Debate:"Anti-theism" or "Why is Atheism not enough?"

From RationalWiki
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Now with extra clarity!)
Line 134: Line 134:
 
:As for the stuff about the supernatural: science ''can'' test the supernatural unless you explicitly define supernatural to be [[unfalsifiable]], which makes no sense because some of the things we intuitively think of as supernatural (e.g. ghosts, alternative medicine) do indeed have testable predictions. A better definition would be, IMHO, something like [http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/2007/01/defining-supernatural.html this]. That kind of supernatural phenomenon can definitely be tested. {{User:Tetronian/sig|}} 04:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 
:As for the stuff about the supernatural: science ''can'' test the supernatural unless you explicitly define supernatural to be [[unfalsifiable]], which makes no sense because some of the things we intuitively think of as supernatural (e.g. ghosts, alternative medicine) do indeed have testable predictions. A better definition would be, IMHO, something like [http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/2007/01/defining-supernatural.html this]. That kind of supernatural phenomenon can definitely be tested. {{User:Tetronian/sig|}} 04:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 
::If it is indeed meaningless... then why does it matter? - [[User:Gameboy|Gameboy]] ([[User talk:Gameboy|talk]]) 04:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 
::If it is indeed meaningless... then why does it matter? - [[User:Gameboy|Gameboy]] ([[User talk:Gameboy|talk]]) 04:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 +
:::It's meaningless in the sense that it doesn't make observable predictions, but that doesn't mean that it's arbitrary. When you get to the point where you can't use empirical evidence, then you have to look at what are the ''logical implications'' of what you do know based on evidence. And because [[wp:Aumann's_agreement_theorem|rational agents have to agree]], there is only one correct way of making these distinctions. So it isn't just arbitrary even though there are no observable consequences - if it were, I could be rationally justified in saying that a giant purple banana created the universe because he lost a bet. Yet this doesn't logically seem ''a priori'' likely based on our understanding of the universe. {{User:Tetronian/sig|}} 04:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 04:56, 15 February 2011

Debate.JPG This is a Debate page.
Feel free to add your own spin on the story. Please keep it civil!
Information icon.svg This debate was created by Gameboy.


My request, should you choose to accept it, is that all posts are made as clear and as polite as possible.

Contents

Why the 'anti'?

The fact is that I simply do not understand the viewpoint of anti-theists. That is, I do not understand why they insist that religion is inherently bad. The main argument I have seen is that the religious have done (many) harmful things in the past and that some are still doing such harmful things today, and that religion inevitably leads to such things. While the numerous atrocities committed in the name of various deities are certainly worthy of note, I don't find any evidence that religion is harmful by its nature. Anyone who wishes to clarify the issue is welcome (and encouraged) to do so.

In addition, for the sake of clarity:

Stop hand.png
This user believes all religions are a form of psychosocial control and are therefore inherently bad for you.




What precisely is meant by "psychosocial control", and how are all religions a form of it? - Gameboy (talk) 23:22, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

See Debate:Religion as Psychosocial Control. Picon small.pngLiquid Blue 23:29, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Admittedly, that was over a year ago. Picon small.pngLiquid Blue 23:30, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm. Regardless, I should not have missed it.
Well! That is one question out of the way. The first question/invitation still stands, though. - Gameboy (talk) 23:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I am still pondering it. Picon small.pngAcer Blue 23:42, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

What's wrong with religion

Off the top of my head:

  1. Religion is based on faith which the opposite of the scientific method.
  2. Religion tells you what to think and not how to think.
  3. Religions involve the existence of magical beings and magical solutions in which their members are required to believe.
  4. Religions claim to have the moral authority to decide what is right and wrong.

OK, now I know that somebody will say "Ah well not all religions are like that." or "I can imagine a religion which didn't involve magic." or "Well lots of clever people are religious." or whatever.

The fact is that the majority of religions have these characteristics so I don't like them.--BobSpring is sprung! 12:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the above, but the main reason is numero uno. I'm anti-religion in the same way that I'm anti-homeopathy or anti-creationism. I don't identify as an antitheist, though, as I'm not really sure what it entails. For one, our own page on it says that antitheists believe that it would be undesirable even if there were a god (argument from final consequences anyone?) If it's true, then it's true, so that holds no water for me. There's also the Hitch style hypocrisy/bigotry which involves denouncing religion for being the source of war and conflict and then hyping Iraq 'cause we need to take out those damned fundies. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Same as Nebby. ТиранесAn pyrrhic, yet refill foible? 16:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, anti-religion seems as logical as being anti-homoeopathy or anti-crystal healing or anti the secret power of pyramids.--BobSpring is sprung! 17:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
For me number 4 is the most important. Organized religions tell you what is right and wrong, and their only claim to authority on that is some sort of ancient mystical connection to an/some undetectable magic being(s). It is psychosocial control. The difficulty with that userbox is that there are so many other illegitimate sources of psychosocial control in most of our lives that to single out religion is illogical.
There are some theologically weaker religions which don't broadcast a moral code, but those tend to be jokes (Pastafarianism) or extremely wishy-washy. Picon small.pngAcer Blue 21:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Somebody says "Ah, well, not all religions are like that"

This is going to be a long(ish) one, so please bear with me.
The exceptions are exactly my point. I fully understand why anti-theists think fundamentalism is harmful. I am not an anti-theist and I think that fundamentalism is harmful. However, since not all religion is like fundamentalism and its ilk, being against religion is akin to throwing out the baby with the bathwater, as the saying goes.

While anecdotal evidence is not the strongest sort of evidence, here are my circumstances;
I was once a theist. A Christian, specifically, who believed that God Almighty created the universe and that he sent himself in the form of Jesus Christ to die on a cross for our sins, etc.

However... I did not believe that the only way to get into Heaven was to believe that Jesus was the son of God, etc. I interpreted the 'no one comes to the Father but through me' line to mean that being good (as Jesus was) would be rewarded. Yet I did not do good things because I expected to be rewarded after death, that was merely a side benefit. I did good things because I enjoyed it. Because Good Feels Good.

Nor did I feel that God should be used to explain various scientific things. I merely believed that he had set things in motion. The Big Bang (or whatever created the universe) occurred and over the next few billion years the laws of physics did their work and everything formed and so on. Then life on Earth developed and we came along, eventually God contacted us for some reason, and things were written down by people and the rest is history. I suppose that, in a way, I believed in the dreaded NOMA as it should be, not as the cheap shield it is often used as. It should be noted that I had never heard of NOMA before I ventured to this site.

All that said, my beliefs regarding God did not happen in spite of my surroundings and upbringing, but rather because of my upbringing. My friends and family all had similar beliefs to those I had, so I was raised in an atmosphere of logic and tolerance. When I did eventually become an atheist, I told the people whom I associated with (beginning with my parents). Their response was exactly as I had expected; "Okay." I was not shunned, disowned, insulted, told I would burn in Hell for my apostasy, or otherwise treated as if I had done something morally wrong.

So while I am undoubtedly biased in this issue, I feel the question still bears repeating; why be against religion? Anti-credulous-bigoted-coercive-self-important-theism makes logical sense to me, but general anti-theism doesn't make any sense to me at all. - Gameboy (talk) 21:44, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the problem here is that you are not taking your own bias seriously. You can't just say "I know I'm biased, but..." and then plow on as though nothing has happened. You need to either correct for that bias or drop the argument entirely. Bob and others have raised some valid and persuasive points above: religion poisons people both epistemology and morality (for further evidence I would recommend this piece), and religious groups exert social control in an unhealthy way. While you many not have had a problem professing your atheism to your friends and peers, that is by no means the norm, and I'm willing to bet that some of the members of this site could provide you with some shocking evidence that shows just how much religion can alienate people. For these reasons and a handful of others, a "live-and-let-live" viewpoint isn't as obvious as you think it is. See also: Dawkins' analogy of Gerin oil. Tetronian you're clueless 21:54, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
(EC) I am not against everything religious. Religion does great good. However, fundamentally, I believe that because all organized religion rests upon a false premise, there are better sources of charity, community and especially morality.
To address Gameboy: You were a deist. Deism, like Pastafarianism and Panentheism, is not an organized religion. It's important to note the distinction between unorganized and organized religion; the former is not usually psychosocial control, the latter is most definitely psychosocial control, by definition. Picon small.pngLiquid Blue 21:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I have few problems with unorganized religions. Having been raised by, and still living with, a religious radical; I have little if any respect for organized religions, I veiw moderates as enablers for fundamentalists. ТyAn raging, yet yank rain meter? 22:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
In regards to Tetronian's post:
I have examined my bias, and discussed it with others prior to coming here. And yet, I think that the view I have put forth here is still valid.
For the purpose of my beloved clarity:
  • I do not think that all religion is good.
  • I do not think that good religion is somehow 'better' than atheism.
  • I do not think religion is immune to perversion by evil people.
  • I am aware that religion has led to some of the most horrible atrocities ever commited.
  • I am aware that there are numerous people in the world today who would be disowned or even murdered for stating their true beliefs or lack thereof. (When I announced my conversion to my parents I actually told them that I was grateful that I did not to worry over that very issue)
  • I am aware that less scrupulous religious groups command the influence of nations.
What I am saying is that I do not understand how anti-theists (logically) arrive at the conclusion that ALL religion is harmful.
Are any further clarifications needed? - Gameboy (talk) 23:09, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, one; what you think of when you read "harmful" is not necessarily what an anti-theist intends when s/he writes it. Picon small.pngAcer Blue 23:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Gameboy: From your comments above, it seems as if the religion you think of as "good" is the unorganized, deistic sort. I have few qualms with this kind of religion (certainly far fewer than with organized religions), but I would still prefer that religion not exist altogether. Why? Mostly because any sort of religion inhibits rationality for the reasons I mentioned & linked to above as well as the ones that Bob mentioned. There is absolutely no reason why we can't replicate the benefits of religion by, say, organizing (secular) weekly bingo nights. That is, since it's probably possible to have the social benefits of group interaction without the worldview-poisoning effects of dogma, we should aim to do so. If this still isn't clear or doesn't seem persuasive, perhaps I'm missing your point. Could you elaborate on what specific kinds of religion you find acceptable? Tetronian you're clueless 23:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Also, I retract my accusations of bias. Tetronian you're clueless 23:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I would have to disagree with Ms. van Meer (or would it simply be "Ms. Meer"? I have never been able to determine that...), and I think that I should clarify.
My beliefs at the time were that God created the universe, and was then, at least as far as humanity is concerned, inactive for a few billion years until... well, at that point it became somewhat 'fuzzy'. Did God ever appear to humanity before the incidents described in the Bible? Perhaps before recorded history? I supposed it was possible, but figured that there wasn't a point in stressing over that. Not to say that all or even most supposed 'supernatural' events were indeed cases of divine intervention, but that was also unimportant to me. In short, I was an agnostic theist, rather than an actual deist.
To Tetronian's retraction: I appreciate it, but your concern was valid. - Gameboy (talk) 00:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
If all humanity believed God created the universe, caused the Big Bang, or whatever, there would be no scientific or mathematical effort to determine the origins of our universe. Ultimately, as we acquire more knowledge, that God of the gaps will disappear. Your deism is preventing you from thinking rationally about the origins of the universe; in that way, it is harmful. But - and I emphasize this - only slightly harmful. Picon small.pngLiquid Blue 00:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Blue - while the theology you describe is pretty mild and relatively more rational than that of most theists, I stand by my argument that "religion poisons everything." But as Blue rightly pointed out, the kind of deism you describe is mostly harmless as far as social control goes. Tetronian you're clueless 00:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Now with extra clarity!

So many things to respond to, so little time.

Part One: Harm is something that causes damage. Like gunshots and homophobia. Those things are harmful.

Part Two: I do not want everyone to believe in God.

Part Two Dash: I don't think that, in the astronomically unlikely event that every human on the planet were to begin believing one particular religion, that interest in math and science would die out. When I believed in God, I was very interested in... well, I've never liked math, but I've never seen it as useless (I just don't enjoy it personally). Science, though, I love science! Especially animals. But I digress. The point is that just because you believe you won't eventually find the answer to the question of Life, the Universe, and Everything doesn't mean you have no motivation to try.

Part Three: I am not a deist/agnostic theist (take your pick). I am (at the time of this posting) a 'full' agnostic. And I never worshiped a 'god of the gaps'. I worshiped the 'God of EVERYTHING (And All the Other Stuff, Too)', He just wasn't personally manipulating every bit of the universe (and yet, He kind of was, all at the same time. Infinitely powerful beings who can create existence itself are funny that way...).

Part Five: The kind of religion that I tolerate is the kind that realizes how absurd the whole thing sounds (even if they believe it to be true). The kind that doesn't force itself on people (if you want to join, fantastic! If not, that is perfectly okay. Have a cookie.). The kind that doesn't care if you're a poor, foreign, sexually active, black lesbian atheist who wears white after Labor Day. I could go on, but I hope those few statements have clarified what kind of religion I'm talking about.

Any other questions? Thoughts? Opinions? - Gameboy (talk) 01:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

An Addendum to Part Five: A religion that leaves science to scientists. (that is, God may be "behind" the science, but He is not actually the science itself.) - Gameboy (talk) 01:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

In kind:
Part one: No. This is what "harmful" means. It is a very broad term, and can mean a wide variety of injurious things; something that dissuades people from thinking independently can be described as harmful, as can homophobia or war.
Part two: That does not matter.
Dash: I did not say that. I merely stated that in order to try to ascertain a non-supernatural explanation for the origin of the universe, one must not believe that a supernatural entity is responsible for it. I really have no idea how you got "religion kills science" from "belief that God created the universe inhibits one from doing research into the origin of the universe."
Part three: Okay. In principle, that's still not an organized religion, that's panentheism or something personal to you.
Part five: Me too. I tolerate that kind of religion too! I even tolerate more involved religions. Hell, I love them! My position is that because all religion rests upon a false premise:
Both organizations being equal in every regard, I prefer the secular organization.
That's it. Picon small.pngAcer Blue 01:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I was the one who said that "religion kills science," and I still think so. Again, see here. The moment you try to protect one belief from the lens of rationality, you've already lost. Even the idea that God can be "behind the science" is unhealthy, IMHO, for the same reason that NOMA is. Ultimately I agree with Blue's closing statement, though. Even a religious person who realizes how absurd their beliefs are would still be better off shedding such allegiances (even if they are barely harmful at all). Tetronian you're clueless 01:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Maybe it would be better if we put it more in terms of a continuum of "harm." For example, radioactive quackery would be a 10 on the "what's the harm" scale, while buying the occasional "Vitamin C enriched!!" throat lozenge when you get a cold ranks about a 1 or 2. Fundamentalism would be close to the radioactive quackery, while some vague belief in something supernatural would be the throat lozenge. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I like this idea; the deism Gameboy subscribes would rate pretty low (probably on par with Vitamin C pills), but it is still worse than no harm at all. Tetronian you're clueless 02:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
In Response to Ms. van Meer:
Part one: Well... okay. But at that point, isn't the term somewhat useless? It is so broad as to be applicable to nearly everything mankind has ever devised.
Part Two: Oh.
Part Two Dash: But you DID say that if everyone believed that God created the Universe, then there would be no effort to find the origin. I took the implication to be that no one would bother looking because 'Goddidit'.
Part Three:Well, as I said, I got those ideas from the people around me. And suppose enough like-minded, tolerant people got together and founded a Church of That Particular View?
Part Five:Well, that's hardly 'anti'. It's like me and math; I don't really like all the equations, but it's a personal preference I have, not a case of me being "Anti-mathematic"... Unless that wasn't what you were saying, anyways. Regardless, I appreciate your input.
Questions? Thoughts? Opinions? - Gameboy (talk) 02:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Hmm. It's not exactly like me and math (we have similar attitudes toward it); it's more like me and homeopathy; it hasn't really done a whole lot of harm, but it would be better if people didn't believe it. Picon small.pngAcer Blue 02:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
*grumblegrumble*I'm an agnostic.*grumblegrumble*
To Tetronian and Ms. van Meer: I read Tetronian's links, and while they're interesting, I still don't quite follow how believing that a supernatural being is not confined by nature leads to baramins. Or harm...
The basic idea is that when you cordon off one belief, you are going to have to make adjustments to your belief system (e.g. how evidence is assessed) to keep things that way. Eventually this can lead to irrationality. I'm not too concerned about it, but it is the reason I'd rather religion quietly fade away. Tetronian you're clueless 02:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Alright, if we are where I think we are, things get philosophical soon. The question boils down to; why does it matter whether or not one believes that the logical, measurable, scientific universe was created by an infinitely powerful force/entity that predates existence and cannot, by definition, be measured no matter how badly anyone wants to claim that they have a method that proves/disproves the existence of said entity because it doesn't need our permission to do whatever it wants?
Did that make ANY sense? Or do I need to go to bed and try again tomorrow? - Gameboy (talk) 03:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it made sense(the question). Also, on an irrelevant side note, I love math. Ahem. The problem is that if one believes that the universe was created by an infitely powerful force/entity/whatever, is that people often try to force their belief upon others. I, for one have no issue with deists who simply state that X caused the big bang, and has not intervened since. I have issue with the idea that a supernatural force interacts with the natural world on any level, be it physical or "mental" as it creates a crutch, so to speak. And rather than doing it themselves, why not let X do it. ТyAn dumb, yet deport contraband? 03:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

So, to interject... If I have understood you correctly, you "have issue with the idea that a supernatural force interacts with the natural world on any level" simply because some religious people have used the existence of the supernatural as an excuse to avoid investigating the natural? Well, that's understandable, but it says nothing about the existence of the supernatural, nor does mean per se that it is harmful to accept the existence of the supernatural. I might have an issue with the idea of Microsoft interacting with the computing world on any level, because as a company I feel it has contributed to computer illiteracy; but Microsoft still exists, and people would be stupid to believe otherwise. (Hopefully that's a clear analogy; I do have a bit of a reputation for sounding completely random at times.) ;-) Thomas Larsen (talk) 03:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, but we have evidence that Microsoft exists. ТyTalk. 04:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Ah, but what evidence do we have that Microsoft exists? We have keyboards with "Microsoft" written on them; but, similarly, we have Bibles with "God" written in them. We have people who talk about Microsoft all the time; we also have people who talk about God all the time. We have books written about Microsoft; we have books written about the supernatural. In fact, since Microsoft is just an airy-fairy concept—I mean, I can't see Microsoft, apart from some people who claim to work for Microsoft and some buildings with "Microsoft" painted on the side—I'm going to deny that Microsoft exists. Prove me wrong. Thomas Larsen (talk) 04:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
...Outdent... huh. I'll have to remember that one.
Anyways, I agree with the first part of Mr. Larsen's response. The part about Mr. Tyrannis observation of past misteps not proving anything. However, as Mr. Tyrannis pointed out, there is indeed no scientific evidence that the supernatural exists... - Gameboy (talk) 04:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Please stay on topic... please?
But getting off-topic is fun! ;-) Well, I disagree with you; I think there is scientific evidence for the supernatural. But, even if there was no scientific evidence, the possibility of the supernatural would not be excluded. Can you prove a mathematical theory using evolutionary biology? And, if not, why do you think it's reasonable to prove the supernatural using science, which by definition focuses on the natural?
Also, where's the scientific evidence for Microsoft? (Before you suggest that I install it on my own computer to test it, no! I refuse to do that. Microsoft doesn't exist. It's just a money-making religion invented by big corporations. And kids are getting taught it in schools!) Thomas Larsen (talk) 04:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
"why does it matter whether or not one believes that the logical, measurable, scientific universe was created by an infinitely powerful force/entity that predates existence and cannot, by definition, be measured no matter how badly anyone wants to claim that they have a method that proves/disproves the existence of said entity because it doesn't need our permission to do whatever it wants?" Such a belief is meaningless because it does not affect reality in any way (because it makes no predictions or descriptions of how reality will act). However, it is still a belief about reality and therefore may be incorrect or correct as a logical or probabilistic implication of other things we know to be true. This is sort of what I mean. And, as with all other beliefs, we should only believe it for a reason.
As for the stuff about the supernatural: science can test the supernatural unless you explicitly define supernatural to be unfalsifiable, which makes no sense because some of the things we intuitively think of as supernatural (e.g. ghosts, alternative medicine) do indeed have testable predictions. A better definition would be, IMHO, something like this. That kind of supernatural phenomenon can definitely be tested. Tetronian you're clueless 04:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
If it is indeed meaningless... then why does it matter? - Gameboy (talk) 04:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
It's meaningless in the sense that it doesn't make observable predictions, but that doesn't mean that it's arbitrary. When you get to the point where you can't use empirical evidence, then you have to look at what are the logical implications of what you do know based on evidence. And because rational agents have to agree, there is only one correct way of making these distinctions. So it isn't just arbitrary even though there are no observable consequences - if it were, I could be rationally justified in saying that a giant purple banana created the universe because he lost a bet. Yet this doesn't logically seem a priori likely based on our understanding of the universe. Tetronian you're clueless 04:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support