- Home
- Find a Therapist
- Topic Streams
- Get Help
Mental Health
Addiction
ADHD
Anxiety
Asperger's
Autism
Bipolar Disorder
Depression
Eating Disorders
Insomnia
OCDPersonality
Passive Aggression
Personality
ShynessPersonal Growth
Happiness
Goal Setting
Positive PsychologyRelationships
Low Sexual Desire
Relationships
SexEmotion Management
Anger
Procrastination
StressFamily Life
Adolescents
Child Development
Elder Care
Parenting
SiblingsRecently Diagnosed?
Diagnosis Dictionary
- Magazine
- Tests
- Psych Basics
- Experts
Of say 1,000 distinct Gods, an atheist believes in none whereas a highly religious person disbelieves in 999 Gods other than the "one true" God. It would seem that atheists and the religious are almost perfectly united in their non-belief. Read More
Interesting
Insightful!! Thank you!
My pleasure.
Thank you for your readership. Happy New Year.
GS
Let's Shift the Discussion to More Fertile Ground
Gad,
There's no point scientifically questioning the validity of religion- those who believe won't stop no matter what you say.
For those who don't believe (which includes many who practice religion anyway) the issue becomes one of utility, not validity.
For them, religion is the means to an end. analyzing the means without considering the end is foolish. Someone repetitively putting their hands across strings for 2000 hours would seem insane if you didn't know that the end goal was to become a professional guitarist. The goal of religion is self-improvement by way of sacrifice, discipline and service. If achieved (and the person is happy), it's pedantic to care about whether what was believed in was technically accurate.
Furthermore, self-sacrifice is very hard for most humans and requires a strong support group. Religions create a "club" with initiations and requirements, penalties for violating club rules (maybe silly to you- but so are all clubs' initiations and requirements) that bond group members.
It works for some people, so let's not overanalyze them and let them be.
In a society with high pressure materialism, where studies indicate young people are becoming less empathic/more narcissistic- the question should be: if not religion, then what is the better solution?
Thank you for your thoughts. A few rebuttals.
Your comment: There's no point scientifically questioning the validity of religion- those who believe won't stop no matter what you say.
My reply: Are you suggesting that religion cannot be questioned? By the way, many individuals who were once believers became non-believers as a result of having been exposed to compelling arguments. Hence, if you do not mind, I will take a less fatalistic attitude and assume that religion can be debated.
Your comment: For those who don't believe (which includes many who practice religion anyway) the issue becomes one of utility, not validity.
My reply: I was not questioning the utility of religion in the current post. I too can provide several utilitarian arguments in support of religion (e.g., Pascal's wager). The point of my post deals with the unequivocal atheism experienced by religious folks when it comes to all gods other than the one that they believe in.
Your comment: The goal of religion is self-improvement by way of sacrifice, discipline and service.
My reply: This is perhaps your definition of the key goals of religion. There are numerous others. Also, self-improvement, sacrifice, discipline, and service are accessible to those who do not believe in celestial dictators (to borrow Christopher Hitchens' term).
Your comment: it's pedantic to care about whether what was believed in was technically accurate.
My reply: Clearly, you are a strong utilitarian when it comes to religious beliefs. Fair enough but some, myself included, care about truth (independently of whether falsehoods and superstitions can be at times beneficial).
Your comment: It works for some people, so let's not overanalyze them and let them be.
My reply: People have a right to believe in anything that they wish, as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others. That said, individuals have a right to question those beliefs. This is the central tenet of a free and liberal society.
Your comment: In a society with high pressure materialism, where studies indicate young people are becoming less empathic/more narcissistic- the question should be: if not religion, then what is the better solution?
My reply: I am afraid that I do not subscribe to the notion that narcissism and materialism can be assuaged via religious belief. Incidentally, which of the 1,000+ gods and 10,000 religions should one believe in if he/she wishes to be less narcissistic and materialistic?
Thanks again for offering your thoughts. Happy New Year.
GS
I don't believe in god(s) &
I don't believe in god(s) & I'm not part of any religion (and never was). I guess that makes me an atheist but I can't explain why I get slightly annoyed at clever sounding put downs made by atheists. (Assuming the author is one)
I find it ironic that quite a number of vocal atheists act in ways that religious folk have a bad reputation for: by creating a superior-inferior positioning between people. Instead of thinking that one religion is better than others, it is a more general 'my way of thinking is more valid (or better) than your way of thinking'. Instead of preaching a religion trying to force their beliefs on others, their main vehicle of annoying others is by applying sarcasm and cynicism (especially toward silly religious people). Plus, atheists seem to worship just as fervently (saying bad things about Richard Dawkins, James Randi etc is like blasphemy).
Two quick rebuttals.
(1) Religion is not outside the purview of criticism and debate. Accordingly, an analysis of inherent departures from rationality as endemic to religion beliefs are not meant as "clever sounding put downs". Should we be insulating religion from analysis, criticism, and debate? If so then we should institute blasphemy laws and return to the Dark Ages.
(2) Ah yes. The old canard of "atheism is just another religion". Can you provide me with a list of atheists who have committed acts of violence in the name of James Randi and Richard Dawkins? Rational people debate vigorously about their epistemological positions. This does not mean that atheists "pray at the altar of Richard Dawkins". Rather, they are simply committed to rational debate.
Happy New Year.
GS
Richard Dawkins is much loved
Richard Dawkins is much loved by many atheists for his smug delivery of criticism. I'm as much inclined to critique, debate and evaluate ideas and positions as the next person - but my point is rather the way it is done and the hypocritical nature of it.
The ideology behind the most vocal brand of atheism is that it is all about rational debate and scientifically verifiable fact. A fine admirable ideology. In practice many atheists hardly separate themselves from the things they despise in many religious people: a superior feeling versus those that who don't adopt the 'right way of thinking'.
Also, it would be nice if people were as committed to real rational debate as you claim atheists are. That's a bit of a fairy tale unfortunately. Atheists, despite their lack of religious belief, are not by definition inoculated against all the same flawed biases, heuristics and psychological motives people of all beliefs experience. Atheists protect their own preferred set of beliefs just as religiously as the religious do. They are similarly likely to entrench themselves with what they hold to be as true and false as the next person.
Every devoted group needs their heroes and for many atheists its the Dawkins and the Randi's of the world. They may not worship them with prayer or sacrificial offerings but they indulge in similar defensive styles of thinking.
You ask if anyone has committed acts of violence in the name of James Randi & Dawkins. It's implied that a common trait of religious (sub)groups that they commit violence in name of their deities. Most physical violence is a direct consequence of a desire for control or a response to oppression/danger. Whether someone does it in the name of religion does not make it the cause of violence. I'm not sure there is a scientific study that states that non-religious people are less likely to commit violence. Most religious texts that I'm aware of preach peace, acceptance etc. It is the way people harness religious interpretations that is the core of the problem. Often the interpretation is motivated by control of power. Groups with distributed superior power over other people are prone to act in corrupt ways, regardless of how rational or (anti)religious they are. You make it seem that committing violence is particular to practicing religion.
For examples of verbal violence, just browse on dawkins' or Randi-oriented forums. Or try youtube. Here's a youtube comment in response to someone trying to start a 'rational debate' with James Randi that received 8 likes from fellow youtube users(!):
"your hat sucks
your shirt sucks
your little beard sucks
you are a bad person
you deserve james randis cancer.
calvinscheuerman 10 months ago 8 "
It took all of 2 minutes to find that.
People are intellectually lazy, they rely on heuristics. Ideally, people learn to discern and debate openly and in qualitatively fruitful ways (example: scientific method). The irony is that Dawkins, Randi, other atheists don't encourage that in all people no matter how logically sound their arguments are. They inadvertently promote heuristic-type thinking. For example, all paranormal sounding claims (such as a recent study by Daryl Bem) are flawed and refuted by default until they have met James Randi's approval - if you ask a Randi-follower. If the claim were true it would have done Randi's million dollar challenge - is the logic many adopt.
An atheist might read your comment and feel confirmed of their belief that religions are violent by inclination since people kill in the name of deities and atheism isn't violent, because nobody kills in the name of an atheist. You might not have suggested that - but people will look to confirm their beliefs. It's part of a scientists job to enhance our understanding of the world in an objective manner. Why do atheists resort to cynicism or sarcasm as a way to persuade people of 'better' beliefs? Nothing to do with science I believe. Yet the tone of many atheists is that they are on an intellectual higher ground, less prone to irrationality, are more open minded, smarter etc.
happy new years, thank you for the reponse
Thank you for your additional thoughts.
Hi Discerner,
Carl Sagan famously stated that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Hence, the onus of proving the existence of God (although it is hard to tell which God that might be, given the main point that I raise in my post) lies in those who believe in deities. The scientific method provides the most compelling epistemological framework for establishing the veracity of any claim. Religion does not abide by those rules. It proclaims itself as laying outside of such evidentiary "constraints".
It is perfectly appropriate for individuals to question religious claims and belief systems using rational discourse. To argue that atheists are just as dogmatic in their beliefs as religious folks is lazy thinking. If someone were to tell you that he had a conversation with God last night who advised him that he was chosen as His 21st century representative on earth, you would be well justified in asking the individual for verifiable evidence regarding his claim. If he fails to provide you with the necessary evidence then his proclamation is suspect. There is absolutely no reason that scientists should be held accountable for every one of their claims (in terms of proving their veracity) but religious folks are unburdened by such "earthly" standards.
One final point: you claim that "most religious texts that I'm aware of preach peace, acceptance etc." Are you sure that you cannot think of any religion that preaches intolerance to non-believers? I'll give you a hint: It is neither the Amish nor the Jains.
Many thanks for your polite tone. I have enjoyed chatting with you.
GS
Arrgh and Ramen!
May you be touched by the noodily appendage of the Flying Spaghetti Monster in the coming year.
Thank you!
:)
GS
Great Post, Discerner.
Gad,
If you want to find "truth", you'll need to change your approach.
1) Criticizing others doesn't get you closer to the truth- it merely further entrenches you in your own beliefs (yes, beliefs).
2) You will need to become less defensive (rebutting all opposing views, including with hints of sarcasm).
3) You will need to become more humble. People who "know it all" rarely learn much.
4) You will need to stop demonizing your opponents- e.g. calling them irrational. That's a popular technique in modern political debate- but leads to zero learning. If you were to assume that your opponents were indeed rational, and then try to understand how their rational approach leads to actions you don't understand, then you might learn something.
5) You will need to stop labeling people- again it marginalizes them and hardens your own position.
6) You will need to stop putting so much reliance on the infallibility of science for your beliefs. Science has gotten it wrong many times in the past. While it does a good job with predicting the orbit of the moon, it falls far short in explaining what makes people, cultures, societies succeed or fail.
Let's all resolve in this new year to honestly and humbly seek the truth. When you do find it (and I suspect it may take a while) then you can use words like "falsehood", "superstition" and "celestial dictator" without coming across as arrogant.
Itemized list...thank you!
Dear Paul F.,
Many thanks for providing me with an itemized list of points to follow as a means of finding "the truth". You definitely come across as someone who is very humble, non-haughty, and definitely non-patronizing.
Apparently you have a more direct path to the truth, which "arrogant simpletons" are simply incapable of grasping. Bear with us, oh patient sage.
Thank you for your generous attempts to enlighten me. I'll try to abide by your words of wisdom, sage guru. ;)
GS
P.S. Perhaps we could end our discussion here, as I fear that you will only become more patronizing, insulting, and condescending in future comments. Incidentally, unlike you, Discerner was able to convey his/her message without any hint of an insult and/or condescension.
I Disagree Woth The Premise - It's NOT About Numbers
It's whether you want special privileges and wish to impose your beliefs (or lack) on others through changing society.
I'd say too amny of the religious try to change the definition of science, to change our school systems and its teaching, to interfere with the political process, to promote that atheists shouldn't be allowed to celebrate the CIVIC holiday of Christmas/Xmas/Mythmas/whatever, to NOT pay their fair way in society due to tax privileges (leeches, all - making atheists pay for them!), killing doctors and hassling women who need medical treatment because of religion's whacked-out concept of a (lol) 'soul', similarly trying to stop stem cell research, lying that condoms won't help fight AIDS, indoctrinating innocent kids w/o their knowledge... and on and on and on and on.
I humbly suggest that atheists do almost none of that and most don't spend much time re atheism, while vastly higher percentage of the religioud do spend time and resources on their religion.
Mr. Saad isn't nearly as clever as he thinks
Speaking as a Catholic, it seems to me that you’re making a basic mathematical error.
Let’s imagine a series of religious folks, plus one atheist.
Imhotep is an ancient Egyptian pagan who believes there are a million gods.
Archimedes is an ancient Greek pagan who believes there are a thousand gods.
Leif is a medieval Viking who believes there are a hundred gods.
Rajiv is a modern Hindu who thinks there are twenty gods.
I, Astorian, am a modern Catholic who thinks there is exactly one God.
Dickie is a modern English atheist who thinks there are zero gods.
YOU, sir, believe that I am actually much closer to Dickie than to the others, because he and I both disbelieve in most of same gods. So, to you and to Dickie, it seems that the next logical step would be for me to drop the one last God I’m holding on to.
As I said, you make a basic, silly mathematical error. Can anyone guess what it is?
Look at it this way: Imhotep believes in a thousand times as many gods as Archimedes. Archimedes believes in ten times as many gods as Leif. Leif believes in five times as many gods as Rajiv. Rajiv believes in twenty times as many gods as I do.
NOW do you see where this is going? How many times greater is one than zero? The answer is… inestimable! I believe in INFINITELY more gods than Dickie does. One is NOT a small difference, it is an incalculably LARGE difference.
Which means I’m actually FAR closer to Imhotep than to Dickie. He only believes in a million times more gods than I do. I believe in INFINITELY more gods than Dickie.
Thank you Mr. Saad.
Thank you Mr. Saad.
a few thoughts...
Astorian, in purely mathematical terms division by zero is undefined, not infinite. One word came to mind as I read your response - YIKES.
Clearly you believe in only one God - no others. Others choose to believe in their gods, not yours. RELATIVE to each other, you are atheists.
Gad, it seems you borrowed/paraphrased a few lines from Hitchens who shares the same perspective -- one with which I happen to agree.
I feel I should point out that the statement "People have a right to believe in anything that they wish, as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others." is, in itself, a self-contradictory belief.
Mr. Saad (great article)
A very insightful post indeed. Obviously those who hold Faith and belief in God to be the absolute truth fall prey of their own idiosyncrasy as one God can not determine the absolute in-existence of another. With that theory in mind, the whole idea that God is absolute in its existence is flawed. The question that i have is: are mathematical probabilities best suited to validate an argument for the existence of an Universal God? (think Spinoza's God). Mr. Saad, i truly appreciate your insightfulness.
Post new comment