Information icon.svg Nominations and campaigning for the RationalWiki 2019 Moderator Election is underway and will end on November 16.

Essay talk:Irreligion as Intellectual Privilege

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

There will always be religion. People will always look for answers and meaning that science cannot provide. All that changes is its form. Apologetics and counter-apologetics convince no one. If you have a belief in something, have faith in a higher power, the vagaries of the big bang wont sway you. If you are an ardent atheist, there is no proofs that can make you believe. If anything, they will just entrench your views. It is just so much effort for very little, if any, gain. AMassiveGay (talk) 03:01, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

While I agree with some of your fatalist outlook, it isn't that simple. I myself, and many I know, were once believers. We saw the absurdity, even though it took time. Most people are not fanatics, they can be convinced with evidence, education, and time. The fanatics will stick around, but they are minorities. If comparative religion and apologetics were required in public schools, with focus on the majority religion, even the most religious societies will become secular in two or three decades, at the most. This essay is basically addressing why so few reject religion on their own, since most people have neither the will nor the ability to think about hard questions on their own.
Also, keep in mind my definition of religion as contrasted with irreligion. It's one thing to believe in a higher power, or metaphysical purpose of life; the socially restrictive and acerbic organized religions are a different matter, and one a benevolent state has every impetus to combat. Lord Aeonian (talk) 23:28, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
most folk i know beleive what they believe without giving it any thought. Logic doesnt come into it. Apologetics and counter apologetics have no bearing their lives at all. The same way, for most people, evolution has no bearing on their lives. Whether they believe it or they dont makes no difference to them. Shakespeare is taught in school and most folk don't give a shit about that. AMassiveGay (talk) 23:44, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Which is precisely why I advocate teaching comparative religion and apologetics. It forces people, at a young age, to think about religion. And for most people, once that process starts, faith loses. Shakespeare is as silly example because it doesn't impact their lives and attitudes, unlike religion. Lord Aeonian (talk) 00:25, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Basically, so, the religious feeling is not only rooted in the economic needs and lack of material well being, but also in education, as well being along won't cut it. Is the part relative to the genetic lottery, making people less resistant to critical thinking, so easily traceable and is there a solution?
Is it part of the race and Qi controversy of which I'm quite skeptical about, despite some apparently strong points?--78.15.231.110 (talk) 12:44, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Universal education about religion is a good strategy and all, but I hope you realize it is not possible under the current economic system. Withoutaname (talk) 20:16, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Why not?--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 20:21, 23 May 2016 (UTC) 20:21, 23 May 2016 (UTC)