It certainly wouldn't be allowed today, that's for sure. And it did have a lot of issues, but that doesn't change the way people involved in it behaved. Whether it is 'good science' or not it does illustrate the notion that good people can do bad things when religion has nothing to do with it. Whether what drove them to do those things was poor experimental design or basic inhumanity doesn't change that salient point.

In my opinion, religion is an expression of some... instinct (for want of a better word) we all have as human beings. If we didn't have religion as we know it, those instincts would still be there and would find expression in some form. The effect would end up being much the same.


Jon

Interestingly though, the other major experiment that springs to mind when thinking about the Stanford one, is Stanley Milgram's experiments regarding people's willingness to follow an authority figure. That would perhaps indicate that religion, revolving as it does around an all powerful authority figure, has the potential to incite people to do things that they would otherwise consider against their better judgement.

I've deliberately phrased that as much as a possibility as I can as I'm rather off my fields of expertise here!

The first of those is a fact, the second is a belief illicitly derived from the fact.

You can successfully argue that science and observation allow a description of all the facts of the universe that does not require God as an explanatory factor. This works on a sufficient basis (the big bang and evolution and various historical accidents combine to explain all the things described in religion without the need for God).

But you cannot under any circumstances provide a necessary argument (that the Big Bang and evolution and all those historical accidents could not have happened if there is a God). Any competent theologian will simply look at your scientific discoveries and congratulate you for revealing the methods God used to create the universe.

Your second assertion requires necessary and sufficient argument to be proven. Therefore it is not fact, even if it is true.

As above, religion isn't the problem. You don't see every religious person out there going around killing people. It doesn't happen. What happens is that you get seem people who are fanatics. The fringe of any group who are acting and reacting in a way that's outside the median.

I agree with jon that religion is a facilitator. Religion has done many good things as well but these are forgotten and outweighed by the negatives. Some people kill and then blame it on computer games. Should we ban all computer games on the basis that some people are crazy enough to kill? Is it rational to do this?

I live in an area with quite a few Muslims. They seem to be decent people. They are more representative of muslims than those killers in the news.

saw all the video footage and ive never laughed so hard in ages, especially when the cop gets apparently "shot" in the head ye with a blank firing rifle that spills no blood and the smoke was far away from his head also its all as fake as that stupid marathon "bombing" ridiculous

Quite so, but it's simply an example of a generalised phenomenon. 'Authority figures' can be religious, they can be parental, they can be political, they can be social (i.e. peer pressure style stuff). Religions almost always have a God or Gods, ultimate authority figure(s) as it were, but nobody who isn't actually certifiably crazy ever hears from them directly. Mostly people hear from them via more traditional authority figures - Priests, Imams, Rabbis etc. It's not the muslim version of God that is telling them to kill non-believers and those who ridicule the prophet, it's men. Ordinary men, just wearing the right hat as it were.

Millgram showed that people would follow the orders of an authority figure dressed a scientist, even to the point where they'd do something they had been specifically told was lethal to another person. Does that mean we should ban science? No, of course it doesn't. What it means - and this applies to politics, religion, even to the influence we allow our friends to have over us - is we must try to act based on our own moral compass. If we don't have one and the people we vest authority in don't have them either, that's likely to be a horrible combination.

Nobody expects the Islamic Caliphate. Our chief weapon is fear and surprise. Surprise and fear. Our two weapons are fear and surprise and ruthless effciency. Our three weapons are fear, surprise and a ruthless efficiency, and an almost fanatical devotion to the prophet. Our four... Amongst our weaponry are such diverse elements as fear, surprise, ruthless effciency and an almost fanatical devotion to the prophet.

I'll come in again.

And so on...

sorry but some of this just doesn’t add up

this doesn’t take away the sad fact of the loss of life for this attack, may they rest in peace because they didn’t deserve this ...

They were specifically looking for those responsible for the anti-prophet cartoons and the building was shared by companies and people who had nothing to do with the magazine or the anti-prophet cartoons, therefore it is no surprise that they weren't shot.

Likewise the driver of the second vehicle had nothing to do with anti-religious cartoonery, so was also not a target.

Here in Germany the PEGIDA movement have used it as ammunition to try and get more press time and to justify their anti-Muslim stance. The AFD and other right wing political parties are also trying to turn the events to their advantage.

Political opportunism is a sad reality.

I wonder a little if our globalised world - international communications, cheap long distance travel etc - allows ideologies and extremist groups that would previously have been limited to some nutball in a corner and his mates who could do a limited amount of harm into what we have today where they can form and operate in pretty much any country at any point.

Can't put the cat back in the bag in that respect obviously.

It isn't the only problem. It is a problem though. I see a lot of talk about the attackers not being real muslims (a no true scotsman right there) and yes, maybe there were political or other motivations behind the attack. But the protests, threats and rallies against the west for the depiction of Mo - the Danish cartoons, Salman Rushdie, Jesus and Mo, etc - are plentiful and supported by thousands of Muslims. Not just Islamists but many more 'regular' or moderate Muslims, particularly in predominately Muslim countries. When these people incite violence, burn flags and fill streets with protesters because someone said something, or drew something, that offended their religion then there is a problem there. It may take an extremist or certain type of person to actually pull the trigger but religion loads the gun.

Question Time last night actually had a surprisingly mature and nuanced debate about the tragedy in France and the issue of freedom of expression vs giving offence. I know, I was amazed too.

MI5 are quick to try and cash in, saying they need more powers to combat the growing threat.

Presumably those powers will require further infringements of our rights, all for the good of our safety of course.

You spotted that too did you.

Accounts from a survivor said that it isn't true, they walked into the direction room and shot everyone there then walked out of the building again.