Untangling religion from issues with christianity

[sqbr]

EDIT: HMMMMM. So it would appear my framing of this question is flawed thanks to my simplistic understanding of religion and other such ineffable philosophical things my non-arts-major brain gets very confused by. I may take a while responding to comments while I have a serious think about what I really mean.

So most arguments I've seen for being religious use some very flawed arguments. Unfortunately, so do most arguments against being religious, and this bugs me (I'm always more annoyed at the flaws of "my side"). One of the main flaws in both(*) is an assumption that either you're christian or you're an atheist: thus if you can poke holes in atheism people must automatically convert to christianity, and if you can poke holes in Christianity you've proven atheism is the best choice.

And a lot of the time the "Christianity" people are criticising is a straw man anyway, based either on fairly extreme denominations or just particular annoying individuals.

So I thought I'd go through all the things atheists tend to say "all religions" do and see how many are actually true of all religions.

Where I can think of specific counterexamples which prove my point I've included them. To avoid the sense that I'm cheating, I've tried to avoid religions like Deism and Wicca since they were to some extent deliberately designed to avoid the "annoying" bits of christianity , and I'm sticking to large organised religions which are fairly active nowadays.

Also: these "flaws" are not all actually flaws per se, they're just things atheists tend to complain about :)

Many members of any large group of people, including atheists

• Have prats, weirdoes, kooks and extremists
  
• Are smug against those outside the group
  
• Are hypocritical
  
• Use straw man arguments
  
• Teach their children to agree with them
  
• Make overgeneralisations (Yes, this is a generalisation :D)
  

All religions

• supernatural beliefs
  
• a certain amount of reliance on faith (I've become convinced that "faith", like "superstition", too easily turns into a weasel word meaning "Strong belief held by people I think are irrational". It can have positive meanings, but they don't apply to all religions)
  

Most denominations of christianity (with counterexamples from other religions)
And to make it extra clear: these are COUNTERexamples.

• immaterial (probably immortal) soul ()
  
• belief in a god or gods (Jainism, Taoism)
  
• personal God communicated with through worship and prayer (Deism)
  
• interventionist God (Deism)
  
• Afterlife (Taoism)
  
• One size fits all spirituality (Wicca, Mahayana Buddhism)
  
• evangelize (Judaism, Hinduism)
  
• disbelief is immoral (Baha'i)
  
• Faith trumps reason when deciding on spiritual matters ( (religious) Theravada buddhism)
  
• fairly rigid ideas about what sex is and is not allowed (Wicca)
  
• Holy book advocates violence, sexism, racism, etc (Sikhism, plus all the ones with no holy book)
  

Some christians

• nonbelievers automatically go to hell
  
• anti-science
  
• anti-sex/fun
  
• literalistic adherence to dogma
  
• The world is fair and just
  

A LOT of this is probably wrong. I'm as blinded by my limited religious upbringing as anyone else, I'm more trying to get people to think about it than educate anyone, but will fix any errors people point out.

So, what have I missed or gotten wrong? I can see this being something that bugs atheists, christians, and non-christian-religious-types so I expect you all to contribute :D Please note: I'm not interested in issues people have with particular religions that aren't ever claimed to hold for all religions, which is why there's no "Most denominations of Islam" etc section. And I know some non-christian religions do some of the stuff in the christian sections, but not all of them. I single out christianity not because it's particularly bad, but because it so dominates our culture that people have trouble seeing past it.

Also: No taking potshots at other people's belief systems! There is a difference between saying "A common criticism of religion is that it's evangelical" and "I HATE EVANGELISM FOR THESE REASONS...". Do not do the second, take it to your own lj :P (And this includes ranting about how much atheists suck)

(*)Which I have encountered in western, christian-dominated society. I'm sure these arguments take on a very different flavour in, say, India. This post totally doesn't address that.

Comments

[zharradan.livejournal.com]

I'm pretty certain there are religions which don't believe in an immaterial soul; Frederick Buechner was a prominent non-dualist Christian theologian, for example.

In fact, I'm going to go further and be didactic: "not based on science" is also an incorrect qualifier, since religions have formed from scientific discovery, so the only actual qualifying trait of religion is that it involves unprovable/supernatural beliefs. Or, to put it another way:

Religion implies Faith; Faith is belief in the absence of proof.

Similarly, the only common trait of all atheists is that they believe themselves to not take important ideas on Faith (frequently they are wrong).

Christianity, other common religions, and the specific issues that surround them are cultural, not ethical or psychological.

Codicil A

[zharradan.livejournal.com]

Here are counterexamples for the dogmas you didn't list-

Afterlife (Taoism, arguably Zen)
Disbelief is immoral (Baha'i)
Fairly rigid ideas about what sex is and is not allowed (a thousand cults, frequently formed for specifically sexual purposes!)
Holy book advocates violence, sexism, racism, etc (Sikhism; the Guru Granth Sahib is a book of love poems)

Codicil B

[zharradan.livejournal.com]

Also, I definitely agree with you about the christian-atheist 'dichotomy' being wrong, though I'd go further - there's no religious-atheist dichotomy either, that people can be moved between via argument, because the first involves belief of some undefined sort and the second is just a default position.

(Atheists who specifically assert that all religious beliefs are false are, of course, doing so in the absence of evidence themselves, and it might be fair to describe this as a religious belief!)

[alias_sqbr]

Yes, "not based on science" was the wrong wording. "Believed in due to faith, not just science" is probably closer. But "Faith" covers that better :) *edits*

I was a bit unsure of the soul thing but wasn't aware of any counter examples.

[fallimar.livejournal.com]

Hm, yes. All I can gather from most discussions is that it's all incredibly ambiguous, and I also agree with zharradan's comment that even the 'not science based' thing doesn't always apply.

I see it quite simply - to me, atheism is simply based on evidence. If something is observable to me, or explainable to me in a way that fits with the way I observe the world around me, I'm likely to believe it. The idea of anythig supernatural, spiritual or godlike doesn't fit into that for me, as I see no compelling evidence at all for their existence that can't be explained through more rational and believable means.
If such evidence were to arrive, I'd be more than happy to incorporate it into my worldview!

Faith's only different in that the rational isn't prized, rather abstractions of reality promoting the ideal rather than... how things are. Maybe. It's one way of looking at it, I suppose :)

[alias_sqbr]

If such evidence were to arrive, I'd be more than happy to incorporate it into my worldview!

Really? I'd do it, but would find it incredibly irritating to have to admit I was wrong :)

Looking into it a lot of religions do prize the rational, so I'm less convinced that "faith" is a defining factor. Hmm.

[zharradan.livejournal.com]

One problem with all of the above is that many religious people sincerely believe that they have solid evidence for their beliefs - evidence which is as valid as that for accepted scientific theories.

[bunny-m.livejournal.com]

True, but said evidence is not actually evidence in the scientific sense. It's more that said people tend to not understand science on a scarily fundamental level.

I have no problem with people having faith without scientific evidence to back it up.* As you said up-thread, Faith is belief in the absence of proof.

What I have issues with is people claiming to have such evidence without actually knowing what the hell they are talking about. ("But $book says it's true!" or "But 1 x 10^x other people believe it too, so it must be true!")

It implies not only a worrying lack of understanding of science, but also a rather weak faith.

(*) I am, myself, quite religious, in a very non-standard way. I choose to believe X despite their being no evidence. That's why it's called faith.

[alias_sqbr]

Dammit I spent ages thinking of a response to this and lj ate it!

In short: yes, people's responses to this post has made me think a bit more about different ways of knowing. And I think it's important not to equate non-religious=science=atheism=rationalism=logic=non-dogmatic.

[firvulag.livejournal.com]

as far as 'best choice' goes, agnostism is the best choice. "you" can not prove there is a God(s), just as you can not prove there is not a God(s), so the best choice is to not know.

nice write up on the flaws though, and yes I muchly dislike the flaws of my side too (which is not the best choice...)

[alias_sqbr]

Heh, best as in "Hardest to argue against", sure. Of course most people don't have "hard to argue against" as their first priority when deciding how they feel about religion. Another "safe" POV is that we're all simulations in the Matrix etc :D

[zharradan.livejournal.com]

If certain religions are true, agnostics would feel a bit dumb when they found themselves burning in lakes of fire or whatever though :(

Hopefully I have expressed these thoughts in a way that makes some sense

[nicholii.livejournal.com]

supernatural beliefs

Hmm. This is actually a very modern thing, or at least that is what we are taught in Early Modern History (which is, admittedly, a subject dominated by post-modern academics). I'm not sure what the established position is, or whether there even is one, but these are my thoughts as inspired by what I have encountered in my studies:

It might be the case with believers in our culture today, but I would assume that that is influenced by a reaction to modern thought. A Christian today might say that they believe in "something more than just this material world", but that is not at the heart of Christianity. Rather it is a role into which religion has been placed, especially in the realm of the 'born-again' worshippers who have come to religion after growing disillusioned or disheartened by the emptiness that they perceive in modern existence.

My understanding is that the change to modernity, and the rise of modern science, was centred upon a reshaping of the 'natural' to be something that is purely empirical and physical. To a late medieval Christian, God was part of the world, part of nature. Evil, in certain understandings, was the subversion and rejection of the natural laws, and the 'supernatural' of 'superstitious' beliefs were those involving witches, demons, old wive's tales, and pagan monsters.

And whilst we are on this line of thought, let us talk of 'faith': what does it mean? As some other posters have commented in this thread, many believers would argue that they have access to evidence of comparable, or indeed greater, validity. Who is to say that the Bible is not a valid source of information about creation?

What you are effectively saying is that 'faith' and the 'supernatural' are, respectively, a form of knowing, and a level of existence/experience, that do not conform to the commonly accepted modern metaphysical understanding of the 'true' and the 'real'.


Personally I don't believe 'atheism' (in the strict definition of believing there is/are no God/s) and religion are mutual exclusive. But that all depends on what you mean by 'religion'. Whether 'a religion' is a particular metaphysical system of beliefs, or merely a group of people who believe in something existing within, and in some way irrespective of, the particular metaphysics of a society. Belief in a certain interpretation of the Christian God can exist within the framework of science, but the question remains as to whether this would indeed be a religious belief.


DISCLAIMER: It should be pointed out that I actually believe that Science is a religion, and I follow the tenets of it as I go about my day to day life. However, as I am actually pretty apathetic about how exactly this world exists, it doesn't bother me whether science is right or wrong. I am more concerned with meaning and mental qualia, two things that I believe empirical investigation will never explain.

Re: Hopefully I have expressed these thoughts in a way that makes some sense

[alias_sqbr]

HMM. You make some good points. I think my POV is making me unable to frame the question in a way that even makes sense for a lot of religions outside the WASP family (which includes atheism-evolved-from-protestantism)

Something I've encountered in feminist etc critiques of science is that there are multiple ways of knowing and that scientific rationalism and the scientific method is just one (and one that even by it's own standards is not infallible) This hurts my brain but having somewhat come to terms with it I can see how it blurs the boundaries of religion even more (especially since some religions explicitly embrace science/logic etc)

I'm not sure I see science as a religion, though that may just be us defining "religion" differently. Myself I don't have faith so much in science as in questioning and testing, which may in some cases mean abandoning science for a different more effective way of knowing.

[havocthecat]

Oh! Counter examples. Never mind. *sheepish*

[alias_sqbr]

Heh. Yes, taken the other way it's a very flawed list indeed :)

[http://users.livejournal.com/peasant_/]

I think a major thing that religions have in common is a huge amount of cultural significance associated with them. And it is often harder to move away from the culture than the faith aspects. So the obvious example is weddings, funerals etc - Christinaity provides a familiar, accepted and comforting form for those that is available for all people of Western descent to just tap into when they need to. To stand out against the religious aspects of such ceremonies often means having to make a decision to abandon ones cultural heritage at the same time, and since there is nothing to replace it with people are understandably reluctant to do that.

[alias_sqbr]

Absolutely, especially if you're not a member of the majority religion. I know my grandma still feels some melancholy as a result of leaving judaism 50+ years ago.

[zharradan.livejournal.com]

I'm pretty certain there are religions which don't believe in an immaterial soul; Frederick Buechner was a prominent non-dualist Christian theologian, for example.

In fact, I'm going to go further and be didactic: "not based on science" is also an incorrect qualifier, since religions have formed from scientific discovery, so the only actual qualifying trait of religion is that it involves unprovable/supernatural beliefs. Or, to put it another way:

Religion implies Faith; Faith is belief in the absence of proof.

Similarly, the only common trait of all atheists is that they believe themselves to not take important ideas on Faith (frequently they are wrong).

Christianity, other common religions, and the specific issues that surround them are cultural, not ethical or psychological.

Codicil A

[zharradan.livejournal.com]

Here are counterexamples for the dogmas you didn't list-

Afterlife (Taoism, arguably Zen)
Disbelief is immoral (Baha'i)
Fairly rigid ideas about what sex is and is not allowed (a thousand cults, frequently formed for specifically sexual purposes!)
Holy book advocates violence, sexism, racism, etc (Sikhism; the Guru Granth Sahib is a book of love poems)

[fallimar.livejournal.com]

Hm, yes. All I can gather from most discussions is that it's all incredibly ambiguous, and I also agree with zharradan's comment that even the 'not science based' thing doesn't always apply.

I see it quite simply - to me, atheism is simply based on evidence. If something is observable to me, or explainable to me in a way that fits with the way I observe the world around me, I'm likely to believe it. The idea of anythig supernatural, spiritual or godlike doesn't fit into that for me, as I see no compelling evidence at all for their existence that can't be explained through more rational and believable means.
If such evidence were to arrive, I'd be more than happy to incorporate it into my worldview!

Faith's only different in that the rational isn't prized, rather abstractions of reality promoting the ideal rather than... how things are. Maybe. It's one way of looking at it, I suppose :)

[alias_sqbr]

If such evidence were to arrive, I'd be more than happy to incorporate it into my worldview!

Really? I'd do it, but would find it incredibly irritating to have to admit I was wrong :)

Looking into it a lot of religions do prize the rational, so I'm less convinced that "faith" is a defining factor. Hmm.

[zharradan.livejournal.com]

One problem with all of the above is that many religious people sincerely believe that they have solid evidence for their beliefs - evidence which is as valid as that for accepted scientific theories.

[bunny-m.livejournal.com]

True, but said evidence is not actually evidence in the scientific sense. It's more that said people tend to not understand science on a scarily fundamental level.

I have no problem with people having faith without scientific evidence to back it up.* As you said up-thread, Faith is belief in the absence of proof.

What I have issues with is people claiming to have such evidence without actually knowing what the hell they are talking about. ("But $book says it's true!" or "But 1 x 10^x other people believe it too, so it must be true!")

It implies not only a worrying lack of understanding of science, but also a rather weak faith.

(*) I am, myself, quite religious, in a very non-standard way. I choose to believe X despite their being no evidence. That's why it's called faith.

[firvulag.livejournal.com]

as far as 'best choice' goes, agnostism is the best choice. "you" can not prove there is a God(s), just as you can not prove there is not a God(s), so the best choice is to not know.

nice write up on the flaws though, and yes I muchly dislike the flaws of my side too (which is not the best choice...)

[alias_sqbr]

Heh, best as in "Hardest to argue against", sure. Of course most people don't have "hard to argue against" as their first priority when deciding how they feel about religion. Another "safe" POV is that we're all simulations in the Matrix etc :D

Hopefully I have expressed these thoughts in a way that makes some sense

[nicholii.livejournal.com]

supernatural beliefs

Hmm. This is actually a very modern thing, or at least that is what we are taught in Early Modern History (which is, admittedly, a subject dominated by post-modern academics). I'm not sure what the established position is, or whether there even is one, but these are my thoughts as inspired by what I have encountered in my studies:

It might be the case with believers in our culture today, but I would assume that that is influenced by a reaction to modern thought. A Christian today might say that they believe in "something more than just this material world", but that is not at the heart of Christianity. Rather it is a role into which religion has been placed, especially in the realm of the 'born-again' worshippers who have come to religion after growing disillusioned or disheartened by the emptiness that they perceive in modern existence.

My understanding is that the change to modernity, and the rise of modern science, was centred upon a reshaping of the 'natural' to be something that is purely empirical and physical. To a late medieval Christian, God was part of the world, part of nature. Evil, in certain understandings, was the subversion and rejection of the natural laws, and the 'supernatural' of 'superstitious' beliefs were those involving witches, demons, old wive's tales, and pagan monsters.

And whilst we are on this line of thought, let us talk of 'faith': what does it mean? As some other posters have commented in this thread, many believers would argue that they have access to evidence of comparable, or indeed greater, validity. Who is to say that the Bible is not a valid source of information about creation?

What you are effectively saying is that 'faith' and the 'supernatural' are, respectively, a form of knowing, and a level of existence/experience, that do not conform to the commonly accepted modern metaphysical understanding of the 'true' and the 'real'.


Personally I don't believe 'atheism' (in the strict definition of believing there is/are no God/s) and religion are mutual exclusive. But that all depends on what you mean by 'religion'. Whether 'a religion' is a particular metaphysical system of beliefs, or merely a group of people who believe in something existing within, and in some way irrespective of, the particular metaphysics of a society. Belief in a certain interpretation of the Christian God can exist within the framework of science, but the question remains as to whether this would indeed be a religious belief.


DISCLAIMER: It should be pointed out that I actually believe that Science is a religion, and I follow the tenets of it as I go about my day to day life. However, as I am actually pretty apathetic about how exactly this world exists, it doesn't bother me whether science is right or wrong. I am more concerned with meaning and mental qualia, two things that I believe empirical investigation will never explain.

Re: Hopefully I have expressed these thoughts in a way that makes some sense

[alias_sqbr]

HMM. You make some good points. I think my POV is making me unable to frame the question in a way that even makes sense for a lot of religions outside the WASP family (which includes atheism-evolved-from-protestantism)

Something I've encountered in feminist etc critiques of science is that there are multiple ways of knowing and that scientific rationalism and the scientific method is just one (and one that even by it's own standards is not infallible) This hurts my brain but having somewhat come to terms with it I can see how it blurs the boundaries of religion even more (especially since some religions explicitly embrace science/logic etc)

I'm not sure I see science as a religion, though that may just be us defining "religion" differently. Myself I don't have faith so much in science as in questioning and testing, which may in some cases mean abandoning science for a different more effective way of knowing.

[havocthecat]

Oh! Counter examples. Never mind. *sheepish*

[alias_sqbr]

Heh. Yes, taken the other way it's a very flawed list indeed :)

[http://users.livejournal.com/peasant_/]

I think a major thing that religions have in common is a huge amount of cultural significance associated with them. And it is often harder to move away from the culture than the faith aspects. So the obvious example is weddings, funerals etc - Christinaity provides a familiar, accepted and comforting form for those that is available for all people of Western descent to just tap into when they need to. To stand out against the religious aspects of such ceremonies often means having to make a decision to abandon ones cultural heritage at the same time, and since there is nothing to replace it with people are understandably reluctant to do that.

[alias_sqbr]

Absolutely, especially if you're not a member of the majority religion. I know my grandma still feels some melancholy as a result of leaving judaism 50+ years ago.