statement about religion breaking down family loyalties is incorrect. It’s actually quite the opposite. Western religions are vehemently pro-family, only they posit God as the head of the house. His biblical quotes are taken completely out of context.

I think you gave a good breakdown but this isn't completely correct. Both Jesus and Mohammad (who totally didn't copy) mention the need to break away from family if they don't follow the faith and to fight them if they try to stop you (no I don't have the various passages #'s).

Religion is very pro family, unless of course your family doesn't like your religion

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

These aren't just "assumptions of faith", mate. Did you miss the MRI's and the studies he cites or something?

"Appeal from authority" is a fallacy. Given the saturation of modern academia, I could as well produce thousands of other "experts" and thousands of other "studies" with conclusions that range from complete disagreement to mild discordance. Anyway, I guess that the sort of study he cites is fairly predictable: "God cannot be observed, so it is false". As if Science did not rest on its own wild range of axioms.

The psychology of religion is actually being researched by people in the field.

The psychologist is to modern man as the confessor was to the ancient. Psychology and its close variants, given the wild discordances on the field and the questionable manners employed by its founders, like Freud, can be summed in very mild words to be a field where caution and forethought are much appreciated. At best, I think it's quackery.

So anyway... did you just jump to that intriguing conclusion without watching the video? As if it's your, ummm, religion?

Please, say something useful next time.

As in, "oh, I agree with you! Religion is backwardness! - shouts positivist slogans all along - religion is solely to be blamed on the world's actual problems today!"

Sorry, but no.

[Tankbuster]

And here I was expecting Lous XI to come up with some substantiation of his last assertions ('Evangelic atheism is a religion' or 'Dr. Thomson bases his conclusions on statements of faith'.). You know, anything a bit more useful than last time.
Instead we get this weird cluster of replies.

"Appeal from authority" is a fallacy.

Phew, thanks goodness I didn't make any such appeals then.

Your original statement was that this new 'religion' was based on 'statements of faith'. I just showed you that the idea that religion has its basis in psychology is a strong hypothesis sprung from various studies and MRI investigations.
Your original statement therefore, is pathetic crap.

Given the saturation of modern academia, I could as well produce thousands of other "experts" and thousands of other "studies" with conclusions that range from complete disagreement to mild discordance.

I'm sure you could.
You can start with naming me thousands of experts and thousands of studies that are in 'complete disagreement' with the fact that religious ideas have their places in specific areas of the brain.

(I just called your bluff. You know, that bluff you're making without knowing what the hell you're talking about.)

Anyway, I guess that the sort of study he cites is fairly predictable: "God cannot be observed, so it is false".

Yeah, that's exactly the study he cites. You're absolutely right. Lo and behold Louis XI, who has the amazing ability of predicting the citation of studies in videos he's never even watched.

...
Oh wait, he never cites anything even remotely close to such a study. If you didn't notice (who am I kidding, of course you didn't), his talk isn't even about trying to observe God, it's not about trying to prove God false.

As if Science did not rest on its own wild range of axioms.

Because looking at MRI's looking for the specific brain regions active when people think about religion, and contrasting them with the other functions for which these regions are active requires such a wild range of axioms.


You're really making a fool of yourself right now

The psychologist is to modern man as the confessor was to the ancient. Psychology and its close variants, given the wild discordances on the field and the questionable manners employed by its founders, like Freud, can be summed in very mild words to be a field where caution and forethought are much appreciated. At best, I think it's quackery.

If every discipline was to be judged on the manners of its founders, we'd certainly be in for a rather dull time. Ditto if it were to be judged on its 'wild discordances'.
Last time I checked, however, we're many decades after Freud now, and psychology has moved on from its infancy as a science and is rapidly becoming more mature, as evidenced by the way it now closely interacts with biological and chemical scientists and the growing influence of branches like evolutionairy psychology over the less scientific branches like psycho-analysis.
(You can guess telepathically which group Dr. Thomson is a part of.)

Go ahead and think it's all quackery though. Just don't come here and ridicule MRI studies and expect to be taken seriously.

As in, "oh, I agree with you! Religion is backwardness! - shouts positivist slogans all along - religion is solely to be blamed on the world's actual problems today!"

Sorry, but no.

Riiiiight. Because that's what you see me doing on these forums all the time.

Get a grip.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

Tankbuster,

Judging by your quote:

Your original statement was that this new 'religion' was based on 'statements of faith'. I just showed you that the idea that religion has its basis in psychology is a strong hypothesis sprung from various studies and MRI investigations.
Your original statement therefore, is pathetic crap.

You are, quite clearly, placing yourself at the shoulders of the MRI. "The MRI this or the MRI that" does not help you beyond giving you the reputation of the spokesman for a particular academic authority, and we all know how biased they are!

Now, as to your notion expressed so thoroughly in your own post, that the body is merely a chain of chemical reactions set to motion by mechanical processes, it is not really particularly new or better than the alternatives. It springs from a complete denial of the metaphysical ego, and it has flaws, but... I can't say that I disagree with it. Just as I don't necessarily disagree with "evolutionary psychology", even though that, together with the notion of the mechanical body, are loaded with philosophical and even political preconceptions; maybe because I am a man of my time.

You seem to be mistaken, of course, by the idea that religious feeling deserves its own special "area" of the brain - because psychology is essentially a fancy brand for applying Physics into the human body. Religious feeling is indistinguishable from many other aspects of human feeling, and "faith" is necessarily a characteristic shared by all human beings (likewise, the faith that life can be created or brought back to dead beings by completely naturalistic means, essential for your ideas of the mind and body, and which has not been convincingly shown whatsoever). It all delves into deep philosophical questions, which you presumably do not subscribe to or haven't read, because you have been long convinced of the hypothesis of life as process, and treat it clearly as established dogma.

Now, as to the credibility of the institution per se associating "religious ideas" with "a certain part of the brain", that per se does not generate any discordance. I could as easily claim that the heart determines the pace of physical activity, a well proven and basic notion, but the very bias comes not by its scientific assumptions (many of which, despite the constant resort to authority you have made in this thread, are still questionable), but by its philosophical ones, where it offers half-backed and semi-positivist notions easily traceable to the ideas of a few XIX century philosophers and their modern off-springs, like Dawkins. In this, he is no better than any other philistine who, given the abundance of political socialism in academia, teaches his students about Marxist tenets of political economy and evolution. His knowledge of history particularly strikes as being an even more heavily simplified and sloganized version of the notions propagated by Whig history and similar global progress philistinism, to which he blends into biology and natural sciences indiscriminately (naturally, the more "rational" a man is, the better, and the tendency is for "rationality" to "increase"). Thus my reference to positivism.

EDIT - As to the statement 'Evangelistic atheism is a religion', I thought it was implicitly clear. It acts like a religion, and its philosophical roots are thoroughly a matter of faith.

Eventually, though, I think the best one suited to higher debates on the nature of the mind and body would be Ummon, who has much more knowledge in this field than I do. Even though I disagree with many of his ideas, he was a healthy source of skepticism to otherwise firmly rooted ideas of purely naturalistic being and the indiscriminate imposition of progress philosophies into Science.

[Tankbuster]

You are, quite clearly, placing yourself at the shoulders of the MRI. "The MRI this or the MRI that" does not help you beyond giving you the reputation of the spokesman for a particular academic authority, and we all know how biased they are!

The MRI is not something specific to a particular academic authority. MRI's have been made for decades: the science behind it is well-understood and they are respected as a way of measuring brain activity by all authorities.
This isn't rocket science so you can't accuse me of clinging to some brand-new untested invention and becoming a 'spokesman' for that new product.

The reason MRI's are interesting for psychological research because they are a very easy, consistent and reliable way of figuring out what areas of the brain have to do with what cognitive functions.
And, no matter how much you try to wriggle, the fact remains that none of this experimental science and it's not up for debate and not based on 'unproven assumptions' that we hold as a 'religion'.

I also noticed you ran away from your assertion that thousands of studies would prove this MRI wrong... I appreciate the change in tone of your posts, but unless you're going to admit that your previous assertions were crap, I can't let you start with a clean slate just like that.

Now, as to your notion expressed so thoroughly in your own post, that the body is merely a chain of chemical reactions set to motion by mechanical processes, it is not really particularly new or better than the alternatives. It springs from a complete denial of the metaphysical ego, and it has flaws, but... I can't say that I disagree with it. Just as I don't necessarily disagree with "evolutionary psychology", even though that, together with the notion of the mechanical body, are loaded with philosophical and even political preconceptions; maybe because I am a man of my time.

You know, none of Dr. Thomson's lecture even hinges on the idea that there's no concept of a soul. Whether or not there is a soul or not, different areas of the brain light up when doing different tasks and this is a consistent phenomenon.
So these philosophical and political preconceptions you talk aboutaren't even required for the notions that are proposed; not that I accept they need to be made in the first place.

You seem to be mistaken, of course, by the idea that religious feeling deserves its own special "area" of the brain - because psychology is essentially a fancy brand for applying Physics into the human body. Religious feeling is indistinguishable from many other aspects of human feeling, and "faith" is necessarily a characteristic shared by all human beings (likewise, the faith that life can be created or brought back to dead beings by completely naturalistic means, essential for your ideas of the mind and body, and which has not been convincingly shown whatsoever). It all delves into deep philosophical questions, which you presumably do not subscribe to or haven't read, because you have been long convinced of the hypothesis of life as process, and treat it clearly as established dogma.

Be careful what you assume and don't get too attached to your assumptions. You have no idea what I have or haven't read, you have no idea what philosophical questions I subscribe to (let alone have read), and you have no idea whether or not I treat anything as established dogma.
And if you assume that I haven't given these matters a great deal of thought, then you might be unpleasantly surprised later on.

Now as to the rest of this paragraph, where to begin.
I'd say first of all, the equivocation of religious faith to, say, scientific theories and hypotheses is such a pedantic one that it's ridiculous: there is no equivalence to be made between the two: using the term 'faith' when you're talking about 'reasonable expectations' or even 'educated guesses' is a word-game, and not a terribly exciting one at that. And to pretend that we're not using different sections of the brain when talking to dead ancestors than we are when we're talking about science is, well, in contradiction with the MRI. A distinction can most definitely be made.
Second of all, whether life can come from non-life or not has nothing to do with philosophical questions whatsoever, even though I know plenty of writers who desperately want to make it so: it is a scientific question and one that will be settled (and is being settled) in the biological community.
That last point is again a red herring though, because abiogenesis has absolutely no place in the lecture: one that only presupposes the existence of evolution.

Now, as to the credibility of the institution per se associating "religious ideas" with "a certain part of the brain", that per se does not generate any discordance. I could as easily claim that the heart determines the pace of physical activity, a well proven and basic notion, but the very bias comes not by its scientific assumptions (many of which, despite the constant resort to authority you have made in this thread, are still questionable), but by its philosophical ones, where it offers half-backed and semi-positivist notions easily traceable to the ideas of a few XIX century philosophers and their modern off-springs, like Dawkins. In this, he is no better than any other philistine who, given the abundance of political socialism in academia, teaches his students about Marxist tenets of political economy and evolution. His knowledge of history particularly strikes as being an even more heavily simplified and sloganized version of the notions propagated by Whig history and similar global progress philistinism, to which he blends into biology and natural sciences indiscriminately (naturally, the more "rational" a man is, the better, and the tendency is for "rationality" to "increase"). Thus my reference to positivism.

Wait - we're talking about Dawkins now?
Look, if you're going to argue that people like Dawkins have a less than ideal knowledge about history and some philosophical tenets, I won't complain and I might even agree (except the part about Marxist tenets of political economy and evolution - wtf?).
But what does all this have to do with either religion, atheism, suicide terrorism or psychology?

I'd kind of appreciate us to get back on track with this whole suicide terrorism thingy

EDIT - As to the statement 'Evangelistic atheism is a religion', I thought it was implicitly clear. It acts like a religion, and its philosophical roots are thoroughly a matter of faith.

False, and false. And 'implicitly clearly' so.

Eventually, though, I think the best one suited to higher debates on the nature of the mind and body would be Ummon, who has much more knowledge in this field than I do. Even though I disagree with many of his ideas, he was a healthy source of skepticism to otherwise firmly rooted ideas of purely naturalistic being and the indiscriminate imposition of progress philosophies into Science.

We all miss Ummon a little bit from time to time
But I've long age lost 'faith' in the deliberate wordplays and obfuscation he often engages in.

[Elfdude]

Some problems with his ideas:

1. He faults religious thinking as “hijacking” the minds of people to enabling them as bombers, yet only one religious-cultural group has an influence and prevalence for suicide bombing; Arab/Islamic Nationalists. The Kamikaze of Japan is the sole anomaly in this regard. However, his statement that the Kamikaze was recruited by Buddhist and Shinto priests is factually incorrect, if not an outright lie. They may have been prayed over or considered blessed, but there is no evidence they were recruited by them. Rather they were recruited by the own superiors and emboldened by the nationalist speeches of their leadership.

While others have addressed this I felt it was important to address this too. While what he says may be in error it's no great secret that extremist and agenda driven thinking can lead to these extreme behaviors in other areas of life. Religion simply helps condition people to do this. While there's nothing to say every religious person is unreasonable illogical and ignorant predisposing someone to a given behavior is different than causing it. In this we must be open to the idea that many factors from all areas of individuals lives come together.

In Japanese culture suicide has long been ingrained into their society because of Shintoism and their idealized Bushido. Japanese have a long history of little moderation in their concepts and complete intolerance for those who don't share their ideals. As can be seen by the christianization of japan, the subsequent slaughtering of christians and the response by Japanese christians with hostile force.

Similarly, the degree of your belief in your religion also makes you significantly more likely to perform acts without any empirical evidence because it's the nature of extremism to reject conclusions that run counter to your ideals.This extremism in the conviction of your beliefs does bleed into other aspects of their reasoning. I'm not sure if suicide is technically a sin in the Qur'an as it is in christian culture which may be why terrorist leaders utilize this method, or they may be just good at spinning it so that it isn't suicide.

Which is to say spirituality isn't the problem. Organized religion however is as followers who take their beliefs to the extreme are often seen as the pious paradigm for the rest of the religion. Whether there's a god or not ingratiating a belief system without empirical evidence leads to unexpected consequences that being open to the possibility either way does not.

2. He seems to want to tie the American occupation of Islamic land as the chief reason to the proliferation of suicide bombers while further implying that our foreign influence on their territory has created this phenomenon. This ignores history. The Americans didn’t even involve themselves in the Middle East on any scale until the last 50 years. Before that, they were helplessly pulled apart by the self-interested powers of Britain, France, Russia, Italy, Germany, and the Ottomans. What’s his reconciliation for that?

While, I also agree with this America is seen the last bastion of surviving old style capitalistic doctrine which is often targeted as materialistic and our cold war harmed them significantly. Also current world attitudes mean terrorist attacks on America generate intervention with the help of only a few other countries. This helps to make the west be seen as occupiers (increasing recruits) and serves to make a single country the bad guy.

Other countries have had to deal with significantly worse terrorism than we have but we're the first to think we could end it. America also dramatically destabilized the area in their attempt to fight communism. The area became so destabilized that the sovient union could 'conquer' the area but they could never hold it leading to them giving up. We won and so we pulled out and left the countries to fend on their own.

3. He continually ties suicide bombing and terrorism to religion. What about other acts of terrorism? How do they fit into the Male Bonded Coalitionary Violence model?

I know it might be wrong but often in the scientific community any extremism is referred to as religious behavior because to scientists that belief without empirical evidence boils down to. Yes it's inflammatory to your religious sensibilities but extremism is related to terrorism.

4. He creates cultural equivalences that are fallacious. For example; the equivalence between a suicide bomber and one who kills for more wives. Those two motivations are radically difference in both scope and outcome.

Depends on the degree of your belief in the truth of your religious rewards.

5. His knowledge of history is suspect. His statement that in 1500’s 2/3’s of the world was hunter-gatherer flies in the face of logic. Those were the years the great empires were emerging. Empires abounded on every continent. Unless he’s talking about land mass, this is a distortion and anti-thesis of his proof.

I would suspect he was referring to land mass.

7. His characterization of religion is almost ludicrous. Assigning it as “childhood credulity or as an expectation of reciprocity shows a marked lack of understanding of religious texts, even religion itself. It smacks rather, of an Ivory Tower sneering down from above and, like all elitists it characterizes all believers as nothing but either ignorant children or hapless souls hoping for 70 virgins (which he and his self-righteous audience had a good laugh at). Obviously, he is playing to a very specific crowd, with very specific beliefs. There doesn’t seem to be much objectivity in a large portion of his argumentation.

I feel a little like you hear the world religion and anything negatively associated with it you instantly assume someone is being condescending rather than recognizing why these sentiments are felt by the agnostic scientific community at large.

8. More importantly his statement about religion breaking down family loyalties is incorrect. It’s actually quite the opposite. Western religions are vehemently pro-family, only they posit God as the head of the house. His biblical quotes are taken completely out of context

It's very common in many religions to find the sentiment that you religion comes before all beliefs and concerns. Western religions are vehemently pro-family when politics gets mixed in regardless of what it says in their texts when in other aspects they abandon said status.

9. Finally, his statement that religion is a dangerous man-made phenomenon seems to ignore his own admission that we are vulnerable to supernatural belief. If we are already predisposed to that kind of thinking, is there not, perhaps, a natural reason for it? Is it his assertion that it must be educated against? How do you educate against your own psychological predispositions unless you are conditioned? How is this conducive to free society and preventing the very horrors he opposes?

Our psychology also predisposes us to stereotypes and prejudice. Certainly environmental factors don't affect us right? It's still a choice right?

10. It was a profoundly disorganized lecture that was improperly edited. In particular, was the part where he begins to talk about religious thinking, but suddenly cuts to his parable of the ants? Why was this edited? Even more importantly, how is this analogy appropriate to the topic of discussion? Is indicating that suicide bombers are just drones acting under an external influence to kill people really helpful in determining the root of the issue? Why is there no conversation about the people who sent them to die? They too are part of the event. It seems highly suspicious to leave them completely out of the conversation.

In this you find the danger of organized religion. People at the top can command people below them to do things in the name of their religion whereas the people at the top we can probably recognize have political and corrupt motivations those below them wouldn't be vulnerable to their orders was fanaticism not seen as a virtue in a religious context.

'Psychology of Religion' is a new religion in all but name.

... As Nietzsche said above: he, like every other whacko selling "ideas" for a cent, adopts a defensive posture towards religion and bases his work on assumptions of faith. Like "religion is irrational", "religion is coercive", "religion is violent", "religion is intolerant"... And finally, chief of them all: "Religion is WRONG", and "I am irreligious".

Before you start making assumptions yourself perhaps you could give us a little more to debate with and tell us a little why his assertions are wrong?

I don't think a proper religion needs a deity to be considered so. Religion springs wherever an unproven or partial assumption is made into an axiom, and therefore all human beings are religious. Particularly evangelistic atheists and the men who follow their line, like this one.

Partially true. I believe the hostile atheist movement is characterized best by the south park episode with richard dawkins. However this statement does little to help religion's case.

So do political doctrines, and even mild things like cheating your wife and disrespecting your father. Anything that involves belief, may involve standing up for them in a particular way.

But how do you change a belief of someone who has a belief based on nothing but the conviction of their faith? While most earthly believes are subject to empirical evidence and logic religion is not.

That's a statement that, in lieu of historical and actual facts, does not carry any credibility.

You're ignoring the cold war. While I doubt the reason terrorist leaders attack US is because they honestly think we're evil I have little doubt that their subordinates have been convinced of such given the mountain of evidence we've so graciously given their leaders I also doubt it's hard to convince them.

You are, quite clearly, placing yourself at the shoulders of the MRI. "The MRI this or the MRI that" does not help you beyond giving you the reputation of the spokesman for a particular academic authority, and we all know how biased they are!

The number of fallacies in this statement alone are mind boggling.

Now, as to your notion expressed so thoroughly in your own post, that the body is merely a chain of chemical reactions set to motion by mechanical processes, it is not really particularly new or better than the alternatives. It springs from a complete denial of the metaphysical ego, and it has flaws, but... I can't say that I disagree with it. Just as I don't necessarily disagree with "evolutionary psychology", even though that, together with the notion of the mechanical body, are loaded with philosophical and even political preconceptions; maybe because I am a man of my time.

While I agree with your assertion that we cannot say the body is purely mechanical for certain. Occam's razor helps us not to get into the habit of justifying things with the metaphysics because anything can be justified with metaphysics.

You seem to be mistaken, of course, by the idea that religious feeling deserves its own special "area" of the brain - because psychology is essentially a fancy brand for applying Physics into the human body. Religious feeling is indistinguishable from many other aspects of human feeling, and "faith" is necessarily a characteristic shared by all human beings (likewise, the faith that life can be created or brought back to dead beings by completely naturalistic means, essential for your ideas of the mind and body, and which has not been convincingly shown whatsoever). It all delves into deep philosophical questions, which you presumably do not subscribe to or haven't read, because you have been long convinced of the hypothesis of life as process, and treat it clearly as established dogma.

Scientific theory of life as a process. There's a significant difference between hypothesis and theory. If you were to provide some evidence to support your claims you could rightly say you have a hypothesis, if you were to present thousands of individual pieces of evidence that support your claim and have non refute it you can call it a theory. Also this seems to be a gross misunderstanding of psychology and human physiology.

Now, as to the credibility of the institution per se associating "religious ideas" with "a certain part of the brain", that per se does not generate any discordance. I could as easily claim that the heart determines the pace of physical activity, a well proven and basic notion, but the very bias comes not by its scientific assumptions (many of which, despite the constant resort to authority you have made in this thread, are still questionable), but by its philosophical ones, where it offers half-backed and semi-positivist notions easily traceable to the ideas of a few XIX century philosophers and their modern off-springs, like Dawkins.

The basis of science is the logic of philosophy. Any philosophical fallacies are also fallacies in the scientific world. Absolutism is very frowned upon in science as nothing can be absolute until we know it is and we can't know it is until we know everything. As such your statement that the heart determines the pace of physical activity would be wrong on so many levels. It is not proven.

In this, he is no better than any other philistine who, given the abundance of political socialism in academia, teaches his students about Marxist tenets of political economy and evolution. His knowledge of history particularly strikes as being an even more heavily simplified and sloganized version of the notions propagated by Whig history and similar global progress philistinism, to which he blends into biology and natural sciences indiscriminately (naturally, the more "rational" a man is, the better, and the tendency is for "rationality" to "increase"). Thus my reference to positivism.

Which fallacy is it that you can ignore the points someone makes if they're a philistine?

EDIT - As to the statement 'Evangelistic atheism is a religion', I thought it was implicitly clear. It acts like a religion, and its philosophical roots are thoroughly a matter of faith.

Like religion atheism has its own internal divisions. Most atheists would be better characterized as agnostic. Unfortunately describing yourself as agnostic has somehow become equatable to I'm religious but I don't know which god to worship. Atheism itself was a derogatory term for agnostics.

I don't think them to be red herrings. I find my objections intimately related to the material at hand. That the lecturer made no attempt to anticipate or refute the arguments suggests he's completely unprepared. His misrepresentation of some key points is crucial to accepting his overall thesis. A thesis I find surprisingly lacking given his credentials.

Unfortunately, like I've stated before this absolutism is the bane of knowledge itself. There are gems of insight and real points he makes ignoring those isn't very acceptable.

1) You are wrong. Japan never had a great spiritual strength. It's strength was always in patriarchal obedience. The vast majority of Kamikaze recruits were obtained by commanders and inspired by nationalist rhetoric.

The greater good concept was very indicative of Japanese culture and extremism has always been a trait they see as virtuous. The mass genocide of Japanese christians though doesn't support your idea that they had little spiritual strength.

3) However, in his summation he pretty much concludes that the eradication of religious thinking would go a long way toward ending this phenomena. My argument is that conclusion is so intellectually despotic and in opposition to the principles of liberty he would actually create more fanaticism in his attempt to erase it. You may believe this is not a subject of the lecture. I disagree. The conclusions are every bit subject of criticism as the thesis itself. His solution to the problem paints a very evil picture of a man who, for all intents and purposes, seems to mean well.

While, I think a world without organized religion, given it's conflict with modern society and progress, would be better off the only way to get to that point is through the slow march of societal progress towards agnosticism or a scientific discovery of god(s). Education of the masses in rationale and logic is the only way to accomplish this I think. In a perfect world all beliefs would be tempered with agnosticism.

[Nietzsche]

While others have addressed this I felt it was important to address this too. While what he says may be in error it's no great secret that extremist and agenda driven thinking can lead to these extreme behaviors in other areas of life.

This was my point. Religion is simply another motivator used by unscrupulous men to obey their command. You mention this later in your rebuttals here:

In this you find the danger of organized religion. People at the top can command people below them to do things in the name of their religion whereas the people at the top we can probably recognize have political and corrupt motivations those below them wouldn't be vulnerable to their orders was fanaticism not seen as a virtue in a religious context.

My point was, religion needn’t be part of the motivation. Nationalism, Patriotism, and type of fanaticism religious or secular will fill in just as nicely.

Religion simply helps condition people to do this. While there's nothing to say every religious person is unreasonable illogical and ignorant predisposing someone to a given behavior is different than causing it. In this we must be open to the idea that many factors from all areas of individuals lives come together.

You can replace the word Religion with Political Party, Family, State, etc… I will not disagree with his general idea that we are susceptible to certain processes of thought. I think that is evident in our philosophy and grammar. What I disagree with is the general conclusion that religion is largely responsible. That is the entire tenor of his lecture and the Q & A afterwards.

In Japanese culture suicide has long been ingrained into their society because of Shintoism and their idealized Bushido. Japanese have a long history of little moderation in their concepts and complete intolerance for those who don't share their ideals. As can be seen by the christianization of japan, the subsequent slaughtering of christians and the response by Japanese christians with hostile force.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen the principles of Shinto related to Kamikaze. That is something I’ll have to delve into. I’m skeptical. I’ll agree in general with your comments on their intolerance. After living there for 5 years, I discovered that very well. Although, the younger generation has changed much of that.

Similarly, the degree of your belief in your religion also makes you significantly more likely to perform acts without any empirical evidence because it's the nature of extremism to reject conclusions that run counter to your ideals. This extremism in the conviction of your beliefs does bleed into other aspects of their reasoning. I'm not sure if suicide is technically a sin in the Qur'an as it is in christian culture which may be why terrorist leaders utilize this method, or they may be just good at spinning it so that it isn't suicide.

We daily perform acts without empirical evidence. That has nothing to do with extremism, it has everything to do with our ability to assess a situation with what little information we have available and determine a course of action for good or ill. We all make a leap of faith at some point. It is how we are constructed. I think what you meant to say is “significantly more likely to perform seemingly irrational acts.” However, in the small window of time that we witness other human behavior, many of their actions can be construed as irrational. We cannot know the thoughts of someone’s mind.

Which is to say spirituality isn't the problem. Organized religion however is as followers who take their beliefs to the extreme are often seen as the pious paradigm for the rest of the religion. Whether there's a god or not ingratiating a belief system without empirical evidence leads to unexpected consequences that being open to the possibility either way does not.

Extreme in what sense? Ghandi’s fast? Assisi’s pets?

I know it might be wrong but often in the scientific community any extremism is referred to as religious behavior because to scientists that belief without empirical evidence boils down to. Yes it's inflammatory to your religious sensibilities but extremism is related to terrorism.

Ostriches are related to chickens. Democracies are related to Socrates.
In any case, what you said regarding the scientific community is heavy in irony.

feel a little like you hear the world religion and anything negatively associated with it you instantly assume someone is being condescending rather than recognizing why these sentiments are felt by the agnostic scientific community at large.

I understand these sentiments. I have a problem with psychologists making declarations about religious behavior as if it were an anathema to mankind. The traditions and cultures that have been shaped by religion created the world as it is today. We cannot envision the world without it. It would be the same as trying to envision the world without the ocean or weather. It has been and is an essential part of our existence. I take issue with the elitist notion that we would be better without it. It ignores the magnificent contributions made by religion worldwide. It seeks to eradicate an entire area of the human imagination. That no one cares to notice is extremely disconcerting.

Our psychology also predisposes us to stereotypes and prejudice. Certainly environmental factors don't affect us right? It's still a choice right?

I see. So religious thinking is just another fault of mind. Right? Your assumption is that particular type of intellectual behavior is bad, but there is no reason to indicate it. Yes, the mind can be exploited, beaten, warped, and distorted, but that does not make an act of thinking or a pattern of thinking bad. It could be likely that susceptibility saved us in some way we can't even think of yet. When you consider the appearance of religion and the appearance of culture perhaps the two are linked in ways we are afraid to admit.

Unfortunately, like I've stated before this absolutism is the bane of knowledge itself. There are gems of insight and real points he makes ignoring those isn't very acceptable.

I haven’t ignored some of his points. I’ve just rejected his central assertion. I believe as he has said that we are susceptible to certain types of thinking and stimuli. Beyond that, I think he’s pretty much off the mark.

The greater good concept was very indicative of Japanese culture and extremism has always been a trait they see as virtuous. The mass genocide of Japanese christians though doesn't support your idea that they had little spiritual strength.

Can you provide some sort of backing for your first statement?
As for the second, how does genocide equate to spiritual strength? They had an instinctive desire to preserve their traditions, but I don’t equate that to spiritual strength. I attribute that to a seething hostility for anything that disturbed their order.

While, I think a world without organized religion, given its conflict with modern society and progress, would be better off the only way to get to that point is through the slow march of societal progress towards agnosticism or a scientific discovery of god(s). Education of the masses in rationale and logic is the only way to accomplish this I think. In a perfect world all beliefs would be tempered with agnosticism.

One would have to accept that organized religion is the anti-thesis of progress. I will agree that culture change is inevitable. I will not agree to it being forced.