Drowning Humanity
Why are those deemed "religious" considered weak and inferior to those proclaimed irreligious and/or atheistic? For those who are from some branches of Christianity, the recurring theme seems to arise; that humanity is in its entirety depraved of good and in need of a savior. Now, from this point, it would seem as if they are proclaiming humanity to be drowning in sin. Yet, most people do not look down on those who are dying and exert effort to prolong and enrich their lives. I have not heard of arguments condemning the drowning for grasping at a rope instead of insisting on redeeming themselves, at least from a modern perspective. Quite contrary, they are much encouraged to seek the assistance of another in a superior position. I remain confused on this point, why is religion any different? Many see it as the rope thrown out to drowning souls by a superior being, but this is portrayed as weakness should one grasp it. But from what I have seen, insisting on self redemption in the case of drowning is seen as stupid.
Those from an atheistic view seem to see it as if the religious are largely crybabies who are afraid of water. As if the water is calm and shallow, and there really is nothing out there to harm them. Which again is a conflicting point, as the world is filled with death; coming in forms of natural disasters, murder, disease, old age, accidents, and other factors. There are indeed dangers in this world. And those from a religious perspective may see the atheistic vision as ignorance and oblivion to real world factors.
Is it truly stronger and superior to declare oneself completely free of dependencies? Aside from benefiting one's ego, is there any true advantage for such a conviction?
Those from an atheistic view seem to see it as if the religious are largely crybabies who are afraid of water. As if the water is calm and shallow, and there really is nothing out there to harm them. Which again is a conflicting point, as the world is filled with death; coming in forms of natural disasters, murder, disease, old age, accidents, and other factors. There are indeed dangers in this world. And those from a religious perspective may see the atheistic vision as ignorance and oblivion to real world factors.
Is it truly stronger and superior to declare oneself completely free of dependencies? Aside from benefiting one's ego, is there any true advantage for such a conviction?
Comments (66)
But then notice how in a more recent documentary he blinds himself to the logical consequences of these claims and sounds the clarion call of optimism in the last line:
Without the hope of salvation, which religion provides, life is demonstrably not worth living. Your typical atheist, like Dawkins, seems to realize this on some level, but the fact is clearly too much for him to bear, as shown above.
Because of their irrational and dogmatic thinking. Case in point:
Quoting Thorongil
Ooh, brilliant refutation. I'm, like, totally devastated.
Refutation of what? I've just answered Lone Wolf's question.
My "irrational" and "dogmatic" thinking. Plus, you assumed that I was religious.
I neither claimed it's yours nor that you're religious.
That can be explained through compartmentalization: they could have separated their academic pursuits from their beliefs, basically being disingenuous with themselves for the sake of avoiding cognitive dissonance.
Quoting Noblosh
Dawkins does seem to contradict himself in those statements. In the first, he complains about death, but by the second statement, sings its glory. It is enough to make me question the validity of evolution and his suppositions, among other things...lol. What's the point of studying science and philosophy if everything is meaningless and purposeless? We're just going to die, and recede into a state of stupor as time advances.
I wouldn't go quite that far, but I see your point.
Quoting Lone Wolf
That is indeed the question!
If truth is relative to humans, and there is no superior being, then why not? Clearly the brilliance of scientists such a Isaac Newton, Gallileo Gallilei and others was not hindered by belief in a creator. It is said Newton wrote more on theology than in science. Why would it be wrong to ingrain a religious belief into logic? Provided we are all headed to decay and nothingness anyway, it makes no sense to not allow it. Is logic relative to humans, or does it exist outside of humanity? If it exists outside, which it seems to as nature seems to follow a direct structure in terms of laws, then truth may not be relative to us either. Nature certainly issues no complaints on a few supposing there to be a superior being.
Quoting Lone Wolf
What do Dawkins' statements have to do with the theory of evolution?
Quoting Lone Wolf
Why? Newton tried to scientically extract prophecies from the Bible and ended up wasting his time, Galileo tried to reinterpret the Bible himself based on his scientific observations and ended up in house arrest. So yes, such beliefs hindered them.
Quoting Lone Wolf
Whatever floats your boat, I guess.
I don't know and I don't really care about what nonsense Dawkins utters, science tells us that information isn't lost and that makes death in some sense, an illusion. Sure, organisms may cease to operate but their impact on the world is preserved, whatever that may be.
Oh, I think I got it. You want me to refute a statement that lacks falsifiability and that begs the question.
Your request itself is irrational but I didn't want to assume that and so I asked you for clarification on your request which you refused to provide which seems obvious why now.
Frankly, I don't see how you could have missed it...
In your opinion Newton wasted his time on that particular project; it has absolutely nothing to do with his intelligence or belief in a creator. And again, Galileo's arrest was not based on his intelligence, but rather on the governmental issues of the day. There is no denying the tremendous influence both men hold even today. Religious people make scientific discoveries with the belief that there is creator. Religion does not make people stupid in the scientific field, there is significant evidence of that. Seems more like the problem is not religion, but rather when "religion" attempts to find ample evidence for such belief, according to your examples.
I find it strange that one who seems to be against religion to ignore one of the most prominent atheists of the day.
Quoting Lone Wolf
Dawkins didn't propose the theory of evolution, if you didn't know.
Quoting Lone Wolf
He got no results from that particular endeavour thus he wasted his time.
I never questioned their intelligence or their influence but their irrational pursuits that got them nowhere. Religion needs evidence to support itself like any other dogma otherwise religious belief can't be sustained. Religious scientists don't do themselves, their scientific domain and science in general any favor by explaining their scientific discoveries as designed by divinity, they just create more confusion because of the incompatibilities that ensue.
Quoting Lone Wolf
Atheist? I definitely don't define myself like that. Why would I define myself by my skepticism towards the concept of divinity? I see myself beyond such concerns.
Dawkins is known for his antitheism instead, as in opposition to theism, which deals in sophistry. He may be famous but that doesn't make him an expert in anything else but his own rhetoric.
Okay, can you prove this? This is a possibility, but why do you reject accepting the opposite possibility: namely that they really had ample reasons for believing in God?
It is not uncommon for scientific research to run into a dead end. But we do not say that the effort was a waste of time.
Probably for the same reasons that in contemporary society people who are introverted are considered inferior to those who are extroverted, those who are altruistic are considered inferior to those who are selfish, those who are cooperative are considered inferior to those who are competitive, those with little sense of humor are considered inferior to those with a well-developed sense of humor, etc.
Who is stigmatized, marginalized, ostracized, hated, etc. varies with cultural context.
I tend to view certain types of God fearing peoples as brutes with guns who don't believe that government does any good whatsoever. In a situation of being in a lawless society, lacking a tribal association and a gun, I would be the weak one until I joined the atheists group. For sure they'll have guns also. Maybe we'd have to defend ourselves.
Ideally God would be the representative of necessary values that optimize and help life to flourish. God is an abstraction of the ideal king, leader, something like a hierarchy of organizing principles. That changes and should evolve depending upon the cultural context though.
If reason is of a high value to the optimization of life then God should have quite the capacity.
I guess that depends on your view of life. In the animal kingdom, survival, procreation, and minimization of suffering seem to be the driving factors when it comes to behavior. When you add the human element, I think you could exchange thriving for surviving. So whatever allows you to thrive physically and mentally makes you superior.
Attractive looks and healthy reproductive organs make you superior when it comes to procreation. Intelligence and charisma can be useful in thriving financially. Exercise and proper diet help you thrive physically.
For some, belief in a higher power makes them mentally stronger. Unfortunately, you can't choose to believe or not believe - it's a function of your genetic make-up and your life experiences. I currently don't believe in a higher power or an afterlife. That won't change until I am presented with strong evidence of such, or at least a very convincing argument.
I agree with this. :)
Quoting WISDOMfromPO-MO
That is rather depressing...but it does seem to be true.
Quoting Nils Loc
Well, I guess some Christians are gun-toting, but some aren't, such as the Amish denomination who do not believe in any kind of violence. Do you think you would have to defend yourself against the gun-toting Christians? Is that even a good representation of Christianity, or is it more of a culture stereotype of some places in the United States?
And why is atheism seen as stronger and more able to protect in a government situation than another religion?
It is interesting that Christianity is continuously is brought into the picture instead of Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, or any other religion.
Quoting CasKev
Why can't you choose to believe or not believe? I have not seen anything in the study of genetics that forces one to think a certain way or not to. I have also seen individuals who have gone through very hard times and kept on believing in God, and others who have had a very easy life and believe in God. What would you consider to be strong evidence of a creator? What makes the lack of believing in a superior being mentally and physically superior?
Your beliefs are what they are at any given point in time. They are based on what you've been taught, what you've observed, and what you've experienced so far. I can hope that there is a higher power as much as I want, but it won't change the fact that I don't believe there to be one. I can't suddenly will myself to believe something different.
Quoting Lone Wolf
If you were to take two infants and expose them to the exact same experiences, there would still be at minimum subtle differences in behavior, emotions, beliefs, and thought processes. If not attributable to external factors, the differences must be due to genetic make-up.
Quoting Lone Wolf
If there were a being powerful enough to create us, I imagine it would have the ability to communicate directly with us. So I suppose I would need to see and hear such a being to believe in it.
Quoting Lone Wolf
I don't believe I said that... I did say that believing in a higher power could make a person mentally stronger.
I think most people think that whomever agrees with their position is better in some way, and whomever doesn't is worse in some way. That's human nature.
Although I'm subject to the same biases as anyone (including, I presume, you). I don't think these things. I just think they hold as true things that are not true. Maybe this is a flawed premise.
Quoting Lone Wolf
Again, it's human nature to justify your beliefs by trivializing those held by people who disagree, and negatively characterizing them. That's why strawman and ad hominum fallacies exist. Are you sure you aren't also engaging in this?
Most atheists I know focus on the imperfection of human nature. On the ways that people consistently and predictably get things wrong. They attribute religious faith as one, or a sum of many of these foibles. Not necessarily as primitive, nor even backward thinking. Just a product of the natural imperfection that we are subject to as humans.
I'd also like to point out that quoting Dawkins as support for what most atheists think is not very good evidence. If anything, Dawkins has marginalized himself among atheists, because he isn't very likable (usually a prerequisite for being seen as a spokesperson for a particular movement or set of ideas). It might be wise to avoid assuming you have a grasp on what "most atheists" think, unless you have some statistical data.
Quoting Thorongil
If this is demonstrable, I'll ask you to demonstrate it please.
As far as I'm concerned, life is worth living because it is superior to the alternative. No hope of salvation is needed. I'm not even sure what I'd need salvation from? I don't believe I am stained by the mark of sin. Isn't that what salvation is usually supposed to apply to?
Which is what? Non-existence? That has no value and you've never experienced it, so you can't compare it to existence. The only way to find out would be to commit suicide, but even then, you'd have to assume that there is no afterlife before committing the act.
No, but my fears and insecurities probably generate fictions and lock onto stereotypes which try to give the world a bit of order.
[quote=Lone Wolf]Is that even a good representation of Christianity, or is it more of a culture stereotype of some places in the United States?[/quote]
I'm not very much concerned with the good representations of Christianity. Bad, harmful and scary ideas loom large in the imagination. We pay attention to what gets our attention.
[quote=Denett, D. Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Invasion of the Body Snatchers, pg. 349] Indeed, the meme for faith exhibits frequency-dependent fitness: it flourishes particularly in the company of rationalistic memes. In a skeptic-poor world, the meme for faith does not attract much attention, and hence tends to go dormant in minds, and hence is seldom reintroduced into the infosphere. (Can we demonstrate classic predator-prey population boom-and-bust cycles between memes for faith and memes for reason? Probably not, but it might be instructive to look, and ask why not.)[/quote]
There is an interesting medieval portrayal of Christian priests in Netflix's new Castlevania anime. The choice to burn a supposed witch sets of an ironic chain of events. One sees in such a world that behavior has been constructed around certain ideas (faith) and the people who are empowered by them. Science, as with Cavaca's cartoon, only survives in areas and inviduals designated by the church as evil.
[quote=Lone Wolf]And why is atheism seen as stronger and more able to protect in a government situation than another religion?[/quote]
Self acknowledged atheists might be better apt at separating church and state from a policy point of view, if that is at all important or good for a supposed democratic society composed of diverse faiths.
Except, if there is no afterlife, you'd find out nothing :P
I can draw conclusions and make assumptions with imperfect information, which I do (and we all do all the time). We obviously have drawn different conclusions, which is fine by me. Given the information available to me, I judge life to be preferable to the alternative.
Now did you care to demonstrate that your claim was so, or do you withdraw it?
Quoting CasKev
and your second statement?
Quoting CasKev
Presumably your life experiences and genetic make up led you to not believe in a higher power or an afterlife. Then, you claim that you need strong evidence or convincing argument. My guess is that your genetic makeup and life experiences would rule out ever recognizing either such forms of evidence.
I think you are correct that life experiences and genetic make up have a lot to do with it, more than strong evidence (what? an appearance of the divine?) or convincing argument.
The historic peace churches (Quaker, Mennonite (includes Amish), Church of the Brethren) and pacifist groups within otherwise non-pacifist denominations (like Catholic Workers, Anglican Peace Fellowship, Baptist Peace Fellowship) don't make up a large percentage of Christians -- unfortunately. A better measure of gun-toting vs. non-gun-toting would be the percentage of Americans (whatever the hell they believe in) who are gun toters. It's not possible to say precisely, but it is between 33% and 50%. And some households account for a disproportionate share of the guns.
So it is probably the case that many Christians are gun toters, and many are not. And that would apply to non-believers as well -- many are, many are not.
Indeed, I actually misread your sentence, my apologies. That's what happens when there's a lot to reply to :( lol
I've already replied to this statement. I can go no further in answering your original question until you address my reply.
Some people think that religiousness is weak, weepy, and inferior to the strong, dry-eyed and superior atheistic view. To the extent that this occurs, I think there are two reasons:
First, there is a strain of American culture that especially values rational, can-do, no-nonsense, materialism. (It isn't limited to Americans, of course.) The archetypal cartoon character business man is a strong-jawed, two-fisted, unsentimental, knows-what-he-wants-and-knows-how-to-get-it character. He's a warrior of business.
Then there is the STEM (science/technology/engineering/math) lobby. I have nothing against applying STEM to the problems we face, it is just the case that many of our problems are rather more immaterial and intractable than extracting more energy from sunlight. Like... poverty, militarism, maldistribution of wealth, and all of that.
There has been an evacuation of religious institutions which began in the 1960s. Did Yeats in 1919 capture the force behind the departure of so many Christians?
WWI and WWII can not have helped but undermine the bedrock beliefs of Christianity and Judaism. If an all-powerful God keeps watch, why did so many die? Where was God? For many, the distasteful but unavoidable conclusion is that God is absent.
A third influence is the scholarship which led to a critical examination of biblical texts that began in the 19th century. What critical Biblical scholarship revealed was that biblical texts had a complex structure and history (though it isn't the case that nobody noticed some of this before). These studies undermined the formerly secure confidence in texts. These studies were one of the causes of the rise of fundamentalism -- a reaction to this scholarship. What put the wind in the sails of fundamentalism was Charles Darwin.
I think it is safe to say that what many Americans (can't speak for Europeans) saw at Sunday morning services was too often kind of weak, weepy, and sentimentally soft. Certainly there were pastors, priests, nuns, monks, and laity who were tough, hard, dry-eyed, and unsentimental. But... not the majority.
No they aren't. Non-existence isn't a state anyone is in. To be in a state, one must first exist.
It should be obvious that atheists see religious folks as believing myths, superstitions, etc.; believing things that atheists take to be clearly false. Atheists often see religious believers as some combination of gullible/easily suckered, not very bright, and/or as people who need an emotional crutch to an extent where they're willing to buy into nonsense and reject reason for it.
Lol, so why ask it?
Quoting Reformed Nihilist
You do that.
And they're probably wrong to, as it's just lazy and welcomes misunderstandings. I'm guilty of it for sure. Regardless, I'm going to stick with what is, for me, the self-obvious point that non-existence has neither positive nor negative value.
Edit: I suspect our differences are more about how we conceive value than existence. As far as I'm concerned, value is something a person ascribes based on all sorts of subjective and personal factors, not something that can be objectively demonstrated. That's why I can prefer living to it's alternative, even without the prospect of an afterlife. Because I have thoughts and opinions and value systems that might be different than yours.
... strikes me as a textbook example of wishful thinking, appeal to consequence.
Do you think an emotional existential crisis somehow makes this yearning true...?
I'm not sure what "religious salvation" is exactly (though "salvation" often is preached by Christians), and how it supposedly satisfies your yearnings, but feel free to explicate.
Some sort of predetermined purpose (or predestination perhaps) bestowed upon you by something else?
It seems odd to claim that these atheists you refer to do not enjoy living.
Feel free to demonstrate that "life is demonstrably not worth living" unless your yearnings are the case.
Perhaps Dawkins agrees that it'd be nifty to get together with his grand/parents and other loved ones again, in some sort of afterlife, but admits that doesn't make it so?
(I haven't read much of his stuff, so I don't know.)
In The Illusion of God's Presence: The Biological Origins of Spiritual Longing (Jan 2016), John C Wathey discusses what he dubs an "innate model of the mother", which seems to shed some light at least on some psychological phenomena related to emotional existential crises.
Whether there's something to it or not, who knows, but it's not wishful thinking nor appeal to consequence fallacies.
Agreed. But, sadly, spiritual blindness prevents many from recognizing/admitting this fact.
As a Christian, I consider it a privilege to be deemed 'weak'. After all, we are told in 2 Cor. 12 that Christ's strength is made perfect in weakness...
[quote=2 Cor. 12:7-10]Three times I pleaded with the Lord to take it away from me. But he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ’s power may rest on me. That is why, for Christ’s sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong.[/quote]
Stay weak, brother. ;)
I think that's a miconception. Theism and Atheism appeal to two different qualities of the human psyche.
Religion appeals to intuition and feelings. I think it's wise to entertain possibilities, no matter how unreasonable because the universe-man relationship is not an equilibrium - while we're obliged to fit our theories to facts, the universe is not likewise obliged.
Atheism appeals to reason. It reins in our voluptuous imagination which otherwise would lead to full blown imaginary worlds of ghosts, spirits, demons, fairies, etc. This isn't good because such thinking is, as has been demonstrated, dangerous. Just think of the time when disease was attributed to evil spirits.
There's an undeniable contradiction between the two (god exists and god doesn't) but...there's wisdom in both reason and intuition.
sister* :P
Couldn't that be accredited to personality, which is in part genetic? I still don't see how one's personality would force you to believe something or not believe something.
Quoting CasKev
So you are saying you need an emotional experience in order to prove that God exists?
Oh, ok. Sorry.
Quoting Reformed Nihilist
No, I have no biases, I am perfect. :P( Just kidding) But yeah, that makes sense.
Quoting Reformed Nihilist
I am pretty sure I wrote this with a mostly objective perspective. I equally criticized the religious as that they seem to be overly emotional.
Quoting Nils Loc
Hmm...never seen that show before. But I think you are right by saying it is what society makes them out to be, not necessarily that it is the truth.
Quoting Nils Loc
Why?
Quoting Bitter Crank
True, it is more of an individual choice rather than one that can be safely generalized.
Quoting Bitter Crank
That is very interesting. Seems like some would be angry if God controlled everything and took away free will, but then they are angry that God let them make their own choices. What do people want from God? Free will to do bad things or to be completely controlled by him so that they can't do bad things?
Quoting Bitter Crank
Do you mean the different translations and scholar's interpretations?
Quoting Bitter Crank
True, I see it too in many churches. They preach a sugar-coated version that doesn't make sense.
Quoting Terrapin Station Yes, that which society has taught them to believe. I guess many don't see just how hard it is to actually be "religious".
Quoting lambda
Oh, but we are made strong in Christ. :P
Quoting TheMadFool
Hmm...that is a much different experience than what I had. I turned away from atheism because I couldn't see the logic in it. I couldn't figure out how something could come from nothing, since that is scientifically impossible. I didn't see how chance could possibly form something so complex as what we see today. I am considered religious, but rarely believe something without a lot of facts pointing to it. No one can logically nor scientifically prove or disprove there is a God, but one can come up with a probability and the rest is trust that those speculations are correct. So I do not think that atheism appeals entirely to reason, nor theism to emotion. I can see your point though with superstitions that have been proven false. I don't believe in fairies or ghosts either. :P
You may have been even-handed, treating both sides equally badly, but I'm not sure that's the same as being objective. I would suggest that the principle of charity would be a better approach. That means basically trying to figure out what the best interpretation of someone's argument is. That way you know you're not making a strawman to knock down.
You're moving the goalposts. I never claimed that atheists do not enjoy living. Most, if not all, will tell you that they do enjoy living. I'm saying that life itself is not worth living absent the hope and possibility of salvation. Life isn't self-justifying, or at least human life isn't, for nothing in life can serve to justify it without begging the question. And without salvation, we have nothing to compare it to and so no reason to affirm it. We also have the choice to live or die and the choice to create more life or not. To affirm life in either of these two senses requires some sort of justification. Salvation's possibility once again provides that justification, such that to reject it is simultaneously to reject any reason to live and/or procreate.
We don't live in anything like the best of all possible worlds. It appears rather as the worst of all possible worlds, for if it were any worse, it would obliterate itself as opposed to maintaining a steady equilibrium of violence and suffering. Slow torture and decay is always worse than a quick death. Life is characterized by dukkha, as the Buddhists would say, and so exists in a perpetual state of dissatisfaction and suffering. Living things perpetually desire to be sated from hunger, for example, and yet they never fully will be. To cease being hungry would be to cease being a living thing. Life is therefore a business that does not cover the costs, as Schopenhauer says. It is a problem to be solved and a predicament from which one needs extricated, the solving and extrication of which being what salvation amounts to, generally speaking. Religions simply provide more specific models of how it can be achieved.
Translations and interpretation can certainly upset people. But the scholarship I am referencing is about the various strands of narrative, the age of the Biblical writings, the J, E, and P narratives, for instance, the differences in Hebrew that correlate with different time periods within one narrative (like Genesis).
This deep scholarship undermined the idea of one, divinely inspired, consistent narrative. It was shown that many narratives were woven together. The age of the scriptures was also challenged. I guess some people thought that the books of the Bible got written as the events occurred -- that the prophets' teachings were poured into texts as they were spoken.
The idea of divine inspiration took a direct hit too. Either God was careless -- inconsistencies, multiple strands, age-of-texts problems, and so on -- or God didn't inspire the Bible (at least in a simple straightforward manner).
Some of the scholarship is fairly corrosive. The Jesus Seminar, for instance attempted to sort out the various sayings and acts of Jesus into the "probably said them" and "probably didn't say them", "probably did them", "probably didn't do them". There's wasn't much left of Jesus by the time they got done.
You're right it's not a clear cut case of reason vs emotion. We may be deeply moved by a good argument and rationality helps to navigate the emotional landscape.
One thing I'd like to point out is that all religions, at least the major ones, advocate love, promise happiness. Aren't these emotions? That's why I said religion is rooted in emotion.
Atheism, on the other hand, puts religion under the lens of cold logic. It brushes aside the emotional aspects of religion and what's left isn't that impressive, rationally speaking.
Just uhh surprised I guess. Don't throw yourself off a tall building ya' hear.