#infoAnarchy last cranked 2007-07-29 23:49

Atheism vs. religion. Whoever wins, we lose.
posted by coderman at 2007-07-29 01:08

coderman: ok, "Is all religion harmful? Yes", "Is there anything redeeming about religion? No" are the kind of militant atheism that annoys me.
seti: NiN - Heresy
coderman: "your belief in $god and devotion to $dogma of said god may lead to poor decisions, disillusionment, lost opportunity." is much less annoying, as it focuses on the belief and dogma, rather than the entirity of religion as a whole.
seti: what annoys me is that common human traits are supposed to come from religion. especially annoying are people who claim that without religion there is no morality. what is their take on societies established before Mozes came down with his 10 commandments? did they think killing and stealing were just fine?
seti: hint: organised religion is all about belief in god and devotion to dogma
coderman: the fallacy that ethical reasoning requires belief in god is pretty rediculous. no argument there.
coderman: and if somone said "Is all dogmatic, patriarchial, large-scale organized religion harmful?" i'd be more inclined to agree, but still not entirely. so i guess what i'm getting at is that the "militant atheist" views tread too close to the kind of dogmatic, unequivocal arguments of the religions they hate.
seti: what other kinds of religion are there but that? (Buddhism is not a religion.) the militant atheist uses reason to solve doubts; religion's very existence relies on doubt.
coderman: "A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.". Buddhism is absolutely a religion. so this get's closer to what i'm getting at.
coderman: targeting the detrimental effects of abjucating reason in favor of dogma is good. i totally agree with that objective.
coderman: when it goes so far as declaring all aspects religion, all religious history, all social and spiritual aspects of religion in its entirety, i think that's too much to tar with an atheist brush; it's counter productive. you can see the benefits of some aspects of some religions (particularly the social benefits) without requiring the dogmatic conformance
coderman: so that's my beef. (and maybe this is such a small aspect of the overall debate, i shouldn't get worked up over it)
seti: in practice you are enabling further abuses of people (including children) by extremists under the guise of moderate religion. mankind doesn't need religion anymore; we should leave it behind.
coderman: we agree to disagree then. i agree that "mankind doesn't need religion anymore; we should leave it behind.", but i disagree that absolute dismissal of all things religious is useful. what i really don't like is the potential for "militant atheism" to turn into another Society of the Godless that becomes a violent and destructive force just like the religious extremism atheism is supposed to fight.
coderman: and by "militant atheist" let me clarify: anyone who denies any value in anything religious, completely disregarding useful social constructs that may have formed in a religious context, and are useful outside a religious context.
coderman: there are "militant atheists" who don't fit that definition, and they're fine by me. (for example, those who have no problem with spirituality, or social systems that may have arised in a religious setting.)
manchicken: Add to that anybody who is arrogant to claim that their experience somehow makes them capable of nullifying the experiences of others who have honestly used logic and reason to come to their faith.
coderman: as for moderate religion, i'm not advocating that. that is at best a subterfuge or dishonesty, because it still asserts the belief. i hope when i say "there is value in religious history and practice, outside of the belief and dogma" that is not taken as approval or profession of moderate religion.
coderman: and when i say "value in religious history and practice" that can be (and ideally will be) consistent with a past tense. that is to say, if religion ceased today, there would still be useful aspects of some religions that a completely agnostic/atheist/humanist world view could accomodate.
manchicken: I would say that makes you an extreme atheist as well then. As you're saying that the belief itself is somehow wrong. You in your experience have zero place in telling others that their experience and beliefs are wrong. You can speak to your experience, and others will have to do the same.
^matthew: My religion can kick your humanistic philosophy's ass.
coderman: yes, that's what i'm saying, a religious belief without any basis in reason is not useful. if you discover useful things that do have a rational basis, for example, social cooperation and the personal and community benefits of service to others, that's fine.
coderman: but that can exist outside of a religious belief.
manchicken: And isn't the same arrogance by which you assert that religious belief is not founded in reason the same arrogance that we try to stop when religious groups start going after things like freedom of speech?
coderman: and i'll still affirm that those beneficial aspects of your religion are useful, even if the belief is not.
manchicken: And if you look at the cultures and practices and values while ignoring the beliefs, then you are missing the point.
coderman: no, it is a very narrow assertion: namely, such religious belief have no rational explanation, no empirical measure, and no objective truth to them.
manchicken: Much of what is considered common knowledge today in the scientific community fits that, too. What is the origin of matter? The "it always has been" answer is nowhere near empirical, measurable, or logical.
coderman: let me take that back (they may have a rational explanation found in evolutionary biology, or other chemical imbalances, etc). but they have no proof or logic to them. if they did, they wouldn't be belief. (let's assume that i'm making a distinction between belief and knowledge, as i may believe in the scientific method, but let me consider that knowledge of the scientific method in this context)
ArtfulTodger: scientists should ALL BE MADE to study a chunk of philosophy before being let near to the publishing equipment
manchicken: And the assertions you're making are not founded in logic either. They're merely you pressing your belief that these beliefs are incorrect on others. Do you have any proof that these beliefs are incorrect in their entirety?
coderman: no scientist worth his salt claims to know the origin of the universe with certainty (there are theories). there is a difference between "this is how the universe evolved" and "this is where the universe came from".
manchicken: Those trying to dismiss religion and faith are doing nothing but exposing their own elitist arrogance. To have faith or not to have faith is a personal decision that must be made based on your personal experience. There is absolutely nothing wrong with having such a belief. There is only something wrong with imposing your beliefs, or lack thereof, on others who have already made their faith decisions.
coderman: and i'll also clarify that with regards to that question, the creation of the universe, i'm agnostic, and so are most atheists. i am militantly atheist against christian creationism, for example, because that is clearly not supported by evidence. however, we are likely never to have sufficient evidence of the origin of the universe (it would be outside our system, so to speak) to be able to be atheist about a creator of
manchicken: And I hold nothing but contempt for those who would be so arrogant as to hold themselves as somehow wiser than those who do choose faith, or those who have chosen faith and attempt to force it on others. Such people are more dangerous than all of the terrorism in the world.
manchicken: And by that, all you're saying is that you choose one belief over another.
coderman: "To have faith or not to have faith is a personal decision " - i'm not arguing that point, and i'd never suggest we take away that freedom. what i'm saying is that a faith and belief in something without any evidence to commend it, and a volume otherwise, is not useful.
manchicken: No, you did specifically say previously that there is something wrong with belief.
coderman: yes, that kind of faith belief is not useful. it's wrong in the sense that those who claim it is, are not using logic or reason to assert that utility. that still does not mean i'm going to take away your freedom to believe it. i'm just going to refuse your assertion that it is useful.
manchicken: I've yet to see you explain how it is impossible to come to belief through reason.
manchicken: No, once you start saying that it is wrong, you are starting the foundation for someone to restrict my freedom.
coderman: i put my hand to the flame. OUCH! i do it again. OUCH! reason dictates that my belief in fire around my hand == pain is rational.
manchicken: And how is that relevant?
manchicken: So far all you've offered is arrogant assertions about how your lack of belief founded in your logic and reason is somehow more useful than my faith which is also founded in my logic and reason.
coderman: you asked "explain how it is impossible to come to belief through reason". i never said that (or if i did, that was a miswording on my part). there is a big difference between belief through reason, and belief by faith. no religion has presented rational evidence to support those beliefs in that manner.
coderman: it's called "faith" for a reason.
manchicken: And no science has dis-prooven faith. Only bloviation by arrogant people who can't handle someone believing differently than themselves.
coderman: sure, i used to be a devout mormon, and truly believed. then i got into my teens, and logic dis-proved many of those things i had faith in. i still find value in much of the ethical reasoning, the social charity and service, etc. but i have no belief in any of the theology anymore.
Mutiny-: manchicken gets points for use of the word "blovation"

#infoAnarchy Chump Archives for 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007