reply to post by dreb13
Hmm. Well, I dont know nor am I claiming to know if this video is legitimate.
BUT, if it is, there are some serious flaws in the logic of the scientist AND the audience seems to be overlooking something relatively important.
Begin with the scientist. "Suicide bombers are often religious fanatics, (fundamentalists) therefore, "curing" religious fundamentalism will end
While war and religious fanaticism often go hand in hand, it is by no means the case that you cannot have war without religious fundamentalism. Also,
the correlation between war and religious fundamentalism is by no means proof of a causal relationship.
I would argue, and I am right, that ALL wars are in fact economic. And that religion is but one way to sell the economic war to the masses. Its a
great way. It works well. Because their "payment" comes from God and not from the person using them as a soldier, its very cost effective for the
person manipulating said soldier. But its far from the only way to motivate someone to go to war for you.
So, he has no good scientific reason to believe that even if his vaccine works and he can transform religious fundamentalists into atheists, or
moderates, that that will in any way change the level of violence and aggression in the mid east or anywhere.
Now the alleged Pentagon guys.
America is full of religious fundamentalists. And those in the military industrial complex tend to benefit disproportionately from them. A lot of
what is going on in the middle east would be a lot less palatable to Americans if it were not for the religious teachings on the importance of Israel,
for instance. Once a aerosolized virus spread perhaps as a flu is released into the environment, it is highly likely to end up right here in the good
old US of A turning all the nice fundies in the Bible belt into atheists (or whatever its end result really is, Im assuming atheism because the brain
scan showed "disgust" at the reading of religious texts.)
Finally, science is so prejudiced against religion that they really have never taken the time to sort out what GOOD it provides people. And it must
provide some good, to have become so widespread, and so dominant in our species. I have done a good deal of work on my own in this area, and one
thing religion does aid in, is group cohesiveness. (Which is useful in terms of competition between groups)
Yes the competition between groups sometimes leads to war, but thats nature. And there are other ways, considering the economic nature of war, to get
around that. (Plato worked out a theory for that 2000 odd years ago) But if you eliminate the gene expression that causes "fundamentalism" and
religosity, how sure are you you will not also be tampering with the function that facilitates "in group" cooperation? And will you just be trading
"war between groups" for "war between all individuals?"
Anyway. If this is real, it is a clear example of human beings being idiots. Jumping to conclusions based on greed and prejudice and not thinking
something through clearly and objectively, and not really doing the cost benefit analysis and sufficient study to ensure it provides a net good.