How Atheism Supports Religion
Atheism supports religion? That may seem obviously wrong. After all, if there is no God, then religion fails. And the atheist says there is no God (hard atheist) or he/she simply lacks belief in God (soft atheism). How can either of those positions support religion?
Heres how.
Many people have a deep need to believe in God. They need the comfort of believing their deceased loved ones still exist, that death isnt the end, and that one day they will join their loved ones in heaven, that there is a protector who they can turn to in times of need, etc. They will not easily give up such comforting beliefs. So, when an atheist criticizes their religion, the believer may feel they have two choices: 1) give up belief in God, religion, and all the comforts that go with it, 2) or reject, ignore, or explain away what the atheist says.
Now, suppose someone argues as follows. I believe God exists. I also believe the Bible tells enormous lies about God. For instance, Genesis 6 says God regrets making human beings and so kills all humanity with a great flood, except for Noah and his family. God regretted something he did? Ridiculous. So, God drowns infant, toddler, teenager, pregnant woman, senior citizen, and everyone else? What nonsense. What an enormous lie about God.
Such an argument doesnt ask the believer to give up faith in God and the comfort it gives. Rather, it merely points out how fundamentally silly some religious stories are. Id say the argument has a much higher chance of being accepted by a believer than if an atheist makes the same argument.
In short, given the choice of belief in God versus non-belief, believers often stick with God. But a believer may be much more receptive to arguments that label silly religious beliefs as lies about God. When the atheist ask a believer to give up belief in God, the result is that the believer often rejects the atheists argument and, if anything, believes more strongly. Thus, atheism, in some cases, helps reinforce religious belief.
Agree?
Heres how.
Many people have a deep need to believe in God. They need the comfort of believing their deceased loved ones still exist, that death isnt the end, and that one day they will join their loved ones in heaven, that there is a protector who they can turn to in times of need, etc. They will not easily give up such comforting beliefs. So, when an atheist criticizes their religion, the believer may feel they have two choices: 1) give up belief in God, religion, and all the comforts that go with it, 2) or reject, ignore, or explain away what the atheist says.
Now, suppose someone argues as follows. I believe God exists. I also believe the Bible tells enormous lies about God. For instance, Genesis 6 says God regrets making human beings and so kills all humanity with a great flood, except for Noah and his family. God regretted something he did? Ridiculous. So, God drowns infant, toddler, teenager, pregnant woman, senior citizen, and everyone else? What nonsense. What an enormous lie about God.
Such an argument doesnt ask the believer to give up faith in God and the comfort it gives. Rather, it merely points out how fundamentally silly some religious stories are. Id say the argument has a much higher chance of being accepted by a believer than if an atheist makes the same argument.
In short, given the choice of belief in God versus non-belief, believers often stick with God. But a believer may be much more receptive to arguments that label silly religious beliefs as lies about God. When the atheist ask a believer to give up belief in God, the result is that the believer often rejects the atheists argument and, if anything, believes more strongly. Thus, atheism, in some cases, helps reinforce religious belief.
Agree?
Comments (119)
Of course not. Pretend you believe to lull the believers into a false sense of security and then trash their holy book? What is that supposed to accomplish. They're not necessarily fools,. and most of them already know the Bible is full of tall tales and outmoded ideas, or else think it's all metaphorical and allegorical and symbolical, or some such excuse. They know it's not true, but they cling to it, because the foundation of their faith, the biography of their creator-deity and the existence as well as reason for their sacrificial deity are in there. That book is the container of their world-view and philosophy.
How can you be a good Christian while repudiating the Bible?
Or, for that matter, an honest atheist while denying that the god you disbelieve in is the one depicted in that same book?
Quoting Art48
Why should an atheist ask that? I have no desire to wean anyone off their religion. I only ask them not to force it, or its strictures, on other people.
Yes and no. Yes that the existence of atheists can be used to strengthen religious identity by highlighting their otherness, but otherness can just as easily be applied to hieratics (those who question the Good Word).
I didn't mean atheists should pretend. There are people, myself included, who believe something that deserves to be called God exists, and that religions include tall tales which don't always reflect well on God.
I've heard that argument. You believe that "something" exists; you give it a capitalized generic name, but no identity, no past, no human contact, no creed to associate with. You're free to make up whatever laws or stories you like.
That can't replace faith in a personal father-god, who commands, judges, forgives, who loves you so much that he sends his only child to the gallows to save you from sin and invites the best part of you to live with him forever.
I am also free to make stories: I write fiction. I appreciate all the gods - demons, dragons, fauns, gorgons, succubi and saints - for their cultural contribution, and believe in none.
Quoting Art48
They reflect accurately on men. They are our legacy; the history of human aspiration and yearning, imagination and prejudice, power-lust and blood-lust; they tell our story.
I think that certain religious beliefs are less preposterous than others. But I doubt believers care whether they're more or less preposterous to others, and will be unimpressed by any argument that they're beliefs are unreasonable regardless of whether they're told there is no God or that particular beliefs about God are unsupportable.
The existence of God cannot be proven no matter how strong the arguments may be. Likewise it cannot be disproven with 100% certainty either as youre simply giving the burden of proof to the theist.
Therein lies the problem does it not ? Proof or more precisely the burden of proof which neither side can provide regarding Gods existence/non-existence.
By way of simple mysteries which cannot be rationally explained its best to be open minded on the matter.
Thats my 2 cents anyway.
You are right, this is the endless dilemma about God's existence. Yet, furthermore, of being an issue in "proofs" I think it can be better understood in terms of representation. The main two groups of evidence for God's image are Aquinas (everything that is around us is a proof of God's existence) or Kierkegaard (external world doesn't provide sustainable proofs to believe in God).
So, in this case, I guess the extension of God's existence will depend on each person's faith.
Depending upon the type of believer/atheist, I would have thought that atheists and believers generally talk past each other and don't comprehend each other's language or frames of reference.
But it is also the case that many atheists were once believers, often fundamentalist believers. People do find their way out of religion and the old arguments seem to lose their traction and believability, perhaps more so than atheist arguments gain appeal. Many atheists I have met from fundamentalist backgrounds take similar journey's from fundamentalist Christianity to progressive Christianity, to deism, to Wicca/Eastern mysticism, to skepticism and eventually to atheism. The sustaining strand is transcendence and eventually this too is forsaken.
It's a very personal process. You don't lose a faith trough argument or persuasion; you lose it through intellectual growth or experience. Once you have begun to doubt, you can reason out how and why it happened, and maybe borrow the writings of atheists to explain. As long as you have faith, you can argue back against whatever an atheist says - or ignore it.
"Gain" works in this sentence as well as "lose."
Only insofar as many, maybe most, of the organizers, fundraisers & high officials of many, or most, religions tend to not practice what they preach as if 'g/G doesn't exist' to punish them for their frauds and other abuses. After all, what's a "religion" anyway? IMO, a conspiracy cult-driven pyramid scheme that feeds on an inexhaustible supply of earnestly gullible dupes &their brats.
:pray: :eyes: :mask:
I'm not so sure. After all, missionaries have often been successful in making converts among colonized natives. Impressionable young people may turn to a religion under the influence of a mentor or admired role-model; others may be drawn to it by someone who helped them in a time of adversity or mental anguish. People who turn toward religion are usually in a vulnerable state - confused, troubled, anxious, grieving - and so more open to verbal inducement than they might otherwise be. Or they had been philosophically adrift, without firm convictions and looking for something to believe.
People who turn away from religion start from a very different position. They have been secure, anchored and certain; they were not looking for a change. Yet they somehow become uncertain, unmoored: religion let them down in some way. But what they were disillusioned with wasn't the logic - there had never been any logic, and it hadn't bothered them. It wasn't the lack of proofs or the inaccurate cosmology - it was emotional. Something they had relied on proved unreliable.
Religion offers solace, comfort and hope; atheism takes those things away.
Very different operations with different mechanisms.
You keep saying you're a theist and yet you treat religious people with smug contempt.
Given your sometimes harsh treatment of religious believers, I appreciated all your posts in this thread. Without backing off your strong opinions, you were generally respectful and seemed to have a sense of how believers really experience their beliefs.
I've never thought any religious belief sounded any more "preposterous" than quantum mechanics. If you're in the mood for some pointless argument, there are plenty of reasonable arguments against religion, but preposterousness is not one of them.
Quoting 180 Proof
:lol: :rofl:
Yep, and it's not like Jimmy boy is the only example of corrupt, nefarious individuals at the top of religious movements. Religious movements seem to be festooned with such characters.
I share the very serious concerns constantly raised by folks like Sam Harris, in snippets like this 12 minute offering below. We can't afford to be 'respectful,' to religious people, just because we might offend them or hurt their feelings. They have NO PROBLEM at all, attacking atheists and atheism, using every nasty insult their 'god fearin' brain can manifest. I have been on the receiving end of their ire too often to think differently. They will get very nasty indeed, when they totally fail to effectively answer the questions posed by atheists.
I'm not mean to believers; I'm critical of religious organizations. True believers can too easily be victimized, exploited and weaponized by hypocritical prelates.
Quantum mechanics certainly seems strange, but I think the analogy with religion doesn't work. I suspect that those studying QM approach things a bit differently than religious believers. It wouldn't surprise me, though, if it's taken up by religious apologists and claimed by them to support their religious beliefs. It seems that's been the case for a while now.
Because nobody understands it. Demonstrable, provable science is hard to suborn, which is why the anti-evolution arguments always try to exploit the perceived gaps, rather than the theory itself. But esoteric theoretical science can be likened to the mysterious ways in which God works. While the scientists operate by different rules and glean their information from different sources than the mystics, a creation myth doesn't sound more impossible than a big bang.
You're agreeing with the only point I was trying to make - the preposterous weirdness of quantum mechanics. So preposterous Einstein didn't believe it. He was an aQMiest.
Yes.
Of course they do, but that wasn't the question on the table. You weren't talking about the methods, mindset, approach, or beliefs of scientists studying quantum mechanics. You were talking about QM's preposterousness. Now you're trying to change the subject.
What you are describing as "atheist" is actually a anti-theist.
Your "atheist" is just a believer of no-god, but a believer nonetheless, that's why he/she is trying to convince the theist.
A real atheist would be indifferent to god.
Which atheist has asked which theist to give up their belief?
I'm an a-theist, not anti-theist. I have nothing against any of the gods I don't believe in, although I disapprove of many of their followers' practices. I have never, not once, tried to talk anyone out of believing in a deity or saint, although I have tried to convince some of them of some real-world facts.
I have asked theists to stop supporting oppressive legislation, stop insisting that only their sect's holy days be recognized, stop demanding that their doctrine be taught in public school, stop taking civil rights away from other people. I've never asked them to give up anything except political power.
Quoting TheMadMan
Yes, but s/he cannot be "indifferent" to "the parties of God" at home and abroad (i.e. proselytizing theists and anti-secular political movements like right-wing Evangelicals, fundamentalists and other wanna be theocrats, theofascists, et al).
I don't see how we "agree". Einstein was one of the founders of quantum physics and argued that its theoretical formulation was incomplete. AFAIK, Einstein never disputed its findings, only their interpretations. Again, QM is a matter of knowledge, not (make)belief like religion.
Yeah, I think I have read your disdain of Sam Harris before.
We can't all value the exact same people, in the exact same way, so , fair enough!
I personally think the presence and influence of atheists ( I don't value the term new atheists) and atheism on the internet, is increasing significantly.
In fact, I said nothing at all about QM being preposterous. I said it "certainly seems strange." You said QM is preposterous, and apparently feel it's as preposterous as religion, if not more preposterous than it is. If that's what you believe, so be it. I merely think QM and religion are not analogous.
I prefer to call Harris, Dawkins, Hitchens,et al mere "anti-religionists".
Quoting Ciceronianus
:up:
You kinda get lunatics on both sides of the fence.
Its kind of amusing to me to see such misguided passions with an almost religious zeal be it atheist or not that Im tempted to dismiss it as some sort of psychological deficiency or just lack of emotional intelligence to be engaged in such fruitless discussion.
Sure the debate has many different arguments for and against its existence but apart from an intellectual tussle of wits (and dimwits) is it more to the pandering of an ego that wants to be right or just the typical intellectual masturbation that you so often find in people who have some sort point to prove and score points?
Ok. I would think it might depend on the myth, though. But for all I know the world may have come about from the piling of mud on the back of a large sea turtle.
The theist proselytizes as his religious tenets require and the atheist objects on the grounds that she rejects being preached at or persecuted for disbelief and lack of the sufficient reasons she requires in order to believe in the proselytizer's g/G.
Also philosophically, the question of g/G is a central metaphysical topic with implications for epistemology (at least), and so discussions, even debates, on this question are legitimate for many of us. No doubt, many others are not motivated to or interested in this question and therefore they / you should ignore those / us for whom 'g/G questions' are both fascinating and intractable.
Perhaps think bigger. Religions actively shape world politics and nationalism and supports legislative change which impact on millions of people - everything from gay rights, the rights of women, capital punishment, euthanasia, contraception, abortion, what books which can be read, etc, etc. It's not just America and stacking the Supreme Court. Pernicious social policies and practices are rife in places like Modi's Hindu nationalist India and Saudi Arabia through the impact of Wahhabi Islam.
No, it doesn't depend on the myth. It depends on one's understanding of the myth, its meaning, context and significance.
Just as belief of* any particular scientific theory depends on one's understanding of it.
* of, not in
Again, you're not responding to my argument, which is what started this portion of the discussion. Yes, I do believe quantum mechanics is our best current understanding of how the subatomic world works. That doesn't change the fact that, as a story, it's hard to believe. So, light is both a particle and a wave. What about the law of the excluded middle? Electrons are particles, but they don't really have a location. They're sort of spread out over space? They can "tunnel" through matter? Particles are spontaneously created at random by "quantum fields." You can't find anything written about QM that doesn't use the word "weird." If you look it up, you'll find that "weird" and "preposterous" are often used as synonyms.
Making a response to an argument that ignores the argument and substitutes your own irrelevant ideas is bad philosophy.
No, that was me. I claimed that believing in God is no more preposterous than quantum mechanics. You have yet to address that argument.
Quoting Ciceronianus
Again (and again, and again, and again) that is not the question on the table. You made a glib statement about religion being preposterous. I made a comment in response. You have yet to respond to my comment.
As I said to @180 Proof, you are guilty of bad philosophy.
This argument has always struck me as wrong-headed, blinded by ideology. I think there is a good case to be made that the primary agent of destructive social policy is large institutions. That certainly has included religions, but also includes communism, Nazism, colonialism, fascism, and lots of other isms not to mention governments in general. There's a case to be made that the worst of the large institutions facing us today are corporations.
Do you think that conditions in Iran or Saudi Arabia today are worse than those in China during the cultural revolution, the USSR during Stalinism, or Cambodia during the rule of the Khmer Rouge?
Actually, projection is "bad philosophy".
That's a classic equivocation fallacy. Who is saying religion is the only source of evil shit on earth? I'm saying it's one of the main players. I have no more love for politics than I have for religion. I am a political bigot too. :wink:
Another non-sequitur and an argument based on your imagination about my mental state. No further questions. I rest my case.
My point was that it's a problem of large institutions, not religion. Atheism is a lack of belief in God, not an antipathy to large institutions in general.
To be clear, I never called you a bigot and I don't think you are one. I don't think I've ever called anyone on the forum one. If I did, it was a mistake.
Another non-sequitur. Another contentless response. Nuff said.
QED. :victory: :sweat:
I have problems with many practices in politics, atheism, religion, science - any belief system that causes harm (as I see it). Now I happen to think religions are experts in causing harm (based largely upon personal experience and familiarity with their works) but religions are by no means alone in this. I don't just think it's a question of being large. I think there are plenty of small organisations that commit abuse upon their adherents/members. I do hold antipathy towards institutions. I don't think this comes out of atheism, more out of skepticism and perhaps nascent or inchoate anarchism. But that's for a different thread.
I generally consider you one of the reasoned voices on this type of subject.
Curious that I find that surprising. Maybe its because he stated that religions are experts in causing harm and historically you seem to look down on that sort of biased statement towards religion.
In what way is that a biased statement? Even Jesus admitted bringing a sword.
Religious institutions, historically, have been instrumental in sustaining political institutions, and vice versa. The third pillar of that very stable structure of power is the military. The disciplines of monasticism and militarism are very similar in both psychology and practice. Both serve and influence the political regime, which knows it must bow to their demands, because it cannot survive without their support. The dissolute civilian partner, and least reliable institution, is the political one. When a political system collapses under its own corruption or excess, the military and/or religious organizations are able to step in and take control. How the fourth, the silent financial partner - the merchant caste, or bankers, or corporations - plays this endless triangle game is how the rich get richer, with full collusion from church and state.
My assessment is primarily based on his explanation that the statement is based largely upon personal experience and the assumption that that experience was negative in terms of harmfulness.
Quoting Vera Mont
:chin: I fail to see the similarity between monk and soldier.
Do you really? Formal chain of command, tradition, obedience, austere communal living, early rising, strict discipline, tightly scheduled daily rituals performed in unison, an ideal of self-denial and sacrifice for a single cause. The organization of the institutions themselves.
@Tom Storm generally has a nuanced and self-aware take on issues, including this one. He is skeptical but often generous when it comes to human nature. He also knows a lot about people and has a pragmatic take on most things, including philosophy, which matches my own pretty well.
I agree that a monk may be susceptible to recruitment into military service due to the conditions that you mention. Fundamentally though, a monk is dedicated to renunciation.
An ad hominem is a kind of explanation for the inconsistency I guess.
I don't understand what you mean. No need to explain; we can leave it at that.
Ad homs can appeal to good character as well as bad.
In any event, you seem to be endorsing bias against religion.
I'm not sure I have much to offer any discussions about theism or religion. I get involved when I hear the odd clanger from someone and then almost immediately regret what I said in response. This stuff is personal and for it to matter, I think it has to be.
When it comes to the crux, the attribute I dislike most in any field (politics or faith) is the gatekeeper who thinks they can tell ordinary people how they should live their lives and judges others for making different choices. The problem is, we all have to make calls on what we think is reasonable and we can't accept every possible position going - so where and how do we draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable? I think this is my key problem in critical thinking.
It remains sooooooooooo easy, to invent a god, create the instructions that best match the political and social controls you wish to achieve, and then label all those who comply, as 'the chosen ones,' who follow the only truth about the universe, that is, it was all made by, and is completely owned by 'OUR' god(s).
This creates a very convenient 'them' and 'us,' and allows for a very simple reason to slaughter those outside of 'the chosen people.' It was very simple in the early days of theism/religion. Join us, and comply to our rules and accept me as your king/god or your king sanctioned by god(s), or be slaughtered in the name of OUR king/god(s). It's a very simple way to set up and maintain a civilisation. :roll: :scream: :death:
Religion remains the biggest barrier, to human progress in existence today. It is based on simple manipulation of human primal fears, and it allows, and remains one of the best supports, that is used to justify, the rule of a rich, powerful, nefarious, tiny, global minority.
In my opinion, those who continue to downplay the toxicity of theism, simply help to hold our species down and force us backwards. That's a matter for their conscience and their legacy.
Our species creates, or assigns, value on the basis of scarcity. "The chosen" of religion, and especially "the one god", not only polarizes "us and them" but also separates the "sacred" from the profane" within and between groups. Zerosum games & dominance hierarchies! Thus, "the divine right" of Kings, Brahmins, Pharoahs, Caesars, Popes, Fuhrers ... and Capital.
Btw, Stanley Kubrick got it so right with that opening scene of two groups of proto-hominids fighting over a muddy pool (climaxing with a triumphal toss of that killing bone and the most famous jump-cut in cinema a million years to a satellite orbiting the Earth).
The empire of scarcity continues, and I think only if and when our species attains a sustainable post-scarcity civilization will we have a real opportunity to outgrow this atavistic commodity-fetishization (i.e. religiosity) of human existence.
It doesn't matter whether he joins the Knights Templar or not. The point is, he takes orders - howbeit holy ones - and dedicates his life to unquestioning obedience and service. This means that a king, or any nominally patriotic and God-fearing head of state, who has the support of the top generals and bishops also has two standing armies to back up his claim to power: one that carries big sticks that go 'bang' and one that brandishes the big carrot of eternal life. The common people have very little chance against such an institutional triad.
In the modern day, that situation is somewhat ambiguous: the armed forces pledge allegiance to the constitution, and includes women (not a universally accepted concept) and can be tried individually for war crimes (in theory), so they may not be entirely reliable. And the church has lost its monopoly, broken up into competing sects, with no appreciable monastic hierarchy - just a a gaggle of noisy preachers and a rabble of parishioners, so that they are unreliable enforcers and have to be wooed at every election like other voting blocs. Nevertheless, both religious and military institutions are still influential in politics.
On a superficial level, I agree. If we just look at claims about God and about QM, the claims themselves may see equally preposterous. BUT when we look at the evidence, things are different. No need to even go to QM. The Earth is a globe. On the other side of the Earth, people and oceans are hanging upside down. Preposterous. And the Earth and me along with it are spinning at about 1,000 miles/hour. Absurd. But there is evidence for both claims.
Now, let's turn to God. Which God? The "evidence" for the Christian God is in a book that begins with a talking serpent. Later in the book, "God" impregnates a woman who is not his wife, so that their baby son can grow up to be tortured to death. Why? To pay a debt that humanity owes to his father, and that the father won't forgive otherwise. Some other Gods have similar problems.
Why can't theist's and their enablers/facilitators, understand the strength of your accurate summary above. Why should atheists accept that they MUST show a respectful deference, to any and all 'spiritual' belief's that individuals might hold deeply and dearly? This image of the nice elderly woman or man, who just wants to believe that a supernatural superhero has their best interests in mind and WILL care for them and maintain them for eternity, as long as they comply with the instructions in a particular book, HAS TO BE RESPECTED? And, if they wish to indoctrinate their children with the same BS, then EVERONE MUST RESPECT THIS, as sacred, holy, innocent, harmless, healthy activity. EVERYONE, especially atheists, MUST say, "Well ok, I respect your beliefs and I wont criticise you as an 'innocent true believer,' in an any way. But if you want to tell me, that because I don't follow your beliefs, I am dammed, my children are dammed and anyone who is an atheist, or believes in the words in a different 'holy' book, is dammed, then that's ok, I will RESPECT your right, to hold that opinion, about MY ULTIMATE FATE, even though it is a very very nasty opinion.
I say, no freaking way, is that a fair and balanced approach to creating the rules of debate around everyday discussions between theists and atheists.
Theists need to stop wearing their theism like it's a 'precious.' If you can't defend your theism sufficiently against all arguments, then don't cry about it and turn into an imbalanced nutjob! Find better ways to defend your position or stop being a theist!
Quoting 180 Proof
Yep, a great depiction of "hey, I can even beat up that big scary hominid with this bad boy!"
"all I need to do after that is tell the rest of my tribe, that the sky lights told me how to use the big bone and maybe I can be the leader!!!" :party: :party: :strong:
I accept that he probably explained all this to his tribe, through grunts and gesticulations (rather than in English) and no doubt, via some demonstrations of what he could do with the big bone to that big strong hominid his tribe were scared of. So, yeah, I agree that Stanley imagined the beginnings of weaponry very well, the concept of the sky light god would have came soon after.
Quoting 180 Proof
I hope not brother! I hope we don't need to be dangled over the precipice by our tippy toes for much longer, before we ALL, or enough of us, learn the errors of maintaining our current 'laws of the jungle,' approach to living the human experience, and we unite in common cause of improving, what it means to be human.
For a short time, through frustration, I was tempted to start suggesting, that no theist should be allowed to hold political office. I soon realised that this is the kind of 'extreme' response that can enter your head.
I soon rejected it, as it would probably have the exact opposite effect, as it would create a great deal of sympathy for those who could then be labelled as 'oppressed theists.'
Better to allow those who allow their religious beliefs to influence their political actions, be judged by their electorate accordingly.
There is a case in point happening now in Scotland. The leader of the governing parliment (Nicola Sturgeon) is standing down, and there are 3 candidates, vying to replace her. Two are religious.
One called Kate Forbes, is a Christian, she lost a lot of support based on the 5 min interview snippet below:
I wonder if she will lose the election based on what she said here.
Agreed. I admit I would be harsher on religion if I didn't see believers so often the victims of poorly argued criticism. I think I'm more offended by the weakness and thoughtlessness of the arguments than I am by their content.
And that's all I said in response to what I see as a thoughtless comment. Not thoughtless as in impolite, thoughtless as in without thought. As for the rest of your comment, I'll just say what I've said before, I believe quantum mechanics represents out best current understanding of the behavior of the universe at subatomic scale.
Yes, yes. Giant muddy sea turtle, big bang...it all depends.
Here's what I said:
Quoting Ciceronianus
Here's what you said:
Quoting T Clark
Then I said:
Quoting Ciceronianus
Then you said:
Quoting T Clark
Then I said:
Quoting Ciceronianus
Then you said:
Quoting T Clark
Quoting T Clark
Now, pause and perpend. I never said that religion is preposterous. I never said QM is preposterous.
I really don't care if you think they're both preposterous. Never having said either was preposterous, I don't feel inclined to debate whether or not or to what extent either may be preposterous. You may pontificate on those issues to your heart's content, though. But I was responding to the claim that atheism supports religion and the suggestion in the OP that the religious should be confronted with what seems problematic with their beliefs rather than merely the denial of God's existence. In doing so, I pointed out that I didn't think it mattered how preposterous religious beliefs may be to the believer.
Then you began harping on the preposterousness of both religion and QM. I said I didn't think they were analogous and you became apoplectic, demanding a response to your claim that they were both preposterous.
"Bad philosophy" forsooth. Read what you comment on, from time to time.
You wrote this:
Quoting Ciceronianus
So you said religious beliefs are preposterous. Is that different from saying that religion is preposterous? They seem the same to me.
All dogs are playful?
There's a difference between saying certain religious beliefs are less preposterous than others and saying all religious beliefs are preposterous or saying all religion is preposterous. I personally think the belief in an immanent God, who doesn't demand or respond to prayers or worship, doesn't exist "outside the universe", is not jealous, doesn't interfere in human affairs, doesn't assist certain football teams but not others, doesn't miraculously save some people from disasters but lets many others die in them, (one could go on) is far less preposterous than other such beliefs. I would even call it a reasonable belief but for the fact I know its attraction (to me at least) is more the result of a feeling which, though based on my experience, can't be established by reason; can't be proven.
I'm not sure what else to say.
Not necessarily. In casual conversation, the unstated but understood assumption would be that all dogs have a place on some scale of playfulness.
Legalistically, however, the defendant could say : "The scale starts at 0. " or "I'm considering only dogs in the average range."
The hearer was not told about this escape cause and came to a potentially incorrect conclusion.
(But I don't think, in this case, he did.)
It's considerably more preposterous. All the rule-making, caring, interfering gods have some utility to human believers. A nebulous Something Unknowable and Indifferent has none. What's the use of believing in a useless deity?
Well, that's not, on the face of it, always such a good thing, is it?
I would have thought virtue was to be found in those who adapt their beliefs to how things are.
But there's quite a bit wrapped up in such notions, and unpacking ideas is no longer so popular hereabouts.
Isn't what counts here, what you do with that belief?
Advocates of Quantum Mechanics don't generally have much to say about how one shoudl live from day-to-day.
Quoting Ciceronianus
Yep.
Quoting T Clark
Seems it was. Quoting Art48
That's an observation about method. The question raised indirectly by the OP is differences in attitude towards critique.
It all depends, doesn't it? No use debating about it.
My dog constantly wants to play, though I've known a dog that didn't have a playful bone in its body. I assume it got that way from human neglect.
Correct!
No, there's not. And be honest - you meant to say that religious beliefs are preposterous. Now you're trying to get off the hook on a technicality.
Kate Forbes is 33. The other two candidates are Humza Yousaf who is 38 and a practicing Muslim:
and Ash Regan who is 48 and is not religious:
I think all 3 candidates are unsuitable as a replacement for Nicola Sturgeon. I don't get a vote however as I am not a member of the SNP. Based on the two 'head-to-head' debates I have watched, featuring all 3 candidates. I would certainly not vote for Kate Forbes.
Symbols communicate identity. Anyone who displays an ethnic or religious or cultural icon is telling me what tribe he or she identifies with. That is the basis of their world-view.
I have only one vote; I must reject five out of six candidates. So I'll vote for the one who at least appears to identify with my tribe. I don't care if they go to church, temple or mosque on their own time, so long as they don't advertise for it on mine.
(* which I stopped attending, but not because of that)
Kate Forbes video that @universeness posted is interesting as she umms and errs when questioned on her Christian beliefs and principles and whether her personal principles should be applied to the non-religious general public.
In no uncertain terms it made her look weak in the face of her interlocutor and the electorate.
In order for her to get the votes of the electorate she has to serve the interests of that electorate without abandoning her Christian principles which is impossible without coming across as a hypocrite.
Can't let it go, eh?
Basta. As @Vera Mont would say, what we understand to be the case depends on meaning, context and significance. So yes, you're right. Understand that as you will, and I'll understand it based on its meaning, context and significance to me.
Very interesting and good topic! :up:
Quoting Art48
I think that first of all, one must define what religion is. And although, in most dictionaries you will find the term connected to a God or gods, this is not necessary the case.
Theoretical view:
"Religion is a range of social-cultural systems, including designated behaviors and practices, morals, beliefs, worldviews, texts, sanctified places, prophecies, ethics, or organizations, that generally relate humanity to supernatural, transcendental, and spiritual elementsalthough there is no scholarly consensus over what precisely constitutes a religion."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion
Practical and legal view:
"Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects all aspects of religious observance and practice as well as belief and defines religion very broadly for purposes of determining what the law covers. For purposes of Title VII, religion includes not only traditional, organized religions, such as Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism, but also religious beliefs that are new, uncommon, not part of a formal church or sect, only subscribed to by a small number of people, or that seem illogical or unreasonable to others. An employees belief or practice can be religious under Title VII even if the employee is affiliated with a religious group that does not espouse or recognize that individuals belief or practice, or if few or no other people adhere to it.
Religious beliefs include theistic beliefs (i.e. those that include a belief in God) as well as non-theistic moral or ethical beliefs as to what is right and wrong which are sincerely held with the strength of traditional religious views. Although courts generally resolve doubts about particular beliefs in favor of finding that they are religious, beliefs are not protected merely because they are strongly held. Rather, religion typically concerns ultimate ideas about life, purpose, and death. Social, political, or economic philosophies, as well as mere personal preferences, are not religious beliefs protected by Title VII."
https://www.cbp.gov/faqs/what-religion-under-title-vii
It is evident from the above that a religion might not contain a belief to a God or gods.
Furthermore, it can be seen clearly religious beliefs not only may not be connected to worship of a God or gods but even not to a specific religion.
Quoting Art48
Good point.
Bible is a combined work of beliefs based on ignorance and of stories of religious nature, which are actually myths, based on ignorance, irrationalism and lies --as you said-- and it is full of immoral stories and stories of vengeance, punishment and cruelty. Which is quite ironic and paradoxical, because a religion is supposed to teach and promote morality.
So, actually, not only it does not promote religious beliefs but it diminishes if not, ruins them.
***
I consider myself a "religious" person and also an "atheist".
And I support what the topic suggests, namely, that "Atheism Supports Religion".
Being a Christian or Muslim or Hinduist or abiding to any religion does not make you a "religious" person, as I described above. Your actions and behavior might not show a devotion or even just acceptance of such a religion.
On the contrary, an "atheist" can be a really religious person and show it with his words, behavior and acts. And, by extension such a person may support religion much more that a "theist".
Socrates had been accused --among other things-- of not obeying gods and even not accepting national religious standards and rules. Yet, he was a most ethical person.
Nikos Kazantzakis --a giant of the Greek literature-- had been excommunicated by the Greek Orthodox Church because he was a declared atheist. Yet, he was a very ethical person and if one knows well his works, one could say that he was a very religious person.
Religion and religious beliefs are not tied to the worship of a God.
Boy, do I love his novel, The Last Temptation of Christ.
Me too. One of my best among his works.
Good to hear that, because I believe he is mainly known for his "Zorba the Greek" and mainly because of the homonymous film that went international. Excellent work of course, but not so "intellectual" or "philosophical" as other.
:up:
BTW, I forgot to suggest you reading his philosophical essay "Ascetic" (if you haven't already).
You can read it here: http://www.angel.net/~nic/askitiki.html
(I just found this ref. I will re-read it myself ... after about 50 years, to see what "it feels" now.)
Thanks for sharing the paper :up:
You're welcome, Javi. I hope you enjoy it!
I remember I loved it. At the time I was deeply involved in the study of Eastern Philosophy and I was surprised to find out that Kazantzakis' concepts were "touching" Gautama's thoughts and teaching. In fact I found out later that indeed the he was kind of preoccupied by the figure of Gautama. Well, all philosophers and philosophical thinkers should --at some point in their life at least. (But they don't!)
He has also written a theatrical play called "Buddha". And this work has been even more neglected than "Ascetic". Quite expected of course. Unfortunately.
Thanks for the link. :up:
I think that makes you an ignostic. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to use one of my currently favourite words.
Perhaps the definition of atheist should be, those who refuse to believe without evidence.
I think that is the definition of an atheist, pretty much.
"a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods"
BECAUSE, there is no evidence.
An atheist will debate a theist, but an ignostic wont, as they think that the god notion is so unintelligible that if you believe in god, then you are not worth debating.
My atheism has slightly different foundations - I don't argue there is no evidence. There's plenty of evidence (personal experience, the existence of the universe, consciousness, scripture, etc) it's just that this evidence is incomplete and or unconvincing (to most atheists) and can be readily argued against.
Quoting boagie
I don't like 'refuse to believe' this sounds like an act of choice and something a Christian or Muslim would say about atheism as a willful denial of truth.
An atheist is unconvinced there is a god. They don't find any of the arguments made on behalf of theism to be convincing. A hard atheist might make a positive claim and say there is no god. While I think this claim is accurate, I personally don't make claims about knowledge I don't believe I have.
I suspect that underpinning a lot of atheism is a lack of sensus divinitatis (to use Calvin's words) and, perhaps, an aesthetic view wherein a god figure adds no meaning to the picture they hold of the world. This might be because the notion of a god seems incoherent.
Yes, in all the history of the gods there never has been a shred of evidence for the existence of these supernatural beings. It is difficult to respect the intellect of someone that can accept the fantastic with no foundation whatsoever. To my way of thinking, if one realizes that the essence of all life is one and the same differing only in structure and form. Also realizing that life lives upon life: life's harshest reality and then purports; to believe in an anthropomorphic god made in his image -- just don't waste my time.
It never occurred to me to look for evidence. I rejected the god depicted in the bible on moral grounds, and since Christianity was so dominant in my culture, no other gods even came under consideration: I'd never heard of them. I just stopped believing the Christian story, and once I had a little bit of distance, it became obvious that the holy book is just a collection of stories.
I know a lot of European and American youth of my generation also turned away from Christianity, but many of them replaced it with Eastern mysticism or paganism or some fringe cult - none of which they understood to any depth or professed with any conviction: I think they just needed an alternate veneer of spirituality. I never felt a loss.
Otherwise the toilet brush does not support the toilet.
Does that make sense ?
Opposites attract flies
That essentially means this:
There is a sky (theistic claim)
Point at it says the atheist
I cant says the theist.
Ha! Says the atheist thats because the sky doesnt exist.
Thanks for your support says the theist, I need to get some fresh air coz this toilet stinks
I understand. Many Christians reject the Bible stories as engaging fictions but still mange to believe in god. The great American model for this was the best selling Episcopalian Bishop John Shelby Spong. Literal interpretations of the Bible are fairly recent. The book is often understood as allegorical. Certainly that's what I was taught in the Baptist tradition here in Australia.
Whether the Bible has anything to offer us has very little impact on whether there is a god I would have thought, but I get it.
Yes, I heard that one, often, as an adult. It would have made no impression in a 12-year-old trying to come to grips with the injustices attributed to a God of Love. And when I did hear that symbolical/allegorical/metaphorical spin, it was still entirely unconvincing. Clumsy BS, actually. (Because the stories just don't work as metaphors! And because so much in them is historically accurate.)
It's far simpler to accept that the people who wrote the stories were depicting their world, its mores and practices, its legends and its beliefs.
Harris wrote this in the end-notes of his book The End of Faith and intends it to be a counter-example to Joseph Campbells work on mythology.
He walks into a bookstore (Barnes & Noble), and with his eyes closed, randomly grabbed a book and opened it at random. The book was called A taste of Hawaii: New Cooking from the Crossroads of the Pacific.
Heres what Harris wrote in the end-note.
And therein I discovered it as yet uncelebrated mystical treatise. While it appears to be a recipe for seared fish and shrimp cakes with tomato relish, we need only study list of ingredients to know we are in the presence of unrivaled spiritual intelligence. Then I list the ingredients: One snapper fillet cubed, three teaspoons of chopped scallions, salt and freshly ground pepper theres a long list of ingredients. Then I go through with a mystical interpretation of this recipe. The snapper fillet is the individual himself. You and I, awash in the sea of existence, and here we find it cubed which is to say that our situation must be remedied in all three dimensions of body, mind, and in spirit. They have three teaspoons of chopped scallions, this further partakes of the cubic symmetry suggesting that that which we need add to each level of our being by way of antidote comes likewise in equal proportions. The import of the passage is clear: the body, mind, spirit need to be tended with the same care. Salt and freshly ground black pepper; here we have the perennial invocation of opposites. The white and black aspects of our nature. Both good and evil must be understood if we would fulfil the recipe of spiritual life. Nothing after all can be excluded from the human experience. This seems to be a tantric text. What is more, salt and pepper come to us in the form of grains which is to say that the good and bad qualities are born at the tiniest actions and thus were not in good or evil in general but only by virtue of innumerable moments which color the stream of our being by force of repetition. Then this dash of cayenne pepper: clearly a being of such robust color and flavour signifies the spiritual influence of an enlightened adept. I go on and on and this is all bullshit because its meant to be bullshit.
https://unearnedwisdom.com/the-problem-with-sam-harris-cookbook-example/
How about something like:
Religions are myths and I ignore them unless someone tries to use them to justify telling me what to do
Easier to write AND to read. Better, no?
Why do you expound like your sentences are a game of word Tetris?
When did you and Getting to the Point have such a terrible falling out? Is there any chance at reconciliation?
The problem with scripture is interpretation full stop - allegorical or literalist. Just look at the confusions amongst Christians about matters of doctrine and subjects like abortion, capital punishment, gay rights, witchcraft, women's rights, euthanasia, etc. The faithful can't agree on anything and they all think they have god's word sorted.
Those who argue with believers, give their subject matter a false value in that such a barren topic is taken seriously and even beaten to death on a philosophy site. When all concerned know ahead of time it is a futile exercise and an utter waste of time.
I've met many atheists who used to be fundamentalist Muslims and Christians. People do respond to arguments and do find their way out of religion. It takes time and exposure to free-thought, but it happens. Atheist organisations are packed with former literalist religious folk who gradually deconverted from Christianity or Islam after exposure to new ideas. So much so that the international organisation Recovering from Religion is dedicated to supporting people to reassess their worldview and recover from facile faiths.
Why so defeatist?
I think that's a fair point Tom. Accuracy and clarity are very important indeed, when trying to increase confidence levels in what is true. I should have typed 'BECAUSE there is no convincing/significant evidence.'
I assign zero value to witness testimony/personal experience when it comes to the supernatural. Witness testimony does have it's uses, within our legal systems, but not if it has any supernatural element. For example:
[i]"I saw an ethereal pink mist kill the victim, your honour, and a voice from the mist told me, the victim must die, as god demands it. Then a bullet formed in the mist and went through the victims head.
My 10 best friends, who were with me at the time, all saw it to! Honest!"[/i]
Inadmissible evidence in all courts, I hope, except perhaps a religious court, in somewhere like 17th century Salem (probably an arrow rather than a bullet, in that case.)
Personal experience is also so compromised by misinterpretation/mental states/consuming scooby snacks, etc that for me, means that such evidence also has zero value.
I perceive of no current existent in the universe, or any currently understood aspect of human consciousness, which provides any significant evidence of the existence of god.
Scripture is just produced from the tradition of human storytelling and the 'Chinese whisper' effect and is evidence of zero value as well, in my opinion.
I know I have not typed anything in this repose to your post Tom, that you are not already fully aware of.
I also know most other folks are fully aware of such as well. BUT, theists still believe, and it's not like there are only a few of them and they don't affect our human society much.
There are many times when I do feel totally ignostic and I just cant be bothered, dispelling the utter BS being proselytized by a particular theist or religious group, BUT, I always feel a 'counter pressure,' that if my ignosticism means I do nothing, then the more destructive affects of theism/religion grow and spread.
I regularly watch atheists debate theists online (mainly via YouTube) and I have noticed that the theist side seems to be getting more and more 'frustrated,' and are becoming more and more abusive and offensive in their desperation. Their most embarrassing representatives, such as Kent Hovind and Ken Ham etc just repeat utter BS such as 'have you even saw an ape give birth to a human?' and 'do you really believe the whole universe came from something smaller that a typed dot?'
He then plays recorded laughter, in the background.
I can understand why it gets so exasperating for any interlocuter having to deal with such idiocy, and they must feel quite ignostic at times, but the struggle against evil people like Hovind must continue.
From Wiki:
Hovind established Creation Science Evangelism (CSE) in 1989 and Dinosaur Adventure Land in 2001 in Pensacola, Florida. He frequently spoke on Young Earth creationism in schools, churches, debates, and on radio and television broadcasts. His son Eric Hovind took over operation of CSE after Hovind began serving a ten-year prison sentence in January 2007 for federal convictions for failing to pay taxes, obstructing federal agents, and structuring cash transactions. In September 2021, Hovind was convicted of domestic violence against his estranged wife.
He was released from prison in 2015 and has continued his evanhellism ever since.
The damage done by characters like Hovind is very significant. Some young people are being brought up and educated via home schooling and Kent Hovind video's, due to their parents being fundamental christians. :scream:
Yes. Agree :100:
Pray it continues so! Imagine the harm they could do if they were united.
So, rather than try to talk down individual religionists, we're better served by driving in the wedges.
Tom, ok nice to know it ultimately has a positive effect on some people, in individual debate it just seems like banging one's head against a wall. Thanks for the insight! Wouldn't the message be better served if people refused to debate about sacred nothingness? Why is it an acceptable topic on a philosophy forum, when both sides know there is nothing there to substantiate or negate.