• deletedmemberwy
    1k
    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?
  • deletedmemberwy
    1k
    I would much appreciate any thoughts on the matter.
  • Thorongil
    3.2k
    I largely agree. Most atheists are confirmed optimists and believers in progress, so they view any philosophical or religious tradition that stresses the rottenness of life and the imperfection of human nature as backwards thinking, primitive, and so on. As naturalists, they conceive of salvation on purely materialistic terms. Consider what Richard Dawkins says in the River Out of Eden:

    The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored. In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference

    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:

    We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they’re never going to be born. The number of people who could be here, in my place, outnumber the sand grains of Sahara. If you think about all the different ways in which our genes could be permuted, you and I are quite grotesquely lucky to be here, the number of events that had to happen in order for you to exist, in order for me to exist. We are privileged to be alive and we should make the most of our time on this world.

    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.
  • Noblosh
    152
    Why are those deemed "religious" considered weak and inferior to those proclaimed irreligious and/or atheistic?Lone Wolf
    Because of their irrational and dogmatic thinking. Case in point:
    Without the hope of salvation, which religion provides, life is demonstrably not worth living.Thorongil
  • Thorongil
    3.2k
    Because of their irrational and dogmatic thinking.Noblosh

    Ooh, brilliant refutation. I'm, like, totally devastated.
  • Noblosh
    152
    Because of their irrational and dogmatic thinking. — Noblosh

    Ooh, brilliant refutation. I'm, like, totally devastated.
    Thorongil
    Refutation of what? I've just answered Lone Wolf's question.
  • Thorongil
    3.2k
    Refutation of what?Noblosh

    My "irrational" and "dogmatic" thinking. Plus, you assumed that I was religious.
  • Noblosh
    152
    Refutation of what? — Noblosh

    My "irrational" and "dogmatic" thinking. Plus, you assumed that I was religious.
    Thorongil
    I neither claimed it's yours nor that you're religious.
  • deletedmemberwy
    1k
    Because of their irrational and dogmatic thinking.
    I find that statement to be both irrational and dogmatic, as many brilliant scientists and thinkers are considered religious.
  • Noblosh
    152
    as many brilliant scientists and thinkers are considered religious.Lone Wolf
    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.
  • Thorongil
    3.2k
    Still no refutation. Just dime-store psychologizing.
  • Noblosh
    152
    I've already done that:
    I neither claimed it's yours nor that you're religious.Noblosh
  • deletedmemberwy
    1k
    I largely agree. Most atheists are confirmed optimists and believers in progress, so they view any philosophical or religious tradition that stresses the rottenness of life and the imperfection of human nature as backwards thinking, primitive, and so on. As naturalists, they conceive of salvation on purely materialistic terms. Consider what Richard Dawkins says in the River Out of Eden:



    The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored. In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference

    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:



    We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they’re never going to be born. The number of people who could be here, in my place, outnumber the sand grains of Sahara. If you think about all the different ways in which our genes could be permuted, you and I are quite grotesquely lucky to be here, the number of events that had to happen in order for you to exist, in order for me to exist. We are privileged to be alive and we should make the most of our time on this world.

    Without the hope of salvation, which religion provides, life is demonstrably not worth living. Your typical atheist, like Dawkins, realizes this on some level, but the fact is clearly too much for him to bear, as shown above.
    Thorongil

    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.
  • Thorongil
    3.2k
    It is enough to make me question the validity of evolution and his suppositions, among other thingsLone Wolf

    I wouldn't go quite that far, but I see your point.

    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.Lone Wolf

    That is indeed the question!
  • deletedmemberwy
    1k
    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.Noblosh
    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.
  • Noblosh
    152


    It is enough to make me question the validity of evolutionLone Wolf
    What do Dawkins' statements have to do with the theory of evolution?

    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?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.

    Provided we are all headed to decay and nothingness anyway, it makes no sense to not allow it.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.
  • Noblosh
    152
    Without the hope of salvation, which religion provides, life is demonstrably not worth livingThorongil
    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.
  • deletedmemberwy
    1k

    What do Dawkins' statements have to do with the theory of evolution?
    Noblosh

    Frankly, I don't see how you could have missed it...

    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.

    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 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.
    I find it strange that one who seems to be against religion to ignore one of the most prominent atheists of the day.
  • Noblosh
    152


    Frankly, I don't see how you could have missed it...Lone Wolf
    Dawkins didn't propose the theory of evolution, if you didn't know.

    In your opinion Newton wasted his time on that particular projectLone 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.

    I find it strange that one who seems to be against religion to ignore one of the most prominent atheists of the day.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.
  • Agustino
    11.2k
    they could have separated their academic pursuits from their beliefs, basically being disingenuous with themselves for the sake of avoiding cognitive dissonance.Noblosh
    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?
  • Noblosh
    152
    I've just put forward an explanation on how irrational and dogmatic thinking may coexist with reasoning in people's minds, not on why there's no reason to speculate about divinity.
  • WISDOMfromPO-MO
    753
    He got no results from that particular endeavour thus he wasted his time.Noblosh




    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.
  • WISDOMfromPO-MO
    753
    Why are those deemed "religious" considered weak and inferior to those proclaimed irreligious and/or atheistic?Lone Wolf




    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.
  • Nils Loc
    1.3k
    There seems to be recent narrative that couples Christian fundamentalism with a wild west flavored libertarianism.

    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.
  • CasKev
    410
    Is it truly stronger and superior to declare oneself completely free of dependencies?Lone Wolf

    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.
  • deletedmemberwy
    1k
    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.WISDOMfromPO-MO

    I agree with this. :)

    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.
    WISDOMfromPO-MO

    That is rather depressing...but it does seem to be true.

    There seems to be recent narrative that couples Christian fundamentalism with a wild west flavored libertarianism.

    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.
    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.



    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.
    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?
  • CasKev
    410
    Why can't you choose to believe or not believe?Lone Wolf

    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.

    I have not seen anything in the study of genetics that forces one to think a certain way or not to.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.

    What would you consider to be strong evidence of a creator?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.

    What makes the lack of believing in a superior being mentally and physically superior?Lone Wolf

    I don't believe I said that... I did say that believing in a higher power could make a person mentally stronger.
  • Beebert
    569
    "Progress" is a pathetic concept IMO. There are always just new problems. IMO, and I have said this before, Either Christianity is true, or Schopenhauer/Nietzsche are right(though I know they had very different opinions on values and how to deal with life, their metaphysical ideas are quite similar in that they both believed that "Will" is the only true metaphysical and ontological reality).
  • Reformed Nihilist
    279
    Why are those deemed "religious" considered weak and inferior to those proclaimed irreligious and/or atheistic?Lone Wolf

    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.

    Those from an atheistic view seem to see it as if the religious are largely crybabies who are afraid of water.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?
  • Reformed Nihilist
    279
    Most atheists are confirmed optimists and believers in progress, so they view any philosophical or religious tradition that stresses the rottenness of life and the imperfection of human nature as backwards thinking, primitive, and so on.Thorongil

    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.

    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.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?
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.