Reason vs. Faith
Imagine for moment that you have been falsely accused of a crime - murder. You are completely innocent and before a jury with your life in the balance. Your defense attorney points out to the jury that there is not one shread of physical evidence against you. There are hundreds of witnesses who can swear that you were not near the victim at the time of the crime. There is a mountain of physical evidence to back up your defense. Yet 85% of your neighbors and townsfolk believe that you are guilty.
You see, you are not well liked. People enjoy telling lies about you. They say that you eat your babies. They say that you are evil. They say every horrible thing that their tiny closed minds can think of. When questioned in the local media, most say that no matter what evidence to the contrary is presented, they will still believe that you committed the crime. However, they are very proud of the fact they are willing to listen to the defense, even though they admit that their minds can not be moved from their current position. Their certainty of your guilt will only be more solid from listening to the arguments toward your innocence. By the way, your neighbors are actually nice people in most regards; they work, play, raise families, obey the laws, use their common sense. But when it comes to the subject of you, they are absolutely polarized and certain beyond question.
After your defense rests, the prosecuting attorney approaches the jury. He offers no evidence against you. He appeals purely to the emotions of the jury, reminding them of how good they will feel after they convict you. He reminds them that 85% of their neighbors believe that you are guilty. He repeats some of the baseless lies and rumors against you. He even promises the jury dream homes in exotic settings after they retire. The only 'evidence' he presents is a copy of Grimm’s Fairy Tales. He declares to the jury that every one of these stories is factually true and then attempts analogies from selected stories to incriminate you. He brings forward a token handful of 'experts' to refute the physical evidence of your innocence. These 'experts' declare that the hundreds who confirm your alibi are lying and cannot be trusted.
Final arguments finished, the jury retires to deliberate.
My question to you is this. Would you rather the jury be made up of people of
A: Faith (Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.)
or
B: Reason (An underlying fact or cause that provides logical sense for a premise or occurrence; The capacity for logical, rational, and analytic thought; intelligence; Good judgment; sound sense.)
Does this story out of ’The Twilight Zone' sound familiar to you? It should. It is the basis of religious belief and faith vs. reason and reality.
Believers are taught that stories from an ancient book are factually true. Characters in this book are presented as being real, though there is no evidence of their existence. They are asked to put aside their logic and reason in order to believe these things. Those who disagree are punished - at one time killed - but always maligned as being evil and corrupting. Some believers think they are open minded because they will listen to a logical and reasonable argument against this belief, but they will state up front that listening to this will only make their 'faith' stronger. Sorry, but that does not qualify as having an open mind.
Believers are told to ignore mountains of evidence about our history and the real world and to continue to believe in the fairy tales. After all, who doesn't want to hear '... and they lived happily ever after'? Believers are asked to put aside their physical senses, their common sense - the very things that keep us alive and safe each and every day. These things cannot be trusted, at least not when it comes to faith.
What do the faithful gain from this? The evidence says, not much. They suffer the same maladies as unbelievers; their marriages fail at a higher rate than unbelievers, their countries rate lower in quality of life. They may believe, for a time, that their fears of the unknown are quieted, that they are given a sense of 'peace' from their beliefs. But these things are only illusionary. They have the same fear and uncertainty as unbelievers. Any meaning in their lives is the result of their own efforts and not those of imaginary characters. Unbelievers achieve peace and happiness, meaning in their lives without having to sacrifice reason.
I am proud that I would have been the one hold-out Not Guilty vote on the fictional jury in the story above. I have never been prouder to be a person of reason - a faithless person.
22 Comments:
I'm sorry you feel that way about Christians vs. yourself. I'm sorry you feel like they hate you and would condemn you to death. Truly. It makes me very sad.
you said...
"Believers are taught that stories from an ancient book are factually true. Characters in this book are presented as being real, though there is no evidence of their existence."
But I ask, how can we trust any book that makes claims about history? How can we know that Caesar existed? Why can we trust certain authors, but not others? Who can prove anything historical based on the criteria you've given? Should we not rest until we find David Hume's bones?
There are too many complexities with your trial story for what I want to say next, so I will offer a dumbed down, less extreme version.
You are innocent, yet on trial. There is evidence against you and evidence for you. Which jury do you want?
Of course I want the jury who chooses reason.
I want the jury who will hear the evidence, listen to the testimonies, and make a good judgment. It must be pointed out, however, that the jury was not present during the time of the incident. Therefore, though not having been there to see what happened, they come to a conclusion based on what they know from other sources. They must believe based on their experience.
Please don't let the word 'belief/believe' automatically trigger a reaction because it's often associated with a Deity. We believe things all the time without having the privelige of analyzing them completely.
Dave Rowe said:
"I'm sorry you feel that way about Christians vs. yourself. I'm sorry you feel like they hate you and would condemn you to death. Truly. It makes me very sad."
Actually, the analogy isn't meant to represent me personally. It is meant to represent reason itself and, to a degree, reasonable people. The prosecution is arguing from faith/religion while the defense is arguing from fact and reason.
I suppose the analogy does work for atheist too, in regard to how we are slandered by many believers and particularly church leaders.
Dave Rowe said:
"But I ask, how can we trust any book that makes claims about history? How can we know that Caesar existed? Why can we trust certain authors, but not others?"
I believe what you are saying is that we should just believe everything that anyone has ever said or written and not use our reason and logic to work out what is accurate and what it not. Or are you saying that we believe nothing of what we read or hear if we have not witnessed it. Actually what you are saying is that you believe what your church, your parents, your government etc. tell you to believe.
There are a lot of reasons that some claims are accepted and some not. First, we have first hand writings, art, poetry and statues of Caesar that were written by authors, artists from his lifetime. Had Caesar claimed to have walked on water or risen from the dead, then those claims would be held to a higher standard of proof.
There is no mention of Jesus by any author of his supposed lifetime. Jesus, as the son of 'God' is obviously patterned after many other 'saviors' that pre-date Christianity. When a historical character makes supernatural claims, it stops being history and begins being mythology.
If you are truly interested and open to some new facts, assuming you don't already know all of this, I would suggest the following resource:
The Jesus Puzzle You could also Google 'Jesus Myth' to find many more web sites on the subject. There are also a ton of books about this and a documentary "The God Who Wasn't There" linked on my side bar.
In the case of Jesus, there is much debate over whether he was an actual man. There is very little argument amongst historians over whether he was the son of God. Again, that is mythology and not history.
Dave Rowe said:
Therefore, though not having been there to see what happened, they come to a conclusion based on what they know from other sources. They must believe based on their experience.
Well, that's the real trick isn't it? What sources do you trust if you were not there? A source that is full of contradictions, incredible claims, obvious errors and fantasy stories? Or do you trust a more realistic scholarly work? In my analogy for instance, do you trust the evidence or do you trust the hearsay and fairy tales?
As for experience, it is not reliable at all. If I asked any religious person, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Christian, Shinto or Satan Worshiper if they had really 'experienced' their 'God', they all would say 'yes'. So who is wrong and who is right? The Christian God has no monopoly on creating experience in believers.
From a rational point of view, I would say that 'religious experience ' is much more simply explained as a highly emotional response, perhaps to some tragedy or during a weakened state of mind for the person experiencing it. It is no accident that people convert or start to believe during a time of crisis or high emotions. The religious recruiters, whether in a mosque in the rubble of Baghdad or in the rural South of the U.S., are always scouting for the hopeless, the weakened and the vulnerable.
I got an email from that 'poser' Shaun whoever in which he foretold that I would 'get kicked in the nuts by life' and then I would understand. Yeah, keep wishing dude. Life has nailed me a few times, just as it does everyone, and I'm not buying it yet.
I digress.
The whole point of my analogy was to ask believers why your 'God' gets a pass when it comes to your logic and reason. Why shouldn't 'God' make sense? Why shouldn't his actions make sense? Where do you draw the line in your life of what is real and what is imagined or just wished for? How are you sure what you ‘experience’ is the right God? I think these are important questions that all believers should ask them self.
Ehh, didn't mean to get into such a long-winded reply.
What are your comments on the statistics showing that Atheists basically are better at running a government and better at being, dare I say, moral? How does that jive with what your religion is telling you?
Though I sense an unwillingness on your part to give me the benefit of the doubt, reaching my supposed conclusions for me instead of letting my open-ended questions be discussed, I'd like to respond to several statements you have made.
you said...
"I believe what you are saying is that we should just believe everything that anyone has ever said or written and not use our reason and logic to work out what is accurate and what it not."
I was merely pointing out exactly what you said, we gather evidence about history from 'clues'. But even your statues, poetry, and writings could be doubted. Maybe aliens left them here.
Then you said...
"Actually what you are saying is that you believe what your church, your parents, your government etc. tell you to believe. "
That's interesting. I don't go to church. And my parents and I believe very different things. But thanks for trying to slander me.
you said...
"There is no mention of Jesus by any author of his supposed lifetime. "
Jesus is mentioned by the Jewish historian Josephus.
The little information known about Jesus outside of what is written in the New Testament serves neither to cast doubt on his existence nor to confirm it. The argument that Jesus didn't exist as a person because of silence from secular texts is not good logic.
you said...
"As for experience, it is not reliable at all. If I asked any religious person, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Christian, Shinto or Satan Worshiper if they had really 'experienced' their 'God', they all would say 'yes'. So who is wrong and who is right? The Christian God has no monopoly on creating experience in believers. "
This is a good question. A great one even. I would say that most honest believers wrestle with this question much more than you probably think. And you know what...I'm not even going to begin to try to answer it. I'll just ask, why is your focus always on Christianity? Do you know much about other religions?
you said...
"What are your comments on the statistics showing that Atheists basically are better at running a government and better at being, dare I say, moral? How does that jive with what your religion is telling you?"
As I read these words I pictured a kid running around in circles, sticking his tongue out and emitting some maddening noise. Is this really supposed to rile me up? What statistics? Where? What do you think my 'religion' is telling me? What faceless combatant are you wrestling with? An evil religio-nut fanatic?
I'm sure the 'statistics' could be interepreted the other way as well. How many humanitarian services were born out of people of faith? Contrast the work of Mother Theresa with that of Communist Russia under Stalin. See, statistics can be pushed around all the time. Stalemate.
You said:
"I was merely pointing out exactly what you said, we gather evidence about history from 'clues'. But even your statues, poetry, and writings could be doubted. Maybe aliens left them here."
Hmmm? Yeah right. That would explain it. I hope that was meant as a joke.
Some Guy Said:
"That's interesting. I don't go to church. And my parents and I believe very different things. But thanks for trying to slander me."
If I were trying to slander you, you would know it.
The guy went on:
This is a good question. A great one even. I would say that most honest believers wrestle with this question much more than you probably think. And you know what...I'm not even going to begin to try to answer it. I'll just ask, why is your focus always on Christianity? Do you know much about other religions?
That is a good question, even a mediocre one. I'm not even going to begin to answer it.
Hmm? If you aren’t going to answer the good questions, even great ones, then why are you here?
Then he said:
"As I read these words I pictured a kid running around in circles, sticking his tongue out and emitting some maddening noise."
I am sorry, perhaps you need to see a therapist about that. It sounds very annoying.
Is this really supposed to rile me up? What statistics? Where?
They weren’t supposed to, but I guess they did.
These stats. Here. They were linked from the main post had you taken the time.
http://www.sullivan-county.com/bush/divorce.htm
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1798944,00.html
He mused on:
What do you think my 'religion' is telling me? What faceless combatant are you wrestling with? An evil religio-nut fanatic?
Yeah. Could be from your post so far. Pretty likely probably.
And finally he said:
I'm sure the 'statistics' could be interepreted [sic] the other way as well. How many humanitarian services were born out of people of faith? Contrast the work of Mother Theresa with that of Communist Russia under Stalin. See, statistics can be pushed around all the time.
Oh yes, and the church is very expert in doing just that; twisting statistics or simply not telling the truth. Actually, Mother Teresa allowed people to lie in agony and in filth and die long suffering deaths without clean facilities and without proper medical care. Her message was that they should suffer and be in pain. So she probably is about even with Stalin I would say.
Your arguments are getting pretty desperate in my opinion. Maybe you should actually think about the entirety of what I write rather than building straw men to knock down. I mean Stalin and Mother Teresa. Tisk, tisk, tisk.
Good articles. Nice find. The first one says a lot about how poor of a job people who claim to follow the teachings of Jesus are actually doing. This makes me sad. I'm not going to argue that it's false or manipulative. I am going to say that this is only an indirect blow to the God question. And it's not something I wasn't aware of. I also noticed that the Lutherans and Catholics had a 21 percent divorce rate, and those two groups (especially the Catholics) are huge. To be fair, it's easy to pick on the Baptists. Don't place their faces on all people of faith.
However, what you did not do is respond to my mention of Communist Russia. There is a huge example of overtly atheistic agendas running a government, and it was a powerful force of terror in many people's lives. What do you think of this? I'll tell you what I think...
It had little to do with their atheism, but with flawed ideology.
I will admit that the European nations are doing exceedingly well, and will also admit that they are a grabbag of non-religious organizational spiritualists. Agnosticism, Wicca, private Christians, Muslims...
One good exampled, one bad example. Here are more (speaking to their foundations):
United Arab Emirates - Capitalistic success, devout Muslims.
Japan - Capitalistic success, atheistic/Buddhist.
United States - Capitalistic success, deist/Christian
Not sure where you got that information on Mother Theresa. It sounds like atheistic propaganda. Look at other great leaders of peace from around the world who had faith:
Ghandi, Dali Lama, George W Bush (kidding), Martin Luther King, Jr.
All I'm saying is that you cannot deny that good social reform and humanistic efforts have often developed from people who had faith.
I know you are trying to 'win' a 'debate'. I'm trying to have a discussion.
I slept with faith in the night, and wake up only to find a corpse in the day.
I slept with reason in the night, only to wake up to find a beautiful virgin in the morning.
Communism and atheism are two distinctly different issues.
A communist may or may not necessarily be an atheist, and an atheist may not necessarily be a communist.
It is silly to lump both issues together, since communism is a political ideal, while atheism is more associated with creed than any other form of institution.
Reply to Dave Rowe
Dave, Actually I thought it was you who were trying to win a debate. I am having several very nice conversations with other Christians in other threads on this site. This conversation with you seems to be the most confrontational. I would much prefer a 'real' discussion.
As for the data on divorce and quality of life, I used it merely to point out that how faithful the citizens of a country are does not determine the quality of life or make them more moral. The most moral people I know are atheists and I know a lot more Christians than atheists. It is amusing to me that the most ‘rabid’ style of Christianity, based mainly here in the South, has the highest divorce rate of all denominations!
I have been a Christian - was raised in church. I have heard Christian 'propaganda' (you used this word to describe the alternate view of Mother Teresa). The wonderful thing about now being a free-thinker is that I can openly go looking for all the information on any subject, religion or deified person without having my Christian preconceptions. This has less to do with being an atheist and more to do with just being naturally skeptical.
Let's face it. Most religions don't encourage believers to go outside of their official documents looking for answers concerning faith or ‘meaning of life’. Most certainly wouldn't encourage open questioning of your faith outside of the church. Now if you want to talk to your priest about it, that's OK. But do your own research, read some books written by non-believers critical of the religion or, God forbid, talk openly to atheists - not encouraged. That is, of course, unless you are trying to convert/reconvert them.
That is one reason I have this site. I enjoy talking to believers whose minds are open, at least open to a degree. I was there at one time but I had no one outside of my narrow religious belief to ask. There are those of us (atheists) who are looking to make connections with moderate or liberal Christians to help stop the evangelical takeover of this country. You may want to visit Vjacks blog for more on that subject:
http://atheistrevolution.blogspot.com/2005/11/alliance-with-progressive-christians.html
On the subject of the religious leaders you mentioned, here is a link for information on Mother Teresa:
http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/religion/mother-teresa/
Gandhi you mentioned also. Well, he was not perfect either, not that any of us are. I won't do your homework for you, but if you were to Google perhaps 'Gandhi racist', I think you will find plenty of reading. Now, that is not to say that his life did not have an overall positive impact or to lessen what he did for his people, it is just to point out that I can look at ALL the facts about any subject without preconceptions. I would advise anyone to do the same, whether believer or not.
I won't go into the Dali Lama. There is a lot unpublicized there too, but again, that doesn't lessen what he has done to try to better things for his people. The same is true for MLK. My point again being that we have a tendency to deify people and take the stance that justified criticism and skepticism with certain people is a bad thing. I prefer the whole truth about someone.
I certainly wouldn't deny that some people of faith have helped in a positive way in humankind’s progress. The civil rights movement was born and fueled from black churches throughout the South. But the flip side is that the anti-gay movement is fueled in white conservative churches throughout the South and across the country. Again, the whole truth. Part of that whole truth is the millions who have died as a direct result of religion – all religions.
Your mention of communism is interesting. That is a favorite straw man of apologists and I assumed that was where you were going with that. It is nice to see that you realize that the control of religion was a matter of not wanting to share 'power' with another group who would have control over the masses. I personally don't know any atheists who are communist, though I am sure there are some. In my view modern atheism has nothing to do with communism.
Going back to your specific mention of communism, you use the phrase 'atheistic' agenda. Now that sounds like a word used in Christian propaganda to me. What does that phrase mean to you?
First, allow me to apologize if my previous posts came off as though I was irritated or confrontational. The lack of voice inflection in writing causes me great inadequacy. I am a somber person, and I usually write in a stream-of-consciousness style. Sometimes I don't have the patience to build an idea before coming to the point. Forgive me.
When I said 'atheistic agenda', I was referring to the takeover of the school systems in the Soviet nations. I recently spent time in Azerbaijan and was told stories about how the Soviets only taught atheism in the schools, banning any serious study of Islam or other faiths. Now, to a person convinced of atheism, this would be a real treat. But in my opinion, they should have left room for the students to decide. Also consider the massive destruction of places of worship within the Soviet Union during that time.
Who has an agenda? Anyone who is already convinced of something and wants others to believe the same. In that sense, both you and I have agendas. To try to remove ourselves from these agendas is a difficult task, as you won't even entertain the possibility of a higher power, and I have a very difficult time imagining a universe without one.
The weblink you gave me to read about mother theresa...you can't tell me the person who wrote that didn't have an agenda. Even the name, 'rotten.com' seems to indicate the person is seeking to abuse.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0RGU/is_2004_August/ai_n7640373
"Let's face it. Most religions don't encourage believers to go outside of their official documents looking for answers concerning faith or ‘meaning of life’. Most certainly wouldn't encourage open questioning of your faith outside of the church."
I would honestly say that this is a circumstantial thing. If you've been around the a certain type of Christian (which we will leave nameless) as much as you say you have, then that might be partly why you conceive people of faith in this manner. In my experience, openness and honesty is encouraged.
"Part of that whole truth is the millions who have died as a direct result of religion – all religions."
The crusades and the Spanish Inquisition, as well as the take over of the American Indians, are very embarassing parts of a Christian's history. But I must add that these travesties were as much political as they were religious. Also, they were in direct disobedience to the teachings of Jesus. That's why many Christians try to remove themselves from these incidents in history.
I would say that the whole truth in this sense is that millions of people die through political agendas, sometimes fueled by religion, sometimes fueled by philosophy. The problem is with humans, not God.
I was startled by this comment,
"I can look at ALL the facts about any subject without preconceptions"
Here I disagree. As I said before, we all come with an angle. Your angle is the absolute disbelief in the supernatural. Therefore, you have a preconception. For you, any mention of the supernatural is false.
"...the anti-gay movement is fueled in white conservative churches throughout the South and across the country."
agreed. to an extent. I wouldn't consider many self-proclaimed Christians in this category to be true represetations of Christianity. They are red-blooded American hicks. i am scared of them.
And finally...
As to the statement about many different religions...I would pose the question, "If so many people have experienced what they considered a higher power or being, even though the stories don't sound the same, are all of these people delusional? Are all of them just products of their culture? Stupid sheep? If so, what does that say about your view of humanity? What do you think?
Thanks for your reply Dave
I won't be able to fully reply right now as I am short on time and I have to get 'on the road' and actually earn a living.
I do just want to correct a misconception that is repeated again and again by believers about atheists; the notion that we are completely and forever closed to the idea of a supernatural being, 'God', what have you. I have made the point in another recent post that if 'God' or 'Zeus' or any other deity suddenly appeared before me or spoke from a cloud or did something, anything to make me aware of them .... and I am talking actually doing something, not putting a voice in my head or appearing in a dream or setting a bush on fire ... I would have no choice to believe that they exist. It would require complete ignorance of my senses to deny that they exist. I still would not worship them. I would actually have some choice words for them, but that is another story.
Speaking for myself, I certainly 'would entertain the possibility of a higher power' if there was 'any' evidence. I hear a lot from Christians say that it takes 'faith' to be an atheist or that atheist have closed minds ... nothing could further from the truth for me. I have always been open to ideas ... ideas that make sense and don't require a denial of my reason, that is. I have always found atheists to be some of the most open-minded and creative and caring people that I have ever known.
Anyway, I am sorry that I can't reply further. I should be back Monday night and will finish then.
Alan,
Thanks for your reply. Hope the trip goes well.
I would like to have a jury with both.
Faith and Reason.
Not a bad combo; that's what I say.
Response to Dave Rowe
You Said,
The weblink you gave me to read about mother theresa...you can't tell me the person who wrote that didn't have an agenda. Even the name, 'rotten.com' seems to indicate the person is seeking to abuse.
If you do a bit of research, you will find other criticisms of her, some from within her own nuns. I might suggest a great episode of Penn and Teller's 'Bullshit' which deals specifically with Mother Teresa, Gandhi and the Dali Lama.
My reference to Mother Teresa was in response to your initial mention of her. You referred to her 'work'. How much do you, or anyone, really know about her 'work'. It is interesting what one finds out when they try to research foregone conclusions (Mother Teresa made the dying more comfortable and cared for them, eased their pain etc). The entire truth is usually not what the propaganda suggests.
You said
I would say that the whole truth in this sense is that millions of people die through political agendas, sometimes fueled by religion,...
I would say that millions die through religious agendas, sometimes accomplished through politics.
You only need to ask most Christian politicians in the United States, at least the conservative ones, who their final loyalty goes to: God or The Country. I believe you will find that most would answer to God first.
You asked
"If so many people have experienced what they considered a higher power or being, even though the stories don't sound the same, are all of these people delusional? Are all of them just products of their culture? Stupid sheep? If so, what does that say about your view of humanity? What do you think?
Good questions. Do I believe all people who believe in a supernatural deities (Gods) are delusional? Short answer. Yes. Nice answer. It is a form of delusion, like belief in Alien abduction, conspiracy theories and the like. If you look at what people are expected to believe in the context of religion and religious texts, in any other aspect of our lives belief in these things would certainly be considered delusional. If someone was eating a cracker with their soup in a restaurant and suddenly exclaimed, ‘That cracker just became the body of Jesus when it entered my mouth’, they certainly would have an appointment with the funny farm in their future. When some mainstream religious leaders make claims that are just a bit too far out there, they are certainly considered delusional by most of us, believer or unbeliever.
For example, when Oral Roberts claimed that 'God' had told him that he would be 'called to heaven' if he didn't get x number of millions of dollars by a certain deadline, I am certain that most reasonable Christians thought him either delusional or a fraud (or both).
If some homeless person walks along the street talking to some invisible friend, what do we think? But when a group of people talk to an invisible friend before eating a meal, it is perfectly acceptable.
You asked
Are all of them just products of their culture? Stupid sheep?
Products of their cultures? Yes, that is what I believe. Think about it. Assuming that you were born into your religion (and I realize that you may not be but the vast majority of us are), do you really think that you just lucked out in being born into the 'right' religion? Do all Muslims born in the Middle East think that they just so happened to get lucky and be born into the one true religion? Why would 'God' need to geographically separate his people? Why mostly Christians in the west and Muslims in the Middle East? Why Hindu in India and not the Artic? None of this makes sense from an all-knowing 'God' perspective but makes perfect sense in a cultural or learned perspective.
Stupid Sheep? Certainly not, although I am sure that we share some opinions on people (redneck homophobes) that are not flattering, dare I say insulting. Societies, Churches and Political institutions like sheep. Sheep don't question, don't argue, and don’t get out of line. If a threat of abduction by death squads in the middle of the night is what it takes for Saddam to rein in the unruly sheep, then that is what he does. If threat of prison is what it takes for a government to keep its sheep from getting out of line, then that is what they do. If threat of eternal damnation or the reward of eternal life is what it takes for a religion to create sheep, then that is what they do.
I happen not to be a sheep.
You asked
what does that say about your view of humanity? What do you think?
I think that this says that when given the option of believing in nice, reassuring, warm and fuzzy stories as opposed to dealing with the unpleasant reality of injustice, mortality and uncertainty (which is life), that most will take the first option and not the second. Does that make them dumb? No. Human? Yes. Is that a good thing for the long term in our world? In my opinion, no.
I personally enjoy people and life now more than I ever did as a believer, even without the warm fuzziness that religion brings. Living a life ruled by reason and reality does have its benefits and is, in my opinion, a healthier road for humanity to travel than the one we are currently on.
Dena Marie May said
I would like to have a jury with both.
Faith and Reason.
Not a bad combo; that's what I say.
You can't really mean that? You would want your jury who are supposed to consider the evidence in your case to be ruled by faith (belief without evidence or in opposition to evidence)?
Only if the evidence were against you would I consider that a good idea.
Alan,
Thank you for your well-written answers. This has become increasingly enjoyable (though now I have to keep scrolling down to read your last comment while I write my new one. Let's have another go...
you
"My reference to Mother Teresa was in response to your initial mention of her. You referred to her 'work'. How much do you, or anyone, really know about her 'work'. It is interesting what one finds out when they try to research foregone conclusions (Mother Teresa made the dying more comfortable and cared for them, eased their pain etc). The entire truth is usually not what the propaganda suggests.:
Good point. I will not deny this. I'm willing to believe that the stories are true. With Mother Theresa and the others, its just as you said before - it doesn't nullify everything else they did, but shows the whole picture. To that I would say, humans make mistakes.
you:
"I would say that millions die through religious agendas, sometimes accomplished through politics."
I guess we are both entitled to our opinions, though I understand your sentiment. While Christians politicians would say they put God before politics, they are in line with what any Christian would say about their line of work. God comes before everything. Since Jesus did not condone violence or force, I think you can see the contradiction there.
The war in Iraq is not a religious war against Muslims. I'm personally embarassed that we went to Iraq, and from Bush's dropping popularity, it's safe to say that most evangelicals did not know what they were getting into.
you:
"...do you really think that you just lucked out in being born into the 'right' religion?"
Great question. Man, I have wrestled and wrestled with this one. I was born into a Christian culture, so this question hits close to home.
These are some of the thoughts I've had...
I'm open to the idea of God manifesting Himself to different cultures at different times.
Or, if you go with another view...
God revealed Himself to humanity in their first truly humanly evolved state, and they passed these stories on in differing ways.
Or...
Satan created the other religions (oops, how'd that one get there?)
Or...
One religion holds the greatest truth about God, others hold lesser truths.
I would mention that there are many people in interfaith dialogue, and would point you to the writings of John Hick, a universalist. At the end of a book called The Abolition of Man, there is a comparison of the similarities between the different major religions. Obviously, the internet is providing a massive resource for a person to learn about other faith backgrounds, and more importantly, to actually see the thought of persons of other faiths via blogs.
one more...
you:
"I think that this says that when given the option of believing in nice, reassuring, warm and fuzzy stories as opposed to dealing with the unpleasant reality of injustice, mortality and uncertainty (which is life), that most will take the first option and not the second."
I still think this takes on a view of the majority of humanity as being stupid. To say they are unable to discern from their own emotions is a bit biased I think. Also, if you read the Biblical stories again (I'm sure you will ;) ), you might find them to be more disturbing and frightening than they are warm and fuzzy. (now you can turn the argument around and say that preachers use fear tactics to get people to believe)
If God is real, then he would be very interested in our injustice, mortality, and uncertainty.
We have a nice way of skipping the injustice part by saying that God will right the wrongs in the next life (note the use of sarcasm).
(straight faced)
We believe in making efforts to bring justice to humanity, but we also believe that this era is not all there is, and that the next era will be far greater and full of joy. But the point about justice was my original reason in bringing up Mother Theresa, MLK, Ghandi, and others, to show that these people were very concerned with injustice. Consider the work that Bono is doing now with the problem of AIDS in Africa.
(you still think I'm being sarcastic)
I believe you when you say you are enjoying life now much better than when you were a believer. Our emotions, our sense of fulfillment, flow from how we live our life around what we believe. I'm not sitting here thinking, "he's lying. he's got a god-shaped hole in his heart. he's in denial." But again, that's how you feel.
Living life with faith is many times not 'warm and fuzzy' as you describe it. It can be a very tormenting thing. I think it's safe to say that as humans, we all experience emptiness more often than we would admit. Even believers would admit to this feeling. So, I suppose we are all entitled to our opinion about why this feeling of emptiness exists within, just as we are entitled to our opinions about a higher power.
Reply to Dave Rowe
I will reply in the morning. This is a reminder Alan.
Additional comments from me...
To Dave:
you said
"The war in Iraq is not a religious war against Muslims. "
You know the difficulty of bringing up contemporary issues and analyzing them without sufficient knowledge of people's true motives. Why did you bring up this Pandora's Box of complications?
you said:
"But the point about justice was my original reason in bringing up Mother Theresa, MLK, Ghandi, and others, to show that these people were very concerned with injustice."
Sure, but ethical theories might turn the situation around and claim that they were only doing this for some sense of personal fulfillment.
C'mon Dave, think through this.
Well, now that I have you thoroughly convinced of my personality disorder
An additional comment on a layman's observation on historical criticism (please understand I have no idea what I'm talking about...)
So we have information about some world leader who did great deeds of social and political justice. We also have reports from sources close to this leader who tell us things about the leader's personal life, things that are not good. They say he beat his wife and was distant towards his children. Four generations have passed, and everyone who ever knew this leader is dead. We can only rely on hearsay and written word.
We generally don't doubt that this leader existed, because we trust the written accounts, of the newspapers and the family journals. We were not there personally to witness these events, and the people who gave the accounts are no longer at our disposal.
The point is the use of faith and trust in this situation. It is not faith without reason. I want you to affirm that we use faith in these areas of history and information. We must make a jump of faith (little as it may be) to arrive at a conclusion after being presented with the very reasonable evidence. Please understand that this is not my argument for Theism, but rather an attempt to establish common ground in epistemology.
Reply to Dave Rowe
Dave, I have just discovered that if you click on the 'said' part of a post, it will minimize it, thus making for less scrolling.
You said
The war in Iraq is not a religious war against Muslims. I'm personally embarassed that we went to Iraq, and from Bush's dropping popularity, it's safe to say that most evangelicals did not know what they were getting into.
I don't think that was the intent of the war either, but of course that isn't going to change the way the Muslim world sees it. I was one of the few who were against it from the beginning.
I have to say that I am surprised that Bush's numbers have dropped that low. I had assumed that anyone who voted for him in 2004 would pretty much continue to support him regardless. I am pleasantly surprised that a lot of his supporters are more 'reality based' than I had at first considered.
On the subject of being born into the right religion
From your reply, it is obvious that you have given this a lot of thought, as I did when I was a believer. I considered the opinions you listed with the exception of the 'devil' one (ha, ha). Of course, I eventually arrived at an answer that you have not. However, there are certainly healthy and productive conclusions short of atheism that can be reached. The problem comes from one religion feeling superior to another.
As an atheist, I look at the practical 'real world' effect that religions have and am perfectly comfortable with admitting that some are, IMHO, better than others. I would certainly rather live in a Christian dominated culture than a Muslim one for instance. I would certainly rather have dialogues with moderate or liberal Christians than conservative evangelicals.
Dave said
I still think this takes on a view of the majority of humanity as being stupid.
Boy, do we atheist have to fight this one over and over. It is apparent to me from the initial reactions that I get when a believer discovers that I am an atheist, that
Atheism holds a special place of fear, contempt and loathing. I am not saying that you feel that way. I believe that part of the reason for the reaction is that, as atheists, we are a believers worst nightmare; the realization of all of those doubts and fears in the back of their minds. The possibility that their really isn't a 'God'. I think this fear manifest itself in many ways, one of which is a feeling in believers that atheists somehow consider ourselves smarter than believers or that we think believers are stupid.
I think if you look at what I wrote, I don't suggest at all that believers are stupid. If I had to put a label on what I believe, it would be that believers are in denial; denial of their own reason, logic and the reality of the world in which we live. If that sounds as if I am calling believers stupid, I am sorry. I certainly don't mean it that way.
Dave said
Living life with faith is many times not 'warm and fuzzy' as you describe it. It can be a very tormenting thing.
For those who are willing to question their faith and take the time to actually think about it, I can understand this. There are people in this world who are happy because of their faith and I would never attempt to cast doubt upon it for them. My own mother is a prime example.
I struggled with these feelings too when I forced myself to come to terms with what I really believed. You know the conclusion that I reached and not to sound like I am evangelizing here, but I now wish I had reached it much earlier in my life.
In response to your last post concerning 'faith'
'Faith' is one of those tricky words like 'God' or 'spiritual'. It has different meaning for different people and when someone may use the word in one context, others may turn it to be used against them. Einstein’s and other atheists use of the word 'God' is a prime example.
So I am naturally leery of saying that I have 'faith'.
Your example is one of the better ones I have been dealt by believers.
The definition of 'faith' would seem to exclude it from belief with evidence, so I can't say that I would have faith in a historical record of someone. I would say that, based on the evidence available, I either believe it or I don't. Of course, everyone is going to draw the line for what they believe and do not at different places. For a skeptic, like me, it takes a fair amount of evidence. Judging from the number of UFOlogists and the popularity of psychics, some people don't require hardly any evidence at all.
It is in this use of the word 'faith' instead of 'belief' that I would prefer to avoid, since faith to me entails believing something without any evidence.
For example, if you wanted to convince me that Gandhi was the first person to swim the English Channel, that would require faith from me. To believe he had good intentions and tried to better the world for his people does not require faith from me.
The same goes for claims of the divine nature. For me, it would take a lot of real evidence to convince me of the divine nature of Jesus Christ (or anyone else for that matter). I am still skeptical on whether he actually existed as a historical character as there is none of the evidence that you mention (historical writings of his time, family, descendants, etc). I am certainly not trying to open that can of worms, but just pointing out that accepting any story about any historical character that sounds 'too good to be true' (Mother Teresa, Gandhi, Dali Lama) naturally raises my skeptical nature. Being a human myself, I know that there are few of us who could really be as 'divine' as some historical characters are equated to be.
Alan,
Those damned semantic battles are always getting in the way. In regards to your distinction between the words 'belief' and 'faith', I'll say this....
Generally, 'belief' means a conclusion based on evidence or reason, no matter how much or little evidence is presented. So, a person can have ill-placed beliefs, or well-grounded beliefs.
I think 'faith' or 'trust' is the action that goes with belief. (I have faith that this car will not blow up. I enter the car and drive it around town. I have faith that the brakes will work, etc. I could give you any stupid example but I'll stop there).
So I guess I would say, untrain yourself to react so negatively to the word 'faith'. I think the many heated arguments stem from this misunderstanding of the use of the word. My perception is that you hear 'faith', and automatically see people singing songs in a group, eyes glazed, hands in pockets ready to give money.
you said:
"Atheism holds a special place of fear, contempt and loathing. "
and
"If I had to put a label on what I believe, it would be that believers are in denial; denial of their own reason, logic and the reality of the world in which we live."
Concerning the first comment...I think this is a broad over-generalization, and perhaps a misinterpretation of the criticism you receive for your (un)beliefs. In general, I don't think about Atheists or Atheism in general all that much, and I'm not particularly threatened by it. Here are some guesses as to why you receive the reaction you do:
1. From reading some of your other posts, and this is not to be offensive, but you can be rather rude in your approach. Name-calling, unfair assumptions of background, and general hostility towards people who think differently from you. Sounds a bit like the fundies. To be honest, I was quite pissed at you for extracting a portion of Shaun Groves e-mail and misrepresenting him. I believe an apology is in line. I was also pissed at your initial handling of the Kyle Lake story. (stated in a calm, straightforward manner)
2. People of faith will be worried for your soul. I know you are smirking, but it's true. Which raises an interesting question for me concerning atheism. Do atheists in general believe humans have souls? If so, is this a physical thing? Is there an unseen essence?
3. When people of faith have experienced something precious to them, they tend to want to defend it (especially when attacked in a manner described in point #1). Humans are humans. When attacked, they get defensive.
Concerning your second comment...
I still stand by my opinion that this position points to humanity as, in general, being stupid (my tone of voice is matter-of-fact, not irritated). Stupid is a bad word (semantics, Dave, semantics), let's see, what word would fit better here...whichever word means: incapable of coming to rational conclusions on their own.
Elsewhere (I think in your conversation with Seth) you mention that you believe in the innate goodness of humanity. How does this cohere with the claim that all people who have faith are in denial of reality? Is it evil to willingly live for a lie? (and this is re-stating a question that Seth asked that went unanswered, and Shaun alluded to it) How good can humans be, and what is the standard? I'm sure you could point me to a great ethics book, but you must admit that one thing Theism has going for it is the ethical realm and this idea of a Moral Lawgiver.
One more - this is a question
How would you respond to the claim that, in the absence of a supernatural realm, none of us have freewill. In fact, we are only larger versions of the cause and effect interplay that allowed us to develop through evolution. We are nothing more than matter interacting with matter. I suppose this also goes back to the question of the soul. (a book or internet site reference would be fine as I suspect the answer could get a bit technical). I'm not being stupid, this is an honest question. Thanks!
Oh yeah, you can check out more about me at
www.davidroweonline.com (shameless plug)
Reply to Dave Rowe
So I guess I would say, untrain yourself to react so negatively to the word 'faith'. I think the many heated arguments stem from this misunderstanding of the use of the word.
Unfortunately, many an atheist has made the mistake of making a reference to 'God' or 'Faith' that believers will unfairly use to paint them as something that they are/were not. So naturally I am not going to use that word and have it used in the future to argue, "Aha, see right there you said you had faith". As a matter of fact, I have already been through this tactic with someone else on this site. Someone tried to use the silly argument that you have to have 'faith' everyday; every time you sit in a chair you have 'faith' that it will hold you up etc etc. I am sure you have heard of the book, "I don't have enough Faith to be an atheist".
So I will not be 'untraining' myself in my careful use of that word anytime soon.
I agree that semantics are a problem when trying to talk with believers, but I don't see it as being caused by atheists.
When I hear faith, I simply hear belief. The difference being that for me, faith would entail some evidence and for believers faith can and often does mean belief with no evidence. If I say that I have faith that my wife isn't cheating on me I am basing this on my past knowledge of my wife, 23 years of marriage and her nature. I have reason to believe she would not do that. I don't have absolute evidence that she isn't, but it is reasonable for me to believe that she is not. I would much rather say that I do not believe my wife is cheating on me.
You said
I think this is a broad over-generalization, and perhaps a misinterpretation of the criticism you receive for your (un)beliefs.
You should walk in atheists' shoes for a day. You are not the rule but the exception to the attitude of believers to atheists. I find most believers hostile, often openly so, to the very existence of atheists. The Christian 'Love Mail' will no doubt be a regular offering on this site. I had more that I could have shared and you may have noticed that I have temporarily taken down my email link from my profile because of the volume of 'Love' I was getting from believers.
Also, my reference is not just to the reaction and treatment that I get as an atheist, but to atheists in general. I am more than capable to defend myself and value my ability to be diplomatic (most of the time). This is not the case for many atheists who can be too aggressive or too meek. Atheist die for their disbelief and this is no generalization but a fact. I attended a church not unlike tens of thousands in the U.S. and I know how atheists are painted by the clergy, so don't preach to me about over generalizing.
As to your first criticism of my 'attitude' on the site, I think you will find that I keep things pretty tame compared to a lot of atheist sites. Why don't you take a minute and visit some other atheist blogs and see if I am being honest about this. I enjoy being satirical and sarcastic, but that is just my nature. I think most would see the humor in it.
I do try to avoid over generalizing and sometimes catch myself doing it and sometimes fail to catch myself doing it before posting. I wouldn't be the first atheist or believer to do this and I won't be the last. At least I am aware of that tendency and try to avoid it.
You have to remember that I was a believer so much of what I assume is based on my prior experience with religion and my current experience with believers. I am not completely talking out of my ass ( :
As to the specific case of Kyle Lake, the opinions I expressed were never directed at him personally but at the belief system that would allow witnesses to the event to continue to worship the 'God' who let this happen. The initial post juxtaposed the credit given to 'God' for the recent hurricanes so I was pointing out the irony that this would happen as it did. As I have continually stated, I don't believe that crap. That was the entire point of the post.
Also, you are not in a position to ask/demand an apology for quoting Shaun. That isn't really any of your business is it? I have already covered this in my reply to Shaun and he seems to be OK with it judging from his last response. Shaun is a big boy and able to handle his own affairs and fight his own battles (not that I would consider our exchange a battle). I realize that a lot of you readers may be fans, but I don't think jumping to his defense constantly is going to help in any way with the dialogue I may have with him and with any of you.
You said
Do atheists in general believe humans have souls? If so, is this a physical thing? Is there an unseen essence?
I can't speak for all atheists (although I have been known to), but for me the answers are no, no, no. My answer is that all of these things are a product of our very large and mysterious brains.
Humans are humans. When attacked, they get defensive.
This statement begs for the definition of 'attacked'. By simply being an open and vocal atheist, many believers consider me to be 'attacking' religion. I have experienced this first hand. To merely identify myself as an atheist to a group of believers will trigger a 'defensive' reaction.
When I offer my criticism of religion and honest opinion that faith and supernatural beliefs are harming our societies and people in general, I am sure that believers consider that an attack. I realize that is why most of the readers who are believers come to this site; to defend their faith.
Personally, I don't make a habit of going to Christian sites or seeking out believers. The believers find me. There must be a reason that they are looking.
Concerning my opinion of believers
I still stand by my opinion that this position points to humanity as, in general, being stupid .....incapable of coming to rational conclusions on their own.
I don't know what else to tell you. I think you are being defensive as you previously mentioned. I have no doubt that any believer, well almost any believer is capable of reaching rational decisions. I am proof of that as are many non-believers who once were believers. I suppose my point is that 'faith', my definition,(belief without evidence) is not rational. It cannot be. Otherwise you wouldn't need that 'leap of faith' to get there.
Regarding innate goodness of people
How does this cohere with the claim that all people who have faith are in denial of reality? Is it evil to willingly live for a lie?
I believe that I did answer this in length in the conversation with Seth. I don't think my position would indicate that the faithful are not or could not be good. Most are good people. I suppose than in some way we all may in denial of some facts that are unpleasant or that disturb us - we all are in denial of reality to a degree. Religion simply gives believers a specific set of things to live in denial of. In my opinion, this makes it much easier to be a bad person rather than a good one. I could give you examples of how religion's ability to distort reality has turned otherwise potentially good people into bad people but I am sure you know what I am talking about (9-11,Crusades,Witch Hunts etc)
Is it evil to willingly live for a lie? Yes, it could be. I hate to use this extreme example, but it is the most obvious. The German people accepted, on faith, that Jews were evil and should be shunned/eliminated/exterminated. The treatment of homosexuals in this country and around the world based on lies (all homosexuals are child molesters, 'God' said homosexuality is an abomination, 'God' sent Katrina to wipe out homosexuals in New Orleans) is a current example.
I have just posted a replyto a reader from Scotland who is a believer and I think it is indicative of my opinion of belief in the irrational on a personal level.
How would you respond to the claim that, in the absence of a supernatural realm, none of us have freewill. In fact, we are only larger versions of the cause and effect interplay that allowed us to develop through evolution.... I'm not being stupid, this is an honest question.
I don't think that is a stupid question at all. As a matter of fact I find the whole subject of 'consciousness' very interesting.
For me, I have no problem with just being a big interaction of matter. It doesn't diminish the value of my life or my enjoyment of it in any way. I am much more comfortable with this idea than I am with any religious ideas on the matter. I have heard some very interesting theories related to what you allude to; that we are just some cogs in a big machine or part of a computer program that is being run.
I am running out of time although I could go on and on about this subject. I want to try to get a couple of more replies in before I have to leave.
BTW, I got up at 5AM for this! Am I not a devoted blogger?
Thanks for your reply, Alan. 5am is extremely devoted!
Alan,
Hey man, I have checked out some of the other athiest blogs, and I agree with you, there is quite a difference between your approach and many others. In fact, that was one of the reasons I started posting on your blog instead of the others.
I was out of line.
I've been spending too much time on the internet, so...
It's safe to say that we have different opinions, and I'm going to lay this conversation to rest. Thanks very much for the interesting dialogue. May your endeavors be realized, may your matter be put to good use. And, if it turns out that God does exist, I'm sure He understands you well enough to appreciate your honesty and good-intentions, and probably wouldn't be too upset that you found it difficult to believe. And if it turns out He doesn't exist, I hope my bodily remains may fertilize some flowers or be of use in some other way as I will have lived my life with no regrets.
Regards,
Dave
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home