Horia wrote a comment critical of my recent shout out to Atheists and Agnostics Who Go to Church. I am grateful for Horia’s direct honesty, and want to give this person’s arguments careful consideration. Rather than burying my response in the comments, I’d like to elevate it to post status because a) I want to encourage more discussion between militant atheists and tolerant atheists, and b) Horia’s approach represents the more visible style of atheist engagement with believers, and while we may share some similar objectives, I think that in the long term, this onslaught of “all religion bad” is a tactical blunder.
The main points of Horia’s argument are:
- All “Organized religion is harmful” and “a disease.”
- “Religious institutions must be questioned at every oportunity [sic], (or accepted fully if you are a theist).”
- “Middle ground is just the cowardly easy way out.”
- “Generalization is a must in this fight.”
I respectfully disagree with every point. It’s the binary, black or white, either this or that nature of Horia’s argument that I object to (ironically, this is similar to what I object to in dogmatic religious thinking and argumentation). I believe that this demonstrates a lack of understanding of the following:
- How theists become atheists: It’s a process. A few may have moments of epiphany or crisis that transform their belief into unbelief overnight, but most have their faith eroded slowly over time by personal experience and rational argument. Horia’s argument suggests that it’s more like flipping a switch–you’re believe in God one moment, and you don’t in the next. This leaves no room for questioning believers to go through the process of deconversion. It also ignores the fact that a entire cognitive framework may have to be unraveled (and possibly replaced), not just belief in God.
- Church-going doubters are embedded in a social context: Horia argues that going to church because your partner goes is “cowardly” and akin to “blackmail.” Let’s ignore for a moment that this is based on the faulty argument that “all religion is harmful” and therefore any support of religion trumps other decisions in ones life (like working through faith differences in a marriage or family). This uncompromising attitude again leaves no room for process and the diversity of relationships out there. I became an atheist years before Jana did. It was a long and painful struggle for us to work out our differences, to renegotiate our marriage, to calm her fears about the children. Eventually, she began questioning religion herself. If I immediately invoked Horia’s attitude, I might not be married today. Instead, we ended up leaving Mormonism as a family. The long wait was worth it.
- Not all atheists believe that all religion is harmful: Horia’s argument is based in large part on the assumption that because all religion is bad, extending even the slightest support (especially in the form of church attendance) is unethical. Prove that religion is not a universal social bane, and the entire argument falls apart. Exhibits include recent American Evangelical attempts to fight global poverty, to provide vaccines to fight AIDS and to get the word out about climate change. Among others is a recent petition in support of teaching evolution in the classroom that was signed by hundreds of prominent religious leaders. The liberal branch of the Religious Society of Friends (with which I affiliate) is an example of emphasizing the best in religion: it has the strength of centuries of tradition with little of the hierarchy or dogma. My own Quaker meeting is a community based on shared values (e.g., pacifism and radical egalitarianism) and practice (including meditation and social activism), not on doctrine or hierarchy.
Horia and I agree on one thing: religion should not be immune from criticism. Arguments against religion, however, need to be careful, well-supported and nuanced enough to reflect reality if they are to be effective. Generalizations are too easily dismissed. Also, I could be wrong, but I feel that skeptical arguments from within or from the edges of faith encourage more critical thinking among believers than dogmatic grenades lobbed from deep within atheist-land.
One last thing: Horia attacked the middle way as “the cowardly easy way out.” I don’t think that it is for the church-going atheist and agnostic friends to whom I dedicated the original post. Having left family (for Mormonism) and then Mormonism (for atheist Quakerism), I have to say that my experience doesn’t mesh with Horia’s words. Leaving is a relief. It is a tremendous burden to work daily to navigate most religious communities as an unbeliever and to try to balance being true to one’s self with preservation of cherished relationships. That, my friend, takes courage and continuous effort.
25 responses so far ↓
1 C. L. Hanson // Jan 22, 2008 at 10:28 pm
As you might guess, I agree with you. See my passionate secularism. It’s a little unfortunate to see the atheist community fighting over this rather than allowing more than one approach to these complex topics.
2 Elaine // Jan 23, 2008 at 8:38 am
I guess the thing that bothers me most about Horia’s argument is the part about a “middle way” being “cowardly”. Following this philosophy, not only in religion but in politics and just about every other aspect of life results in situations where compromise becomes well-nigh impossible and you end up with arguments and wars and all sorts of destructive behavior on the part of individuals and institutions.
As far as I can see, there is too much of this sort of thing already. If people, nations, and religions accept Horia’s argument and become even more polarized, I can see only disaster as a result.
3 Samuel Skinner // Jan 23, 2008 at 12:01 pm
There are situations where compromise and moderation is wrong. For example accomadating muslim requirements towards women in Europe. Or accepting NOMA. (Not Gould’s finest hour; it only works if religion doesn’t make any falsible statements) Point number four is wrong, though. Don’t over generalize. It is dishonest. Although I might not agree with 1, 2 and 3 I do think it holds true for the concept of “Faith”. Faith is harmful, must be questioned and lacks a middle ground. For those of you who disagree, just remeber that faith means believing in things because you want to, even if it is obviously not true. How can you defend that?
4 xJane // Jan 23, 2008 at 12:37 pm
heh. I actually thought Horia was not a militant atheist but a militant theist. These are the exact claims my father makes when discussing the bastardization of the Catholic religion (that is to say, tolerance within it). I find it ironic that, when it comes to militancy, it’s difficult to tell what side one is on. Perhaps black is white & white is black. This makes the argument for gray all the stronger.
5 Elaine // Jan 23, 2008 at 1:44 pm
Of course there are situations where compromise is not advisable. I happen to believe that those situations are generally few and far between, but they do come up from time to time.
But what kind of a world would it be if everyone always took the position that “I’m right and that’s it and everyone else can kiss my ass.” Nothing would ever get done, except by force. I don’t think that’s the kind of world that too many people want to live in; those who do like that scenario are probably suffering from the delusion that everything will always go their way.
xJane…you’ve made a key observation that illustrates what an old political science teacher of mine said in a lecture one time in lecture: The spectrum of belief is not a line, but a circle. If the top of the circle is the middle-of-the-road opinion, the militants on the opposite sides of the issue in contention will meet down at the bottom of the circle and you can’t tell the difference between them based on argumentative approach and tactics.
6 Elaine // Jan 23, 2008 at 1:47 pm
Heh, heh…the first sentence in that last paragraph I wrote above comes to you courtesy of the Department of Redundancy Department.
Oops!
7 Rich // Jan 23, 2008 at 7:29 pm
John,
I just wanted to express appreciation for your thoughtful and articulate post. I’ll eventually get around to posting on a similar topic soon (so much to say, so little time!). But I did want to share one little example. A friend just returned from a week-long vacation to Egypt. Her observation of the Egyptian people mirrors my own from nearly 30 years ago — they are some of the kindest, most amiable people on the planet. We both credit much of that to the teachings of Islam. A country of 85 million people that has a grand total of 4 prisons for the entire country! Rather remarkable. A handful of extremists that call themselves Muslim are hardly representative of the vast majority, and grossly unfair to blame current terrorist woes on that religion. While we could certainly identify aspects of this religion as being oppressive, sexist, etc., there is also much good. The older I get, the less black and white everything becomes (16 million shades of color at least, with better resolution in future iterations ;^)
8 Horia // Jan 25, 2008 at 3:22 am
Thank you for your reply , i`ll be short here as i`m rather busy , and sorry if I offended you , i know i exagerated and built a bit of a straw man there on purpose , but glad you chose to discuss
No i do not belive in imposing one`s will on others, either converting someone to a certain religion or making him abandon that religion . The choiche must be personal to have any meaning at all . Comunism attempted to ban religion (i know , been there) , and the results after the fall of comunism was a masive number of people swinging to fundamentalist religion and a situation where questioning the church will get you the general social “banishment” thing .(Romania…) . So yes I am biased , I know…
What i was refering to though is the attitude and purpose , no the way to get to those purposes .I want religion out and dead , and thus i can not agree to “tolerance” and the middle way , in the sense that i stay determined to achieve this goal
To “how” to achieve this , that`s another issue . No pills , constrictions , brainwashing will ever do this . If a theist wants to be a theist he will stay a theist , i can even argue that romans initialy banishing christianity just made christianity stronger. So i won`t go around burning churches or evanghelizing people into atheism , but i won`t go the other way either and accept some parts/forms of religion and deny others . This is the middle way I was talking about . This is the generalization i was talking about . I try to adress religion in general , and not go bashing christians and tolerating bhudists because christians influence my life and bhudists don`t . I identify the problem in “religion” as a whole , and faith specificaly , so I MUST GENERALIZE in order to try and stay objective to the issue
I won`t tolerate mom`s rants about god more then I will tolerate an islamist blowing himself up in iraq .
Now on to “how to” deal with this . Education to start with , open criticism , engaging arguments and discutions whenever posible (in my case even beeing disrespectfull and offensive , i may risk pissing someone off but hopefully i`ll allso give them something to think about)
I used the term blackmail . What i mean is , if i come here and criticize religion , then i go to church only cause my GF may be pissed if i don`t , i`m blackmailed : “I know you don`t need/want to go but unless you come with me i`ll be pissed”
Black and white : I know it sounds bad , it generaly is , but in this issue it must stay black and white , or else we have atheism + 1000000 forms of religion , and that can very easely end up in just another form of religious conflict/debate . I`d rather call it health/disease though , you can`t argue for a middle way there
To try to end this for now , I know plenty religios people are in fact great people , extremists are a minority , but then again, i`ll use a dumb argument and say the same is valid for atheists .
Now my question is : are people good because of religion or are they simply good people who happen to embrace religion? I won`t say that all religious people are bad (though i know plenty theists that claim all atheists are bad by default)
Religion `s main fault is in making faith a virtue
Hope i`ll get back on this later , sorry i can`t articulate my posts as good as you do i sucks at engrish
9 Horia // Jan 25, 2008 at 3:44 am
I am glad for you , really . I am glad you found your way , please don`t get me wrong , i can be hatefull but i don`t hate theists , i hate religion . Gee that sounded like i love the sinners i hate the sin .
I totaly understand your point , it`s human empathy , though i don`t necesarly agree with it . One must take a clear stand on this problem . You are either a theist or you are not . But if you are not a theist , you are an atheist. That is a pasive attribute and doesn`t imply antitheism or anything , an atheist may verywell not give a crap about religion , that`s all good , atheism has no agenda on it`s self .
But , atheist or theist , if you chose to place blame on some parts of religion (extremism) and tolerate other parts , you are a coward . If you take a stand to religion , there is really no middle way to it . You either accept the religion as a phenomenon or you don`t . Moderate religion and extremist religion are just simptoms of the same disease .
exercise: turn the tables , muslims are the “dominant” ones , not christians , then ….
just replace muslims with christians in that text
10 Horia // Jan 25, 2008 at 4:13 am
……(continuing) The vast majority of harmless good theists provide the extremists with a justification, fundamentation for there beliefs and actions . Now you`ll probably say a bad person is a bad person with or without religion , as it`s the case for good persons , you`re right , but a bad person without religion won`t blow himself up for a god . A religious bad person can justify his acts (to himself?) via religion , escaping the bounds of the rational , a rational bad person won`t be able to do that . Sure we have plenty bad atheists but they tend to be recognized before they get to do real harm and if they are not rational about there actions and reasons they get locked up in mental institutions .
Would you tolerate mild(moderate) mind illness and let it go untreated (unchalanged) on the basis that only severe nutcases may cause problems?
(oh i totaly disagree with druging the shit out of a person just because he is not “normal” , or how he “should be” , and yes , i am guilty of what i attack , i have FAITH in humanity , i do belive humans can work things out for themselves and don`t need to be forced one way or another )
Again , i`m sorry i`m not very coherent , i`m at work and get interupted every other 2 minutes
Your post gave me lots to think about . Yes you can live alongside those you don`t agree with on some issues , and if by power of human empathy you find peacefull good ways of coexisting with persons you don`t agree with on the problem of religion , that`s great , that means you`re a resonable human beeing , but if in the proces you end up accepting religion or parts of it you originaly rejected, not because of evidence but because you need to coexist with your fellow humans , then you fall in an old trap and i will still call you a coward . We don`t need to agree on everything to coexist . So i can live verywell with my family , though they are all theists , but i will still attack religion any chanche i get , and start arguments over it whenever the topic arises. I won`t condition me beeing there for them on them becoming atheists , and they don`t condition there relation to me on me accepting there faith . If they would , i would still stay against it , against any form of organized religion . I guess you can call me a militant atheist if you want
11 Horia // Jan 25, 2008 at 4:50 am
last(i promisse) . Religion has many forms and nuances if looked at from the inside . People will allways go “i know some people do bad stuff in the name of THEIR religion , but that is not MY religion. MY interpretation of the fairy in the sky is the right one , the others are all wrong , so let`s start some jihad thing and show them right .
The problem is each and every little religion has it`s own truth , based not on evidence but on faith , each and every one of them know (note: know, not think) they are right . Some of them may have peacefull goals , helping everyone , some may be warmongering , but they all have faith in common . The denial of reason . You need faith to belive , and if you have that faith , you KNOW that the BOSS is right , and you may be peacefull now , if the BOSS is in a bad mood and wants you to go blow yourself up , there is a good chanche that faith will win over your rational capacity and you will do it .
Now how do we know what the BOSS wants? Well he`s to busy to call so he has representatives , prophets , priests…they have a direct line to the big guy and THEY KNOW .
This is what is wrong with religion as a whole . If one does a good act but that good act is based on faith , on god ordering him to do it , on fear of punishment or desire of a reward after death , the good act stays a good act but the person that did it is not necesarly a good person , as he may do 1000 bad acts afterwards , when his boss changes his mind .
to end with an insult , i`ve been way to polite in this long stupid rant : Why would any sane person worship or love the christiaian god anyway? That genocidal maniac , sadistic ,arrogant creature is the worst abommination concievable . So why? out of fear? you want your place in haven so you ? Or do you just see what you want to see when it comes to god , you`re one of those guys who struggles to find some good parts to god in the bible? Why not go around stoning kids and prostitutes? Why do you need that crotch?Why?
it s natural for a good person to do good things and for a bad person to do bad things . But for a good person to do bad things you need religion
12 Brian // Jan 25, 2008 at 8:26 am
Hi Horia. My name is Brian, and I’m a Catholic Christian. I’ve tried to stay out of this discussion for the most part, but I feel compelled now to give a partial response.
Firstly, a response to your opposition to a middle way, which treats aspects of theism which support an atheist’s values as good, but those which oppose an atheist’s values as bad. You believe, it seems, that in order to combat the “disease” of theism, all its fruit should be rejected. That is your choice, but I think you’ll find yourself in a small minority on that. I, for instance, apply those criteria to theists and atheists alike. “By your fruits shall you know them” is a good bit of wisdom, I think. Where an atheist affirms the value of caring for our fellow humans, if you feel your atheism supports you in that, I call that a good thing. I may argue about core tenets of atheism (Like there being no God. What’s up with that? Don’t you people read the Bible?) but I will not throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater.
Also, I take umbrage at your characterization of theism as a disease. For one thing, it just doesn’t hold up. At best, the non religious global population comes to perhaps 10 or 12%. This figure also encompasses agnostics, but not religious systems that do not believe in a God or Divine being, such as several schools of Buddhism. (Another flaw in your all or nothing argument…if you let the Buddhists be good guys, you’d have much bigger numbers!) It seems to me that a disease that affects the large majority of the population is not a bug…it’s a feature.
Also, some words on your serious misconceptions on what faith is, and what faith means. Faith is not, as Samuel asserts, believing in something because I want to. And it is not opposed to reason. (Christian) “[f]aith is the substance of things hoped for, the proof of things unseen.” Faith is not contrary to reason, but a complement to it. I believe because I find the grounds for belief reasonable, because I believe the testimony of those who came before me, and as such, I act in accord with my belief. I believe that there is a God, who is my Creator, and so I love Him “With all my heart, with all my soul, with all my body…”. I believe that whatever I do to the least of my brethren, it will be as if I did it to him, so I try to treat my fellow humans with respect and love. I have no absolute proof of those things, but I have good reasons to put my faith in them, to act as if they were 100% proved. Those who read my comments know I’ll quote Babylon 5 at the drop of a hat, and this is no different. “Faith and reason are like the shoes on your feet. You’ll get further with both than you will with just one.”
You asked why would any sane person believe in the Christian God. Because he believes that God exists. If he doesn’t exist, it’s a delusion. If He does exist, then we owe him, literally, everything.
Finally, I need this crotch to keep my legs attached to my torso.
13 xJane // Jan 25, 2008 at 12:50 pm
Horia: thank you so much for starting this conversation! I hope you don’t think we’re ganging up on you & that you stick around. I’d like to agree with you that we only accept certain “insane” acts because people are in religion, and that it is a place for people with tendencies in that direction (whether it’s hearing voices or sui-homi-cide) to gather & hang out & support each other. But I still don’t think it’s religion that causes them to have those tendencies; it’s just a support system.
And I think that’s what religion is in general: a support system. I think it serves a vital social purpose. But I still think it’s wrong :-p
Brian: similarly, thanks to you for being a dissenting voice. And I love that B5 quote! Faith & reason are shoes. I shall be mulling on that for a while. But I’d like to take issue with your argument against religion-as-disease. Just because most people are infected doesn’t mean they’re not sick (see: any plague). I agree that it’s not a great metaphor & I just don’t think you made a strong argument against it.
14 Kevin // Jan 25, 2008 at 1:45 pm
I was a militant atheist for a very short time. There came a point where I just stopped caring about how some people ran their lives. I think that Christianity (I don’t have much experience with other religions) leads people to make wrong choices. That being said, I am deeply concerned about someone’s religiosity when I care about that person – indifferent when I don’t (although still against it). I care when someone I know is using drugs – I don’t, however, make much of an effort to stop drug use in the world. Being militant is wanting to stop something on a global scale – I just try to talk to people I care about (I think that describes what Horia calls being a coward). Talking to and challenging people you know is much more meaningful and effective than trying to take in all theists with arguments (as if theists all agreed on something).
15 Horia // Jan 26, 2008 at 10:00 am
Faith is the act of believing in something without proof or even against proof
Brian , you bring nothing new to the discution and i`m inclined to ignore you but…
Just because the vast majority of the people on earth are religious , doesn`t mean that religion is good . It just means that we had 2000 years of history where religion has been THE major plague on the society and we are mearly 200-300 years out of it . If say by some freak accident in 100 years 90% of the world population will live in a communist system , will you allso say communism is good?
99% religious…..and how many of those just go with the flow? how many of those go with it just because it is the social norm? How many of these people don`t bother to consider the problem and accept it just because it`s a “natural” social thing?
XJane :And I think that’s what religion is in general: a support system. I think it serves a vital social purpose. But I still think it’s wrong :-p
It does serve a vital social role , i agree , manipulation and controll . The ultimate controll tool , the ultimate form of addiction .
By all means , believe whatever you want , have faith in the great god or unicorns and elves or whatever , have your rituals and shit , but keep it to yourself and personal . The interference of religion in society is distructive to say the least .
Is it not a disease?? If i`d tell you all that each morning i raise my ass up high and put my face on the ground and start worshiping Sauron , and then i teach my kids all about Sauron worship and how Sauron is the answer to everything , tell them that if they don`t worship sauron , terible things will happen to them , they will be tortured in mordor for all eternity , but if they do EVERYTHING i tell them , you know , because i have a direct line to Sauron , they will be saved…oh..because they are bad , they didn`t do anything bad they were just born bad and guilty…Would you accuse me of child abuse at least? If you wouldn`t there`s something wrong with you
Oh and don`t tell me that x-tianity is on a different plane then sauron worshiping . It`s the same nonsense , all you need for it is faith .
Brian , faith and reason are antitetic , they CAN NOT COEXIST , faith is the denial of reason
Kevin , your attitude , great , again, atheism is passive , doesn`t imply action .
Being militant is wanting to stop something on a global scale – I just try to talk to people I care about (I think that describes what Horia calls being a coward)
I would only call you a coward if you would accept parts of it and deny other parts of it . You can change the world , one person at a time , i would dare call you a coward only if you would take a stand against the religion of the sucidal terrorists and then tolerate it when it comes to the religion of your wife .If you chose to act only on the people you care about , that`s great
If you don`t care about people you don`t know…well that`s just human , it`s not a sin or anything , but as long as you manage to adress religion as a whole and not just aspects and parts of it you don`t like…i can really agree with you. If you fall on the trap of “there are many aspects in religion , it`s not black and white” , then you are a religious person (sure , go on a jihad or crusade or something to destroy the parts you don`t like and keep what you do like)
Someone asked : If all the supernatural shit , gods , ghosts , suicidal zombie gods and afterlife would be taken out of religion , and only the codes of moral conduit left , would anyone be a religious person?
16 Horia // Jan 26, 2008 at 10:10 am
You asked why would any sane person believe in the Christian God. Because he believes that God exists. If he doesn’t exist, it’s a delusion. If He does exist, then we owe him, literally, everything.
oh i just hate this argument , and it`s so common…
We lose nothing if we believe in god , though we may gain nothing aswell , but if we don`t belive then there is a risk that god actually exists and we go to hell . I won`t even start arguing on this falacy , i`ll just go and be a jerk and call you a coward.
17 John // Jan 26, 2008 at 10:42 am
Horia, thanks for entering the fray. I’m in no way offended–in fact, I think this discussion has been invigorating. It gets a little quiet around here when everyone’s in agreement.
I’ve kept out of this thread because every time I’ve been tempted to enter it, others have made the case better than I could.
I did want to address one point: you regularly make the claim that you’re either a theist or an atheist. How do you take into account people in between–perhaps those who are going through the process of deconversion?
Religions are not completely irrational–they have built sophisticated logical bulwarks that defend their doctrines. When people begin slowly questioning their faith, they begin to run into these defenses, made by brilliant and sincere theologians and intellectuals. Theism/Atheism is not the on/off, either/or, black/white construct you make it out to be, at least not from a sincerely questioning believer’s point of view.
One more thing:
If all the supernatural shit , gods , ghosts , suicidal zombie gods and afterlife would be taken out of religion , and only the codes of moral conduit left , would anyone be a religious person?
Yes. Zen Buddhists, many Unitarian Universalists, Reconstructionist Jews, and many other groups that are called religious have dumped all the supernatural elements. Religion to many East Asians and liberal Protestants is about ethics and community, not belief.
18 Brian // Jan 26, 2008 at 6:45 pm
xJane, I never really intended to seriously debunk the disease argument, as I didn’t want to wind on too long. I would simply say in addition that, if religion is a disease, it is one with a wide array of symptoms, to the point where I would be hard pressed to call it a single disease. It would be like a virus that causes some people to have open sores and violent coughing of bloody phlegm, and other people to develop 20/20 vision and superhuman tap dancing skills, while leaving other sections of the population with a mild sniffle or an achy knee. With such widely varying results, it seems difficult to label religion as a disease by any common understanding of the word.
“Faith is the act of believing in something without proof or even against proof”
“faith and reason are antitetic , they CAN NOT COEXIST , faith is the denial of reason”
You seem to be operating under a serious misconception about faith. I gave you a standard Christian definition of faith, which you reject. Clearly, I have NO idea what I mean when I say faith. However, I have yet to find any official definition of faith which matches yours. You make three assertions of what faith is:
1 Belief in something without proof.
2 Belief in something against proof.
3 Denial of reason, or reason’s antonym.
The dictionary, on the other hand, defines faith, basically, as trust. The word, after all, comes from the Latin fidere, to trust. Reason refers to being able to think, to give explanation, to, justify something in orderly, logical fashion. Faith is an act of the will, a decision, while reason is a faculty of the intellect. An act of faith, by its nature, encompasses a rational element. If I trust someone, it is because I believe they are worthy of trust, based on my assessment of their ability to uphold my trust, past performance or demonstration of trustworthiness, etc. I may reason that a fellow museum goer is trustworthy to hold my digital camera and take a picture of my wife and me in front of the Temple of Dendur, perhaps based on the presence of guards, or shared interest in Egyptian artifacts, or a conversation I had with him, or the secret Catholic handshake he gave me. I would not likely trust him to watch my baby for an hour. I trust my wife with things I wouldn’t trust anyone with, because she is has shown that she can be trusted. These are just examples of a kind of everyday faith, which is nonetheless, though an act of faith, an act taken only after a rational process.
Your statements on faith seem to indicate that you belief faith is, by definition, the opposite of reason. But the opposite of faith is not reason, it is doubt.
In answer to your Sauron analogy, I would say that if someone did that, the result would be the Lords of the West laying down their kingship so that Illuvatar might break the world, swallowing up the offenders in a massive tidal wave, and forever sundering the Blessed Realm from the reach of mortal Man.
As to what I would call such a parent, child abuser is not likely one of them, any more than I would call you a child abuser if you filled your children’s heads with (what I would think is) nonsense about how the universe just popped into existence without any cause, and life just by random chance against literally astronomical odds arose and attained sentience and consciousness. It’s what comes after that that I would judge. If a father taught that Sauron really wanted some bowing and worshiping, but was also keen on loving your fellow man and forgiving those who hurt you, I’d say maybe the Professor gave the Lidless Eye a bum wrap. And if you used your atheist worldview to teach your children that all those other little smiling faces out there were no more than meat, standing in the way of your self gratification, to be used and discarded as necessary, then I’d probably have a problem with that. If, on the other hand, Sauron wanted to cover all the world in a second darkness, and you taught your kids that, since this life is all we have, we have an obligation to support and uplift each other, then my judgments would be reversed.
Obviously, my issue here is not with your lack of belief, but with your assertions of, to borrow a phrase, the total depravity of religion. It is my belief, and a well supported one, that religion has done an enormous amount of good, and that most evil done in the name of religion is a violation of the internal consistency of that belief system. I make no assertion that one cannot be good or moral without religion, but I think there is good evidence that religion can take a good person and make them better, or even a bad person and reform their behavior toward morality.
pax vobiscum
19 Horia // Jan 28, 2008 at 2:32 am
rational faith: confidence in proportion to the known evidence for a belief.
irrational faith, blind faith, dishonest faith: confidence in disregard for the known evidence for a belief.
Irrational faith is obtained by techniques of self-hypnosis or self-brainwashing usually by lying to yourself and others repeatedly until you generate dishonest confidence.
Making statement with disregard for the evidence is lying. Factual statements made in disregard for the know facts are lies. The fact that in the future evidence may become known does not justify making factual statements that contradict the known facts, even if evidence is discovered in the future that overwhelmingly supports those previously unsupported statements, it would not justify them.
Irrational faith is the root of all evil. Irrational faith was the method by which the Nazis were able to believe that it was good to send Jews and others to concentration camps where ten million died. Irrational faith was the method by which the Stalinists and Maoists and Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge were able to believe that it was good to send dissenters and potential reactionaries to gulags where tens of millions died. Irrational faith was the method that Christians Hutus in Rwanda convinced themselves that it was good to hack to death 100,000 Christian Tutsis with machetes in 1994. Irrational faith was the method by which Christians convinced themselves that it was good to murder by sword and burning alive pagans, heretics, Moslems, witches and Jews. As far as I can determine, every atrocity ever committed by man was based on irrational faith. Almost everyone who commits some antisocial crime first convinces themselves that there is some justification for their crime.
Religious faith is just a species of evil irrational faith. It is not inherently different than the irrational faith used to justify communism or totalitarianism or racism or any other bigotry or rationalization for evil.
BY PATCLEAVER , a great quote , thanks
20 Brian // Jan 28, 2008 at 8:28 am
Horia, good quote. I would tentatively agree with your definitions of rational and irrational faith there. The problem arises with the conclusion given:
“Religious faith is just a species of evil irrational faith. It is not inherently different than the irrational faith used to justify communism or totalitarianism or racism or any other bigotry or rationalization for evil.”
This is an assertion, an opinion, but there’s no proof there. As John said, religious systems are often very rational within their particular logical framework. Belief in a higher power is not something that has to be tricked into humans, it is widespread and readily accepted. To say that religious faith which has lead to hospitals and universities and pilgrimages and martyrs and profound self sacrifice is the same in its essence as systems that leave a mountain of dead in their wake is profoundly dishonest.
21 Horia // Jan 28, 2008 at 11:39 pm
To say that religious faith which has lead to hospitals and universities and pilgrimages and martyrs and profound self sacrifice is the same in its essence as systems that leave a mountain of dead in their wake is profoundly dishonest.
Self sacrifice, martyrs…that sounds a lot like the guys from 9/11…as for religious faith leading to hospitals , you presume that people need “faith” in order to help eachother and be generally good persons? Explain please , how does faith have anything to do with that? At best i can imagine people beeing ORDERED to do good things and doing them because they have faith in the one that gave the ORDERS . That does not justify faith as a good thing , the same people may be ORDERED to do other terrible acts and faith will make them do those acts even if the acts are irrational . If you argue that if GOD orders u to do good you`ll do it cause you have faith , and if GOD orders you to kill , you won`t cause killing is bad…then where is your faith?
My question to you is : If the good people do good things JUST based on faith , will they base all there actions JUST on faith ? If the answer is no then why use faith in the argument in the first place?
22 Brian // Jan 29, 2008 at 1:12 pm
“Self sacrifice, martyrs…that sounds a lot like the guys from 9/11″
Ah, Manning’s Corollary at its finest. No, the kind of person I was referring to was something along the lines of Maximilian Kolbe, or Mother Theresa of Calcutta. If you had read one of my previous responses, you would know that I distinctly denied that one needs to be religious to do good, but that faith can indeed encourage good deeds. If you believe your God wants you to care for the sick, the poor, the imprisoned, there’s a good chance you’ll feel the inclination to do so. You ask questions about being ordered to do something evil, and blindly doing it, which, I thought we both agreed, fell under the second, harmful definition of faith you outlined above. If some guy tells me God wants me to kill, I don’t think I’ll believe him. If I hear God tell me to kill, it doesn’t affect my faith, though it may affect my consumption of Thorazine.
23 John // Jan 29, 2008 at 2:09 pm
Hey Brian and Horia, I’ve been following your debate and it inspired this musing on the relationship between faith and reason. Thank you.
As for the latest exchange, I’m with Brian–if you’re going look at the actions inspired by religion, you have to include the good as well as the bad. If you’re going to isolate one and attribute it to religion, and assign the other to non-religious impulse, then you have to provide a solid rationale for separating the two (this goes both ways).
24 Brian // Jan 29, 2008 at 4:19 pm
John, I thought that post was tickled in some way by our little back and forth.
I also agree that you have to include the good with the bad, and vice versa. It’s a tricky game to play, because there’s always something else you can blame it on. I’ll also admit that Christians can often pull the biggest cop out ever on this subject, because of our theology that the good a Christian does is ultimately attributable to God, but the bad one does is all their own idea. How do you argue with the “They weren’t really a TRUE Christian” line? It’s really unfair, and I try not to phrase things that way, because one of the only legitimate responses is just to assume that the person making it isn’t really playing fair.
Let me basically sum it up this way: it comes down to people. Some people will do good things no matter what. Teach them Christianity, teach them Islam, teach them atheism, teach them Eru worship. Raise them in abusive homes or give them loveless marriages, throw the whole world at them, they’ll shine through with love and compassion. A Christian might say these people are filled with the grace of God, or an evolutionary biologist might attribute it to some genetic predisposition. There are the opposite people too…doesn’t matter which holy books you read or don’t read, how carefully you shelter them or how much love you give them, they will be wretched and miserable and twisted, and inflict it on everyone around them.
I think most of us are somewhere in between. We yearn to do good…and often we yearn to do good just for ourselves. My opinion, based on observation, is that religions generally tend to push the mass towards the first group, though individuals may not respond the same way, like atoms picking up a charge…not every one will get “charged”, but the overall energy in the mass will change.
25 pinkunicorn // Jun 13, 2008 at 11:53 am
All parts of a religion should be rejected, because you can’t just keep part of it alive. Imagine if we magically disappeared all the fundamentalists. Will fundamentalism disappear forever? Of course not; it will reappear quite soon. The so called “moderate believers” are the soil on which fundamentalism grows. Attacking only fundamentalist beliefs would be like trimming weeds instead of uprooting them; they will regrow.
My aim is to eradicate all religion, but as a gay man I have a particular disgust towards the abrahamic faiths – not that religions like Buddhism aren’t free of homophobia, but they have not caused anything akin to the millennial old prosecution of homosexuals the abrahamic faiths have caused.
Do I hate Christianity? Of course I do. In fact, I’m worried about gay men who do not hate religion; it’s a bad sign. I know that my kind of people will never be free as long as religion exists; and therefore, it I try to do whatever I can to wipe off this wickedness off the face of this planet.
The Bible is to gays what Mein Kampf is to Jews.
Leave a Comment