Now that the atheism THREAD has thankfully passed beyond the veil, I was intrigued by some common social psychology that seemed to be manifest within it. Namely, almost all debates on the subject of religion that I have encountered in a group, with a few significant exceptions, have degenerated rapidly into rabble.
The question is: why is the debate of religion so problematic in the first place? And what steps can we take to ensure that if we choose to participate in the debate that we are not misunderstood and that we do not give offence?
TigerTim saidNow that the atheism has thankfully passed beyond the veil, I was intrigued by some common social psychology that seemed to be manifest within it. Namely, almost all debates on the subject of religion that I have encountered in a group, with a few significant exceptions, have degenerated rapidly into rabble.
The question is: why is the debate of religion so problematic in the first place? And what steps can we take to ensure that if we choose to participate in the debate that we are not misunderstood and that we do not give offence?
That's a great question....the debate is problematic because:
1) Religion helps define who a person is. If you question their religion ( or rather, how they interpret their religion), you are forcing them to question themsleves and their security. People are loathe to do that.
2) Religion is used to put people in categories and keep social order Shake up the categories and all hell breaks loose.
3) Religion is used to keep people in their economic class. Religion is about money and power. Nobody want to give that up.
It depends on where the debate happens. Forget about online. It's too easy to be misunderstood, mischaracterized.....there is no facial expressions and you can't hear the voice.
The whole problem with discussing religion is that it is such a volatile and controversial subject. This is why any constructive discussion on this potentially explosive topic leads to bitter disagreement and offensive comments. Everyone has very strong opinions about religion just like everyone has strong opinions on political issues. This is probably why many people avoid any discussion on either religion or politics.
roadbikeRob saidThe whole problem with discussing religion is that it is such a volatile and controversial subject. This is why any constructive discussion on this potentially explosive topic leads to bitter disagreement and offensive comments. Everyone has very strong opinions about religion just like everyone has strong opinions on political issues. This is probably why many people avoid any discussion on either religion or politics.
The very people that allow themselves to get so worked up and angry are the ones you don't bother with....they are inherently missing the boat about the truth of their own religion.
But there are people who can discuss religion. I can.
My favorite line in the musical "1776" was John Adams saying "It's a revolution damnit! We're going to have to offend somebody!" The point being, if you're afraid of offending anyone in a discussion, why have the discussion? How can such a discussion be honest and open, or productive?
I can only speak for myself and my experiences, and one thing you find with religion that it is a very personal thing, and in part, defines an individual. Because religion can be such an integral part of a person, some people cannot separate themselves from their beliefs for the sake of an intelligent conversation/debate. I also think too that many people are not able to speak of their personal beliefs without an 'I'm right, you're wrong' attitude. Having a discussion about religion doesn't mean you have to convince others that you're right and they should join your religion, but unfortunately, I find this is what most conversations about religion turn into, like they're preaching from the pulpit.
One thing that drives me crazy is when people make sweeping generalizations, lumping all religions together as if they're all virtually the same, in this instance, just like ShamblesKissingPro has done with his three points.
People can only draw on their own experiences when stating their opinions, so when someone has a lack of education when it comes to world religions, lots of inaccurate assumptions are stated as fact. When that occurs, an intelligent conversation becomes impossible, leading to a break down in the conversation.
It's a hot topic, which is one of the reasons I enjoying having a discussion about religions. When people question my beliefs, I end up questioning my beliefs. And that's a good thing. One of two things can happen: by questioning and explaining my own beliefs they become more tangible and solid, or it leads me to more questions, new thoughts and ideas, which can shape my beliefs in ways I never expected. As long as the conversation remains intelligent and congenial, I'll be better off for it.
Squarejaw saidWhat do you mean? Atheism is alive and well here.
I imagine he means the "atheism" thread has passed.
Religion is taught to children at so young an age that when you challenge their religion, you are also challenging their feelings about mommy, and first rituals, and cookies in Sunday School, and all the warm runny feelings of "fellowship"...
In other words, religion operates on people at such an inchoate level that the reactions people have to any challenge to it are almost certainly autonomic. And that's also why it's pointless to discuss it, really.
ShawnTO saidOne thing that drives me crazy is when people make sweeping generalizations, lumping all religions together as if they're all virtually the same
Well, there IS something they all share, to wit, belief in some unseeable, unknowable Thing. And a lot of us find that not very believable or interesting.
jprichva said[quote][cite]ShawnTO said[/cite]One thing that drives me crazy is when people make sweeping generalizations, lumping all religions together as if they're all virtually the same
Well, there IS something they all share, to wit, belief in some unseeable, unknowable Thing. And a lot of us find that not very believable or interesting.[/quote]
Yes, and having things in common is quite different than all being the same.
yes, it is a volatile subject and many (myself included) don't have all the answers. I think because of that, it's sometimes an easy target. I also think that many are not well versed in their own faith and religion because they have relied solely on what was passed to them from parents and grandparents. I do feel that many others who do not share in a specific faith or belief, have done their homework, unlike many of us, to discount organized religion. I think that, coupled with the ongoing perception that a certain right wing vocal group represents anyone believing in organize religion (well, ok, at least Christians), leaves many of us defensive.
Religion is a very personal thing. It's like someone calling your mother ugly...whether they can substantiate it or not, it's personal and offensive to that one person that loves her.
TigerTim said The question is: why is the debate of religion so problematic in the first place?
I'd say because religion is naturally a matter of personal belief. Some of us may think very little of those who put stock in belief without evidence but then again its tough to attack something that doesn't exist. We just end up looking like the assholes sometimes.
The burden of proof rests on the theists side anyhow. They have to prove their vision of a spiritual being or god exists.
TigerTimAnd what steps can we take to ensure that if we choose to participate in the debate that we are not misunderstood and that we do not give offence?
1) Have a knowledge of what your talking about
2) Know how to properly use the quote system on the forums so it's not all mass repeated garbage.
3) Take a break and avoid the subject. Talk about hot guys and cars instead.
TigerTim saidThe question is: why is the debate of religion so problematic in the first place? And what steps can we take to ensure that if we choose to participate in the debate that we are not misunderstood and that we do not give offence?
It is basically because they are opposing viewpoints in the minds of many people. Where there are greatly diverging views, there will will be "debate". When you throw in how people are emotionally invested in their ideas then you go to a "heated debate" or basically arguing.
The more strongly you are entrenched in your view then the more likely you will debate because your identity is wrapped up in those views. If your view is challenged then you protect your view as if it were a part of your body. It is almost like blinking when you perceive an object flying towards your face.
For there to be no argument, you have to realize that whatever the view, you are essentially the same as the other person, that is find a common root so there is no enemy. Also we must loosen our grip on our ideas and mental constructs as our identity.
I think that debating religion is tough because it's not an intellectual debate. At best it can be a respectful discussion, but a debate? How can it be won?
There's really no way one can have a dispassionate discussion about religion when the tenets of religion are "obviously false" to nonbelievers and "true" to believers.
Debating the existence of God is problematic for another reason. Most people who claim to believe have defined God in their own way, so it's tough to know what you're debating. Most of the conversions are of people who haven't thought deeply on the subject - the college student who reads La Mettrie and is "enlightened." Or the person who has a religious experience and suddenly has a renewed or different faith. People who have come to their position after much deliberation aren't likely to find the debate informative.
It's better to debate the proper role of religion in society, how high the wall separating religion and the state should be, what the faithful should do when their clergy preach evil, why there is an apparent lack of atheist community, etc.
NNJfitandbi saidI think that debating religion is tough because it's not an intellectual debate. At best it can be a respectful discussion, but a debate? How can it be won?
There's really no way one can have a dispassionate discussion about religion when the tenets of religion are "obviously false" to nonbelievers and "true" to believers.
Debating the existence of God is problematic for another reason. Most people who claim to believe have defined God in their own way, so it's tough to know what you're debating. Most of the conversions are of people who haven't thought deeply on the subject - the college student who reads La Mettrie and is "enlightened." Or the person who has a religious experience and suddenly has a renewed or different faith. People who have come to their position after much deliberation aren't likely to find the debate informative.
It's better to debate the proper role of religion in society, how high the wall separating religion and the state should be, what the faithful should do when their clergy preach evil, why there is an apparent lack of atheist community, etc.
You propose a shift in the way to talk about it. That would be good thing to do and a better way to address compromise and tolerance..........one can only.......pray.......maybe in the future there will be laws....but before there are laws, people have to want it, or you have to have a visionary politician who is going to hang himself/her.
TigerTim saidThe question is: why is the debate of religion so problematic in the first place? And what steps can we take to ensure that if we choose to participate in the debate that we are not misunderstood and that we do not give offence?
The implications of religious thought and discussion are far-reaching enough to place some people on the side of an argument opposite from where they always expected to be.
I have been hostile to organized religion throughout my adult life. And justifiably so. I've insulted religionists in jest, embarrassed their minions in anger and attacked them all in self-defense, because they were so clearly and demonstrably "wrong."
These days, however, I often find myself on the side of the religious in an argument because I find those of my ilk have a philosophical "blind spot" the size of, well infinity.
When you have a non-believer standing with the "church folks," still not agreeing with most of their beliefs, yet suspecting they might have one crucial thing right, you know this is some serious shiit!
I usually try to focus on the arguments being made rather than the people making the arguments. That keeps it from getting too personal.
I think a lot of people have two problems with discussing religion:
1) It's not something a lot of people consciously think about, the reasons for their belief (or unbelief). It's something that even fewer people think about in the context of discussing it with others, especially who might disagree.
2) Not a lot of people have the vocabulary to discuss religion, theirs or others. A good working knowledge of your *own* religion is a rare thing for most, much less the religions of others. And the vocabulary to bridge the gap between different beliefs and belief and disbelief is not a natural one in the vernacular.
Too often, religion is intimately enmeshed with a culture, and in these cases, an attack on the religion turns into an attack on the culture. The obvious example in the current climate is re Islam: This religion is so deeply intertwined in certain cultures that going against Islam (or disagreeing with some aspect of its teaching) is tantamount to political treason or a crime against the state.
However, it also exists in other religions. Eg, in Poland, to be Roman Catholic is to be a true Pole and a true anti-communist. I have met Polish immigrants here in NJ who fret that "the faith" will decline in Poland as democratic freedoms expand and the threat of communism subsides, and the role of the RC Ch as the leading enemy of communism becomes redundant.
Also, in the Orthodox Christian churches: I think of the Russian Orthodox which split decades ago into the Church of Moscow, and the "Old Calendarists." The Old Calendarists (those who went back to the Julian Calendar, and renounced the Gregorian Calendar still used by Moscow) accused Moscow of being a puppet of the KGB (probably true).
Here in our American experience, I think religion has had a powerful role in the development of this country (for both bad and good). In the 19th century, preachers used religion quite effectively: America is our Promised Land, they said, and people usually believed it. It became a way to rationalize taking land away from it's previous owners and making it their own.
I think ShamblesKissingPro is absolutely right: religious people define themselves by their religion. I have no problem with this until arrogance, self-righteousness and smugness kick in: "My religion is better than yours! My religion is the only true one -- and don't ask me to prove it -- I just believe it." This kind of religion has the quality of an affect.
I once heard that sarcasm is the weak person's way of fighting back. I would extend that to include shallow religious convictions.
"History does not record anywhere at any time a religion that has any rational basis. Religion is a crutch for people not strong enough to stand up to the unknown without help. But, like dandruff, most people do have a religion and spend time and money on it and seem to derive considerable pleasure from fiddling with it."
And if a rancorous debate results from the topic of religion is that necessarily a bad thing? At least in the context of the many, in this case negative, things that disputes about religion have spawned.
I think though more than anything about religion, it is the idea that you ultimately have the cosmos aligned behind you. It's not just you as a person, or something person, but that your beliefs are 'right' or 'correct' on a level that transcends every day existence, that there is meaning and direction to life beyond just who you are as a person.
ALso no one believes that what they believe is irrational -- to each person their beliefs are rational. And there are many who have thought about their religions and explored what belief means to them. Whether right or wrong in their belief I cannot say, or necessarily agree, but more than not those of firm belief that I know have thought deeply about it, and often argued with themselves nad others about that religion.
But these sort of discussions are probably never going to be easy or without dissent, but that is probably the nature of them in that they represent people who are fundamentally different from each other.
TigerTimwhy is the debate of religion so problematic in the first place? And what steps can we take to ensure that if we choose to participate in the debate that we are not misunderstood and that we do not give offence?
I can only speak from my own experience. One thing is that religion is a very personal matter that people feel very strongly about. Even those that eschew religion are extremely passionate in their beliefs.
Another thing to consider is that some people are uncomfortable with the subject altogether, and become offended at even the mention of religion.
Then there's the matter of one person explaining how and what they believe to another. Even when the intent is to have an amicable discussion, it's all too easy for one person to mistake another's passion in their belief for prostelytizing.
When you're dealing with an open forum or a large group of people, you also often run into somebody popping in with the intention of starting a flame war, and those persons will, undoubtedly, say something rude or disparaging about someone's beliefs... and you get an instant war.
In a discussion of religion (or politics), it is important to carefully choose your words so that you remain clearly understood (though most people lack such a level of vocabulary when expressing religious beliefs), to have respect for the beliefs and opinions of others... even if you disagree or think it silly, and to avoid attacking or belittling the beliefs of the other person. Attitudes have to be checked at the door, or the whole discussion will devolve into a fight.
For example: In a discussion of religion, if someone states what they believe, the wrong thing to do would be to follow with a comment such as "good thing I'm not superstitious"... because the first person is going to assume you're writing their beliefs off as mere superstition and they're going to get pissed. Result: Instant flame war... unless one of the two parties has the vocabulary to nip it in the bud immediately.
I've noticed that many people conflate fundamentalism and all other spiritual expressions.
There's also an immediate condemnation of religious/spiritual experience as a harmful delusion. I have a pretty longstanding interest in the relationship of religious experience to the imagination and the aesthetic and I think any objective examination of it from this point of view is less reductively condemning.
There's broad ignorance especially about the psychology developed by Buddhism. Western scientists are now corroborating the positive value of Buddhist practices through neural imaging. The Dalai Lama engaged in his annual discourse with scientists about depression and Buddhist practices here in Atlanta recently.
There's also broad ignorance about the positive social activism of some religious expression, like the liberation theology movement of South America. The work of Marcella Althaus-Reid in "queer liberation theology" is fascinating. The American civil rights movement was itself grounded in the church.
There's the inevitable argument that what is "irrational" is bad, a supposition that deserves to be questioned. What I find especially strange is the presumption that everyone takes religious experience and teaching as literal. But even personification is understood by many people to be a natural function of the psyche, a metaphorical process.
Many people on both sides of the question have no sense of humor about religion.
None of that is to ignore the great harm organized religion has done in promoting ignorance and hate. But it's quite obvious in the average argument on the subject, that many people have little to say about religion that isn't an outcome of their own negative experience.
OW is so right about religion. As I've said before, I think it's often a good thing, even though based on gobbledegook. I feel very fortunate to have had a religious education, and my own religious tradition is actually all about debate. What is the Talmud if not a debate?
My debate with OW is both small and huge. Religion should be taken seriously. Just not God. As for spirituality, I don't think I understand it, though I acknowledge the mysterious coincidences and archetypes. It seems we're hard wired for something, but what?
The biggest flaw in the argument becomes a matter of judgement that is bestowed. I think a lot of people on both sides lack tact. There is way too much presumption that everyone is coming from the same experiences. Atheists feel that the spiritually inclined have to prove the existence of God to them. Why ? Can you prove God doesn't exist? Do you owe me an explanation? does it really matter?
Don't presume to have a firm grasp on what spirituality is just because you have decided it is a big fraud. I was an atheist for 8 years and it didn't work for me. It has zero to do with my capacity to discern the difference between what is real and what is imagined. Comparing God to a unicorn is insulting and a quick way to start a flame war. Are theists just a philosophy or biology class away from joining atheism's elite? That is what a majority of you who defend atheism seem to be inferring. Suggesting someone is delusional and confused , then asking them to explain themselves respectfully is a tall order and slightly unreasonable.
The same people who are so vocal about being atheists are the same people who love to reference Karma ( a spiritual term referring to the next life). The same people who think theists are gullible fools think Obama has all of the answers this country is waiting to hear. (He is a God fearing christian who reads the bible and goes to church.)
Most of us have not come to where we are through laziness and trickery. The insinuations otherwise are what starts the flame wars.
We all have free will to believe what we have come to know as the truth. You have the free will to feel otherwise. We MUST protect the separation of church and state. Religion does not need a place at the political table. cheers.
There is nothing so pitiful as a young cynic because he has gone from knowing nothing to believing nothing. Maya Angelou
Nope, that's the Flying Spaghetti Monster, a parodic deity that is a response to the Kansas State Board of Education's decision to teach Intelligent Design as an alternative to evolution.
Cthulhu is merely the High Priest of another extraterrestial being and sleeps in the drowned city of R'yleh until the stars align just so.
TigerTim saidNow that the atheism THREAD has thankfully passed beyond the veil, I was intrigued by some common social psychology that seemed to be manifest within it. Namely, almost all debates on the subject of religion that I have encountered in a group, with a few significant exceptions, have degenerated rapidly into rabble.
The question is: why is the debate of religion so problematic in the first place? And what steps can we take to ensure that if we choose to participate in the debate that we are not misunderstood and that we do not give offence?
Answering the underlined question first:
Tolerance is my answer. It's no big deal to me what someone choses to believe in, or not. I can respect a spiritualist, wiccan, buddhist, christian, muslim, atheist, and agnostic all the same, as long as they show respect for my point of view.
I understand people believe in, have faith in, and have found logic in their set beliefs, but it's not my place to say if they're wrong or right. I'm not going to take that first step towards an arguement/war with religion at it's heart.
It bothers me that some people feel, or have changed their religious perspective simply to conflict with what they believe is wrong/right, then turn around and prosecute and villify those whom have a EQUAL and CONTRASTING point of view to the point of Demonization. I believe everyone has good/bad in themselves, but that's no excuse for such extensive hatred. ...in my opinion.
I think that DiverScience, NativeDude, jprichva and a few others have hit on the basic problems here.
You can have two people come to a belief system for two diametric reasons. The basic tenant is that it is a belief system. Without proof, it is still a belief system. The strength of an individuals beliefs that are for or counter to it have no bearing on the truth. It does, however, affect the individual in their lives in ways both subtle and gross. If someones belief system is helpful to them, then more power to them. If it promotes hate, condescension, superiority, wanton ignorance, or other destructive behavior, I think there is fault in it. These are the worst cases and they are more than just visible to many. They encompass many people but not everyone. Consider the fact that many religions teach that their manifesto (or whatever they call it) is the only right one.
I don't think that all religion is bad, but there is a lot of "I was always taught that..." attitudes that seem to indicate that they are irrefutable.
An individual needs to truly question everything to determine for themselves whether or not their belief is based on any truth. Believing that something is true doesn't make it so.
I've not come across a belief system yet that doesn't require some sort of acceptance of magic or dismissal of logic at some point. That being the case, you can look at it as an area to dismiss, accept, or move on.
On a personal level, I rarely discuss my personal view on religion and spirituality since it is so complex and any statement I'd make regarding it would require many statements of the type "Now by saying that I don't mean the following...." I could write a book on it. Ooooooo and it looks like I've already started.
I've usually tried to stay out of the sparring that these discussions devolve into, and for me the issue is (as someone who has a faith and a spiritual life) that many people on the "anti" side make sweeping comments about "all religions are bad" or "all religions are about keeping people down", etc. By doing that, they are accusing me of something that I wouldn't do to them. I can tell that it will just turn into a name calling match and I don't want to get into that.
It's funny that those actions are the same thing that many of these same people complain about others.
As for the statement that you can't prove religion, that's exactly the point. You can't prove love, beauty, kindness, or a lot of other things, but how do we live in ways that enhance those things in life. Some do it within a religious context; some in a book club, some on a walk in nature, some in a sex club. The problem comes when people try to tell others they are wrong about their own experiences.
It seems, at least here, that moral absolutes are the sticking point in any discussion of theism/atheism. I have, um, engaged many atheists here for whom their atheism is every bit as hardwired a moral imperative as that of the most hard-core SBC fundie in Texas. They seethe with self-righteous indignation at the very thought of someone actually believing in something that they do not.
Away from this site, AKA the real world, I regularly encounter so-called Christians with this identical attitude towards nonbelievers. The few of us followers of the philospher Jesus on RJ seem to be of the more nuanced, thinking/questioning variety than your run of the mill Pentecostal/Mormon/whatever fundie. Our protests that we are not hate-filled, dogmatic, judgemental tightasses often fall on deaf ears. Christianity is difficult to defend because of all the harm done in Jesus' name over the centuries. What is clear to any rational disciple of Jesus is that not only would he not recognize his own church today, he would not have recognized it within a few hundred years after his death. It was long ago perverted into something very harmful and ugly.
Also away from this site, I regularly encounter atheists that are not quite so eager to dismiss Christianity as weakminded mythology. They accept that belief in something greater than oneself is a concept that some people just need to embrace to make sense out of a senseless world.
The attitude towards Christianity that I most frequently observe among gay men is a great big "fuck you" to all organized religion, invariably due to early and extensive emotional trauma at the hands of religious institutions. I myself experienced this, and was a proud, angry, and vocal atheist for many years. It took a very long time for me to separate the historical Jesus from the Christian Church as it largely exists today.
Thinking, modern Christians fully understand the atheism of the intellectual, science-based mind. Indeed, we ourselves embrace the gamut of rational scientific thought as fully compatible with our faith. The difficulty comes because we are not vocal about our belief systems, where the holy roller, dispensational premillenialists (look that one up I dare you!) can't stop screaming their lies at the top of their lungs.
A line from Gandhi (I can't remember the exact source): "How can he who thinks he possesses absolute truth be fraternal?"
The history of most religions -- at least organized religions -- raises this question again and again.
But the question of absolutes is also true of atheism, which is really a religious belief. Jarhead's point about some atheists being as dogmatic as SBC fundies is right on the mark. Both lack intellectual humility -- by which I mean the ability to say, "I might be wrong," or "I might not have it entirely right."
(BTW, I never really find this attitude with agnostics. Agnosticism says "I don't find enough evidence to either prove or disprove the existence of God [or the gods].")
obscenewish saidI've noticed that many people conflate fundamentalism and all other spiritual expressions. [...] The Dalai Lama engaged in his annual discourse with scientists about depression and Buddhist practices here in Atlanta recently.
I like reading Docs insights. It's like having your own personal therapist but you don't have to pay anything.
Not sure if this was already said - didn't want to read through all the posts - but it's always a controversial topic and usually gets heated because one said can never disprove the other side. A lot of religious arguments are very circular.
A part of the reason why discussions about religion dissolve into arguments is because, at the end of the day, neither side can definitively prove that God exists or doesn't. Hell, people can't even agree on the same conception of "God" so is it any surprise?
I consider myself agnostic. Using the feedback loop of nature as an example where organisms are designed for optimal productivity, adaptibility, and the nonchalance to kill other organisms at will, I'd say if G-D created all this then he/she/them was incredibly brilliant and nihilistically tyrannical. I could go on but it seems like RealJock isn't the best place for athiests/agnostics, so I'll stop there...
A&FI like reading Docs insights. It's like having your own personal therapist but you don't have to pay anything.
Oh, I give much better advice for cash.
I don't usually recommend self-help books. But here, seriously, is a good book for anyone interested in applying the practice of mindfulness to the treatment of depression:
Tiger Tim askedThe question is: why is the debate of religion so problematic in the first place?
I don't think a question like this can be answered here (if at all), but I've observed a couple of things in this thread and in the previous one that I want to comment on.
Some non-believers seem to approach the question of belief in God as if it were subject to rational inquiry. It isn't. Likewise, Some believers seem to think it's worthwhile to offer arguments to counter the empirical questions of non-believers. It isn't. The two sides are epistemologically incompatible.
According to St. Paul, faith is its own evidence (Hebrews 11.1: "Now faith is the substance of things to be hoped for, the evidence of things that appear not.") Faith is its own justification; its value lies in its ability to inspire belief despite the absence of proof. The story of Jesus and Thomas the Apostle in John 20.29 makes this clear: "Jesus saith to him: Because thou hast seen me, Thomas, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and have believed."
Asking a believer to present proof of God misses the whole point of a religious sensibility (a Christian one, at any rate). Having faith is a way of experiencing and relating to the world. It is a form of knowing that differs completely from knowing something scientifically. (This is far from the only definition of faith, but it's a fair approximation).
So the strongest argument against non-believers is simply that matters of faith lie outside the purview of traditional, rational investigation.
NNJfitandbi was right on the mark when he saidI think that debating religion is tough because it's not an intellectual debate. At best it can be a respectful discussion, but a debate? How can it be won?
And as OW noted earlierThere's the inevitable argument that what is "irrational" is bad, a supposition that deserves to be questioned.
Taking the position that faith is exempt from empiricism isn't going to convince any non-believer to convert, and that's fine as long as believers are not looking to increase their numbers or see their convictions set forth as principles of government. That restraint isn't always apparent, though, and many people are particularly sensitive to the slightest hint of evangelism.
Finally, back on the thread that started it all...
...Park_Four asked a simple question, namelyI’ve always been curious about why people chose to be believe in no life after death. I’m not asking if there is or isn’t a God I just asking why would you chose to believe something so… sad.
I can only answer for myself. I don't believe because I can't. It is more a matter of conscience for me than a choice. It is as much my nature as it is a point of view that I reached through my experience of the world; I didn't wake up one day and say "I'm an atheist." It's an idea that grew in me; it was consonant with everything I have learned, understood, and experienced. Not believing in an afterlife isn't sad. On the contrary, it makes me think about how fortunate I am to have a life at all.
obscenewishWhat I find especially strange is the presumption that everyone takes religious experience and teaching as literal. But even personification is understood by many people to be a natural function of the psyche, a metaphorical process.
Well, because when all else fails, it's very easy for people to fall back into the literal interpretation when it suits them. I'm sure none of the religious folks here on RJ are like that, but there are way more people out there who are.
Biblical justification of Homophobia is one example. People will interpret everything else as metaphors, but because he hates gays, he'll choose to interpret the anti-gay passages literally.
Because it was there in the first place, and people with high enough IQ's can use that to control people for something or the other. Doesn't matter that some people actually see it as metaphors, because the problem with metaphors is that they are double entendre. Meanings hidden beneath other meanings, anyone can choose which way to interpret it as it suits them.
MikeOnMainSome non-believers seem to approach the question of belief in God as if it were subject to rational inquiry. It isn't. Likewise, Some believers seem to think it's worthwhile to offer arguments to counter the empirical questions of non-believers. It isn't. The two sides are epistemologically incompatible.
*nods* hehe
Judging from posts here and my own feelings, I don't think atheists are hostile against the idea of God. It's something that can not be proven nor disproven. I'm just one of those who are more skeptical than average.
The hostility arises when the sides overlap.
Creation for instance which is based purely on faith should never be taught as a valid replacement for theories derived from the scientific method.
No Organized Religion should ever be part of politics, especially in a spiritually diverse country like America.
etc.
When Religion starts to presume itself the true religion in a world of thousands of other religions... We get the fundies.
Point is, matters of the faith should be kept personal. And yet repeated attempts by organized religions to impose their answers on other people is what provokes the anger.
Debating is good (even though it goes nowhere, LOL), Conversion ISN'T.
I think that discussing religion, although intellectually stimulating at times, is ultimately not a very productive expenditure of time. People who look at the world through a scientific/empirical lens will often struggle with those who look at the world with a mythologicial or philosophical mindset. I don't think all the arguing back and forth will necessarily bring greater understanding.
Not everyone needs something to be emperically proven to believe in it. That is where the conflict often arises. Although I am not religious, there are certain aspects of religious teachings I believe in. Whether Jesus Christ was the son of God is not important to me. His preachings about how to treat people are.
Here is a myth that our society seems to hold dear that scientifically cannot be proven (just the opposite it would probably be proven false).
- All men and women are created equal;
Although not true, would we want to go back to a society in which people do not cherish that myth?
There are a lot of great responses here and this has turned into a great thread. Good subject, Tiger Tim.
I would add a few things to what's been said.
When you criticize a man's religion your are criticizing his childhood, his culture, his family, his community and his entire thought process. All of these things are tied to one's religion or rejection of it.
I used to have an intern who is still a friend, and he attended Bob Jones University. He is actually a very cool guy and has a great sense of humor. However, I can never get him to see that he his Christianity is cultural, and that if he grew up in any other culture he would embrace his religion just as heartily. He is so convinced that Jesus is the only possible way to God that he can't and WON'T even ponder the idea that he could have grown up "outside the grace of God."
When he and I have our debates (for which I will give him credit for entertaining) I realize that I am not just taking on him, but his family, his clergy, and every person he's come into contact with.
Atheists don't have such a solid pattern. Of all my atheist friends, each come from a varied set of circumstances. Some come frmo analytical academic families, some come from devoutly religious families (most often Mormon or Catholic), and some are from families of varying degress of religion and just sort of evolved with their thought and spiritual process. In any case, the only thing they seem to have in common is style of reasoning.
I also think that the religious carry with them all the sins of every religious horror ever perpetrated on mankind. From Torquemada to Rev. Phelps, they are expected to be responsible for all the heinous things that have happened in the name of religion, largely because these acts fly in the face of the point of most religion, which is to unify in the name of love.
Faith is a peculiar creature and one that I think is used by too many people in the wrong way. Faith must have a sense of reason behind it. You would not place faith in a person who has constantly let you down. If a guy stood you up three times, you would not have faith that he would show up a fourth time.
Therefore, based on your expectations of God, how much has he met your expectations. Look at straight Christians. Most of them go through the world unchallenged, never having to ponder where they fit in, never having to ponder their choices and options. Their paradigm is unchallenged, and as with such people they do not realize that others are having a different experience. For the most part, we only believe what we see.
So that brings me full circle. Atheists do not see evidence of God and therefore do not believe that such a being could exist. The devout do not experience challenges to their paradigm and do not believe that such exists. Hence the clash.
And yes I know that there are gay Christians and Jews (and other faiths), and other people whose life experience has been less than ideal, but who still cling to religion. Again, it comes from a conditioning from every force in your life as a child. It's not much different than trying to understand how a person who is racist is so hard to "uncondition." When young impressionable minds are still hot molten steel and are poured into the mold of a mindset, it will take a lot of heat and stress fractures to bend it in a different direction. (My apologies to the devout for comparing you to racists, but I need a solid example of a paradigm.)
As an agnostic, I left my relgion behind because of upheavals in my life that were constant and faith was clearly misplaced. "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing...." And I just sort of experienced a quiet revolution in my own mind in which I finally had the nerve to reject what my mind never fully embraced even when I was a child.
So I look at these discussions and feel that I sit on the border between the two trains of thought. I see both sides, but I do find the religious argument full of a circular thinking that throws out a lot of words but no logic, and the atheist side expects precise definitions for nebulous ideas and employ a lot of condecension and derision, while ironically pretending to eschew the hatred that they see in religion.
TigerTim saidNow that the atheism THREAD has thankfully passed beyond the veil, I was intrigued by some common social psychology that seemed to be manifest within it. Namely, almost all debates on the subject of religion that I have encountered in a group, with a few significant exceptions, have degenerated rapidly into rabble.
The question is: why is the debate of religion so problematic in the first place? And what steps can we take to ensure that if we choose to participate in the debate that we are not misunderstood and that we do not give offence?
Honestly, I think the biggest reason that religious discussions tend to degenerate into flame wars is because one person assumes they're right and someone else is wrong, and then tries to prove it.
Peoples world view is shaped by the religion they're brought up with, or currently practice. Telling someone they're wrong challenges everything they believe about existence, so of course they're going to fight back hard.
Wysiwyg60I think that discussing religion, although intellectually stimulating at times, is ultimately not a very productive expenditure of time.
I think I'm in complete agreement with this. Talking about religion or faith objectively rather than personally has always been an easier, calmer conversation.
(BTW W...60, you changed your name?! Boy did that throw me off when I was trying to cite you!)
"History does not record anywhere at any time a religion that has any rational basis. Religion is a crutch for people not strong enough to stand up to the unknown without help. But, like dandruff, most people do have a religion and spend time and money on it and seem to derive considerable pleasure from fiddling with it."
- Robert A. Heinlein
Boy, he has a quote for everything.
I'll just add that I also think religion is for people who aren't strong enough to say: "This is what I believe." Instead they say: "oh the Bible/Talmud/Koran says..." That stuff may have been appropriate 1,2,or 3 thousand years ago, but the times have been a changin'. Rabble rabble.
Please note I said religion. Faith and spirituality are seperate matters entirely.
I can only speak for myself and my experiences, and one thing you find with religion that it is a very personal thing, and in part, defines an individual. Because religion can be such an integral part of a person, some people cannot separate themselves from their beliefs for the sake of an intelligent conversation/debate.
I couldn't agree more. In this day and age, religion, or the belief in a supernatural entity that controls all is just irrational. We know better now.
We do however, owe a lot to religion. We couldn't have developed our civilizations without it. Back in the day, way back when hunter gatherers needed group cohesion they had to rely on someone and a leader has to know why things are the way they are. Otherwise no one would follow them so, they come up with some crazy stuff like, "Q: What is the Sun? A: Oh that's just a golden beetle crawling across the sky, OK".
Now that we've advanced beyond that though, we need to really rethink the whole religion thing. Have you seen these mega churches? What a waste of resources.
[u] I couldn't agree more. In this day and age, religion, or the belief in a supernatural entity that controls all is just irrational. We know better now.
we do? 92% of Americans believe in God. 82% believe in Heaven.
We do however, owe a lot to religion. We couldn't have developed our civilizations without it. Back in the day, way back when hunter gatherers needed group cohesion they had to rely on someone and a leader has to know why things are the way they are. Otherwise no one would follow them so, they come up with some crazy stuff like, "Q: What is the Sun? A: Oh that's just a golden beetle crawling across the sky, OK".
The same thing can be said of some atheists that use science as their 'religion' or 'belief system'. It allows them to feel intellectually superior to people with religious beliefs, so they can use words like irrational and crazy, and make statements like 'we know better now'.
I should have added to my original post, to the part you quoted, that not only are religious beliefs personal in nature and partly defines an individual, but the lack of religious beliefs are equally personal in nature and partly defines that person. So the atheist who relies on science to justify their lack of faith will often have the same 'I'm right, you're wrong' attitude, and may 'preach from the pupit' just as much as a religious person does.
DamarcoWhen young impressionable minds are still hot molten steel and are poured into the mold of a mindset, it will take a lot of heat and stress fractures to bend it in a different direction.
Completely agree. Which is why, I still believe that religion shouldn't be taught to young children. Good will, love, honesty, all that stuff can be taught just as nicely with fairytales and cartoons.
Faith is an ADULT matter. If and when someone is ready to decide whether he believes on faith should be the only time he is indoctrinated. Let people be prepared for it. In that regard we can avoid having people (as jasonmericson pointed out) who say 'this is what the bible/koran/talmud says'/'this is what has been taught to me' and instead have the TRUE believers who say 'this is what I believe based on what I know/experienced', agnostics who say 'I don't know.', and atheists who say 'this is what I don't believe based on what I know/experienced'. Surely that's a win-win situation. Even Jesus baptized ADULTS and not children.
Children are much too defenseless. This reminds me of an oft quoted anecdote of a Logic teacher of mine in college concerning the Jesuits (he was a former Jesuit, who left the church to marry, he still remains a Catholic), he said that Jesuits say (paraphrased) 'Give me a young boy to teach and he's mine for life' or something like that.
When religion is taught as unquestionable truth to a young child, he'll grow up unable to think outside the box that it has placed him into. He'll only see one side forever. Not saying atheists and agnostics are better, but they do have the advantage of deriving experience from several sides.
That said, I think I'll REALLY lay off the religious debates for a bit. I'm starting to scare myself. LOL
Perhaps you might have noticed that I get a little... um... agitated when I can't seem to get my point across the great divide. LOL I'm just gonna grit my teeth and resist temptation.
Satan, get thee behind me! (and perhaps bugger me while you're at it)
I think a reaction on either side is a knee jerk response
People who see themselves as religious feel attacked when they are asked to explain something indefensible ... faith requires you to believe in something that is unprovable Whether that's good or bad is up to each individual
On the other side at least for me is that when ever I hear about organized religion I think of something that has been used as a weapon against me and men like me for hundreds of years it's been a propaganda tool and an excuse to do mental and bodily harm and to deny that ... That I find indefensible
I think the reason why the topic of religion is so problematic is that most people's belief system and spirituality was formed in conjunction their personality and at a very young age. So when you challenge someone's religion you therefore challenge the very fabric of who they are. It's almost like saying, often even subtly (subversively) "you've had it wrong all these years, your life is a sham, and I can rescue you". It's an attack on so many levels.
I'm the fourth one after the lilithv、the Mahlath and the Naamah ....backslide for my The initial dream....
I thought i will become a angel when i stay around you At the beginning...... The moment....i become a angel ....a frail、virtuous and disguise angel... my wings was soaked by your pour... I impetrate i be capable of stay away from the inveracious circumstances... You don't hid your mood Always, Because I has found you aren't as love me as my fancy!! obviously i ought to die from anger,but i say "I don't care" yet... maybe i love you,stoop to compromise...sure,i love you,I lost my future... I'm a slave In your love! Lie、lust、force and you can going down to hell all now....
one reply read: "if you're afraid of offending anyone in a discussion, why have the discussion? How can such a discussion be honest and open, or productive?"
Well, there's a difference between a revolution and a discussion. Not every discussion needs to be a revolution and not every point made needs to offend someone. You can be honest and open without being a ... well, let's just say offensive meathead. And no discussion will be productive if the parties believe they have to be offensive to get their point across.
There is also a difference between debates and shouting matches. Most of the time when someone dares to initiate a discussion about religion here, it doesn't turn into a shouting match per se, but often instead of reasoned, intelligent responses to a question, people just paste funny pictures or toss an old quote up there or say what sheep religious people are. This accomplishes nothing, and is no different from the car of hetero boys driving thru the gay 'hood shouting 'faggot!' to passersby. I think both have problems that should be addressed elsewhere, professionally.
I realize some people, be they atheists or just non-practicing believers of something, have been hurt, emotionally, sometimes physically, by 'religion.' Hell, i have a love/hate relationship with my 'church.' But that doesn't give you license to insult someone else's beliefs. I just wish there could be a discussion between those who want to believe and those who have no use for it here, without it devolving into a bunch of pettiness and name-calling. So, now i [except here] don't even bother checking out any discussion about religion, god, churches, et al. There's no point.
It has been my experience that those who wish to "share my faith with you" are rarely interested in me sharing my faith with them afterward. I do agree that religious beliefs are part of the core that people use to define themselves.
I think one of the differences we see today in our "global war against terrorism" is that for those of us old enough to have lived through the cold war, there were ideological differences of governments, no one particularly disliked the Russian people or the Chinese people, it was "Communism" that we were taught was evil. The struggles today are not like that any longer, it is an essential mistrust at the level of the everyday person who believes that others who believe differently than they are wrong, evil or trying to undermine the fabric of their existence. It is going to take a lot more dialogue that is unfortunately not currently happening.
We get the fundies.
