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

Re: Codicil B

[firvulag.livejournal.com]

Indeed, but the opposite is also true.

If you believe that there isn't anything out there but provide no proof to verify that, is your belief in it faith?

It takes faith to believe in an absence of something just as much as an existence of something, given no substantial proof either way.

Re: Codicil B

[penchaft.livejournal.com]

What if the out there is proof of the lack of anything out there? e.g. while one could say there is a family of grey kangaroos happily living and occasionally playing Gaelic football at the bottom of the Mariana Trench, there - to most people - quite obviously isn't. Is faith necessary then?

Re: Codicil B

[alias_sqbr]

If you believe that there isn't anything out there but provide no proof to verify that, is your belief in it faith?

Well obviously this depends on how you define "faith", and the beliefs if the individual atheist. I would say that some of them do have faith in the non-existence of gods.

But I would say most atheists (myself included) are agnostic atheists and think it's an insult to religious people to imply that all there is to their belief is "being quite certain".

I think that a strong belief shows itself to be faith when you take an action based on this belief even when logic says it's a bad idea, or you keep the belief even when evidence (as you perceive it) points against it. (It was still faith before then, but your actions would be indistinguishable from someone with the same beliefs but no faith)

For example, I tend to believe that alternative medicine is bunk. But I do not have faith that it is bunk, so when someone I trust said a particular acupuncturist helped their cfs, I gave it a go. If it had worked I would have been a bit irritated to be proven wrong but I wouldn't have had a "crisis of faith".

Similarly, if I encountered sufficiently unambiguous proof that a god or gods exist I'd be very surprised and have to re-evaluate how I see the world etc (since I see it being about as likely as the existence of dragons) If it turned out those signs had always been there and I'd missed them I would have a lot of angst about my "faith" in my own perceptions I guess, but I'm not sure that's equivalent. There are things I sort-of have faith in, but the non-existence of gods isn't one of them.

Also, there are theists who don't have faith, ie agnostic theists, Deists etc.

Anyway, this is all a bit off topic! That and I've had this argument like a million times, as have most atheists I imagine :P

Re: Codicil B

[firvulag.livejournal.com]

You've worded what I was thinking perfectly for me, thanks :)

I think if Incontrovertible proof of a God(s) or no God came to light, there would be masses of conversions to whichever 'belief' system was correct, as it's no longer a belief system. There will always be those that hang on for years and even generations longer. Flat earth believers for example.

And yes, a bit off topic and something most of us have run through in one form or another.

Re: Codicil B

[alias_sqbr]

Sorry I was a bit grumpy in my wording, I thought better of it after having a shower but you'd already replied. Your fault for getting "if I ever lose my faith in you" stuck in my head :)

I think if Incontrovertible proof of a God(s) or no God came to light, there would be masses of conversions to whichever 'belief' system was correct, as it's no longer a belief system. There will always be those that hang on for years and even generations longer. Flat earth believers for example.

Absolutely.

Although I think I'd stick to the "I've gone mad" hypothesis for quite a while. When I fell into a coma and woke up in hospital it took them quite some time to persuade me I wasn't at home, hallucinating :) (It didn't help that I was semi-hallucinating for a bit)

Re: Codicil B

[firvulag.livejournal.com]

Perfectly ok. I know I haven't necessarily been clear and concise lately. Comes with having a brain that's trying to deal with living.

I certainly know the hospital scenario as well, waking up somewhere you weren't messes with the head. Especially if you're drugged to deal with the problems.

Re: Codicil B

[dr-jekyl.livejournal.com]

No, it's not true, because the default position of the existence of something is disbelief. It did not take me any faith to *not* believe that there is an invisible fairy who gives people with my name a million dollars once a week before some else suggested that they exist. It does not take faith to continue to remain highly skeptical because I've never seen any verifiable proof that such a being exists.

It is not belief in the a absence of something. It is a disbelief in the presence of something whose exisitance has yet to be shown to be truly plausible. These are actually two different things.

[gyges-ring.livejournal.com]

Well, that's not strictly true. I mean, most people I think, have quite a good belief in things like colours, because they actually look like they're out there in the world, regardless of whether they are or not. And it takes quite a bit of work to actively disbelieve in the existence of colours (particularly inasmuch as colour is useful for all sorts of things). Disbelief isn't the default position if you have a perceptual framework that mandates or encourages certain kinds of belief. I think that's of particular importance with religion, because, for a lot of people (possible even most people) religious belief will be the default position because, well, that's the position you're (rightly or wrongly) starting from, and operating against.

[alias_sqbr]

I think that's of particular importance with religion, because, for a lot of people (possible even most people) religious belief will be the default position because, well, that's the position you're (rightly or wrongly) starting from, and operating against.

Agreed, it took me quite a while to get to the point of being able to even imagine the non existence of god.

And I get the feeling a lot of people are theistic agnostic: they were brought up to believe in God, and it makes sense to them so they think it's likely true, but it doesn't make much difference to their lives and if proof came along that their particular religious POV was false they'd probably change it without too much trouble.

I think what it boils down to is that some people's experience and assumptions mean they start from a default position of belief and others from one of disbelief, and neither necessarily requires much faith. (Of course most people encounter stuff which contradicts their position, and that's when you either change your opinion or come up with a rationalisation or rely on faith etc)

[dr-jekyl.livejournal.com]

Color is perhaps a bad example for you to use, because the type of disbelief you're talking about is a kind of faith - disbelief in the face of substantive evidence to the contrary. You belief in color *because* there is substantive evidence that you have encountered that suggests that colour exists. I believe color exists, because I did experiments in high school and split light and played with colour wheels, and later learned a bit about how the human eye and brain work, and a bit more about physics. Belief in the existence of something when there is experimental data to back it up, data that can be replicated and tested by others is not faith in colour. Faith in fellow humans to carry out the scientific process correctly, perhaps, but not in colour itself. And if in ten years, a new theory comes along to explain colour that blows the old one out of the water, I'd pretty damn surprised, but probably also really interested as to why my previous understanding was false, and treat it as a learning experience.

You're on stronger ground with the perceptual framework argument, particularly given that recent studies have found that we may well be predisposed to believe in the, for want of a better term, supernatural. However, that framework is not actually the default point. The default point is what existed before the framework was fully developed - before the point of full indoctrination, if you will. Through the construction of the framework, you move away from the default, whatever exactly that is (no belief, desire to believe, seeing patterns in chaos etc), to a new position of belief.

[alias_sqbr]

Total tangent, but I read this email just before a link to the science essay Magenta Ain't A Colour came up on my flist :D

(I may have thoughts about your actual point later, but for now have a headache and work)

[gyges-ring.livejournal.com]

No no. Colour is actually the perfect example of what I want, and the objection raised proves the point, because colour is notoriously hard to account for. There simply aren't any working theories of colour that account for it and are still termed to be colour realists. And the reason there aren't working theories is that every time someone puts one up, there isn't the data to support it (or, to be more precise, there are vast troves of data that contradict whatever theory of colour you might want to propose). Chances are better than simply good that the data and experiments that you're talking about that "prove" colour actually work along the lines of "given that there are colours, how does phenomena x help explain theory y." (which is the way that physics and chemistry have historically treated colour) (biology is actually worse as far as realism goes, because biology runs into problems like heptachromic birds, who give the option that there may be real colours, but humans certainly can't see them).

Certainly, the idea of splitting light and colour wheels and so on either beg the question, or offer evidence that is neither conclusive nor overly useful. The simplest example of the way that colour falls over as a usefully "proven" object with an external existence is by way of duplicability: do you, in fact, know anyone at all who always agrees with your own judgements of colour? (That is to say, do you have any good reason to suppose that, if you point to something and say "that is orange", there will be other people who agree with you).

But yes. Colour is very handy, because folk theories of colour have a tendency to be held broadly, followed faithfully, and have almost no realist basis. So too things like time, causation, etc.

Not that there's anything wrong with being one of the colour faithful. It has very few practical implications. Certainly, one of the big name, anti-realist colour theories, the illusion theory, effectively goes "there are no colours, but we may as well operate as if there were. Because it's better that way." But people believe in all sorts of things they have absolutely no good evidence for, even if they think they do, and it's not bad, wrong, or unreasonable of them to do so.

[alias_sqbr]

So my link was on topic, awesome! (Magenta Ain't A Colour in case you missed it)

But yes, the more aware I become of how incredibly dodgy human perception is, the less confident I feel in making blanket statements based on the assumption that my own perceptions are reliable or objective. (Though I have to make some or I'd never be able to say anything about anything, and then what would I rant about on my lj?)

[gyges-ring.livejournal.com]

You might also be interested in the Stanford article on colour (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/color/). It's written by Barry, so it may be a bit biased towards showing that there are no colours, but it gives a pretty comprehensive summary of theories of colour with appropriate references to various historical figures.

[alias_sqbr]

Hmm. My brain is super fuzzy thanks to a cold but the bits of that I'm managing to comprehend are really interesting.

Re: Codicil B

[out-fox.livejournal.com]

It is not belief in the absence of something. It is a disbelief in the presence of something whose exisitance has yet to be shown to be truly plausible. These are actually two different things.

This. An agnostic or aetheist can be approaching the Deity issue as a hypothesis which they refuse to accept for lack of any convincing testing.

Other aetheists consider that they have proven the case for reason over belief, by debunking various religous myths...though I don't know that those rationales hold up.

Either way having a non-believer view of religon based on reason, is distinct from having a Belivers' belief in religon based on accepting the theological doctrine *despite* reason.

Believer belief can hold that God is Awesome against any refutation because that kind of belief values will of belief itself as an act of creation, morality, identity and belonging.