You said, “The history of religions sometimes resembles the history of viruses. Judaism and Islam were both highly virulent when they first broke out, driving the first generations of their people to conquer (Islam) or just slaughter (Judaism) everyone around them for the sin of not being them. ”
I am not familiar with that history of early Judaism. Can you cite any references I can read about it? (I do admit I have not read the entire old testament, perhaps it’s in there?) By the way, I have heard that Roman Catholics are actively discouraged from reading either testament directly.
I am not familiar with that history of early Judaism. Can you cite any references I can read about it? (I do admit I have not read the entire old testament, perhaps it’s in there?)
Have you read even the early books? The constant warfare and near-genocides engaged in until they built up an empire? Then you have, even much later, all the rebellions which prompted the Romans to raze the Temple and exile most of the Jews.
In order for the Old Testament to be evidence of Jews acting genocidal, the Old Testament would have to be true to a sufficient extent. If it’s not, you don’t have Jews being genocidal, you have Jews telling stories about their ancestors being genocidal.
It was my impression that non-religious historians do not believe that the genocides described in the Old Testament as being done by Jews actually happened.
It was my impression that non-religious historians do not believe that the genocides described in the Old Testament as being done by Jews actually happened.
It was my impression that non-religious historians do not believe all the little stories and miracles, but I had not noticed that they entirely disbelieved accounts like conquering Canaan and believed that there was evidence indicating they were pacifists and did not exterminate any local populations or engage in warfare, and the archaeological evidence, to the extent that it can speak on the matter (since it’s going to be very difficult to investigate genocides from millennia ago when you are excluding all available written evidence as possibly untrue), supported it (the example that comes to mind is the burning of Jericho, although it’s disputed how well the observed destruction layer fits into the chronology).
Those stories most likely didn’t happen. Still, the fact that their religion is entirely dependent on those bloody stories says a lot about the ancient Hebrews’ priorities.
It seems fundamentally unfair to compare cases of religions whose people actually committed genocide to religions whose people tell stories about committing genocide.
This is especially so considering the original post here, which points out that people don’t actually follow all the commands of their religions and have blind spots about the religions not saying what they say. That applies to stories about genocide just as much as it applies to direct commands—you can reason all you want that someone who believes that fictional genocides were real and justified is as vicious as someone who actually commits genocide, but people’s minds don’t work that way. It’s entirely possible to think Biblical genocides are justified and have blind spots which would lead you not to commit genocide in any real-life situation.
(In fact, I’m not erven sure I could call all the possibilities blind spots. If you believe genocide is only justified when commanded in person by God, is it really a blind spot to say “God doesn’t directly speak to anyone nowadays, so I won’t commit any genocide”?)
Current Israeli treatment of Palestinians is what we’d expect from a civilization not above committing genocide, even with no previous experience at the giving end of it.
If true believers don’t commit genocide because God isn’t telling them to do so, then their minds have a huge backdoor entrance for memetic infection. I once had an extended email debate with a pastor who told me that he didn’t believe God approved of slavery, but if it were proven to him that God did, he’d jump to support it.
A nation doesn’t need to be completely wiped out to be a victim of genocide (see Armenians, Jews, Native Americans, all of which still exist).
I do get that actual genocide is qualitatively different from hypothetical, and even from potential genocide. What I was trying to say (and what I think the discussion was originally about) is that you are shaped by your heroes. Knowing that you admire Old Testament hero Joshua, mass murderer by divine command, provides a window into some of your values. Knowing that your civilization intentionally made up someone like Joshua in order to glorify him is even more cause for worry.
A nation doesn’t need to be completely wiped out to be a victim of genocide
But you’d expect the perpetrator to try a little harder than Israel actually has.
Knowing that your civilization intentionally made up someone like Joshua in order to glorify him is even more cause for worry.
Who’s to say anyone made up the story? I imagine it more like a game of telephone, where whatever incident started the story was unrecognizeable after a few hundreds of years until someone finally wrote it down.
And even if someone did directly make up parts of it, so what? Telling your child that if he stays up late the monster under the bed will eat him might not be the best of things to say to your kid, but it certainly doesn’t mean you think that being eaten is justified as a punishment for staying up late.
Agreed that making up the story only tells so much about the narrator. But so far we’re only considering the narrator.
Believing the story is what will change you. Until the day the kid knows any better, he will seriously believe that the universe has a punishment system that kills people for staying up late. If he’s upset at his little brother, he may try to trick him into not sleeping, hoping for him to be eaten. This may or may not poison their future relationship.
In a world where the kid grows up without being told the monster wasn’t real, he will tell the same story to his own kids. The first scenario will repeat itself, but this time the adult will mean it.
Edit: I just noticed this scenario contradicts my previous argument, where I suggested the narrator was more to blame than his gullible listeners. I feel more inclined to think otherwise now.
Upvoted for explicitly noticing and noting your confusion. One of the best things about Less Wrong is that noticing the flaws in one’s own argument is respected and rewarded. (As it should be, in a community of truth-seekers.)
Thanks. Whatever reading I did of the old testament was back when I was a teenager- which was long ago.I don’t remember how far I got, not very. I was reading the commentary along with it, and it was tedious. Perhaps I’ll get back to it when I get a chance. That’s certainly not the spin that was put on the history we were taught in Hebrew school.
You said, “The history of religions sometimes resembles the history of viruses. Judaism and Islam were both highly virulent when they first broke out, driving the first generations of their people to conquer (Islam) or just slaughter (Judaism) everyone around them for the sin of not being them. ”
I am not familiar with that history of early Judaism. Can you cite any references I can read about it? (I do admit I have not read the entire old testament, perhaps it’s in there?) By the way, I have heard that Roman Catholics are actively discouraged from reading either testament directly.
Have you read even the early books? The constant warfare and near-genocides engaged in until they built up an empire? Then you have, even much later, all the rebellions which prompted the Romans to raze the Temple and exile most of the Jews.
(An oddity I always found to be an example is that one of the lost books of the bible is titled ‘The Book of the Wars of the Lord’.)
In order for the Old Testament to be evidence of Jews acting genocidal, the Old Testament would have to be true to a sufficient extent. If it’s not, you don’t have Jews being genocidal, you have Jews telling stories about their ancestors being genocidal.
It was my impression that non-religious historians do not believe that the genocides described in the Old Testament as being done by Jews actually happened.
It was my impression that non-religious historians do not believe all the little stories and miracles, but I had not noticed that they entirely disbelieved accounts like conquering Canaan and believed that there was evidence indicating they were pacifists and did not exterminate any local populations or engage in warfare, and the archaeological evidence, to the extent that it can speak on the matter (since it’s going to be very difficult to investigate genocides from millennia ago when you are excluding all available written evidence as possibly untrue), supported it (the example that comes to mind is the burning of Jericho, although it’s disputed how well the observed destruction layer fits into the chronology).
Those stories most likely didn’t happen. Still, the fact that their religion is entirely dependent on those bloody stories says a lot about the ancient Hebrews’ priorities.
It seems fundamentally unfair to compare cases of religions whose people actually committed genocide to religions whose people tell stories about committing genocide.
This is especially so considering the original post here, which points out that people don’t actually follow all the commands of their religions and have blind spots about the religions not saying what they say. That applies to stories about genocide just as much as it applies to direct commands—you can reason all you want that someone who believes that fictional genocides were real and justified is as vicious as someone who actually commits genocide, but people’s minds don’t work that way. It’s entirely possible to think Biblical genocides are justified and have blind spots which would lead you not to commit genocide in any real-life situation.
(In fact, I’m not erven sure I could call all the possibilities blind spots. If you believe genocide is only justified when commanded in person by God, is it really a blind spot to say “God doesn’t directly speak to anyone nowadays, so I won’t commit any genocide”?)
Current Israeli treatment of Palestinians is what we’d expect from a civilization not above committing genocide, even with no previous experience at the giving end of it.
If true believers don’t commit genocide because God isn’t telling them to do so, then their minds have a huge backdoor entrance for memetic infection. I once had an extended email debate with a pastor who told me that he didn’t believe God approved of slavery, but if it were proven to him that God did, he’d jump to support it.
If Israel wasn’t above committing genocide, there wouldn’t be any Palestinians.
This site is named “less wrong”. Equating people who believe stories of committing genocide with people who actually commit genocide is more wrong.
“Might someday commit genocide if they get messed up” is still incomparable to “has committed genocide”.
A nation doesn’t need to be completely wiped out to be a victim of genocide (see Armenians, Jews, Native Americans, all of which still exist).
I do get that actual genocide is qualitatively different from hypothetical, and even from potential genocide. What I was trying to say (and what I think the discussion was originally about) is that you are shaped by your heroes. Knowing that you admire Old Testament hero Joshua, mass murderer by divine command, provides a window into some of your values. Knowing that your civilization intentionally made up someone like Joshua in order to glorify him is even more cause for worry.
But you’d expect the perpetrator to try a little harder than Israel actually has.
Who’s to say anyone made up the story? I imagine it more like a game of telephone, where whatever incident started the story was unrecognizeable after a few hundreds of years until someone finally wrote it down.
And even if someone did directly make up parts of it, so what? Telling your child that if he stays up late the monster under the bed will eat him might not be the best of things to say to your kid, but it certainly doesn’t mean you think that being eaten is justified as a punishment for staying up late.
Agreed that making up the story only tells so much about the narrator. But so far we’re only considering the narrator.
Believing the story is what will change you. Until the day the kid knows any better, he will seriously believe that the universe has a punishment system that kills people for staying up late. If he’s upset at his little brother, he may try to trick him into not sleeping, hoping for him to be eaten. This may or may not poison their future relationship.
In a world where the kid grows up without being told the monster wasn’t real, he will tell the same story to his own kids. The first scenario will repeat itself, but this time the adult will mean it.
Edit: I just noticed this scenario contradicts my previous argument, where I suggested the narrator was more to blame than his gullible listeners. I feel more inclined to think otherwise now.
Upvoted for explicitly noticing and noting your confusion. One of the best things about Less Wrong is that noticing the flaws in one’s own argument is respected and rewarded. (As it should be, in a community of truth-seekers.)
Good for you!
If Omega told you that CEV approved of slavery—or a Friendly superintelligence—would you jump to support it?
I would.
ETA: of course, it is admittedly harder to fake a superintelligence …
Thanks. Whatever reading I did of the old testament was back when I was a teenager- which was long ago.I don’t remember how far I got, not very. I was reading the commentary along with it, and it was tedious. Perhaps I’ll get back to it when I get a chance. That’s certainly not the spin that was put on the history we were taught in Hebrew school.