Vorkosigan

Thanks Pantera. Maybe if we modified the comment to say "freethinking atheists would never.....," we'd be ok.

Vorkosigan

Methodissed

I could have more accurately said the "atheist community." Yes, there have been bad atheists who have committed unspeakable acts against humanity. Comparatively their actions are but a drop in the bucket compared to those committed by religionists.

I don't recall who said the following, "There will always be people who are good and people who commit evil. But, for good people to commit evil requires religion." It has also been accurately said that religion, in keeping with the intolerant teachings of its bibles, has created more misery and suffering in the history of the world than any other single idea.

My point was that I cannot envision the rational thinking atheist community coming together to oppress, torture and murder others for the purpose of swaying people to their way of thought. It just wouldn't happen. A fascist dictator - yes. Religious fanatics - yes. The atheist community - no.

[ April 27, 2002: Message edited by: Methodissed ]

[ April 27, 2002: Message edited by: Methodissed ]</p>

Peter Kirby

I will attempt to summarize my perspective:

The concept of "a sound case against religion" sounds like "a sound case against Pepsi" or "a sound case against pokemon" in that scientific evidence can tell us things about the origins or effects of different religions, of Pepsi, and of Pokemon -- however, scientific evidence alone cannot tell us whether or not a person should practice a religion, drink Pepsi, or collect Pokemon cards. (Note that there is at least one distinction: the notion of "a sound case against religion" is even more problematic than the latter two because "religion" is such a diffuse and variegated phenomenon that it is questionable whether one can speak of a singular, monolothic entity called 'religion'.) Because the practice of a religion is a personal preference, religion is not for everybody. By the same token, irreligion is not for everybody.

Do most atheists disagree? I don't know, but the above is my perspective, in any case.

I have not been completely understood.

I agree emphatically that some religious beliefs and institutions have had some negative effects on some societies. In my judgment, it is just as true that some religious beliefs and institutions have had some positive effects on some societies. I think that one would be prejudiced in order to deny either one of these propositions.

What I doubt, simply for the reason that the method of calculation has not been explained to me, is that the net effect of religions on society has been negative. Note well that I have not said this is false; I have said that it is possible. I have said that I have not seen the method of calculation and the values to be fed into the algorithm in summing up the negative and positive effects that all religions have had on all human societies throughout history.

My last sentence is slightly ironical, because I doubt very much that anyone has ever undertaken such a calculation in such a manner. My guess is that this is a 'gut reaction' or 'overall impression', not a cold and calculated conclusion. But I would be very happy to see my guess proven incorrect!

I know that you could.

Let me first reiterate what I have said about there being no singular, monolothic entity called 'religion'. There are several thousands of demoninations of Protestant Christians, including denominations such as Mormonism that have been reckoned to be non-Christian by other denominations. There is a wide variety of belief espoused by actual participants in the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches. Islam also has its divisions, as does Judaism. Zoroastrianism, to which the three monotheistic religions of the west owe much, survives to this day in a few thousand adherents, sometimes called the Jews of India. Hinduism encompasses a wide variety of flavors, and the related religion of Buddhism has several interpretations, some non-theistic. Jainism is non-theistic, while the moral precepts of Confucianism do not require the belief in higher powers. More recently founded religions such as Baha'i or the variety of religious beliefs collected under the term "New Age" can be considered eclectic. And let us not forget Wicca, Santeria, and others.

I am sure that you are aware of the wide variety of religious expression, so the preceding list was written only with the aim of driving home my point, which is that it is difficult if not impossible to speak of the history of 'religion' in the singular. "Its record," as such, does not exist. We can only hope to describe the history of particular religions, and even then the problem of defining any particular religion so as to include all of its members is a considerable one.

If I can draw an analogy, it is a bit like speaking of the record of "politics" in regard to human rights abuses, which totally ignores the diversity of "politics" that have existed and do exist, many of which stalwartly affirm human rights.

This segues into the next point for consideration, which is the overlap and differences between politics, culture, and religion. There is considerable overlap between these spheres of human life, yet we can still manage to draw distinctions. For example, in my opinion at least, the stance of the Roman Catholic Church on birth control does have detrimental effects for citizens of primarily Catholic nations. This is a relatively clear effect of a religious belief and a religious institution. But to consider the practice of male circumcision among Christians in the United States, I would say that this is primarily a effect of an American culture (or subculture), not of a religion per se. In my opinion, the causes for genocide necessarily involve politics, as the act is carried out by the state, although I would not exclude religious or cultural influences. But to say that "religion is behind all this" is, at least in my opinion, to oversimplify. Many of these problems would persist even if all theological beliefs were magically eradicated at this moment.

My proceeding discourse was not necessary, but I thought it might be helpful and accurate to make these distinctions. Even without these distinctions, I would still say: "I agree emphatically that some religious beliefs and institutions have had some negative effects on some societies. In my judgment, it is just as true that some religious beliefs and institutions have had some positive effects on some societies." Consider the case of culture, which is obviously relative, but consider it anyway. The Homeric epics would not be the same if the Greeks had not had their pantheon of gods. In my opinion, the book of Job is the best piece of literature to come down from the Ancient Near East. Works by Micahelangelo depict religious scenes. Handel's Messiah is highly esteemed. Now, I am not saying that culture as a whole turned out "better" for the existence of religions. I would say that the effects of religions on cultures have not been entirely negative. At least, that is my opinion.

Ditto.

This speaks of the mythic ideal atheist (if you object to the term mythic, I will claim it as my own mythic ideal), not of the past or future actions of all actual atheists. At the very least, even if you are correct about history (which I don't believe and as countries such as China and Russia have shown -- not to equate atheism with communism at all in any way, but communists can surely be atheists, not believing in supernatural gods), there is no way to predict the future actions of all atheists. If even one atheist at any point in time in the future inflicted pain on another in order to influence them, that would make the statement false. The only way around this would be to declare anyone who does such a thing not a "true atheist" or some such.

This is usually called the "no true Scotsman" fallacy according to the alt.atheism FAQ, although a more appropriate term is the "no true Christian" fallacy, its most common instantiation. It is analogous to a Christian saying that those behind the Inquisition were not true Christians and that the weapons of Christians are faith, hope, and love or something like that. It's an ideal, but unfortunately ideals don't always translate into reality.

It would certainly expose some to a different perspective, which is not a bad thing. However, I would not prefer that a Christian's sole exposure to atheism is in the form of a book emphasizing the evils of religion. Although I do recognize that religions have had negative effects on societies, that fact does not form any part of my reasons for being an atheist. If I wrote the Big Golden Book o' Atheism, it would emphasize the point that many religious beliefs are not true or undemonstrated as the reason for disbelieving, perhaps the sole reason.

best,
Peter Kirby

Peter Kirby

Well, both Christians and atheists are human and make use of English. That explains part of it.

I guess something got lost in the translation. One of my points was that irreligion is not an objectively better "solution" than religion.

Just doing my duty.

Although, I don't know if you should applaud the stance I have taken. For those who think that acceptance of Jesus in some form is necessary for salvation, then obviously the idea that irreligion and atheism is ok stands in contradiction. That is, it would have to be the case that a particular religion _is_ for everybody, and with that I do not agree.

First, you seem to say that some Christians who read non-Christian materials remain Christian.

Second, you seem to say that no Christians who read non-Christian materials become non-Christian.

The first is true. The second is false.

best,
Peter Kirby

Methodissed

You make some good points Peter, though I don't completely agree. As an atheist who is at least somewhat supportive of religion, wouldn't you agree that the world would be a better place if people solved problems through critical thinking and rational thought, rather than reliance on superstition and make-believe? If politicians discarded irrational beliefs and made decisions based on science, facts and reality. If the incredible sums of money that is spent on worship was funneled to charity? If people took action rather than prayed to no one? As long as we have religion, won't we still have all these problems? Why then support superstition?

As I indicated earlier, I fully support one's right to religious belief (a fundamental human right.) I believe, however, that a world without religion, while not without problems, would be a far better world than we have today.

Viti

Though a little old hat for anyone who hangs on the Sec Web for awhile....Dan Barker summed everything up very nicely in his book <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1877733075/qid=1019960126/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/002-8531622-1268822" target="_blank">Losing Faith in Faith</a>

Haran

Thanks for the clarification. I thought this was probably more what you, yourself, really meant.

I applaud your relatively unbiased attitude and seeming desire to thoroughly investigate and report the truth of what you see. I've read your excellent website and I'm aware of your stance. I enjoy your thoughtful and intelligent research, but don't agree with all of your conclusions. It does seem to me, however, that you are being as honest with the data as anyone can.

Correct.

My fault. Poor wording on my part. Some Christians may be swayed, perhaps even some well-read Christians. I have not been and feel that there are strong arguments on both sides of the fence. I, personally, have chosen to believe in Jesus.

Sincerely,
Haran

case

I would suggest Micheal Shermer's "How We Believe". While it isn't a comprhensive refutation of Chrisianity, it is written in an easy to read style, and it covers many arguements against religion, as well as why people believe.

cloudyphiz

Haran-

a good bit of it, yes.

(by the way, nice edit there)

here's what i don't find convincing though:

joshua 10:11-14
and this

matthew 27:50-53
-gary

Peter Kirby

An original version of my reply got lost in a hard drive failure. Don't worry, I'll try to be just as long-winded as the first time I typed it.

I do not support superstition or religion, any more than I have support Pepsi. In fact, I do not associate good thoughts with either religion or Pepsi. (Don't get me started on Pepsi.)

I suppose I can get at this by first describing a theory on the components of religion. This theory is purely something that I made up when I wrote this post, and so is obviously subject to revision. I suggest that religion is composed of theory, mythology, ritual, and morality. Although these components interact, they can be distinguished. Theory concerns whether certain doctrines correspond to actual things in space and time. An example of a religious theory would be the idea that God created the world as described in Genesis, or the idea that the world has always existed as described by Hinduism, or the idea of reincarnation as described in a few religions. If the word 'theory' is too scientific-sounding, as it is, then perhaps the word 'metaphysics' will suffice to convey the concept in part, although mundane things such as the historical existence of Solomon could be included under the rubric of 'theory'. It is any point of claimed 'objective fact'. The next component of religion is mythology. Mythology literally understood often leads to theory, but that is not the essence of mythology. Mythology concerns the stories that are taken as constitutive of a social identity and which serves as a shared reference point for inspiration. One mythology is the story of the Greek heroes such as brave Achilles or wily Odysseus who uphold the traditional values of Hellenistic society. Another mythology is the story of God's relationship with the nation of Israel, or the story of the righteous innocent who takes on the sins of man, or the story of the enlightenment of the Buddha about the nature of suffering. The thing about the mythology is the meaning of the story and the way that the story influences the people who refer to it. Ritual is pretty straightforward and refers to the practices that are repeated by the devoted. These include the chants of the Hindu mystic, the regular prayers of the Muslim, the communion of the Christian, and the magic of the Wiccan. Morality concerns what is right and wrong, what is obligatory and what is forbidden, what brings honor and what brings shame.

Now that I have described the components of religion, I can proceed to a criticism of religion. With regard to 'theory', I maintain that the best if imperfect way to form theories about the objecive world is the scientific method. Because I do not believe there are any supernatural entities, I do not believe that supposed revelation from such entities can be relied upon as a guide to understanding the real world, as is held in several world religions. With regard to 'mythology', I have no problem with co-opting some of the mythologies of the ancients, such as for example the Odyssey. But I think that we should also make our own mythologies, such as the Enlightenment mythology of reason as a beacon drawing humankind to a progressively better future. And all of these mythologies should be open to cultural criticism. With regard to 'ritual', I am not opposed to the practice of rituals in principle. I have no problem rituals for which there is no metaphysical baggage that has to be taken on by the participant. As an atheistic Wiccan once said, comparing Wicca to Catholocism, "All of the flavor, none of the fat!" I think that perhaps the most attractive part of religion is the ritual aspect, as humans find comfort in the familiar. With regard to 'morality', I do not believe that the ancients have a monopoly in this sphere. My own ethics are based primarily in maximizing freedom for the individual without compromosing the rights of other human beings, while at the same time 'approving' and 'disapproving' of things in a combination of cultural norms and personal opinion, holding myself to the same standards for 'approval' (I hope that all makes sense).

Aside: some might claim that I have my own versions of 'theory', 'mythology', 'ritual', and 'morality' and say that I have made up a religion! I really shouldn't care about such a label, but it does carry a certain stigma for me, given that I have criticized the prevailing religion in my society on a number of points. So I might respond that these are necessary but not sufficient components of religion. Religion may additionaly require the belief in the supernatural, or the recognized tradition of a community of faith, or just to be called a 'religion' in normal discourse (if we despair of descriptively defining 'religion', which is a reasonable despair).

To return to the point under discussion, this theory on the components of religion will influence the way in which I engage in discussion about society in a largely religious one. When the topic is a matter of ethics, I will point out those places where there is disagreement with my own. If a matter of ethics depends on a metaphysical theory, such as the ensoulment of a zygote, I will dispute that metaphysical theory in such a discussion of ethics. But in a discussion of ethics and societal policy, I see no need to go popping every metaphysical bubble that might be had. And I will certainly allow others to maintain their own mythology and their own ritual, which I do not hold to be (always) unhealthy for a human being. If asked for my opinion or in a place such as Internet Infidels, I may ridicule some mythologies, but I will not go out of my way to do so when discussing matters of societal policy. Such respect in certain contexts is a policy of tact.

Now to return to your questions. Some of them are fantasy-type questions. It is impossible for me to take donations intended for the support of worship and funnel them into a charity of which I approve. Of course, the support of worship is not the only "pork" in the budget of society, not by a long shot. I agree that the money could be better spent, and I will not hesitate to point that out, especially in the case of decadent and dishonest televangelists.

For the first two questions, I wholeheartedly support the promotion of the wider exercise of reason in all spheres of human life, including the questions of religion. In this respect, I do not think that the important thing to promote is 'atheism' per se, although atheism could certainly be a happy side-effect of the consistent application of critical thought. But then there are people who hold irrational religious theories while being reasonable in most other judgments. It is the habit of reason to be encouraged, though, and not necessarily atheism. It is certainly possible to be an atheist for non-rational reasons, as faulty logic can lead to true conclusions.

What if people took action instead of praying to a non-existent being? That would be great, and in fact very often people both pray and take action. That is not a defense of prayer, which doesn't do anything beyond a placebo effect in my judgment. That is just a truth that, in many societies, the cliche holds that "God helps those who help themselves." So if a person for example needed a job, that person might pray and then go look in the 'help wanted' section of the paper. It is normally in cases where a person believes something to be beyond his control that the person relies on 'prayer alone'. That doesn't hurt other people very much, if the person is right that it is beyond his control, and it may be emotionally helpful to the individual. For those cases in which the belief in prayer led to inaction (which I acknowledge exists), such as the avoidance of modern medicine, that's where I would start to disapprove heartily (as would of course some religionists). There are shades of gray here; prayer is not pure evil.

Would a world without religion be a far better world than one with religion as we have it today? The quick and easy answer is "not necessarily," especially since we forgot to add the phrase "all else being equal." With that phrase, though, the hypothesis that a world without religion will be better becomes difficult ever to prove empirically, being that any real future world without religion will have quite a lot of stuff that is not equal -- say, the advance of technology, possibly the exercise of reason in various spheres of life, possibly different political systems, possibly different cultural values. There are lots of ways to imagine a world that is without religion but is nevertheless worse off than our own.

All posturing aside, I think that a secular society is a noble ideal towards which to work. I think that the best way to work towards such an ideal is to promote the exercise of critical thought, disseminate knowledge about the way the world works, and contribute positively to society in other ways. The ideal need not be achieved in order to be a positvely motivating force, and so I do approve and indeed share the mythology of a better, more reasonable, secular world.

best,
Peter Kirby