Religion and Atheism

[JonSnow4President]

 

Don't get me wrong: science is an immensely valuable tool and arguably the source of most human progress, but it is not suited to answering the fundamental philosophical questions

I agree with this.  I've always viewed science as the answer to the how and what questions.  When science has conclusively proven something contrary to my beliefs, I take that into my beliefs.  

Religion is my considered answer for the why question, although I'm far from strong in my belief.  There's no problem to arguing that there is no why question, and that the universe and life merely are what they are.  

 

[Erik of Hazelfield]

I agree that science doesn't answer the why questions. But neither does religion, as far as I can see. When I read, say, the Genesis, all I see is a whole bunch of how and no why.

Where in the bible do we get an answer to why God created the universe? (I'm genuinly curious.)

 

[DireWolfSpirit]

Regarding the question upthread, Bush did claim his God told him to invade Iraq. That was widely reported.

George Bush: 'God told me to end the tyranny in Iraq' | World news ...

www.theguardian.com › World › Iraq

Oct 7, 2005 - George Bush has claimed he was on a mission from God when he ... President told Palestinians God also talked to him about Middle East ...

[Stubby]

 

Do you mean "no better" in the last sentence? In any case, if actual understanding was on the menu, I would totally go for that... but it is not. Science provides some knowledge of the laws of nature, but all we've managed to find so far is that the universe is much more vast and much stranger than we thought. Don't get me wrong: science is an immensely valuable tool and arguably the source of most human progress, but it is not suited to answering the fundamental philosophical questions (i.e. it can only answer them in a small subset of the set of possible realities and from everything we've learned so far, we appear to be well outside of that subset). Philosophy provides possible answers (I'd point you to my thread about the simulation argument, but it vanished in the board upgrade), but again, we would need to be extremely likely for our universe to be one in which it is possible to figure out whether any of these is true.

Also, to use your example, does it really matter whether Santa Claus is real or not as long as the presents show up as expected? Religious people are happier, even relative to those participating in other social activities.

No, I would not want to live in a theocratic society. However, I suspect that a level of religion similar to that of the US in the middle of the last century makes for a more robust and viable society than the ones that currently exist in most Western countries.

Yes, I meant "no better".

Nothing to say about all the other examples I listed?  Your argument was to the effect that collective belief means correctness of belief.  I raised all the other examples to point out the falsity in that position.  To only address one of them smacks of evasiveness.

I would correct your next statement to:  Science provides some ever-increasing knowledge of the laws of nature, physics and the way things interact with other things.  Your point is just the hackneyed old "god of the gaps" fallacy.  Then I would quote the comedian Dara O'briain (who is also a physicist): "Science knows it doesn't know everything.  Otherwise it'd stop".  Who is to say that science will not discover a "why" answer at some stage in the future?  Not me.  But I'm not closed-minded enough to suggest that it never will.

Then I have a minor quibble with the way you worded the summary of the study you linked.  The paper said:  "Participation in religious organizations may offer mental health benefits beyond those offered by other forms of social participation" (my emphasis). You said: "Religious people are happier".

Finally, I did not ask you if you would be happy to live in a theocracy.  I asked you if you would be happy (as a Christian) to be forced into participating in Ramadan.  It is a different question and I would still appreciate your answer.  

[TrueMetis]

Also, to use your example, does it really matter whether Santa Claus is real or not as long as the presents show up as expected? Religious people are happier, even relative to those participating in other social activities.

If they're over 50. Such a limited study seems pretty useless to me. Plus all the other possible factors. If a study popped up saying straight people are happier than gays and thus being straight provided more "sustained happiness" than being gay, well I'd would take issue with that.

And yes it matters, knowing the truth always matters. Knowing the truth in of itself is worth something.

[DireWolfSpirit]

Altherion-

No, I would not want to live in a theocratic society. However, I suspect that a level of religion similar to that of the US in the middle of the last century makes for a more robust and viable society than the ones that currently exist in most Western countries.

Not sure what you mean by this, do you have an example?

[Daemrion]

See here's the problem, neither is "right" objectively. And yes, somebody is going to be disappointed. That's just reality. You cannot make everyone happy, but for society to function rules need to be laid down.

Why would an outside perspective be better than a human one? And it's not a definitive answer, because as you yourself have said the high power can changes its mind. That's not definitive. Maybe eating meat's only wrong on Fridays.

And why would religion provide a yardstick to measure value judgements? You said a high power gets to make this call, but not all religions can be right dude. They hold vastly different often contradictory positions of various subjects. Which is why the problem doesn't go away. Instead of the "whims of the majority" we're dealing with the "whims of religion" (pick one) or since the higher power can change it's mind the "whims of the higher power."

But you've already admitted that it wouldn't be an absolute. Just a relative from a different being.

Then we really are at the whims of whoever decides what the rules are?

As to why an outside perspective be better than a human one? Because the outside perspective is probably free from personal bias, maybe wiser than we are etc.

 

 

3. It's not a valid position any time.  When one is critiquing core beliefs and the no true scotsman is trotted out, it is nothing more than a dodge.  Or it's cherrypicking the bible.  Or it's passing something off as not applicable to the person engaged in the debate.  I don't think I've used any of the examples you listed except the slavery one, which is classic no true scotsman.  To get around it, you would need to cite evidence that all of chritianity has always condemned slavery, otherwise it's just cherrypicking and/or a sign of evolving morals.

4. Yeah, not so much, in my experience.

I think that people criticize the Bible because they cherrypick from it. The Bible has to be understood as a whole text. Otherwise, most Christians shouldn't be eating shellfish or pork, dressing in things that are a mix of polyester and cotton etc...

So re the slavery question: if one has a understanding of the Bible as a whole, it is quite clear from Philemon verses 10-19 - that Christians are to be against slavery. That they are to welcome former runaway slaves as brothers.

I'm honestly confused by your insistence that people can't determine what they think is moral without the influence of some supreme being, Daemrion.  

 

This is...different from atheists how?  Besides not having to think about what they think and why because they can just shortcut all of that thought process with "God told me".   

I'm not saying that people can't determine what they think is moral without the influence of some supreme being. I'm saying that when two people have diametrically opposed moral positions, one cannot determine which one is better/more right/more valid without some objective yardstick (which may be some sort of a supreme being).

Because God is something to measure our decisions against. In a way I feel atheistic decision making can be summarized to "it's what I feel like, right now."

That is correct. Some of the New Atheists believe that we may eventually be able to analyze morality scientifically, but we have yet to find a moral framework that is universally accepted as the best within the academic community of philosophers, let alone the world as a whole. That said, there are a few ways to rank such frameworks based on objective measures. For example, one could consider how well a certain framework fits with its technological era (i.e. does it allow people to make the most of the technology and thus create the most powerful society?).

Another way is to apply the concept of natural selection to moral values. That is, the success of a moral system can be judged by the number of adherents, though unlike natural selection in biology, such adherents can be gained not only by reproduction, but also by conversion. Ironically, when judged by this metric, atheism and secular cultures in general lose, and they lose quite badly. They're winning the conversion game, but the dominant factor is the reproduction and in that there is absolutely no contest.

I don't like the number of adherents being a measure of the success of a moral system. A tyranny of the majority is still a tyranny. See my previous point about the overthrown democratically elected Egyptian government.

How do you mean, mate?  My only view is that laws like this should be based on actual evidence.  If (as the example said) the studies show that there are less accidents and deaths and unsociable behaviour when alcohol is legal, why criminalise it because the county people think it's teh ebil?

But what if actual evidence shows something that you disagree with personally? For example, evidence shows that taxes are a dead weight loss to the economy. Does that mean you advocate for no taxes at all which means we won't have public roads, schools etc...?

[Grimbold]

I see Mr. Hitchens has been negatively mentioned on the very first page.

 

Well this whole religion vs atheism debacle can me sumed up with on of his expressions, the so called Hitchen's razor.

 

Also, whats the issue with intellectually attacking religion(s)? I thought no ideas were exempt from criticism.

[TrueMetis]

Then we really are at the whims of whoever decides what the rules are?

Well, to whatever degree you're willing to put up with that. You have options, just expect to face the consequences of your actions.

As to why an outside perspective be better than a human one? Because the outside perspective is probably free from personal bias, maybe wiser than we are etc.

I see no reason to come to this conclusion. In fact being an perspective outside human it could be so far from the human condition as to be worthless.

I think that people criticize the Bible because they cherrypick from it. The Bible has to be understood as a whole text. Otherwise, most Christians shouldn't be eating shellfish or pork, dressing in things that are a mix of polyester and cotton etc...

So re the slavery question: if one has a understanding of the Bible as a whole, it is quite clear from Philemon verses 10-19 - that Christians are to be against slavery. That they are to welcome former runaway slaves as brothers.

If you need the whole text to understand that, then it's missing a lot of chapters. Someone should have informed the council of nicea.

Hey, why is other people's looking at specific passages of the bible to support their point cherry picking but yours isn't? Especially when the passage that say things like no mixed clothing are very clear "don't do X" and your passage is far more ambiguous. I mean, it seems to me "don't do x" is pretty simple, and immune from cherry picking. Sure maybe the Bible at some point contradicts that point, but that's all it is. The Bible contradicting itself, and it does that all the time. Being written by multiple authors at different points this is to be expected, just look at Marvel and DC. They contradict themselves often and they have editors meant to prevent that sort of thing.

[Daemrion]

Hey, why is other people's looking at specific passages of the bible to support their point cherry picking but yours isn't? Especially when the passage that say things like no mixed clothing are very clear "don't do X" and your passage is far more ambiguous. I mean, it seems to me "don't do x" is pretty simple, and immune from cherry picking. Sure maybe the Bible at some point contradicts that point, but that's all it is. The Bible contradicting itself, and it does that all the time. Being written by multiple authors at different points this is to be expected, just look at Marvel and DC. They contradict themselves often and they have editors meant to prevent that sort of thing.

Because it's about really about understanding the text in the context of the whole. For example, in Leviticus there are a whole bunch of rules about not eating pork, shellfish, not wearing clothes made of mixed materials etc. So if you cherrypicked that you would think that Christians aren't allowed to eat pork, shellfish, wear clothes of more than one material etc. But when you read Mark 7:18-23, you have to reconcile the earlier passages with the later passage and gain a holistic understanding of what the message of the Bible is about. Your understanding of the passages on Leviticus is enhanced by your understanding of the passage in Mark and vice versa. And in Mark, it's quite explicit what Jesus does say.

Another example is with male headship of the family. Feminist criticism has been made of Christianity because Christianity places males in a place of headship. But that's where the feminist analysis of Christianity often ends. But then the Bible tells us that husbands ought to love your wives just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, to love their wives as their own bodies etc...

So in a way, cherrypickers would say that Christianity doesn't value females as much as males. But a better analysis and understanding of the text within the context of the Bible as a whole proves otherwise. Because if husbands are to give themselves up for their wives, how can one say that wives aren't valued?

So I might quote from a specific passage, but the idea and argument behind quoting that specific passage comes from an understanding of the whole text rather than just that little bit of text quoted. I think that's probably the best I can explain it.

To use a Game of Thrones example, we may cherry pick the fact that Jaime Lannister killed Aerys to argue that he's evil. But then as we read ASOS and read about the wildfire plot we realize perhaps that Jaime killing Aerys was actually a good thing. Having read more of the text and understanding the context of his actions will influence our view of Jaime's character. In effect, I wouldn't use the fact that Jaime killed Aerys to argue that he's a wholly good person (which would also be cherry picking), but having understood it and read about his other actions, I can draw a conclusion that Jaime is probably a morally gray character who has done some good and some bad things.

I can perhaps even draw a conclusion that Jaime is a good person at heart who is desperately trying to be evil because that's all he's been told he can be since he was seventeen. But I'd probably have to read the text and context a bit more carefully.

And yes it matters, knowing the truth always matters. Knowing the truth in of itself is worth something.

I agree. But I ask you this, how do you find truth in atheism?

[Grimbold]

I would venture saying that the contradictory nature of religious texts is a reflection of it's human character and, therefore, a test of it's validity.

I find that quite a few atheists find it negatively admirable that so many believers make a conscious decision to extrapolate a sense of,uhm, divinity, evidence of supernatural or whatever you may call it from material which is can be reduced to nothing else than man made.

[MerenthaClone]

I'm saying that when two people have diametrically opposed moral positions, one cannot determine which one is better/more right/more valid without some objective yardstick (which may be some sort of a supreme being).

And if they disagree on which objective yardstick (of which there are many, and for some reason people only tend to use the ones they already agree with) to use, what then?  

[Kyoshi]

I think that people criticize the Bible because they cherrypick from it. The Bible has to be understood as a whole text. Otherwise, most Christians shouldn't be eating shellfish or pork, dressing in things that are a mix of polyester and cotton etc...

So re the slavery question: if one has a understanding of the Bible as a whole, it is quite clear from Philemon verses 10-19 - that Christians are to be against slavery. That they are to welcome former runaway slaves as brothers.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the intention of the examples you've provided but they seem to make a case against the argument you're presenting i.e. that in order to understand the bible one needs to take it as a whole and not verse by verse. The bible is contradictory, especially when taken as a whole. The verse-by-verse subjective interpretation works much better. Leviticus 25:44-46 is quite instructive/informative on how one can go about purchasing a slave correctly. There are a few passages in Exodus I can't quite recall right this moment. Each of them details how certain slaves are to be procured and subsequently treated: sex, general, whatever. In general, the bible grows more tolerant in chronological order of the books/chapters/authors, so by the time you get to Philemon, yeah sure, embrace thy slave as a brother. But as a whole, it is quite cherrypickish to state that it is quite clear slavery is an abhorrent notion since the opposite has been presented for much of the book.

Same thing goes for the feminism argument you made. It only works as far as you consider that passage in which the men are supposed to sacrifice themselves for their wives. But it should go beyond that. There's a passage in the bible which states, quite unambiguously because the girl even cries out, that if a man should rape a woman, then the man is to pay his victim's father fifty digits of some currency I've forgotten and then take her as a wife. I think it even goes to say he can't divorce her since he's violated her in the most shameful manner, or something like that. (In Deuteronomy I think). Overall, you end up with one passage advocating self-sacrifice for the wife and a multitude of others propagating quite oppressive and reprehensible instructions.

As already stated by others, these kinds of contradictions are bound to happen with a book written by multiple authors over different social climates.

Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is that the bible does more harm than good in strengthening the argument for faith. I think people are really willing to leave Christians alone. It's when the "well the bible says..." argument comes that the "cherrypicking" starts.

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

From the article.No, that's not how free speech works. Why do people struggle with this so much?

Though Spockydog? The freedom from religion required by freedom of religion is just the freedom to be non-religious. It's not necessarily a freedom to avoid things like private ads advocating for (or against) religion.

It's absolutely how free speech works. It's not how the first amendment works, but that's not really relevant in England.

[Kyoshi]

Because God is something to measure our decisions against. In a way I feel atheistic decision making can be summarized to "it's what I feel like, right now."

I find this quite reductive. If I should meet such an atheist, I will post about him/her as soon as I can.

This is from my perspective, and not representative of any other atheists I know, certainly not the ones in this thread [we're all different you know]: the concept of god(s) isn't something I respect from any moral front. It pains me to have to disclaimer this (but I don't mean to offend anyone)--god, as he is presently defined and has been presented to me, seems like an absent, petulant and often tyrannical being. His moral code, in the instance that he exists, is something I've always strongly questioned and as such, personally don't find it all that marvelous. It's not something I aspire to; I think morality is an inherent human character and is not subject to the concept of any religion or god(s). I personally think that god(s)  and the moral code(s) that accompany that is/are a human creation, and as such, people inherently posses great capacity for morality, and shittiness as well since much shittiness can be spewed in the name of morality.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

In this example, you are leaning on a scientific result (albeit a slightly fuzzy one) so most (though not all) people would agree that we should do something. However, the scenario gets outside the realm of reason quickly: science doesn't tell you what exactly should be done. Every proposed response to climate change has a difficult to determine cost and a difficult to determine benefit. There are a few which make sense for other reasons (with more clearly defined costs and benefits) and these have the support of a growing number of people, but in the end, we're basically guessing.

Haha. This is such a disingenuous dodge.

"Science isn't perfect so let's make major decisions based on my religious views." Are you James Inhofe?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Because God is something to measure our decisions against. In a way I feel atheistic decision making can be summarized to "it's what I feel like, right now."

Whose god?

This can easily be flipped around to say "Christian morality is nothing more than Operant Conditioning."

[Altherion]

Nothing to say about all the other examples I listed?  Your argument was to the effect that collective belief means correctness of belief.  I raised all the other examples to point out the falsity in that position.  To only address one of them smacks of evasiveness.

What do you want me to say about them? If it becomes obvious that something is not true, the untrue belief is discarded.

I would correct your next statement to:  Science provides some ever-increasing knowledge of the laws of nature, physics and the way things interact with other things.  Your point is just the hackneyed old "god of the gaps" fallacy.  Then I would quote the comedian Dara O'briain (who is also a physicist): "Science knows it doesn't know everything.  Otherwise it'd stop".  Who is to say that science will not discover a "why" answer at some stage in the future?  Not me.  But I'm not closed-minded enough to suggest that it never will.

Again, it is certainly possible that science will answer the fundamental questions, but from everything we know so far, it appears to be very unlikely. First, it is true that our knowledge is ever-increasing... but the resources required to reach each new step from the previous one are also increasing. To use my own field as an example, the earliest experiments exploring fundamental physics could be done by a single person in their spare time whereas the Large Hadron Collider and its associated experiments provide full-time employment for approximately ten thousand people (not counting all of the people who worked in the factories that constructed the electronics). Such large projects already use resources from almost the entire world (not just Western countries and Russia, but also India, Brazil, etc.) and there isn't much more to give. Of course, every once in a while somebody wins a Nobel Prize for thinking of a way to understand something important without spending billions of dollars on it, but in general, the costs are growing with time (and this is true across all fields -- if something is easy, chances are somebody has already done it). It's not at all obvious how far we will be able to get before the going becomes too tough. I can tell you that from what we've learned so far, we are nowhere near the goal and not only that, but each step appears to bring up more and more questions.

Second, the scientific method has built-in limitations which result in blind spots for certain phenomena. For example, for something to be considered experimentally verified, a measurement must be reproducible in a controlled way. When we run into something we cannot reproduce, we attempt to attribute it to a mistake or, if the latter doesn't work, simply ignore it. This is obviously the right way to go: not only does investigating such things requires resources and there is precious little funding as it is, but technology can only be built on reproducible phenomena. However, there is no guarantee that every phenomenon of interest plays by this rule. There are several other limitations of this kind (e.g. we assume that the laws of nature do not change with time).

Again, it is possible that the laws of nature are such that science may be able to fully describe them, but from what we've learned up until now, I don't think it is plausible.

Then I have a minor quibble with the way you worded the summary of the study you linked.  The paper said:  "Participation in religious organizations may offer mental health benefits beyond those offered by other forms of social participation" (my emphasis). You said: "Religious people are happier".

The study is using the standard scientific phrasing and I'm using the standard way everybody outside a given field always interprets it. Scientific results always come with this kind of probabilistic statement. If you read the rest of the abstract, they quantify it for you and it's the usual 95% confidence interval. Given that there are quite a few other studies of this type, it's a fairly safe bet that religious people are indeed happier.

Finally, I did not ask you if you would be happy to live in a theocracy.  I asked you if you would be happy (as a Christian) to be forced into participating in Ramadan.  It is a different question and I would still appreciate your answer.

I'm more agnostic than Christian, but the answer to your question is no, I would not. I'm also not sure why you ask it since this is not done even in countries that explicitly claim to be theocratic (e.g. Iran does not force Christians and Jews to participate in Muslim rites).

[Stubby]

 

What do you want me to say about them? If it becomes obvious that something is not true, the untrue belief is discarded.

Again, it is certainly possible that science will answer the fundamental questions, but from everything we know so far, it appears to be very unlikely. First, it is true that our knowledge is ever-increasing... but the resources required to reach each new step from the previous one are also increasing. To use my own field as an example, the earliest experiments exploring fundamental physics could be done by a single person in their spare time whereas the Large Hadron Collider and its associated experiments provide full-time employment for approximately ten thousand people (not counting all of the people who worked in the factories that constructed the electronics). Such large projects already use resources from almost the entire world (not just Western countries and Russia, but also India, Brazil, etc.) and there isn't much more to give. Of course, every once in a while somebody wins a Nobel Prize for thinking of a way to understand something important without spending billions of dollars on it, but in general, the costs are growing with time (and this is true across all fields -- if something is easy, chances are somebody has already done it). It's not at all obvious how far we will be able to get before the going becomes too tough. I can tell you that from what we've learned so far, we are nowhere near the goal and not only that, but each step appears to bring up more and more questions.

Second, the scientific method has built-in limitations which result in blind spots for certain phenomena. For example, for something to be considered experimentally verified, a measurement must be reproducible in a controlled way. When we run into something we cannot reproduce, we attempt to attribute it to a mistake or, if the latter doesn't work, simply ignore it. This is obviously the right way to go: not only does investigating such things requires resources and there is precious little funding as it is, but technology can only be built on reproducible phenomena. However, there is no guarantee that every phenomenon of interest plays by this rule. There are several other limitations of this kind (e.g. we assume that the laws of nature do not change with time).

Again, it is possible that the laws of nature are such that science may be able to fully describe them, but from what we've learned up until now, I don't think it is plausible.

The study is using the standard scientific phrasing and I'm using the standard way everybody outside a given field always interprets it. Scientific results always come with this kind of probabilistic statement. If you read the rest of the abstract, they quantify it for you and it's the usual 95% confidence interval. Given that there are quite a few other studies of this type, it's a fairly safe bet that religious people are indeed happier.

I'm more agnostic than Christian, but the answer to your question is no, I would not. I'm also not sure why you ask it since this is not done even in countries that explicitly claim to be theocratic (e.g. Iran does not force Christians and Jews to participate in Muslim rites).

On the first comment, you must then concede that collective belief is not a reasonable basis to suggest accurate belief.

On the second paragraph, there is no "goal".  Like the good Mr O'briain said, science knows it doesn't know everything.  Otherwise it'd stop.  Your position is that science has limitations.  I say that is just too bold a declaration to make.

As to the 4th bit, it was an example. By recognising that you would not like it, you express the same view that all homosexual couples reach when told they cannot marry because it is against god.  You reach the same view that women who want to have a medical procedure reach when told (usually but not always by men) that it's better for them face death than have that procedure because of the beliefs of the lawmaker.

[Stubby]

I agree. But I ask you this, how do you find truth in atheism?

Depends what 'truth' you're looking for.

Atheism is only disbelief in god(s) after all.

Generally (but not always) if you scratch an atheist you find a skeptic.  Skeptics look for evidence to back up the 'truth' claim.

And the Abrahamaic god is no kind of good moral entity.  One need not look past the absolutely horrific nature of the ark story to know that*.

*cue no true Scotsman response...