So I foresee a couple of problems here

The other being the fact I can't quite get my head around how unanswerable the question is.

Yes, essentially. Not entirely a priori though, I have plenty of empirical evidence of the harm religion causes and first hand experience. I'm not basing my view entirely on that though, there's an element of a priori reasoning.

Mmm, no, not this. I'm not interested in holding you to account and this is very much about the consequences of religion. If religion had no impact, it would not interest me that people had those beliefs any more than I care why some people prefer whiskey to wine.

Mostly it's limited to discussions and my ongoing effort to prevent our local primary school from urging Christianity on the children there (including mine). I've also used the local press to question local religious figures and their actions.


Not really, I'm saying that you're either part of the problem or part of the solution. You might consider that a false dichotomy because you don't consider religion to be a problem. For me, there is generally no way to be religious and not be part of the problem.


I've very briefly described some of what I've done to counter religion. I'm not sure what relevance the others have to this discussion unless you think by showing that I've done nothing to combat racism or homophobia (which actually I have) it somehow undermines my position on religion?

I agree that I'm part of other problems, most notably the use of fossil fuels which is a subject I have strong feelings about but can do little to change without severely inconveniencing myself. I never said I wasn't a hypocrite It has no bearing on what we're discussing though.

I don't think you can believe in a god and then claim that you don't hold any personal responsibility for helping to perpetuate the system of belief in that god. You don't have to stand on a soap box loudly proclaiming your beliefs to be part of sustaining that system. Even by discussing my atheism with my friends, I'm helping to perpetuate that type of thought, am I not?


I think you should do it, it's one of the subjects I'd really like to have seen Zumby and Ganstaman debate.

It's not a question that is answerable in any absolute sense, but I don't think it is very problematic to make good cases.

Of course, at its most basic people need to understand that claiming something is a net negative isn't the same as arguing that it should be removed. Nor have you necessarily disproved an argument for net negative by showing an argument that concludes net positive - as both arguments can be correct.

The first one is easy, let's use an example: Current average sugar intake per capita in most western countries represent a net negative for those societies (which is a trivial case to make as people get sick/die which on average is very expensive for everybody else) - but to argue for its removal you have to combat principles of free choices.... which is an incredibly difficult ethical debate.

The second is often more difficult for people to grasp: Suppose now that I claimed that "well, but people who die from sugar are weak and it is good to have them removed from the genepool" - and then proceed to argue that now my former argument fails. This is also wrong, because my former argument is actually still correct (it is easily provable by data after all). However, we have now shifted the debate from simple calculations to what constitutes capital. So again we have gone from a relatively simple argument to a complicated one (especially since our added concept of "capital" - genepool quality - is hard to quantify).

If participants are opposed to differentiating these points or unable to grasp the differences, making a thread like you describe is pointless.

An nice orderly fashion would be to:
1.) Agree (debate) on what constitutes (religious) capital
2.) Agree (debate) the relevant values
3.) Summarize

There's no reason a second debate can't be started soon. I'm just glad to not get this topic as I wouldn't even know where to start.

The problem is that even here you use a specific notion of "net" to make your case: health and (ultimately) money. If I claimed that the amount of emotional pleasure people derive from sugar results in - dunno - less revolts, more spending, thus a stronger economy, more taxes, more societal monetary benefit, it might be a perfectly reasonable bargain to pay for the health costs of sugar "misuse" if what you get is happy citizens. Meaning that the way you phrased it, you are in the danger of examining (emotional) pleasure vs. (monetary) cost. That won't work well. However, if you try to "translate" the emotional value of sugar into some monetary factor, things start to become speculative again.

[/QUOTE]

This seems like a good start.

Sure, that is a legitimate concern and I'm not naive, I think people will disagree (quite strongly) on what constitutes capital on matters such as these. You can, however, with some willingness to carry out a debate somewhat politely come a long way.

In the case of sugar we might for example come to realize that a lot of lawmaking regarding what we are allowed to ingest doesn't add up to a uniform or fair application of principles.

Such a "realization" (quoted, as I think most know this... but it is just an example), even if you and me never agreed on sugar, could be very beneficial.

I'm sorry if I seem like I'm picking on you about these things, but no, fretelöo is clearly not making a circular argument. A circular argument is an argument where one of the premises is identical or equivalent to the conclusion. For example:

1) The Bible claims that it is inerrant.
2) Whatever the Bible claims is true.
3) Therefore, the Bible is inerrant.

This is a circular argument because (2) is the same thing as (3), just in slightly different language.

Fretelöo's argument is something like this:

1) It is, all else being equal, rational to believe what is widely accepted as true in your culture.
2) It was widely accepted as true in ancient Greece that there were gods.
3) Thus, it was, all else being equal, rational in ancient Greece to believe that there were gods.

(3) is not equivalent to either of the premises, and there are no hidden premises, so the argument is not a circular argument.

Maybe your problem with his claim is instead that you disagree with (1)? Or, that you think it seems fishy to claim (1) as a justification for believing something to be true?

Here's some evidence against your view. Basically, Michael Blume argues that religion evolved as a way to increase motivation to reproduce, and uses contemporary demographic data showing that religious groups have higher reproductive rates than non-religious groups.

Yes but I'd like to point out that I don't think my significant others' belief in God is irrational. I know that she has come to this belief through honest reflection and reasoning that has been filtered, as best as it can be, through her little window into the world. More importantly it is a belief that she holds with humility (i.e., she knows that she hardly knows enough to know what she doesn't know) and as a result it rarely pits us against each other on any significant issue.

If I'm honest, and this could be irrational, I don't want her to lose her theism: it was a painful process for me and I don't think she has the type of personality that would benefit from it as much as I (think I) have. I'd rather not see her endure the psychological pain that might come as a result.

A quick perusal of Blume's article shows that he isn't really contradicting MB or going "against" his view. Blume too acknowledges that religious follows the evolution of logical and cognitive faculties. If you want to call it a "by-product" or not seems mostly taxonomical. I'm not sure we can look at birth rates compared between those two groups, as those birth rates are applicable for a world where religion has come to play a big part... and won't necessarily be very interesting when looking at some early tribal societies and religion.

Other than that, the article seemed quite thin... reading more like an conjectural essay than anything else. Though I have only read the abstract and perused a couple of pages. I have downloaded the entire article and will give it a closer look later.

But you aren't making the case that belief in god = bad? You're stating it, remember your earlier point

So you don't care how my faith manifests, which means you are judging it by the fact I have faith. but then you say this

So what you are doing is saying you have faith thus you are responsible for the way religion manifests but it's not actually important how my faith manifests?


Good.

You aren't stating what the problem with faith is and I'm going to continue to contend that you are conflating faith and religious organisation. This apart from being inaccurate is causing you to make generalisations that you are failing to substantiate.

What I'm saying is that we subjectively evaluate those issues that are important to us and dedicate whatever time and resources we have to them. I listed some of mine but you think that my belief in god trumps this and I'm part of a problem you've yet to define.

It does have a bearing on what we are discussing, as per my previous point you've decided that your subjective evaluation of religion as a net negative causes all those with faith to be part of the problem. What I'm saying is that we are all part of different problems by that criteria it's just very arrogant, and hypocritical of you to determine for everyone which are important.

I believe in god because I believe in god. If we accept that I don't choose to believe I'm a part of your ill defined problem by definition, this goes back to my point earlier that you are holding people to account for their beliefs not there actions.

I'm saying that by being part of the system you help perpetuate the system.

I'm conflating more than what you mention there, this is very generalised viewpoint that is pulled together by the 'net negative' catch-all. Clearly, there are aspects of religion that might be perceived as benefits but overall my impression is one of it causing more problems than it solves, and in the act of solving some problems, creates entirely new ones. An example of that might be the removal of the fear of death (especially when linked to divine rewards), the consequences of which may include comfort for many people but have other consequences that I'm sure I don't need to list.

I don't think that's it's arrogant any more than I think you're arrogant for evaluating religion as having a net positive effect and saying so here. We are all part of different problems, it's true, but it has nothing to do with this discussion about religion. Let me worry about the problems that I'm part of and my hypocrisy and let's stick to the subject.

If my criticism of your choice to support the christian belief system is upsetting you, we don't have to discuss it any further.

This is somewhat circular. Do you have a reason, other than that you believe in god, for why you believe in god? I only ask because you brought it up, I don't actually need to know why you believe in god, I'm just curious now.

If you had a problem with the use of Oil, and I drove a car, you would be quite correct to say that I'm part of the problem as you see it. I'd also have to agree with that. I could then attempt to argue that it's not a problem which is what you need to do to refute my view on religion, but then we'd be having the 'is religion a net negative' debate.

I've already asked what system?

Let's say I grant your claim that religion is pernicious, and so anything that perpetuates religion is immoral. That doesn't mean that going to church, wearing a cross, admitting to belief, etc. are also always immoral. For instance, my guess is that the members of the Westboro Baptist Church, who do all those things, do more to lessen the influence of religion than most antitheists like you. Remember, people's actions often act against their own goals.

I also want to make a broader critique of your view here. Essentially, you are focusing too much on only one aspect of the morality of supporting religion (here I'm going to assume, as you seem to, a broadly consequentialist view of morality).

Let's say that you think that religion is inherently bad, so that, all things considered, it would be better that it doesn't exist. Fine. What this means is that it would be morally better to do things that would make it less likely that religion continue to exist. However, that still wouldn't be the only consideration in our evaluation of the morality of our actions towards religion. After all, even granting that all religion is bad, some religions would still be clearly worse than others. Thus, it would also be good to influence religion to be more of the less harmful than the more harmful variety.

So even with your view of religion as being always pernicious, from a consequentialist viewpoint it is not a given that we should never encourage some religions. For example, let's say that there are three options in some society: Religion A, which is very harmful, Religion B, which is only slightly harmful, and no religion, which is neutral. Furthermore, let's say that advocating for no religion makes more Religion A more likely. In this situation, advocating for Religion B could be the right thing to do because, while Religion B is slightly harmful to society, the downside risk of advocating for no religion making Religion A more likely makes the expected utility of advocating for Religion B higher.

Your assumptions here about guilt seem incredibly implausible to me. Realistically speaking, my actions one way or the other have no discernible effect on the actual probability of religion continuing to exist. So why am I to view this as being a particularly meaningful form of guilt? It seems to me that you are just encouraging people to feel guilt over things over which they have no actual control.

Always suspicious when people start attacking a view for being "offensive" in these types of discussions. Seems to me the point of such a claim is to stop people from being comfortable raising and defending their views of a topic more than anything else, which is somewhat antithetical to the purpose of this forum. Obviously there are lines beyond which we can't go here, but Mightyboosh isn't even in that neighborhood.

Two questions:

Ok, you make a couple of assertions here:

No Proof: You accept (at the very least) that you don't know of one. You indicated elsewhere that your view here is influenced by Dawkins. So I assume you've read his thoughts on this matter. Given that you STILL don't know a proof seems to imply that he doesn't have one either.

Controversial evidence: You claim that you're "far from alone in thinking like this". Fair enough. That also implies, though, that many, if not the majority (I take this to be the complementary meaning of "far from alone"), will question your views on this. From this forum you also know that your view is not even consensus under atheists. This should lead you to conclude, that the evidence you base your view on is controversial. Moreover: Going back to the discussion of evidence we had earlier: "Evidence relevant to murder isn't evidence of murder. In the context of murder, murder being the required conclusion, it's therefore not evidence." Evidence that does not lead to the required conclusion, you claim, is not evidence. Thus, by your own standards, "religion is a net negative" being the required conclusion, you have no evidence (as controversial evidence does not allow a "required" conclusion; and if you had non-controversial evidence, you'd have presented it?).

Deference to authority: You invoke Dawkins and indicate that since he is a tower of logic and reason, even if you fail to defend your position, you rest assured that it isn't without merit, as he holds it. Regarding authority, your position is therefore: I hold a position I cannot logically defend, because it "seems" right to me and someone else I respect holds it too.

Elsewhere we've discussed the converse of this regarding religions:

No Proof: There is no proof for any of the speculative metaphysical claims of religions.

Controversial evidence: We've just had the discussion that religions (and religious believers) do utilize evidence to support their claims. You - and many with you - just question the reliability of said evidence. Hence, the evidence religions use is controversial; and (see above), you claim non-existent.

Deference to authority: Religions base their beliefs on revelations, either in the form of books or authority figures. The claims religions make are therefore, at the lowest level of simple believers, justified by the authority attributed to influential persons.

The obvious question is: To what extend is your claim that religions are a net negative more than just a statement of faith? That you see the danger of being accused of this looming is indicated by your reference to "delusion" above. So, in what sense do you not employ a double standard?

I'm not sure I read this right, but it does lead to a curious question: If even by discussing it one perpetrates the system of belief, you discussing the validity of that belief perpetrates the system as well; especially if and insofar you are losing the debate. Which leads to the obvious conclusion that you shouldn't lose theological debates which is best achieved if you amass accurate and fair knowledge of religion. For only this will allow you to formulate and identify the best arguments for your case, so as not to lose discussions so as not to perpetrate a system of belief through failure to expose its flaws. But how can you amass accurate and fair knowledge of religion without appearing to also perpetrate the system (by lending it at least prima facie) validity?

Fwiw, I would love for him to to defend his views. But fine, we can strike it from the record, no problem.

I'm still going to ask what system

So you're being too general because what you are doing is taking my faith as a starting point. Assume for instance that someone who believes in god is trying to make the religious institution to which they belong more moral, what if I accept every criticism you have of religion, I don't, but then try and argue against those practices while retaining my faith am I still part of the problem.

So as I haven't actually said this I'd be interested in why you think I have.

it's not upsetting me, I said from the outset that I was happy to pursue this line of inquiry.

why I believe is much less important than the fact I do. If you consider my belief in god as being a problem how do I stop being a part of this problem? By your standards it's be stopping believing? How can you expect me to stop believing in that which I believe?

So you consider faith and religion as interchangeable terms and they aren't.

I don't think that is an accurate summary of my position. I haven't mentioned 'morality' nor have I suggested that religion is 'inherently bad' and I think that this 'religion always being always pernicious' is an exaggeration. In one of my replies I accepted that some aspects of religion could be viewed as having some benefit.

The bolded is not true.

IMO it doesn't matter how harmless or good our intentions are or how good we are as individuals if through our actions we support a system that has a net negative effect, we are collectively responsible. I'm sure that the people I see attending church services in our village are no more or less lovely than most people, but by setting that example, by continuing to attend they help perpetuate that behaviour.

Also, while I live in the real world and understand that sometimes we have to choose religion B, this conversation is just a thought exercise and I'm trying to explain how I feel not genuinely achieve the 'no religion' option, that would be overly optimistic don't you think.


I don't believe that this is true. I think that your actions can make a difference, think of the Gandhi quote 'be the change that you want to see in the world'. It works in reverse in that if you don't do anything, nothing will change.

All it would take for religion to cease to exist is for everybody to agree not to believe any more. Whether or not that could actually happen is immaterial to the fact that as individuals we can make a difference through our action or inaction.


Thanks, I hadn't seen that post by fret actually.

Mightyboosh said that he leans towards Dawkins' explanation of religion. Dawkins understands religion as a kind of "mental virus." The basic idea here is that religion is a meme that replicates because it carries the code "copy me," but doesn't provide any evolutionary benefit to its host. Thus, its spread is due to its self-reinforcing structure as a cognitive structure (e.g. Dawkins uses faith as an example as it reinforces religious claims by making it a virtue to not question their veracity), rather than any benefit it provides to humans (evolutionarily or otherwise).

Blume's evidence, if true, would at least provide some evidence of some adaptative benefit from religion. If being religious causes you to reproduce at a higher rate, then it isn't spreading solely through a memetic process, but also through more typical genetic natural selection.

Here is his website if you want some some of his other articles on the topic.

It seems to me that you are just encouraging people to feel guilt over things over which they have no actual control.

MB may have more in common with religion than he thinks

You don't think that you're part of a system? (In a religious context obviously)

This is a good question because if you managed to effect change in religion, if everybody became like you, then perhaps religion might have a net positive effect, heck it might even have a wholly positive effect. I don't think that's likely though do you? Since we can't just cherry pick the good parts from religion, I think that any behaviour that perpetuates the system is part of the problem no matter how good the intent..

An assumption on my part since you believe in god, are defending that belief and haven't agreed with my 'net negative' hypothesis.

Ok, just checking.

People change their minds.

I didn't say that they were, for the purposes of this discussion we can agree that religion requires faith?

Nice. What makes you think you have no control? It wasn't very hard for the church to influence you into believing their version rather than a that of a religion from another part of the world, surely that can be undone?

It's really important that you actually state and clarify the "system" you're talking about. There are many systems out there, and by being vague you are not providing any meaning to this part of the discussion. The reason is that the actual system you're considering grounds the entire framework for the rest of your position.

Lack of clarity and specificity is your Achilles' heel.

No I don't

But you've yet to make a clear case that my faith perpetuates religion? Or identify what system it is?

That's a bit of a jump let's just remember what you said

I think if you are going to say I said something you want to make sure I actually said it and you didn't infer it.

But I suggested before that you are holding someone to account for their beliefs irrespective of their consequences. This holds true if the only way I can stop being a part of your problem is to change my beliefs.

People also change their minds less frequently than you think.

But faith doesn't always require religion.

I am not going to engage here. There are enough other streams of argument happening ITT which are interesting. I am sure we can pick this up elsewhere at some point.

I do echo Aaron's point re being specific about your views. Being specific would be helpful in the discussion.