The problem with extreme moderation

“Do you feel safer outside a bar or outside a temple?” – a close “moderate” friend triumphantly asked Neo, while making the ok-maybe-its-not-entirely-true-but-its-still-useful case for religion.

Well, certainly Neo can concede that there are some temples that are safer than some bars – but (as anyone who’s visited the Kali temple in Kolkata knows), there are some temples that are actually more dangerous than many bars!

Speaking of things that are safer than bars, is Neo’s favorite cake shop in Bangalore divine too? The evidence is more compelling than it seems – on his last visit to “the Cake shop of the Taj”, Neo observed a lady who, after taking the first bite from her (accurately labeled) “death by chocolate” cake, exclaimed “oh God! oh God!”.

Of course the “but its better than going to a bar” argument is a bit of a straw-man argument. Surely there are stronger cases for being religious (although Neo hasn’t heard any yet).

But what Neo told his friend surprised him: “religious moderates are the problem, since they create the cake on which the fungus of extremism could potentially grow”.

Ok, the cake analogy is getting stale already, so let’s switch to alcohol: Just like every alcoholic was a “social drinker” once, every extremist was once a moderate.

(Neo had an excellent sex analogy too, but he wants to stick to the “stuff-that’s-bad-for-you” theme. (And yes, all software guys love brackets within brackets!)).

Drinking is not bad for a society because moderate drinking is bad, but because moderate drinking significantly increases the risk of becoming an alcoholic.

“Extreme moderates”, i.e. those who believe in “moderation in everything” should consider that in many cases, moderation is an oxymoron (“moderately virgin”) or evil (“moderate supporter of terrorism”). But in other cases it has so much potential of turning bad, that you’re almost surely better off without it – “moderate drinker”, “moderate lover of chocolate cake” and “moderately religious”.

So did Neo moderate his “extremely moderate” religious friend with the above argument ? No – but Neo led by example. Neo showed his “moderate atheism” (another oxymoron) by pointing out one of the major drawbacks of being an atheist – atheists don’t really know what to say instead of “oh God” while having sex!

Share this post:

If you enjoyed this post, subscribe to Neo on Twitter, Facebook, or via RSS!

No related posts.

Category: Atheism, culture, religion | Tags: Alcohol, Atheism, Baking and Confections, bangalore, Cake, Cooking, Home, humor, Kolkata 43 comments »

43 Responses to “The problem with extreme moderation”

Easily Amused
July 8th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
“religious moderates are the problem, since they create the cake on which the fungus of extremism could potentially grow”
Hilarious and well put.. spot on dude!
Am always shocked by the “highly” (sic) educated and those that hold out to be intellectuals and moderates.. wolves in sheepskin.. these are the ones looking for a reason to spew extremist views.. actually most do in their private circles and cliques… moderate in public is an extremist in private life.

[Reply]
neo
July 9th, 2009 at 6:44 am
@Easily

You hit the nail on the head with that comment. Moderate religious people are the PR firm appointed by the extremists!

If you watch the Sam Harris video at the end of the post, towards the end he makes an awesome point about moderates – the moderates are the ones who make the excuses for the extremists.

-Neo

[Reply]
Roshni
July 8th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
your ‘friend’ is just weird!!

[Reply]
neo
July 9th, 2009 at 6:40 am
@Roshni

Nah he’s okay. He even watches Christopher Hitchens with me. Which is more than I can say about Mrs. Neo, who insists on chick flicks like “He’s Just Not That Into You” over Hitchens. Some people have no sense of priorities.

-Neo

[Reply]
Roshni
July 9th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
ok, at least he has some redeeming quality in him then!

[Reply]
Shefaly
July 8th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
I use “Oh God” mostly as an expression of exasperation or more commonly, a term of abuse.

And next time, while discussing relative merits of bars and temples, try this cultural pearl on your ‘friend’ (from Harivansh Rai Bachchan’s Madhushala), although whether it is something to be cast before said friend or not is your judgement:

Musalmaan or Hindu hain do, ek magar unka pyala
Ek magar unka madiralya, ek magar unki haala
Donon rehte ek, na jab tak mandir maszid me jaate
Bair karate mandir maszid, mail karaati madhushala..

(Muslims and Hindus are separate but the cup they drink from is the same, as is their bar and their liquor. They remain one until they enter a temple or a mosque. Temples and mosques create enmity but a madhushala – a bar or another kind of sharabkhana – unites them).

Actually on second thoughts, read the whole lot of Madhushala. Better still listen to Manna Dey’s rendition of it. You can find it on CD in most cultured music vendors’ stores.

[Reply]
Kislay Chandra
July 8th, 2009 at 10:16 pm
@Shefaly

That poem is kickass . And so true .

[Reply]
neo
July 9th, 2009 at 6:45 am
@Shefaly

Beautiful. On another note, it just highlights how the Bacchan family has fallen. Now we wait for bated breath for the next generation to arrive.

-Neo

[Reply]
Vicki
July 8th, 2009 at 6:52 pm
So that’s why you’ve been at the gym so much lately, it was all the cake you’ve been “observing.” I don’t have anything as weighty to contribute as Shefaly (just like mold has nothing to contribute to a cake,) but I don’t know that moderates always necessarily grow into religion, or that if there were no moderates, people wouldn’t go from 0 to 60 on the Theological Highway. Which brings me to a question: how many killlommetres (or whatever units you guys use over there, I have no idea, I’m American, so I only speak English measurements) would a Hindu be going?

[Reply]
neo
July 14th, 2009 at 10:17 am
Hi Vicki,

The answer is 1 – let me explain. There is a temple* every 1km in India (it’s not a law, but it’s sort of like Starbucks – if you missed one, keep driving the next one is coming).

Upon arrival in the vicinity of a temple, your 2 choices are:

1. Keep driving, ignore the temple and risk the wrath of the specific God that inhabits that temple – since God (like Mrs. Neo) can also be offended by the things you didn’t do!

2. Drive at 1km/hour.

Now you know everything you wanted to know about Indian traffic.

-Neo
* Not counting cows, which apparently are not as holy as they were once. I have seen many of them being rudely asked to vacate the middle of the road! Next thing you know, we’ll be legalizing gay sex!

[Reply]
Dinesh
July 14th, 2009 at 10:28 am
There is an exception to this. No matter how snarling the traffic can be, Autorickshaws travel at a constant speed of 100 Km/hr. Even when they are stopping by to take the passenger in they are idling at 100 km/hr with brakes on. If the passenger says no, they immediately take their legs off the brake and they disappear at that speed. The Passenger witnesses a David Copperfield disappearing magic.

[Reply]
Kislay Chandra
July 8th, 2009 at 10:15 pm
“religious moderates are the problem, since they create the cake on which the fungus of extremism could potentially grow”.

Quite a point . Kudos !

[Reply]
gauri
July 9th, 2009 at 12:04 am
//“religious moderates are the problem, since they create the cake on which the fungus of extremism could potentially grow”.//

Your friend’s or your religious views notwithstanding – if he actually bought the logic behind this argument, you couldn’t have been anywhere other than a bar. And if you guys are back from the bar safe and blogging – and perhaps commenting – there, you’ve made your case already

g

PS: Had a long discussion with a friend this afternoon. Ironically, this post proves my point. Perhaps I should ask the nut to read it closely…

[Reply]
neo
July 9th, 2009 at 6:34 am
@gauri

Well actually we were eating cake. But yes, you can’t fungify the cake and eat it too.

And I like to think my arguments are like the stuff they put into James Bond’s drink in Casino Royale, except with a delayed reaction, so:

1. You read a few of my posts, and nothing happens. You might think, “Ha! Gotcha! Your power is weak!”.
2. <<>
3. You are busy in the kitchen mixing some preservatives in a jar of peanut butter, and an epiphany hits you.
4. One epiphany after the next, before you know it its like you’re being hounded by a bunch of Amway guys.
5. You try to swat away the epiphanies, but it’s a losing battle.
5. Congratulations, welcome to the world of the “extreme rationalists”, a.k.a. “we are rational 24/7″.

You’re somewhere between step 1, and step 2, yes ?

-Neo

[Reply]
gauri
July 9th, 2009 at 10:14 pm
I think you want me to say “touché!” But yes, to be fair to you – and to answer your question – you’re right. I am in fact between points 1 & 2 trying to figure out what point #2 exactly is

g

[Reply]
Kislay Chandra
July 9th, 2009 at 2:37 am
Your post gave me some food for thought . So the only way I can be religious and not a moderate , is by being a religious extremist . And , as a religious extremist , I will be gunning for those who call me an extremist . So Neo , “Dodge this” .

[Reply]
neo
July 9th, 2009 at 6:04 am
Kislay,

Are you sure you posted this comment at an auspicious time ? I would check the charts. After all, we wouldn’t your move to extremism to end with failure.

I know you’re kidding – but that’s sort of the point, right ? If you had it in you to be an extremist, it’s good that the rest of us know now. We’d rather reform you today than be blown up by you tomorrow!

-Neo

[Reply]
no-one
July 9th, 2009 at 6:45 am
My bedroom can be considered a temple, ‘oh-god…oh-god’ repeated many times…over..and over

[Reply]
neo
July 10th, 2009 at 12:54 am
no-one:

Yes, and my 401(k) statement is surely divine too!

[Reply]
no-one
July 10th, 2009 at 11:44 am
Now that is Funny.

This is my take on God: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Jainism

[Reply]
bea walker
July 9th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
As a lay person who has no great knowledge of philosophy/religion/X religion’s sacred book – what should one be? An atheist or fundamentalist? Can there be no middle ground?

Why can’t one believe in a Divine being (no particular God or religion need be mentioned) as a matter of faith even if one has a scientific bent of mind?

Surely it is possible to believe in and live a life based on the general 10 commandments type of universal principles? That could be considered a moderate life….

The problem is that people think that ALL the “principles” of a religion are written in stone no matter how small or contradictory they are to common sense – they do not see the need to change or adapt them for changing times and the bigger problem is that every extremist gets caught in the mind set of “my religion is better than yours and all who are not followers of my religion have to be killed/converted/fought”…take your pick….

Following one’s own path because it works for you and not judging others – that would be a moderate life to aspire to…..

[Reply]
neo
July 10th, 2009 at 12:40 am
Hi bea,

For many years, I confused the belief in the “divine” with the belief in “philosophy”. However, this confusion is the root of the “moderate” problem.

The easiest way to see that divinity and philosophy are completely different, is to realize that all the beliefs that you and I hold dear (e.g. non-violence, equality of all humans, freedom from slavery , environmentalism, right to free speech etc.) are self-evident, i.e. we would believe in them even in the absence of a religious book or threat of divine punishment. Why ? Because our “common sense” and rational mind tells us that these principles lead to the betterment of humankind, and indeed the planet.

Our values are the product of our intellect, the same intellect that tells us that the total number of integers is infinite, or that steam is atomically identical to water.

Reasonable people could disagree about the validity of Ayn Rand’s Objectivism, or how far we should take environmentalism, and indeed what passages of the Atharva Veda are valid and moral in 2009 – as long as we agree that all of the above books and belief systems are man-made. The moment we say some books are divine, the discussion is over, isn’t it ? Questioning the word of God is heresy!

Once you grant yourself the right to believe that some books are “divine”, it’s only a matter of time before someone comes up with a divine book that is evil – but at that point, how can we question him ? Those who pray to Santa Claus for an iPhone cannot preach “common sense” to those who pray to the Tooth Fairy!

-Neo
PS: The first several of the 10 commandments, e.g. “Don’t pray to any God except me” seem more like what a jealous girlfriend would say rather than God. Like, seriously ? God felt “No idol worship” is more important as a top 10 commandment than say, “Teach your children Math and Science?” or “Save the trees” ?

[Reply]
Dinesh
July 10th, 2009 at 9:05 am
Neo, I don’t think you are an atheist then. You believe in the right thing to do, based on your common sense, your intellect, your mind, sixth sense, whatever you want to call it. That is the divinity in every life. The purity that can be found in every human. It is a choice, a Human can choose to be good or choose to be bad out of ignorance. People think that there is some big guy named God and another big guy named Satan.

No.

Ignorance is Satan and a Mind that knows to choose right is Divinity. That is how it needs to be interpreted, but the ignorant interprets it in various ways and forms a religion. In fact, Hinduism is not the name given by Hindus! It was given by Persians and Greeks to those following a way of Life by the river Indus. It is actually called – Sanatana Dharma or the Eternal way of life, and from there we have Buddhism which again is not a religion but is just a way of life.

According to the Sanatana Dharma, everything came out of the mind of God (or infinite divinity or wisdom or energy or force or nature or krishna or allah or whatever you want to call it) and everything existed and will exist for eternity as Energy. They just manifest themselves into various physical forms. Certainly, E=mc2 can explain this to an extent.

I can go on and on, but we are on the right path when we know to choose what is good from what is bad.

[Reply]
Gori Girl
July 10th, 2009 at 10:37 pm
neo, you need to read more philosophy. The things you list as self-evident most certainly aren’t, at least for people who think about these topics deeply.

[Reply]
Dinesh
July 10th, 2009 at 10:02 am
You know I forgot what I came to write and I completely digressed. Your thought on Moderation is right, just because one has to do something moderately it doesn’t mean that you are allowed to do a bad thing moderately. It is a good thing to buy yourself an iPhone, But it is bad to buy yourself 10 iPhones or suppress your desire by not buying anything at all, provided you have the money. One needs to understand the context of moderation and why people talk about moderation and not just generally apply it to everything. It is bad to kill 100 people a day so let me go moderate by just killing 10 – makes absolutely no sense does it! One can go on and on but I think people with common sense will get it.

[Reply]
neo
July 11th, 2009 at 1:14 am
Hi Dinesh,

That’s a great point – the moderates claim that religion is like the iPhone in your example, but the overwhelming proof that we see around is today suggests that religion behaves more like alcohol – a fun and marginally useful social custom, but a deadly poison if taken to extremes.

-Neo

[Reply]
Joanne
July 10th, 2009 at 3:49 pm
Neo,

I am confused by this post.

I looked up “moderate” in the dictionary, surely you don’t disagree with the definition:
1 a: avoiding extremes of behavior or expression : observing reasonable limits b: calm, temperate2 a: tending toward the mean or average amount or dimension b: having average or less than average quality : mediocre3: professing or characterized by political or social beliefs that are not extreme4: limited in scope or effect5: not expensive : reasonable or low in price

Really not clear why you think all moderates turn into something else over a period of time. I know *tons* of ppl who have not, and who continue to be ,er, moderate.
Not sure if a “social drinker” is the same as a “moderate drinker”, but really, do all of the former or the latter become alcoholics? And same for chocoholics?
And sure, there can be nuclear scientists, who believe in the 72 virgins, just as there are enough ppl who wouldn’t believe in any God, or Jihad, given the right, I dread to say this , opportunity.

And moderation in everything? Drinking, religion and chocolate is not everything , although some would beg to differ, I suppose.

[Reply]
neo
July 10th, 2009 at 8:19 pm
Hi Joanne,

I never suggested that all moderates will become extremists, merely that a moderate is more likely to become a religious fundamentalist than an atheist would ever be.

It’s like not all those who practice unsafe sex will contract AIDS, but unsafe sex significantly increases the risk of getting AIDS.

Finally, what is the “moderate” position on Santa Claus ? Because really, there’s no difference between that and how atheists see God. Also keep in mind that there are a total of 3,500 religions in the world. The position of most moderates towards 3,499 of them is already identical to their position on Santa Claus (and Zeus, Vayu, Zoroaster, The Incas God, Alien creators, …) Atheists just believe in one less God than the moderates.

-Neo

[Reply]
Gori Girl
July 10th, 2009 at 10:35 pm
I think you’re conflating items which are binary by nature and items which exist on a continuum; you can only be moderate in the latter, not the former. For instance, you either believe in the existence of an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good God, or you don’t. You either are an alcoholic or you are not.

In contrast, you have a continuum of tastes and behaviors (economists have fancy math ways of describing the shape & nature of your choice sets and preference sets, but they almost always taken to continuous). So you can vary your drinking activity from none to some to everyday, etc. You can vary your religious activity from none (however you choose to define “religious activity”) to some to crazy-ass monk level. Your enjoyment of chocolate cake can go from dislike to mild enjoyment to deep passion.

As far as your main argument goes, I’m not convinced beyond a very superficial level. Yes, the presence of alcohol in a community means that that community is more likely to have alcoholics than a community that has NO alcohol whatsoever. Likewise, a person who has some religious beliefs (*waves hand at defining religion*) is more likely to be a religious fundamentalist than someone who has NO religious beliefs of any kind. These sort of conclusions are not rocket science.

But this isn’t any sort of argument against religion or alcohol or *any* other activity or belief which has costs. And ALL activities and beliefs have costs, since there’s always at least opportunity costs, if nothing else. You’ll have to go a lot further than the “argument” you’ve made here.

[Reply]
neo
July 11th, 2009 at 12:39 am
Hi gorigirl,

Well of course you’re right – this isn’t a rigorous argument, it’s just poking fun – think of it as a quick fix “pop atheism” for my busy-beyond-”belief” readers who really don’t have the time to read my 500-page book on the subject.

If you were looking for a rigorous treatment of the subject you’d be reading Hitchens, Dawkins, Sam Harris, and then the thousands of papers they in turn cite, many of which you’ve probably read already.

The other point is that (just like with say, calculus) it is for the believers to make the argument. If you think that we should be at some other point other than “0: Disbelief” when it comes to any specific religious claim or behavior of any of the 3500 religions (or you know something that us (superficial) disbelievers don’t) well then that claim is yours to prove, not ours to disprove!

-Neo

Joanne
July 10th, 2009 at 11:36 pm
neo,

Sorry, still confused
The opposite of moderate is extreme, and if what you and Sam Harris say is true, “moderates” should have already gone out of existence (or will become extinct soon) since they’d all “become” extremists (at whatever it is they are moderate at).
Will surely let you know if a super-belated epiphany does strike me regarding this post though!

[Reply]
neo
July 11th, 2009 at 12:53 am
Hi Joanne,

Well, all things being equal many more moderates would probably have been lost to extremism.

But all things are not equal – enter science and the “men of the mind” (Ayn Rand’s term). 1000 years ago, we would have been discussing “moderate belief in blood-letting”, or “moderate belief in astrology”, or “how non-believers in alchemy are extremists in their own way”.

Can we at least agree that science has laid waste to vast swathes of ground that was once the sway of religion ?

(And epiphanies do occur. Keep the faith – I was once a believer! Thank God I’m an atheist now.)

-Neo
Joanne
July 11th, 2009 at 11:40 am
Neo,

This is one of those conversations that has no beginning or end !!
Certainly faith in “non-faith” and faith in “faith” are two sides of the same coin…..

[Reply]
neo
July 11th, 2009 at 7:39 pm
Hi Joanne,

You’re one of my nicest readers, even when we disagree, and I know you’re trying to end our discussion on a conciliatory note, but I simply have to point this out because I know you’re making a genuine attempt to understand:

Atheists do not have faith in non-faith, they simply have NO faith.

If all the religions were hobbies like stamp collecting, ballet dancing, … Atheism would be “none”.

If all the religions were sports, then atheists would not be “cricket”, they would be those who don’t play any sport.

Atheism is not a religion or a faith system, just like “not collecting stamps” is not a hobby, or “not playing football” can not be a sport.

Atheists are not those who have a different religious belief system than yours, they are simply those who don’t HAVE a religious belief system.

-Neo

[Reply]
Shefaly
July 12th, 2009 at 1:11 am
I hate to spoil this erudite exchange but I think you are mixing “atheist” with “agnostic”. All agnostics are atheists. But some atheists are not agnostics. You (both of you) may want to review your argument in light of this minor (but important) semantic point.

[Reply]
Gori Girl
July 12th, 2009 at 8:14 am
Uh, all agnostics are not necessarily atheist, unless you’re using a very odd definition of agnostic. “Agnostic” historically meant believing that it was impossible to know whether God existed (the Abrahamic God – i.e. all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good). Since then it has been expanded to mean that you believe that certain claims about various religious and metaphysical things – including the afterlife, spiritual “stuff”, deities other than the Abrahamic God – have an indeterminate truth value (i.e. we don’t know what’s true or not), but might be knowable in the future.

So agnosticism is only about your beliefs on what is knowable or not. You can be an agnostic theist (i.e. you don’t think it’s possible to know for certain whether a god exists or not, but you choose to believe) or you can be an agnostic atheist (same thing, but you choose to believe that god doesn’t exist), or you can simply be an agnostic, and wash your hands of the whole discussion, saying that you just don’t know (and neither do the rest of the fools arguing over the topic).

Søren Kierkegaard is probably the most famous agnostic theist (at least in philosophy circles), and Hume is the most famous all-over agnostic (his Dialogues on Religion are a great read, for anyone interested in his stance on religion).

neo
July 12th, 2009 at 7:14 pm
Gorigirl,

You forgot Procrasteneists – Those (like gauri above?) who are atheists, but are putting off admitting it.

-Neo

Joanne
July 13th, 2009 at 10:15 am
Neo,

Thanks for the compliment about “one” of the nicest readers’!, I simply don’t believe in hurling insults and expletives over the virtual world

Just as someone was once confused on “so many levels” by the street planners and address-makers of Bengaluru, I am too, on many levels , by your blog post and replies !!
For one, why this blog post on a R2Ish, really funny, filled with urbane wit blog column?
There is almost no way that such a blog post, regardless of any funny references to desserts and alcohol, would generate any other type of discussions other than what is being posted.

Unless of course, you are widening the scope of your blog (perhaps an atheism missionary??) , which would be a sad demise to the “original” Neo blog (IMHHHO)!!

So, you are fundamentalist atheist/agnostic/non-believer/ , maybe even a tinge of pseudo-secularist (is there such a thing as reverse pseudo-secularist) , eh, (I am referring to the “temple” reference, which I had assiduously desisted from pointing out, till now). Well, ok. Great. Or not great….or good for you. Whatever.

So we agree to disagree on moderates, extremists, God, the word “God”, and more

[Reply]
neo
July 13th, 2009 at 10:34 am
Hi Joanne,

Your point about irrelevance to my primary blog title is taken (although India is so steeped in tradition/culture/religion whatever, its sort of hard to escape it).

And all of you can debate whether it should be called agnostic/secular/pseudo/disco/trance/applied-physics etc., I’ll just stick with the following: “Religion: none”.

-Neo
Dinesh
July 13th, 2009 at 10:59 am
Religion: One – Can unite us at all level than Religion: None which only causes another division called “None”.

[Reply]
Return to India myth #5: You and your kids will have lots of friends in India | neoIndian - Confessions of a newly returned Indian
July 14th, 2009 at 9:54 am
[...] The problem with extreme moderation [...]
Rave
July 22nd, 2009 at 9:41 am
What we believe as common sense now was written and preached as religion in the oder era’s.

[Reply]
vishesh
August 2nd, 2009 at 12:01 am
well never be moderate…or in the middle for that matter…If ‘A’ is an ant… ‘E’ is an elephant

[Reply]