Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Perchance · 05-17-2002, 06:45 AM

All right, I'm new here, and it's possible that this may have been discussed to death already. If so, please forgive me

I didn't really see anything like it anywhere else, though, so here goes...

A lot of debate about religion seems to focus on the consequences of holding a religious worldview- everything from evangelizing and preaching to the abuse of children in the name of religion. I agree that these consequences can be harmful. However, I wonder: if someone holds a religious worldview, but takes no actions that harm someone else or interfere with someone else's free will, then is there any harm done?

In other words: does the religious worldview in and of itself cause any more harm than the secular worldview? I'm honestly interested in this, not because I consider myself a theist (I think I'm closer to agnostic), but because I've heard arguments from both sides that seem to assume it's harmful or not, without really explaining why.

Thoughts?

-Perchance.

IvanK · 05-17-2002, 07:01 AM

Speaking as a pragmatist atheist married to a Catholic it makes no difference to me what anyone chooses to believe as long as they behave well. I think a lot of the argument you note centers around the perception that if a non-theist does something bad, people tend to ascribe the behavior to his or her non-theism; but it a theist does something bad because of a deeply-held religious belief people often either give him or her a pass or argue that he or she is not a "True" Christian, Muslim, Jew, Buddhist or whatever.

Godless Dave · 05-17-2002, 07:29 AM

In my opinion the theistic worldview is inherently harmful, because it encourages people to believe in things without evidence and to think irrationally. Such people are more likely to be taken in by con artists and politicians. They are also more likely to be in denial about crimes committed by people who claim to share their faith, whther it's priests abusing children or televangelists raising money. The Republican party has been able to advance their anti-labor, anti-environment agenda because of the support of Christians who think they're doing God's work.

But I don't really have any problems with the theists who aren't hurting anybody. I don't appreciate it when someone tells me what to believe, so I try to afford others the same courtesy as long as they're not abusing children, beating up gay people, flying airplanes into buildings, extorting money, or trying to teach lies in public schools.

[ May 17, 2002: Message edited by: Godless Dave ]</p>

Perchance · 05-17-2002, 07:46 AM

Thanks for the responses so far.

IvanK:

Quote:

I think a lot of the argument you note centers around the perception that if a non-theist does something bad, people tend to ascribe the behavior to his or her non-theism; but it a theist does something bad because of a deeply-held religious belief people often either give him or her a pass or argue that he or she is not a "True" Christian, Muslim, Jew, Buddhist or whatever.

Really? I hadn't thought about this, to be honest. I have heard the "True Christian" argument, but I thought it was only die-hard fundamentalists who used it. And I've usually only heard it applied to those whom the self-proclaimed "True Christians" believe "hurt" someone else so that he or she "left the fold."

"Well, you only left the church because you were hurt by people who weren't TRUE Christians. But our denomination is..."

And on to paint their own beliefs in glowing colors. I've always been puzzled, though: What is the point of a term (like "True ____") that anyone can steal and apply to themselves, and which they claim the right to define so that it applies ONLY to themselves? It seems self-defeating...

But, no, I hadn't heard the "True _____" argument applied as a reason to excuse someone from a crime. If it is applied that way, it scares me. It doesn't seem to make any more sense to say that than to say, "The Devil made me do it," or "The aliens from space were beaming rays into my head that told me to..." How can you test it? How would it stand up?

But then, I have a lot of questions, which is why I'm asking

-Perchance.

Perchance · 05-17-2002, 07:48 AM

Godless Dave:

Quote:

But I don't really have any problems with the theists who aren't hurting anybody. I don't appreciate it when someone tells me what to believe, so I try to afford others the same courtesy as long as they're not abusing children, beating up gay people, flying airplanes into buildings, extorting money, or trying to teach lies in public schools.

I don't (or like to think I don't, at least) have problems with people who aren't hurting anyone, either, no matter what their beliefs. However, if a theistic worldview is inherently harmful, would this mean the person was hurting himself or herself?

-Perchance.

Godless Dave · 05-17-2002, 07:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Perchance:
<strong>I don't (or like to think I don't, at least) have problems with people who aren't hurting anyone, either, no matter what their beliefs. However, if a theistic worldview is inherently harmful, would this mean the person was hurting himself or herself?
-Perchance.</strong>

Yes, but someone hurting themself is only my business if they're my friend or family member, and only if they're doing serious damage. I have friends who hurt themselves in other ways (dating manipulative evil freeloading sluts; refusing to seek treatment for depression; smoking too much weed) too, and there's only so much you can do as a friend, and only so much you have a right to do.

IvanK · 05-17-2002, 08:08 AM

I don't see where, say, subscribing to the theory of evolution makes anyone a better shoe salesman or in any other way a better citizen of a democratic republic. As long as someone doesn't believe the voices in his or her head command them to commit mayhem I don't care what they're saying. And con men, televangelists and others who profit from others' gullibility have to make a living too. State lotteries are my favorite version of that scam.

Stick around here for awhile, you'll see plenty of examples of the "True Christian" argument. If you don't buy it, then there's one thing we agree on.

Perchance · 05-17-2002, 09:03 AM

Wow. Several things I hadn't considered.

Godless Dave: I agree with you on there being limits on how much a person should do. I suppose I unconsciously tend to personalize hypothetical situations like this, along the lines of "If a friend/relative of mine were thinking or doing this, what would my reaction be?" Of course, if someone on the other side of the world is thinking things I don't agree with, then no, it's not really my business unless that person does something that directly affects me.

And even with friends, really all I can do, I suppose, is express my honest opinion. I have lost a friend over the creation vs. evolution debate, believe it or not- and entirely without meaning to. I was talking about evolution because I was studying it in biology, and my friend, who had shown no theistic leanings whatsoever, abruptly said that she believed the Creation story in Genesis because "it was simpler, and I don't think I'm smart enough to believe in evolution." Unwisely, perhaps, I pursued this, since I didn't really think it was a good enough argument to stand up, and she wound up storming away. It was odd.

Oh, well.

Quote:

Originally posted by IvanK:

I don't see where, say, subscribing to the theory of evolution makes anyone a better shoe salesman or in any other way a better citizen of a democratic republic.

I'm sorry if I implied that; I didn't mean to. No, I don't think that non-theists, or scientists, or "evolutionists," are necessarily more moral than theists, either, just as I don't think they're necessarily less moral.

I suppose I just don't see the point of the "True ____" argument (and I'm fully willing to admit that I may not want to). I simply can't see any way it can be argued so as to actually persuade someone else. It seems as though, to agree with it, one would have to be a believer in it already. And if one already accepts it, then what is the point of using the argument in a debate?

As you may see, no, I don't agree with it.

Jamie_L · 05-17-2002, 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Perchance:
However, I wonder: if someone holds a religious worldview, but takes no actions that harm someone else or interfere with someone else's free will, then is there any harm done?

First, I don't think you can separate consequences from the belief in this instance. The point often made is that holding a religious belief makes people MORE PRONE to doing undesirable things. As mentioned, this is related to the suppression of critical thinking and the encouragement of blind following.

It's important not to confuse an individual holding a belief and people in general holding a belief. An individual Christian that I know and feel comfortable is a reasonable person may bother me not at all. The entire Christian religion with its manipulative priests, questionable agendas, and assorted followers (ranging from mild-mannered to raving whackos) does bother me - BECAUSE of the increased likelihood of bad consequences.

I DO believe one harms oneself when one deludes oneself into believing something that isn't true - especially if that false belief devalues important things in this life (as many religions do). One also hurts oneself when one intentionally ignores critical thinking in favor of blind faith - for you set yourself up for easy manipulation by everyone from priests to telemarketers.

However, is it my business if someone harms themself but no one else? No. That's why I don't like U.S. drug policy. If people want to be in a drugged up stupor - or live with blind superstition, that's their choice.

Jamie

[ May 17, 2002: Message edited by: Jamie_L ]</p>

Perchance · 05-17-2002, 02:05 PM

Originally posted by Jamie:

Quote:

The point often made is that holding a religious belief makes people MORE PRONE to doing undesirable things. As mentioned, this is related to the suppression of critical thinking and the encouragement of blind following.

.

Do you mean here 'undesireable things' altogether? Or do you mean specifically those that spring from a religious worldview? (I assumed at first you meant the second, but, since a religious worldview would be a prerequisite for doing those things at all, I wasn't sure).

-Perchance.

05-17-2002, 06:45 AM	#1
Perchance Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Kentucky Posts: 1,059	Worldview separated from consequences? All right, I'm new here, and it's possible that this may have been discussed to death already. If so, please forgive me I didn't really see anything like it anywhere else, though, so here goes... A lot of debate about religion seems to focus on the consequences of holding a religious worldview- everything from evangelizing and preaching to the abuse of children in the name of religion. I agree that these consequences can be harmful. However, I wonder: if someone holds a religious worldview, but takes no actions that harm someone else or interfere with someone else's free will, then is there any harm done? In other words: does the religious worldview in and of itself cause any more harm than the secular worldview? I'm honestly interested in this, not because I consider myself a theist (I think I'm closer to agnostic), but because I've heard arguments from both sides that seem to assume it's harmful or not, without really explaining why. Thoughts? -Perchance.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-17-2002, 07:01 AM	#2
IvanK Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Posts: 2,016	Speaking as a pragmatist atheist married to a Catholic it makes no difference to me what anyone chooses to believe as long as they behave well. I think a lot of the argument you note centers around the perception that if a non-theist does something bad, people tend to ascribe the behavior to his or her non-theism; but it a theist does something bad because of a deeply-held religious belief people often either give him or her a pass or argue that he or she is not a "True" Christian, Muslim, Jew, Buddhist or whatever.

05-17-2002, 07:29 AM	#3
Godless Dave Contributor Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: With 10,000 lakes who needs a coast? Posts: 10,762	In my opinion the theistic worldview is inherently harmful, because it encourages people to believe in things without evidence and to think irrationally. Such people are more likely to be taken in by con artists and politicians. They are also more likely to be in denial about crimes committed by people who claim to share their faith, whther it's priests abusing children or televangelists raising money. The Republican party has been able to advance their anti-labor, anti-environment agenda because of the support of Christians who think they're doing God's work. But I don't really have any problems with the theists who aren't hurting anybody. I don't appreciate it when someone tells me what to believe, so I try to afford others the same courtesy as long as they're not abusing children, beating up gay people, flying airplanes into buildings, extorting money, or trying to teach lies in public schools. [ May 17, 2002: Message edited by: Godless Dave ]</p>

05-17-2002, 08:08 AM	#7
IvanK Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Posts: 2,016	I don't see where, say, subscribing to the theory of evolution makes anyone a better shoe salesman or in any other way a better citizen of a democratic republic. As long as someone doesn't believe the voices in his or her head command them to commit mayhem I don't care what they're saying. And con men, televangelists and others who profit from others' gullibility have to make a living too. State lotteries are my favorite version of that scam. Stick around here for awhile, you'll see plenty of examples of the "True Christian" argument. If you don't buy it, then there's one thing we agree on.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.