SPLIT TOPIC: The God Delusion
Comments
-
I think that we are hardwired for some kinda religion, theistic or not - we're social creatures and being a part of a cooperative group (most being led, not leading), is/was favorable for survival. Given the debate, it's funny that natural selection would do that. :twisted:
SevenOneEighty wrote: Did God create man or did man create God? Given a different set of cultures or circumstances, it appears we have the ability to have different versions to suit our needs as humans and cultures.
Read American Gods by Neil Gaiman. Not because it'll necessarily shed light on this subject (although it may), but because it's entertaining and it's based on the premise that we (humans) created the gods. What happens to the gods that our ancestors created when we no longer worship them? They get part-time jobs, of course...
-
Well, what is religion exactly? If you stretch the definition of religion far enough, then you can apply it to all of us. Therapy is a modern form of religion for the secular educated. Libertarianism, socialism, the slow food movement, conservatism, etc. Are these religions? If so, then yes, we're hard wired.
But if you keep the traditional sense of the word, which implies belief in the supernatural, then I think you can find plenty of examples of people and societies that are not religious. And it doesn't count when religion is purely just a custom, a ritual, with no underlying belief. In that sense religion doesn't fulfill any spiritual or metaphysical role that isn't also fulfilled by fashion, cuisine or the arts.
For exampe, Japan, which is as highly ritualized a society as they come, is essentially atheistic. Sure, they follow rites, go the temple on New Year's, get married in churches, etc., but these are far more akin to cultural traditions like having a college graduation ceremony or a baby shower than they are to actual religion, because there is virtually no belief in any underlying ideology. I also would dispute that Confucianism is a religion; it's a philosophy, a way of life and a set of values proposed by a mortal man, not an adherence to the dictates of a supernatural being. So in addition to 120 million or so non-religious Japanese people, you can add a few hundred million Chinese into the not-hard-wired category, since at least that many don't embrace any kind of religion that is differentiable from Chinese culture. As a final example, and I can't vouch for this, but my Albanian friend tells me that after Communism stamped religion out from that country the majority of people there are now atheists and couldn't care less about religion (again I don't know about this but I'm sure you can find other examples).
And the ultimate example is me. I don't feel the need to believe in the supernatural or metaphysical, or to engage in any religiosity whatsoever, and never have. I'm clearly not the only one, and I doubt any of my fellow secular comrades' genetic hardwiring is different. I was just never raised to enjoy or need religion, so it's not something that has been programmed into me (to continue the tech metaphor). -
A pair of interesting essays on what religion is, and why it persists:
http://www.darc.org/connelly/religion1.html
http://www.darc.org/connelly/religion3.html
Insisting that religion pertains only to the supernatural, where the definition of supernatural is everything you don't happen to believe in, doesn't get us very far. One could also argue that dividing things up into the natural and supernatural is a Western concept, one which doesn't square with the way various Eastern religions see things.
I think most scholars of religion would place Shinto ("way of the gods") in the category of polytheism or animism. No doubt among ordinary Japanese practising Shinto there's quite a range with respect to how seriously they take it, as is the case for other state or former state religions. And of course, Shinto has sects which come and go.
Best place to find animists in this country would have to be California. -
Wait, I wasn't saying that the Japanese are atheists by virtue of their being animists or polytheists. My point is that they (generally) don't believe in the "sacred and spiritual" [to quote your link], aspects of Shintoism. It is part of their culture, but just as you can be an atheist Jew who celebrates Passover, you can be an atheist who throws a coin into the local shrine and bows and claps your hands at its altar. And that's how I'd describe most Japanese. It's extremely rare to meet a non-Christian Japanese person who will tell you that they believe in anything religious.
Also, like I said, I am most certainly not hardwired for religion, and that's all the example I need. But I am curious about your resistance to the "supernatural" description. I wasn't trying to give offense; I just thought that was the definition of religion. I'll read through your essays, but I've never heard that religion was something that dealt with the material world.
edit: Perhaps I should have said super-material. In other words, that which doesn't adhere to the laws of physics (or quantum physics) or obey other material laws/properties. Anyway, now that I've read your links, the "sacred and spiritual" is what I meant by supernatural. -
doctorj wrote: [quote=BigGuy]I don't see how religion would be any good at explaining religion but I'm open to listening.
Well, religious studies, to be more precise. Which builds on science, philosophy, psychology, theology, and so on.BigGuy wrote: In my opinion religious feelings fall solidly within the realm of psychology. Understanding that people fear death (thanks to evolution) gives one a significant start I think.
So I take it you've never had to come to terms with a first person transcendental experience?
What is a first-person transcendental experience?doctorj wrote: [quote=BigGuy]
I confess, I do get a warm fuzzy feeling from my faith that all particles obey the relativistic wave equation. It gives me an underlying sense of certainty about the objective reality of the world we live in. But very little in the way of a blueprint about how to treat my family and friends, what causes are worth striving for, what kinds of art or culture I find sublime or abhorrent.I wouldn't recommend using the Schrödinger Equation and working your way up if you wanted to e.g. critique the artistic merit of Andy Warhol, or describe the ideas and history of Zarathustrianism
Nobody wants to do that. The important point is that it looks more and more like it could theoretically be doable. Not that we're anywhere close at this point.
Religion is what gives you a blueprint for how to treat people close to you? Religion is what tells you what causes are worth striving for? Through religion you appreciate and judge art?doctorj wrote: [quote=BigGuy] I agree with people like Dawkins & Steven Pinker & Douglas Hofstadter that emergent phenomenon like art etc. are merely the co-opting of evolutionary mechanisms designed for something else. We don't always know what that something is or how it works, but we will. Obviously something like love is pretty easy to explain in terms of the pair bonding required to raise children who stay helpless for a surprisingly long period of time. I believe that all these systems will one day be broken down in turn until we (or the AIs who replace us) could theoretically follow the whole chain.
Unfortunately, the mathematics says you can drill down, but you can't go the other way. It can't be done, given the number of bits required by a computer to exactly represent even a fairly small closed system like a protein or chromosome exceeds the number of electrons in the universe. We have a lot of links in the chain, but going upwards from one level to another level invariably involves approximations which break on a larger scale or equations whose solutions scale factorially and thus are of little practical use. The physics and mathematics which tells us this is quite solid. What you end up with is that the only practical way to study real complex systems is on their own terms. I don't think that describing love as evolutionarily mandated, though technically correct, is going to help save a marriage.
I agree, but how can religion help save a marriage? How does religion help you understand love?doctorj wrote: [quote=BigGuy]Abstractions like bed, floor & coffee are necessary for getting out of bed in the morning, since they sum up a dizzying array of particles, molecules & larger structures in one easy symbol. Which is itself probably just a collection of neurons. Unlike Gould however, I believe that invisible creatures and religion are not required anywhere, and are in fact a distraction.
I can agree with you in theory that invisble creatures and religion are not required for cosmology, and their existence is ruled out by conservation of mass-energy and so on. Atheism may be technically correct, but really it's dreadfully dull and somewhat preppy and facile -- it kind of misses the point in a lot of ways.
How is atheism “preppy and facile?†I know what those words mean, but in the context of your sentence I don’t understand what you’re trying to say. And what is "the point?"doctorj wrote: Real peoples around the world continue to produce an amazing depth of culture and ideas, and as part of that, they secrete religion as a canvas for some very interesting philosophy, traditions, ethics, and brain states. Some of it sublime, some counterproductive or dangerous.
Atheists, too, often appreciate religious arts, philosophies, traditions, ethics, etc., without believing in the underlying myths.doctorj wrote: And importantly, it's definitely not going out of style. I personally find it just as fascinating and relevant to learn about people's responses down the ages to genuine personal ineffable experiences, as to study the rise and fall of civilizations or the probability distributions of clumps of matter. I can't learn anything interesting from atheism; it's a one trick pony.
Wow. This is why many religious people frustrate me, as an atheist. Having based their worldview on fantasy and faith, religious people must by definition close their minds to anything that doesn’t conform to that rigid worldview. Also the proselytizing, that’s annoying. And the hypocricy. Nevertheless, I know non-believers can learn a lot from religion. --E. -
escap wrote: Well, what is religion exactly? If you stretch the definition of religion far enough, then you can apply it to all of us. Therapy is a modern form of religion for the secular educated. Libertarianism, socialism, the slow food movement, conservatism, etc. Are these religions? If so, then yes, we're hard wired.
Me too, I’m another example. I think there are a lot of us. That's why you need to take your children to Sunday School when they're young and gullible. Indoctrinate them early, and from their perspective it will seem to be "hardwired." It might also suppress tendencies to ask questions; it can help to make them obedient. Religion does give people hope and makes them feel special, but to me the negatives of organized religion (not the awe you feel when a bud opens into a flower or the love you feel for your friend) outweigh the positives. --E.
But if you keep the traditional sense of the word, which implies belief in the supernatural, then I think you can find plenty of examples of people and societies that are not religious. And it doesn't count when religion is purely just a custom, a ritual, with no underlying belief. In that sense religion doesn't fulfill any spiritual or metaphysical role that isn't also fulfilled by fashion, cuisine or the arts.
For exampe, Japan, which is as highly ritualized a society as they come, is essentially atheistic. Sure, they follow rites, go the temple on New Year's, get married in churches, etc., but these are far more akin to cultural traditions like having a college graduation ceremony or a baby shower than they are to actual religion, because there is virtually no belief in any underlying ideology. I also would dispute that Confucianism is a religion; it's a philosophy, a way of life and a set of values proposed by a mortal man, not an adherence to the dictates of a supernatural being. So in addition to 120 million or so non-religious Japanese people, you can add a few hundred million Chinese into the not-hard-wired category, since at least that many don't embrace any kind of religion that is differentiable from Chinese culture. As a final example, and I can't vouch for this, but my Albanian friend tells me that after Communism stamped religion out from that country the majority of people there are now atheists and couldn't care less about religion (again I don't know about this but I'm sure you can find other examples).
And the ultimate example is me. I don't feel the need to believe in the supernatural or metaphysical, or to engage in any religiosity whatsoever, and never have. I'm clearly not the only one, and I doubt any of my fellow secular comrades' genetic hardwiring is different. I was just never raised to enjoy or need religion, so it's not something that has been programmed into me (to continue the tech metaphor). -
escap wrote: Also, like I said, I am most certainly not hardwired for religion, and that's all the example I need.
I expect though that if you think about it, you're dogmatic about a whole bunch of stuff you take on faith. And that you are also socialized to engage in various kinds of subrational behavior. And that you have experienced or will at some stage experience some cognitive states that don't fit neatly into the every-day.escap wrote: But I am curious about your resistance to the "supernatural" description. I wasn't trying to give offense; I just thought that was the definition of religion. I'll read through your essays, but I've never heard that religion was something that dealt with the material world.
Though I'd call myself a materialist for practical daily purposes, I have difficulty dividing up the world into a dichotomy of natural and supernatural, or material and super-material. The closer you work to the interface of matter and thought, the fuzzier it gets. Materialism comes more easily to a biologist (such as Dawkins). A chemist will tell you matter consists of atoms held together by bonds, and can point to an enormous body of literature, experiments, and utility based on this mythology, but is probably unsure or confused about the nature of the bonds. A physicist can give you beautiful equations of quantum electrodynamics which explain what's really holding everyday matter together, but can't use that mathematics to tell you something simple like the shape of a sugar crystal. An astronomer can tell you that up to 90% of matter doesn't interact via this theory of quantum electrodynamics, and is thus so far of unknown or speculative nature.
edit: Perhaps I should have said super-material. In other words, that which doesn't adhere to the laws of physics (or quantum physics) or obey other material laws/properties. Anyway, now that I've read your links, the "sacred and spiritual" is what I meant by supernatural.
Those laws of physics come in two kinds: tautologies which are necessarily true, and aesthetically pleasing symmetries which are a better or poorer approximation of experiments, and which seem to reflect an underlying order to everything. Both kinds are the product of human thought, and can be formulated in many ways. I'd say at this point, that the aesthetics are driving the physics, which is way ahead of the experiments. The quest for the nature of matter has become mostly conceptual, almost religious.
None of this is an argument for theism. What I'm saying is, that if our concept of what matter is has changed so much in the last hundred years, and is still something of a moving target, that means that materialism and the super-natural are not what they used to be. One of the main differences between religion and science (which used to be one and the same discipline) is that religion tends to be more conservative, whereas scientists will more readily change the story to fit the facts if they're well enough presented, or drop the story and start a new one. But religions also evolve, or die out and get replaced by more modern versions. So I don't see that religion necessarily has to require a belief in something that contradicts modern physics (even if a lot of religious people do believe some crazy shit, and even if 1st c. Jewish cosmology doesn't square with 20th c. physics). There are even religious atheists; they make up a sizeable fraction of Unitarian Universalists for example.
So matter and thought bleed together at the edge of physics. And thought itself is somehow an abstraction of the material brain in a way we have very little handle on. So I think looking forward that confining religion to the supernatural or whatever is against physics is too restrictive; it's also not consistent with various Eastern traditions, including the kami. -
ev965 wrote:
Many people, throughout history and down to the present, claim to have had at least one direct experience of something quite outside the ordinary. Everyday language is not well equipped to describe such states, but some people talk of a dissolving of the boundaries between self and other, a oneness with the universe, direct communion with a deity or spirits of ancestors or animals or objects, or simply something profound and amazing they can't describe. Seems to happen more often to some people than others, and it seems it can be promoted by certain practices, though not reliably. Many of those practices find their way into rituals and religions. For some people, the experience is sufficiently profound as to prompt a change of worldview, known as conversion. There are serious biologists who are studying such brain states using techniques such as PET, in search of material information about what is going on in the brain during such states.
What is a first-person transcendental experience?ev965 wrote: [quote=doctorj]
Religion is what gives you a blueprint for how to treat people close to you? Religion is what tells you what causes are worth striving for? Through religion you appreciate and judge art?
I confess, I do get a warm fuzzy feeling from my faith that all particles obey the relativistic wave equation. It gives me an underlying sense of certainty about the objective reality of the world we live in. But very little in the way of a blueprint about how to treat my family and friends, what causes are worth striving for, what kinds of art or culture I find sublime or abhorrent.
Me personally? Not so much at this point in my life, though I think I've learnt a great deal from religion. The thing is, physics actively avoided saying anything about the social and the abstract for a couple of centuries, whereas various religions are prepared to take such questions on.ev965 wrote:
Well, when it comes to love, if you had a problem, would you rather talk to a priest/rabbi/shaman who specializes in pastoral care, or a particle physicist? These days of course we also have secular therapists with their own many and varied traditions, which while combining experience and occasionally empiricism, are hardly grounded in physics.
I agree, but how can religion help save a marriage? How does religion help you understand love?ev965 wrote: [quote=doctorj]
How is atheism “preppy and facile?†I know what those words mean, but in the context of your sentence I don’t understand what you’re trying to say. And what is "the point?"
I can agree with you in theory that invisble creatures and religion are not required for cosmology, and their existence is ruled out by conservation of mass-energy and so on. Atheism may be technically correct, but really it's dreadfully dull and somewhat preppy and facile -- it kind of misses the point in a lot of ways.
Well my point is, that equating religion with ancient cosmology and superstition, then declaring yourself to be an atheist because this stuff is pretty wacky to hold on to literally in light of all we've learnt about the material world, then writing off all religion as bad and calling it a day, is a cop out. It's a simple blanket negative, an antithesis not a synthesis. There are more serious approaches a thinking person could take. People all over the world continue to produce religion in a variety of forms, and it doesn't show signs of disappearing in the face of rationalism or secular humanism or atheism, so it's worth asking why, and what we can learn.ev965 wrote: [quote=doctorj]Real peoples around the world continue to produce an amazing depth of culture and ideas, and as part of that, they secrete religion as a canvas for some very interesting philosophy, traditions, ethics, and brain states. Some of it sublime, some counterproductive or dangerous.
Atheists, too, often appreciate religious arts, philosophies, traditions, ethics, etc., without believing in the underlying myths.
Some atheists cling to other kinds of myths instead. And some atheists engage in religious practices.ev965 wrote: [quote=doctorj]And importantly, it's definitely not going out of style. I personally find it just as fascinating and relevant to learn about people's responses down the ages to genuine personal ineffable experiences, as to study the rise and fall of civilizations or the probability distributions of clumps of matter. I can't learn anything interesting from atheism; it's a one trick pony.
Wow. This is why many religious people frustrate me, as an atheist. Having based their worldview on fantasy and faith, religious people must by definition close their minds to anything that doesn’t conform to that rigid worldview. Also the proselytizing, that’s annoying. And the hypocricy. Nevertheless, I know non-believers can learn a lot from religion. --E.
Well, I try to avoid basing my worldview on fantasy and faith (though as a scientist there's an awful lot I have to take on faith in order to get to the coal face). And I'm not trying to proselytize. What bothers me is atheists who think they've got everything worked out -- they can be as closed minded as evangelicals, and often less humorous and congenial.
Given though, that this country, unlike most Western democracies, is very polarized and has a major and somewhat scary constituency of the fanatical religious right, I can understand why statements such as "jesus is the only way" and "organised religion is bad" rankle people of various persuasions.ev965 wrote: That's why you need to take your children to Sunday School when they're young and gullible. Indoctrinate them early, and from their perspective it will seem to be "hardwired." It might also suppress tendencies to ask questions; it can help to make them obedient.
Well... I went to Sunday School, and it didn't suppress my tendency to ask questions. Questions weren't discouraged, and the teachers answered the questions as best they could. When it came to questions about which their religion had little to say, or I didn't find the answers satisfactory, or the message didn't match the behavior, I looked elsewhere. Not so many other places where I grew up where a child could find adults (other than primary care-giver if you're lucky) willing to spend considerable time teaching a fascinating history and tradition, and discussing really hard questions. In fact, I think it might be worth sending a child to a different Sunday School (or Saturday or Friday depending on the faith) each year. -
doctorj wrote: [quote=escap]Also, like I said, I am most certainly not hardwired for religion, and that's all the example I need.
I expect though that if you think about it, you're dogmatic about a whole bunch of stuff you take on faith. And that you are also socialized to engage in various kinds of subrational behavior. And that you have experienced or will at some stage experience some cognitive states that don't fit neatly into the every-day.
Oh, I agree! That's why I said earlier that if you stretch the definition to include such things, then we are all indeed religious. However, I'd dispute that the traditional definition of religion is this flexible.
In fact, allow me to summarize what I'm hearing from you: nature itself contains much that is unexplained and unexplainable, that transcends the mundane properties of observed science and material behavior, and has a virtually mystical/spiritual element to it. Even without supernatural phenomena, religion exists on the "edge of physics", in that unexplainable corner of the material world that encompasses everything from creativity to love to subatomic behavior to the interrelatedness of the universe.
If this summary is close to what you are saying, then I have news for you, Doctorj: you are an atheist!! I'd say one of the fundamental tenets of atheism is that all the wonder and mystery usually reserved in religion for God's works can be found within nature itself, and that nature is really the only higher power. If you believe that nature is infinitely (or close to that) complex, but don't believe that it is centrally controlled by a sentient being, then I would say you are as atheist as they come.
Of course, if you don't like the term, feel free to define yourself otherwise. I also tend to avoid describing myself as atheist; I prefer "secular", in that I reject taking a stand on belief one way or another and am simply non-religious. But still, your beliefs seem a lot closer to atheism than any other religion that I know of. -
escap wrote:
sounds like pantheism to me....
If this summary is close to what you are saying, then I have news for you, Doctorj: you are an atheist!! I'd say one of the fundamental tenets of atheism is that all the wonder and mystery usually reserved in religion for God's works can be found within nature itself, and that nature is really the only higher power. If you believe that nature is infinitely (or close to that) complex, but don't believe that it is centrally controlled by a sentient being, then I would say you are as atheist as they come.
Of course, if you don't like the term, feel free to define yourself otherwise. I also tend to avoid describing myself as atheist; I prefer "secular", in that I reject taking a stand on belief one way or another and am simply non-religious. But still, your beliefs seem a lot closer to atheism than any other religion that I know of.
carry on, please, i'm very much enjoying reading this thread. -
sweet tea wrote: sounds like pantheism to me....
Hmm, to be honest I wasn't really familiar with this term, but upon Googling it, perhaps you're right. Still, I'd say that pantheism--that the universe and God are one/God exists within all things--and atheism--that the universe is itself wondrous and therefore there's no need to use the term God--are pretty damn similar. Moreover, the consequences for humans as far as what we should do about it are nearly identical--no efficacy of prayer, for example. -
I'd prefer the term 'quasitheist'. I wouldn't let a technicality like the lack of God prevent me from participating in a theistic religious tradition I felt comfortable with.
And now, let me lead you in prayer:
"Deliver us this day unto those who seek the truth, and from those who've found it." -
escap wrote: [quote=sweet tea]sounds like pantheism to me....
Hmm, to be honest I wasn't really familiar with this term, but upon Googling it, perhaps you're right. Still, I'd say that pantheism--that the universe and God are one/God exists within all things--and atheism--that the universe is itself wondrous and therefore there's no need to use the term God--are pretty damn similar. Moreover, the consequences for humans as far as what we should do about it are nearly identical--no efficacy of prayer, for example.
reminds me of a bit from a tom robbins novel, paraphrased thus:
someone asks the main character the difference between a man who fasts and meditates and sees God and a man who drinks too much and sees snakes. she replies:
"One sees snakes and the other sees God."
certainly the similarities exist -- after all, wasn't the term atheism originally intended to describe certain kinds of religion, rather than the lack of? -- but there is, in my view, a qualitative difference. -
doctorj wrote: I'd prefer the term 'quasitheist'.
I like it.
-
Cool. There are a couple of other theisms I like too:
Henotheism: "you can have your god if I can have mine"
Metatheism: "I believe you live in a world where your god(s) are real" -
Well, I was wondering what it would take to wake me from my posting slumber, and here it is…I must say, this thread has inspired me to never again politely remain silent when anyone belittles or ridicules my religious beliefs for sport. Especially since I do not practice that sort of intolerance myself. (Except with Scientology, of course.)
Seriously, if you think I’m delusional, stupid, ignorant or suffering from a “mind virus†because of my beliefs, fine. But keep it to yourself. I’m all for frank and open discussion of divergent theories and/or beliefs on an intellectual level—and I've read some great stuff from both sides of the argument here—but name calling is bullshit. Period. I’m not judging anyone for not being on the same page as I, nor am I trying to convert anyone, so leave me be as I do you. It’s all I ask.
I suggest diverting the energy invested in that particular kind of intolerance towards the likes of Pat Robertson and his ilk who are not only publicly judging you on a daily basis but, more importantly, have the power and influence to profoundly affect your life in a negative way. I don’t and won’t. OK? (Unless my songs take you down the dark path, then I'll own up.)
God bless you all. -
Well, as you may have gathered from the above, I agree with you MichaelKeys. Highly intelligent people all over the world hold very different beliefs. Both Pat Robertson and Dawkins annoy me, though Robertson is funnier. I believe the most important thing is to respect others' beliefs and work to understand where they're coming from, and listen to what insights they may have. I enjoy prodding atheists as much as christians who want to engage in dialogue to keep thinking, but not across the line to disrespect.
-
I agree that name-calling gets us nowhere, and I myself really don't mean to give offense. That said however, I truly believe that religion can be described as an unfortunate mind virus. I believe that in general, it is a modern bastion of ignorance, superstition, bigotry and divisiveness, and that the sooner it ceases to exist the better for all of us. I don't think it's wrong of me to list my beliefs like this, especially since I think a lot of it can be pretty well backed up.
But none of this should mean that we can't have a beer or three.
I've been thinking more about doctorj's comments regarding the possibly good things that have spun off from religious belief. It seems unlikely that something like meditation, which I consider to be 'good', would have evolved in a purely atheistic environment. And there are probably other examples. I think it's an interesting point and I have it running as a background process. -
BigGuy wrote: I agree that name-calling gets us nowhere, and I myself really don't mean to give offense. That said however, I truly believe that religion can be described as an unfortunate mind virus. I believe that in general, it is a modern bastion of ignorance, superstition, bigotry and divisiveness, and that the sooner it ceases to exist the better for all of us. I don't think it's wrong of me to list my beliefs like this, especially since I think a lot of it can be pretty well backed up.
It is so noble of you to want to “have a beer or three†with an ignorant, superstitious, and divisive bigot. I am humbled by your generosity of spirit.
But none of this should mean that we can't have a beer or three. -
I believe religion is all of those things. Many religious people however, are none of the above. There's no need to get emotional when someone disagrees, even strongly, with your worldview. See "melting pot". With NYC being one of the best examples of course. That's one of the reasons why I'm here.
-
And let me just add that this is a Richard Dawkins thread. There are going to be folks who don't like religion here.
-
BigGuy wrote: That said however, I truly believe that religion can be described as an unfortunate mind virus. I believe that in general, it is a modern bastion of ignorance, superstition, bigotry and divisiveness, and that the sooner it ceases to exist the better for all of us.
So this is where you lose me. There's always been ignorance, superstition, bigotry and divisiveness, regardless of what god, gods, or lack thereof the people concerned claimed. What's more, concepts of what constitutes these negatives have shifted massively over time, as has the mix of different kinds of theism and the morality practised by adherents. Think back to what was accepted wisdom among educated people in various countries in 1707, then imagine someone looking back at your belief structure in 2307. I have no doubt that some of what is now considered truth will be considered superstitious and ignorant, and some practices now considered normal and acceptable in secular circles will be considered bigoted and divisive.
For example: do you blame Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and/or Sunnism for genocide in the Balkans? Protestantism and Catholicism for the trouble in Northern Ireland? Judaism and Islam for the Arab/Israeli conflict? Polytheism for slavery under Imperial Rome? Shinto animism for the attrocities of Imperial Japan? How about atheism for the purges in Stalinist Russia, or during the Chinese cultural revolution? How about secular liberal pluralism, and naturalistic pantheism for the crushing of civilizations brought about by the Mongols?
Our legal system is based on blaming people for what they do, not what they claim to believe; so far there are no thought crimes. To blame God for ignorance, superstition, bigotry and divisiveness makes about as much sense as blaming the devil. -
Wow , very interesting and sad on how some of you view religion and God.
When I first saw the name of this thread " The God Delusion" , I already knew what to expect to see when opening it. I read a few posts when it was just about the book , then backed off. I don't like to read things that I know are set up to make fun of religions , and to try to say that God does not exist.It's not because I'm afraid that I might read something here that might shake my faith , no , not even an earthquake reading 10.0 on the richter scale could do that. Its just that I don't like to see people who don't believe in God , try to put people who do believe down. What is the point? What do you get out of it? Does it make you feel good to call us names? Is the hate inside of you so much so , that you can't hold it in?
Okay , so for the Atheists here , tell me , what is wrong with believing in something good? I mean , you have a belief , right? You believe in not believeing in God and any religion that has to do with God, right? You too have a religion and a belief. So then you too are ignorant, superstitious , and bigots. You are the ones with a "mind disease". You are the ones that have the "religion" that "the sooner it ceases to exist , the better for all of us".Why? because you are the ones with a belief that has no rules , no boundries, no right or wrongs , no punishment for your actions , no sins , nothing to live for or to look forward to after death. You have no worries in this life , besides the worries of a fool - What am I gonna eat today , what am I gonna wear today , what movie am I gonna rent today , etc. This world is not worth a tear you cry. It's like you are asleep and it is when you die , that you wake up.
Someone here said that, " I have never seen an acceptable proof that God exists; I've also never seen an acceptable proof that none does". The Proof that God does exist is all around you. Open your eyes - This whole universe is so magnificant , and beautiful. The stars , the moon , the sun etc. how did they get here? See how wonderful and remarkable everything is. All the different types of species , and how everything is made for something. This whole everything proves that God does exist, and I have yet and know that I will never ever see anything that proves that he does not. All I have to do is look around me , above me and underneath me- it tells me that someone created this, someone very powerful , and great , and beautiful and perfect , and so much more that It could take forever for me to finish.
Atheists , you don't believe in heaven and hell -basically an afterlife all together. So you say we just evolved from monkeys or whatever and then die and just become a dead body in the dirt. No soul, huh? Okay , so lets say that you are right , and that after we die , that is it, the end of the road, we die and we no longer exist in any way shape or form. If that were true , than you have nothing to worry about. You never believed in God - lived your life and at the end you were correct- you're dust.
Now lets face reality , and God does exist , and there is a heaven and a hell. You never believed so when you die , I can't judge you and say that you will for sure go to hell, but as I understand it if you don't you will , how will you feel?? You were wrong all along and now you have to face the consequences. You thought you had it all figured out. Death is just death , nothing afterwards, so you thought. So tell me , why risk that? Why not believe in God and in an afterlife? If you for sure think that you will die and that is all - why not make sure that just in case you were wrong , and you are so wrong , that if you die atleast you believed in him and will have a chance at that heaven that you don't believe in? What would it hurt you to just quit the BS and just believe in something that will benefit you in the end , even if the "disease" in your mind tells you otherwise? Remember the old saying , its better to be safe than sorry.
I didn't call you a hurtful name that you haven't used against me and anyone else that believes in God. Actually , I think that calling you an Atheist is offensive enough. You may call me whatever you want - but never call me an Atheist.
If you still insist to be what you are , than it's on you. Don't try to blame your friend Richard Dawkins , in the end.
I don't really care what you or anyone else says about my religion. I have had alot worse said about my beliefs than this. I really don't give a fuck anymore. But , you guys kept pushing it and pushing it. Every damn day I kept seeing this awful thread at the top of the list. I open it once again and more people have posted , and alot more shit has been said. Well , I'm done and you all can keep talking shit.
Uuuuuuuuffffff!
"To you your way , and to me mine". -
Em -
Again, no offense meant. However, I can't change the fact that I would probably view these beliefs you hold so strongly as primitive and superstitous. It's unlikely that we would agree much on this subject.
dj:do you blame Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and/or Sunnism for genocide in the Balkans?
(etc.)
I would argue that religion was an exacerbating factor in many of these, and that some of them might have been less ugly without it. I know that it would, however, be preppy and facile to suggest that they were purely religious conflicts.To blame God for ignorance, superstition, bigotry and divisiveness makes about as much sense as blaming the devil.
This is true. One of my issues with religion however is that it actively seeks to return us to a mindset where these bad traits are not only acceptable, but held up as virtuous. We have better options now, and taking our moral and other cues from primitive goatherders makes us look silly and act badly towards each other. -
I have to add something to this discussion as another atheist. I can't tell you the number of times a religious person has belittled me or insulted me or patronized me for being an atheist. I'm a very tolerant person, if you believe in a higher power, if it helps you get through hardship and gives you peace then good for you. But do not try to make me feel like shit because I don't believe in what you believe in. Don't tell me that someday I'll see the error of my ways or I'll go to hell and you'll pray for my immortal soul. Just no. And when I say you I don't mean anyone in particular, I'm talking to the many people who have done this to me.
Believe what you want if it makes you happy but don't try to cram your beliefs down my throat. I don't run around ringing people's bells, stopping them on the street to ask them questions or give them pamphlets on atheism. I respect people's beliefs and I expect the same of others. Also, if your beliefs cause other's harm then that's bullshit. No atheists are starting wars in the name of atheism. And if it seems like alot of atheists are angry and attacking religious people then maybe it's because some of them have had similar experiences to mine. I'm a little tired of being told I'm going to hell or hearing stupid comments like, "If you don't believe in God you shouldn't be using money since it says In God We Trust on it!"
What about the fact that doctors can now refuse to treat someone if it conflicts with their religious beliefs? Or that pharmacists can deny women birth control or RU-486? Read this article on how doctor's religious beliefs can affect patient's care. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19190916/
I don't believe that anyone should try to force their beliefs on another person. But religious people have been trying to do that for centuries. I have 1 request that I wish could actually be granted, keep your religion to yourself. I don't have one atheist friend but somehow my friends and I remain friends because we know where we stand and respect each other. I wish everyone could do that, the religious and atheists. -
BigGuy wrote:
Well I'd make two observations: firstly, tyrants have done and will continue to find something else that fits just as well if religion isn't available. Red flags and green flags if necessary. Secondly, consider that most of the major nastiness in the 20th c. was a result of either plain expansionism, or secular rather than theistic ideologies. In fact, and correct me if I'm wrong, the last time I can think of when there was serious bloodshed over religion per se was the particularly nasty century 1550-1650 in Europe. Now as to whether or not subsequent conflicts could have been of lesser or greater intensity with or without the role of religion, that's going to be hard to quantify. It could go either way; after all, there are strictly pacifistic religious groupings. There are ascetics and those who choose to live apart from mainstream society. In general I would say that most religious people don't believe their god is telling them to kill others, and most people who have killed others in times of peace or in times of war in recent centuries have not done so because of their religion. Most religions include a commandment not to kill, so anyone engaging in a holy war or sectarian violence, is doing so despite their creed not because of it.do you blame Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and/or Sunnism for genocide in the Balkans?
(etc.)
I would argue that religion was an exacerbating factor in many of these, and that some of them might have been less ugly without it. I know that it would, however, be preppy and facile to suggest that they were purely religious conflicts.BigGuy wrote:
You are lumping all religions into one bucket, which is just silly. There are religions founded in every century, so plenty of them don't mention goats. And pretending that all modern practitioners of an ancient faith share the same interpretation today as each other, let alone as back when the religion was founded is also silly; all faiths evolve. There is back and forth between each religion and the wider culture it exists in. How many people who follow a particular faith have you known personally who were actively promoting such bad traits? Do religions get no credit at all for commandments such as "love your neighbor"? And even if you identify a particularly nasty grouping, bad behavior by some practitioners or even of an entire sect does not equal the innate badness of religion in general. Take a look at Unitarian Universalism, or the Baha'i faith, or Jainism, or Zen Buddhism, and tell me how the modern expressions of these religions are making a virtue of ignorance, superstition, bigotry or divisiveness.To blame God for ignorance, superstition, bigotry and divisiveness makes about as much sense as blaming the devil.
This is true. One of my issues with religion however is that it actively seeks to return us to a mindset where these bad traits are not only acceptable, but held up as virtuous. We have better options now, and taking our moral and other cues from primitive goatherders makes us look silly and act badly towards each other.
* * *
Em26:
You have formulated what as known as the teliological argument for the existence of God, which is one of the most powerful and enduring. In the European tradition, the serious conversation started with Thomas Aquinas, and was more or less over by the 19th c. (Locke, Hume, Darwin). There remains a minority of thinkers, such as John Polkinghorne, who continue to support it. I don't count the recent intelligent design movement as having anything new or serious to say on the subject. I'm glad it works for you; it hasn't worked for me since I took history and philosophy of science.
My answer to the question of heaven and hell and whether a person should take out an "insurance policy" with God just in case, is this: a God who is worth having is intelligent and just. If I have been created with a mind, and have used it to my full ability, and been open to what I have heard, and still have not been able to discern the absolute truth of a particular faith, then I trust that should I stand in judgement before such a God, that this will be taken into consideration. The God who is the real McCoy will respect me for making my own mind up and not taking out insurance with one or other faith just in case. -
caseopele wrote: No atheists are starting wars in the name of atheism.
Unless of course, you count Marxism. That's rather a big one as far as the 20th c. goes, whereas wars started in the name of God were not. -
In my opinion Marxism is not atheism. I'm not the most knowledgable person in that area but from a bit of research I've found this definition in several dictionaries.
Marxism: The political and economic philosophy of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in which the concept of class struggle plays a central role in understanding society's allegedly inevitable development from bourgeois oppression under capitalism to a socialist and ultimately classless society.
Whereas atheism is the disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. I uderstand that Marx was an atheist but how is Marxism the same as atheism? I would actually really like to know since I am unable to reconcile the two. (Not being snarky or anything here, I'm just curious.) -
Atheism is a central tenet of Marxist-Leninism, even though it is much more than just atheism. The class struggle you mention is part of dialectical materialism, of which a component is atheism. An important feature of communist revolutions, particularly in Europe, was an ideologically driven attempt to replace religion with atheism by force. That included imprisoning and killing a lot of Jews and Christians. Likewise, the Falun Gong religion is banned in China; the atheist government claims it is an evil cult, pseudo-science, promotes superstition, etc., and imprisons its practitioners.
I am as wary of atheists controlling the state as I am of theocracy. Their record is not better. This makes sense, since atheism and most religions are cut from the same absolutist cloth. -
You are lumping all religions into one bucket, which is just silly. There are religions founded in every century, so plenty of them don't mention goats.
I'm talking about religions that have significant numbers of adherents. Arguing that the odd new cult invalidates what I said is itself silly. In the western world we can be pretty sure that the vast majority of practicing religious people hold belief systems formulated by goatherders. Adding together Christians, Mormons, Jews & Muslims gives you most western religious people I'd say. Though obviously mormonism is a modern variation on an earlier goatherder theme.And pretending that all modern practitioners of an ancient faith share the same interpretation today as each other, let alone as back when the religion was founded is also silly; all faiths evolve
I largely disagree with this as well. Many of the core values and paradigms are still set in stone. To be a Christian for example, you have to believe at the very least that this ancient guy was the product of a deity and a human woman, and that he has magic powers, and that his daddy is really really magic etc. All of which, to me, are primitive goatherder stories - they sound like a warmed-over version of Hercules. And if you actually take the bible seriously and believe in demons, satan, angels, witches and all the magical stuff that supposedly happened, then the lack of evolution is even more apparent.
Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
- 40K All Categories
- 27.1K Neighborhoods
- 5.1K Crown Heights/Prospect Lefferts Gardens
- 7.1K Prospect Heights
- 2.3K Fort Greene, Clinton Hill, Bed-Stuy
- 8K Park Slope
- 549 Williamsburg, Greenpoint, Bushwick
- 442 Flatbush/Midwood/Ditmas Park
- 657 BoCoCa (Boerum Hill, Cobble Hill, Carroll Gardens)
- 151 Red Hook
- 104 Gowanus
- 304 Bay Ridge/Bensonhurst
- 130 Coney Island, Brighton Beach, Sheepshead Bay
- 270 Brooklyn Heights, DUMBO and Downtown
- 598 Windsor Terrace / Kensington
- 673 Greenwood Heights and Sunset Park
- 749 Brooklyn and Beyond
- 6.3K Stuff
- 86 Brooklyn Back When
- 1.2K Brooklyn Pets
- 257 Brooklyn Kids
- 241 Brooklyn Eats
- 51 Brooklyn Booze
- 3.6K The Lounge / Random Stuff
- 611 Brooklyn Politics
- 122 Brooklyn Sports and Fitness
- 111 Brooklyn Photos
- 339 Site Issues
- 8 Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
- 6.2K Listings
- 1.1K APARTMENTS and REAL ESTATE
- 1.3K Sales Openings Events
- 2.3K The Classifieds