'We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases."
Don't be upset if your neighbors offer some contention here.
Also, as Patrick will explain, our deeply Christian president from Texas seems well attuned to the "dangers of theocracy."
Note also the proud claim of tax deductability. Why exactly are we supposed to admire them more than the Catholics or the Scientologists?
Crid
at December 21, 2005 10:43 AM
Crid,
I'd say that "hardens hearts" is at least arguable. Back when I was in a church, there was definitely a ranking of who the church as a community was interested in helping. If you were already in the church, not so much (oddly enough). If you were completely uninterested in the church, definitely not. But if you were someone who had just suffered some sort of setback and you responded well to church overtures (well enough that they thought you might join the church), then they were definitely interested in helping. To me, that always did seem very calculating and hard-hearted.
I've also seem some very cold and hard-hearted reactions by people in the church to someone's decision to leave the church (and if you were the unfortunate person blamed for being the cause of a divorce, forget it).
jen
at December 21, 2005 3:17 PM
Most people go to church not because they're stupid or conniving or in the grip of a centuries-old practical joke. They go for warmth. And they get it. So Amy's frosty sarcasm actually increases their belief, which is probably OK by Amy, because it's fun to snark.
Crid
at December 21, 2005 4:03 PM
"Most people go to church not because they're stupid or conniving or in the grip of a centuries-old practical joke. They go for warmth. And they get it."
They can get that at any good Unitarian Universalist fellowship or atheist/humanist center, too. Most people get involved in supernatural religion due to belief or social pressure, not emotional need.
And of course, fewer and fewer people in western countries go to church or consider themselves Christians each year. People get less satisfaction out of it, and have more trouble taking the supernaturalism seriously. It's interesting that even as the Christian dominionists attain an unprecedented level of political power in the US, their popular support is declining. There is some good info on religious trends at the Ontario Consultants for Religious Tolerance site: http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_basic.htm
Bt the way, I took the bible and church/state quizzes at the FFRF site. I aced the church/state quiz (if you'll pardon my bragging,) but only got 37 of the 50 bible questions right. I never knew the bible well enough to score a 50, but at one time I could have scored a 40, at least. I'm slipping. The quizzes are here: http://www.ffrf.org/quiz/
All the best,
Charles
GodlessRose
at December 22, 2005 4:11 AM
If "hard-hearted" includes a propensity for lying and abuse, I must agree. On-line and in person, people "of faith" are the most blatant liars and hypocrites I can find anywhere. They will do anything to preserve the idea that they are "special" for merely thinking a few shalow thoughts.
Radwaste
at December 22, 2005 4:20 AM
> Most people get involved in supernatural
> religion due to belief or social
> pressure, not emotional need.
First, give us a reason to agree with you, and second acknowledge that the need might not be merely "emotional." A little social squeeze might be just what they're looking for... People like boundaries, and as Amy's restaurant photos attest, they don't always get them.
> people "of faith" are the most blatant
> liars and hypocrites I can find...
Sell it, Sugar, sell it! Continue to tell people they're not special and their thoughts are shallow... That'll bring 'em around!
When Hitchens writes things like that Slate piece, it's part of his charm, like how he holds his liquor. But after shedding the affectations of Christianity in my own heart, holiday observances seemed merely inane. There's no reason to get cranked about them... *LOTs* of things people do to ornament their surroundings are pretty strange. When your heart is truly cold, you don't take it personally.
(Except that the xmas tunes never get any better. If you actually find even one of them charming, the love will be beaten from your ears within two years by cloying arrangements and pitiless repetition. These people make KLOS-FM sound like a boiling cauldron of musical innovation. We can protect ourselves with Ipods.)
My first dirty fights on this blog were about gay marriage. Amy was fer it. The case was made that the feelings of this minority of people were so strong as to deserve special dispensation and understanding from the others. Why isn't this the case with religious people? There are a lot more people of faith than homosexual inclination, and the need seems similarly intrinsic. You find some of their judgments and choices lacking; but that's how others feel about homosexuality. Gosh Amy, can't you be a little more tolerant?
Crid
at December 22, 2005 10:50 AM
>The case was made that the feelings of this
> minority of people were so strong as to deserve
> special dispensation and understanding from the
> others. Why isn't this the case with religious
> people?
Well, to me the difference is that gays who want to marry are prevented from doing so by the government. I don't like the government preventing people from doing something that I see no harm in, so I side with the folks that want to marry.
Religious folks, on the other hand, seem to be bent on either making *me* do something they want me to do or preventing *me* from doing something they don't want me to do. Either way, I think that *my* choice should outweigh that of the religious folks. When I see the religious folks trying to force others to behave in a certain way (you MUST say "Merry Christmas" rather than "happy solstice") I object because I wouldn't want to be told what to do . . . .
jen
at December 22, 2005 2:02 PM
"First, give us a reason to agree with you..."
I presented a minor reason in my original message - Americans tend to go for supernatural religion even when naturalistic alternatives are available.
But the main reason I think so is due to research on the relationship between religiosity and life satisfaction. The fact that deeply religious people report greater life satisfaction and seem more resistant to depression has been explained by some as a consequence of the social support that churches offer. But other findings cast doubt on this theory. Committed atheists in America seem to gain identical benefits, even though atheist groups are fewer and smaller, and they face considerable prejudice. And the benefits of religiosity seem to be inversely proportional to education - the well-educated get less out of it.
This has led to another theory, that the benefits are because religions serve as systems for making sense out of life, or integrating life experiences. Therefore the well-educated have less use for religion - they can make sense out of life on their own. And humanist philosophy works just as well as theism. This theory seems more plausible to me. There is an article on this in Free Inquiry Vol. 2, No. 1 ("Reason, Faith, and the Good Life" by Ken Livingston.)*
Most people have families and friends to turn to for support, so I think the "warmth" found at church is not a strong motivating factor for most people. Besides, the level of social support at churches may be overrated, based on the frustrations some Christians I know have voiced.
Of course, there hasn't been much research on this, so the findings are somewhat tentative. But this agrees with my personal experiences as well, so I would wager the "life experiences" theory is closer to the truth.
When I was religious it was because I genuinely believed, and when I lost that belief I naturally quit going to church. I had always liked going to church (well, except that it was a bit boring), but I quit anyway. I went through an unhappy "searching" phase, but I eventually did some serious reading on atheism, skepticism, and humanism, and reached a point where everything suddenly "clicked". I gained an enhanced sense of inner peace from this. Though I didn't know it at the time, I had apparently acquired a much more coherent system for integrating experiences than I had had before, and that in itself made a difference in my life. I then became interested in organized atheism (and only atheism.)
Of course, I'm sure some people do go mainly for social reasons. A small percentage of churchgoers are atheists, after all. But I would wager these people are a minority in the US.
Incidentally, I used to know an atheist who sang on a church choir. According to him, that was his only reason for going - he enjoyed singing.
"...and second acknowledge that the need might not be merely "emotional." A little social squeeze might be just what they're looking for... People like boundaries, and as Amy's restaurant photos attest, they don't always get them."
Sure, I can do that, though you are revising your position. But for reasons stated above, I doubt that is the most important factor.
All the best,
Charles
* By the way, does anyone have more info on this? It's been some time since I read about the subject, so there may be new studies I haven't heard of.
GodlessRose
at December 22, 2005 9:36 PM
I'm wandering way off topic, but the link to the FFRF got me wondering just how many major atheist organizations there are in the US now. (This may be because I'm running a slight fever.) Here are the ones I can think of:
> Americans tend to go for supernatural
> religion even when naturalistic
> alternatives are available...
Well, we're talking about the meaning of life, not homeopathic cures for athlete's foot. Why do you think anyone should prefer a natural God? People look at it squarely almost always agree that nature sucks hose: The supernatural power of the Diety is a source of a attraction, not a mark against it. This is not justan American tendency.
> Most people have families and friends
> to turn to for support
I've had the Scientologists on my mind all week because of that LA Times piece on Sunday. I think the idea that they can be part of something much greater than their own lives and families is a big source of their enthusiasm. Same with the Catholics.
> you are revising your position.
Whence to where?
Crid
at December 23, 2005 2:14 AM
"Well, we're talking about the meaning of life, not homeopathic cures for athlete's foot. Why do you think anyone should prefer a natural God?"
By "naturalistic alternatives", I meant organized religions/philosophies that do not require supernatural assumptions, such as Unitarian Universalism and humanism. I didn't mean to imply belief in a naturalistic God. (If it even makes sense to talk about such a thing.)
"People look at it squarely almost always agree that nature sucks hose: The supernatural power of the Diety is a source of a attraction, not a mark against it. This is not justan American tendency."
The popularity of theism varies a great deal from country to country. The US is by far the most theistic of all the developed nations. Only about 12% of Americans are atheists*, according to the Barna Group. (Other estimates vary, but this is at least in the ball park.) In some western European countries atheists may be over 50% already, depending on which surveys you go by. (The actual number may be less than that, but certainly a lot higher than in the US.) Church attendance is also a lot lower. God isn't nearly as marketable in Canada and Europe.
Interestingly, over 70% of Canadians and western Europeans identify themselves as Christians. But many of these people neither attend church nor believe in God. This phenomenon has been called "cultural Christianity." Many people identify with Christianity in a sort of tribal sense, but have no use for its theology or practices. There is more on this at the Ontario Consultants site.
"I've had the Scientologists on my mind all week because of that LA Times piece on Sunday. I think the idea that they can be part of something much greater than their own lives and families is a big source of their enthusiasm. Same with the Catholics."
Atheists get to be part of something greater than themselves through activism and charity work, or just viewing themselves as supporters/promoters of Enlightenment values. I don't think supernatural assumptions are required.
I suspect the strength of theism is that it reduces life, the universe, and everything to the actions of characters in a story. So it requires very little background knowledge to understand it. Humanism requires more knowledge of science and philosophy, so it is harder to digest. But for those who work through it, it provides a more coherent system for making sense out of life. That is humanism's strength. There's more to it than just that, of course, but I'm inclined to think that's the most important difference.
But naturally, I expect few theists to agree with me. I just expect their numbers in the western world to keep declining.
"Whence to where?"
You were originally only talking (well, typing) about "warmth" - you didn't mention "boundaries." But it's not a matter of great importance.
All the best,
Charles
* I define atheism the way the vast majority of literate atheists do - as simply the absence of belief in God/gods. This broad use of the term may be unfamiliar to those who haven't studied atheist literature. Bertrand Russell-style agnosticism is a form of atheism, despite the protests of some agnostics.
GodlessRose
at December 23, 2005 11:25 PM
> I don't think supernatural
> assumptions are required.
Others will respectfully disagree. There's something admirable about people who want to play chess on the biggest imaginable board-- even if it is, as Amy argues, imaginary.
> requires more knowledge of science
> and philosophy, so it is harder
> to digest.
You're dangerously close to asserting intellectual privilege. The people thus demeaned might not take offense directly, but they can smell the stink of your condescension.
> You were originally only talking
> (well, typing) about "warmth" -
> you didn't mention "boundaries."
> But it's not a matter of great
> importance.
I disagree twice in one point: They're often the same thing, and it's critical. I turned conservative the day I figured out that one of the best things you can do for someone is ask them to be strong in the face of adversity... And Lord knows, this life is all about challenges. Loving parents set tight boundaries for kids without smothering them. Loving wives tame their husbands' sexuality without crippling it. Loving congregations give direction to the flock without being busybodies.
Crid
at December 25, 2005 2:06 AM
"You're dangerously close to asserting intellectual privilege. The people thus demeaned might not take offense directly, but they can smell the stink of your condescension."
I'm sure if I said they are lying, and don't really believe as they claim, they would take it much better. And believers just love to be told that their faith is a delusion brought on by emotional need. (Note the sarcasm.)
I fail to see how any explanation of why people hold an unreasonable belief could be taken well by those who hold that belief. The one I mentioned is just the one that makes the most sense to me. What is your point?
"I disagree twice in one point: They're often the same thing, and it's critical."
I still don't see it. "Warmth" and "boundaries" may often go together, but certainly not always. And they are never "the same thing," even when they do occur together. But then, I tend to look at things in a literal manner.
All the best,
Charles
GodlessRose
at December 25, 2005 5:06 AM
> I'm sure if I said they are
> lying, and don't really believe
> as they claim...
Is that what you believe? Are those the only choices, that A) they're not smart enough to see reality or B) they're liars?
I'm not a let's-join-hands-and-build-a-more-tolerant-tomorrow kind of guy. I deeply admire the distance between people, and believe we're not all the same in our heart of hearts.
But when atheism uses flighty rhetoric and snarky dismissals as seen in this advertisement (and subsequent comments), the pose is as silly as Pat Robertson at his workaday worst. It's a contest of mutual snot-blowing, like children fighting in the back seat during a long trip. Many of the brightest philosophers who ever lived gave their lives to churches. They weren't fucking around. Religion has done a lot to forge civilization, and remains a nourishing power in a lot of strong, sane lives. Belittling those people and the comfort they take from faith shows a tragic lack of humility.
> I tend to look at things
> in a literal manner.
One last shot at it : Love is often best expressed by setting good boundaries. It's how we improve each other.
Crid
at December 25, 2005 10:30 AM
"Is that what you believe? Are those the only choices, that A) they're not smart enough to see reality or B) they're liars?"
Of course not. I'll reiterate and clarify. I think there are three possibilities: 1) A belief is the result of a cognitive process; right or wrong, it is based on perception and reasoning. 2) A belief is adopted for emotional reasons, without regard for rationality. Note that I am using "emotion" in the broad sense, meaning a state of mind in which feeling, sentiment, or attitude take precedence over cognition, to paraphrase Webster's. 3) The belief expressed is not actually held by the person expressing it; it is "mental lying", as Thomas Paine called it, or something similar.
Those are the only options that come to my mind. I lean to cognitive explanations, though I'm sure they don't account for all believers. And of course, there is overlap between these explanations.
If it pleases you to say the believers just aren't "smart", then so be it. But I think supernatural beliefs persist due to cognitive limitations that all human brains share. I don't see how theism can stand up to criticism, and I've done more than a little reading on the subject. But at the same time, it is perfectly understandable that some people would jump to such conclusions and have trouble letting go of them. I won't try to elaborate further, but there are books and magazine articles that discuss this view. How We Believe by Michael Shermer is worth a look. And Religion Explained by Paschal Boyer sounds interesting, but I haven't gotten around to reading it yet. (I may modify my views once I do.)
"But when atheism uses flighty rhetoric and snarky dismissals as seen in this advertisement (and subsequent comments), the pose is as silly as Pat Robertson at his workaday worst."
I must admit the FFRF's in-your-face approach does make me uncomfortable. But everyone is different. Some people respond better to a kick in the butt than gentle words. I'm content to see different people/groups take different approaches.
You could say there is something of a conservative-to-liberal spectrum visible in the atheist community. The "conservatives" view religion as a negative force, and see a conflict between it and atheism/humanism/freethought/etc. The "liberals" see humanism/whatever as simply a more reasoned form of religion. They see humanism as a continuation of religious traditions rather than a force in opposition to them. And I think it fair to say both views have merit. It is largely a matter of perspective and temperament.
The FFRF and American Atheists are at the "fundamentalist" end. The American Humanist Association, Humanistic Judaism, and HUUmanists Association are nearer the liberal end. And the American Ethical Union almost seem to be embarrassed by their own atheism. They avoid mentioning it, so you have to do a bit of reading about them before it becomes apparent.
There is one advantage to a confrontational approach - it gets more attention. A gentle approach is good if you have a captive audience, but otherwise it tends to be ignored. American Atheists got a fair amount of publicity due to Madalyn Murray-O'Hair's brash persona. But how many people have heard of Ethical Culture? The O'Hair approach certainly isn't for me, but I find I must respect it.
"One last shot at it : Love is often best expressed by setting good boundaries. It's how we improve each other."
That makes sense.
All the best,
Charles
GodlessRose
at December 25, 2005 10:24 PM
> supernatural beliefs persist
> due to cognitive limitations
But it's not like people are STUPID or anything, right?
Don't kid a kidder.
Crid
at December 25, 2005 11:48 PM
"But it's not like people are STUPID or anything, right?
"Don't kid a kidder."
Seriously? I believed in God at one time. If I hadn't been exposed to the right ideas at the right time, I think I still would. If theists as a group are stupid, then so am I, regardless of my current views.
I envy the people who never believed, at any point in their lives. (I've known a couple.) They're a step ahead of me.
All the best,
Charles
GodlessRose
at December 26, 2005 3:22 AM
You were speaking only for yourself? All is forgiven.
"hardens hearts"?
Don't be upset if your neighbors offer some contention here.
Also, as Patrick will explain, our deeply Christian president from Texas seems well attuned to the "dangers of theocracy."
Note also the proud claim of tax deductability. Why exactly are we supposed to admire them more than the Catholics or the Scientologists?
Crid at December 21, 2005 10:43 AM
Crid,
I'd say that "hardens hearts" is at least arguable. Back when I was in a church, there was definitely a ranking of who the church as a community was interested in helping. If you were already in the church, not so much (oddly enough). If you were completely uninterested in the church, definitely not. But if you were someone who had just suffered some sort of setback and you responded well to church overtures (well enough that they thought you might join the church), then they were definitely interested in helping. To me, that always did seem very calculating and hard-hearted.
I've also seem some very cold and hard-hearted reactions by people in the church to someone's decision to leave the church (and if you were the unfortunate person blamed for being the cause of a divorce, forget it).
jen at December 21, 2005 3:17 PM
Most people go to church not because they're stupid or conniving or in the grip of a centuries-old practical joke. They go for warmth. And they get it. So Amy's frosty sarcasm actually increases their belief, which is probably OK by Amy, because it's fun to snark.
Crid at December 21, 2005 4:03 PM
"Most people go to church not because they're stupid or conniving or in the grip of a centuries-old practical joke. They go for warmth. And they get it."
They can get that at any good Unitarian Universalist fellowship or atheist/humanist center, too. Most people get involved in supernatural religion due to belief or social pressure, not emotional need.
And of course, fewer and fewer people in western countries go to church or consider themselves Christians each year. People get less satisfaction out of it, and have more trouble taking the supernaturalism seriously. It's interesting that even as the Christian dominionists attain an unprecedented level of political power in the US, their popular support is declining. There is some good info on religious trends at the Ontario Consultants for Religious Tolerance site:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_basic.htm
Bt the way, I took the bible and church/state quizzes at the FFRF site. I aced the church/state quiz (if you'll pardon my bragging,) but only got 37 of the 50 bible questions right. I never knew the bible well enough to score a 50, but at one time I could have scored a 40, at least. I'm slipping. The quizzes are here:
http://www.ffrf.org/quiz/
All the best,
Charles
GodlessRose at December 22, 2005 4:11 AM
If "hard-hearted" includes a propensity for lying and abuse, I must agree. On-line and in person, people "of faith" are the most blatant liars and hypocrites I can find anywhere. They will do anything to preserve the idea that they are "special" for merely thinking a few shalow thoughts.
Radwaste at December 22, 2005 4:20 AM
> Most people get involved in supernatural
> religion due to belief or social
> pressure, not emotional need.
First, give us a reason to agree with you, and second acknowledge that the need might not be merely "emotional." A little social squeeze might be just what they're looking for... People like boundaries, and as Amy's restaurant photos attest, they don't always get them.
> people "of faith" are the most blatant
> liars and hypocrites I can find...
Sell it, Sugar, sell it! Continue to tell people they're not special and their thoughts are shallow... That'll bring 'em around!
When Hitchens writes things like that Slate piece, it's part of his charm, like how he holds his liquor. But after shedding the affectations of Christianity in my own heart, holiday observances seemed merely inane. There's no reason to get cranked about them... *LOTs* of things people do to ornament their surroundings are pretty strange. When your heart is truly cold, you don't take it personally.
(Except that the xmas tunes never get any better. If you actually find even one of them charming, the love will be beaten from your ears within two years by cloying arrangements and pitiless repetition. These people make KLOS-FM sound like a boiling cauldron of musical innovation. We can protect ourselves with Ipods.)
My first dirty fights on this blog were about gay marriage. Amy was fer it. The case was made that the feelings of this minority of people were so strong as to deserve special dispensation and understanding from the others. Why isn't this the case with religious people? There are a lot more people of faith than homosexual inclination, and the need seems similarly intrinsic. You find some of their judgments and choices lacking; but that's how others feel about homosexuality. Gosh Amy, can't you be a little more tolerant?
Crid at December 22, 2005 10:50 AM
>The case was made that the feelings of this
> minority of people were so strong as to deserve
> special dispensation and understanding from the
> others. Why isn't this the case with religious
> people?
Well, to me the difference is that gays who want to marry are prevented from doing so by the government. I don't like the government preventing people from doing something that I see no harm in, so I side with the folks that want to marry.
Religious folks, on the other hand, seem to be bent on either making *me* do something they want me to do or preventing *me* from doing something they don't want me to do. Either way, I think that *my* choice should outweigh that of the religious folks. When I see the religious folks trying to force others to behave in a certain way (you MUST say "Merry Christmas" rather than "happy solstice") I object because I wouldn't want to be told what to do . . . .
jen at December 22, 2005 2:02 PM
"First, give us a reason to agree with you..."
I presented a minor reason in my original message - Americans tend to go for supernatural religion even when naturalistic alternatives are available.
But the main reason I think so is due to research on the relationship between religiosity and life satisfaction. The fact that deeply religious people report greater life satisfaction and seem more resistant to depression has been explained by some as a consequence of the social support that churches offer. But other findings cast doubt on this theory. Committed atheists in America seem to gain identical benefits, even though atheist groups are fewer and smaller, and they face considerable prejudice. And the benefits of religiosity seem to be inversely proportional to education - the well-educated get less out of it.
This has led to another theory, that the benefits are because religions serve as systems for making sense out of life, or integrating life experiences. Therefore the well-educated have less use for religion - they can make sense out of life on their own. And humanist philosophy works just as well as theism. This theory seems more plausible to me. There is an article on this in Free Inquiry Vol. 2, No. 1 ("Reason, Faith, and the Good Life" by Ken Livingston.)*
Most people have families and friends to turn to for support, so I think the "warmth" found at church is not a strong motivating factor for most people. Besides, the level of social support at churches may be overrated, based on the frustrations some Christians I know have voiced.
Of course, there hasn't been much research on this, so the findings are somewhat tentative. But this agrees with my personal experiences as well, so I would wager the "life experiences" theory is closer to the truth.
When I was religious it was because I genuinely believed, and when I lost that belief I naturally quit going to church. I had always liked going to church (well, except that it was a bit boring), but I quit anyway. I went through an unhappy "searching" phase, but I eventually did some serious reading on atheism, skepticism, and humanism, and reached a point where everything suddenly "clicked". I gained an enhanced sense of inner peace from this. Though I didn't know it at the time, I had apparently acquired a much more coherent system for integrating experiences than I had had before, and that in itself made a difference in my life. I then became interested in organized atheism (and only atheism.)
Of course, I'm sure some people do go mainly for social reasons. A small percentage of churchgoers are atheists, after all. But I would wager these people are a minority in the US.
Incidentally, I used to know an atheist who sang on a church choir. According to him, that was his only reason for going - he enjoyed singing.
"...and second acknowledge that the need might not be merely "emotional." A little social squeeze might be just what they're looking for... People like boundaries, and as Amy's restaurant photos attest, they don't always get them."
Sure, I can do that, though you are revising your position. But for reasons stated above, I doubt that is the most important factor.
All the best,
Charles
* By the way, does anyone have more info on this? It's been some time since I read about the subject, so there may be new studies I haven't heard of.
GodlessRose at December 22, 2005 9:36 PM
I'm wandering way off topic, but the link to the FFRF got me wondering just how many major atheist organizations there are in the US now. (This may be because I'm running a slight fever.) Here are the ones I can think of:
American Atheists
Freedom from Religion Foundation
Atheist Alliance
Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers
Council for Secular Humanism
American Humanist Association
Society for Humanistic Judaism
American Ethical Union
HUUmanists Association (An affiliate of the Unitarian Universalist Association, which is atheist-friendly.)
What have I missed?
All the best,
Charles
GodlessRose at December 22, 2005 10:48 PM
> Americans tend to go for supernatural
> religion even when naturalistic
> alternatives are available...
Well, we're talking about the meaning of life, not homeopathic cures for athlete's foot. Why do you think anyone should prefer a natural God? People look at it squarely almost always agree that nature sucks hose: The supernatural power of the Diety is a source of a attraction, not a mark against it. This is not justan American tendency.
> Most people have families and friends
> to turn to for support
I've had the Scientologists on my mind all week because of that LA Times piece on Sunday. I think the idea that they can be part of something much greater than their own lives and families is a big source of their enthusiasm. Same with the Catholics.
> you are revising your position.
Whence to where?
Crid at December 23, 2005 2:14 AM
"Well, we're talking about the meaning of life, not homeopathic cures for athlete's foot. Why do you think anyone should prefer a natural God?"
By "naturalistic alternatives", I meant organized religions/philosophies that do not require supernatural assumptions, such as Unitarian Universalism and humanism. I didn't mean to imply belief in a naturalistic God. (If it even makes sense to talk about such a thing.)
"People look at it squarely almost always agree that nature sucks hose: The supernatural power of the Diety is a source of a attraction, not a mark against it. This is not justan American tendency."
The popularity of theism varies a great deal from country to country. The US is by far the most theistic of all the developed nations. Only about 12% of Americans are atheists*, according to the Barna Group. (Other estimates vary, but this is at least in the ball park.) In some western European countries atheists may be over 50% already, depending on which surveys you go by. (The actual number may be less than that, but certainly a lot higher than in the US.) Church attendance is also a lot lower. God isn't nearly as marketable in Canada and Europe.
Interestingly, over 70% of Canadians and western Europeans identify themselves as Christians. But many of these people neither attend church nor believe in God. This phenomenon has been called "cultural Christianity." Many people identify with Christianity in a sort of tribal sense, but have no use for its theology or practices. There is more on this at the Ontario Consultants site.
"I've had the Scientologists on my mind all week because of that LA Times piece on Sunday. I think the idea that they can be part of something much greater than their own lives and families is a big source of their enthusiasm. Same with the Catholics."
Atheists get to be part of something greater than themselves through activism and charity work, or just viewing themselves as supporters/promoters of Enlightenment values. I don't think supernatural assumptions are required.
I suspect the strength of theism is that it reduces life, the universe, and everything to the actions of characters in a story. So it requires very little background knowledge to understand it. Humanism requires more knowledge of science and philosophy, so it is harder to digest. But for those who work through it, it provides a more coherent system for making sense out of life. That is humanism's strength. There's more to it than just that, of course, but I'm inclined to think that's the most important difference.
But naturally, I expect few theists to agree with me. I just expect their numbers in the western world to keep declining.
"Whence to where?"
You were originally only talking (well, typing) about "warmth" - you didn't mention "boundaries." But it's not a matter of great importance.
All the best,
Charles
* I define atheism the way the vast majority of literate atheists do - as simply the absence of belief in God/gods. This broad use of the term may be unfamiliar to those who haven't studied atheist literature. Bertrand Russell-style agnosticism is a form of atheism, despite the protests of some agnostics.
GodlessRose at December 23, 2005 11:25 PM
> I don't think supernatural
> assumptions are required.
Others will respectfully disagree. There's something admirable about people who want to play chess on the biggest imaginable board-- even if it is, as Amy argues, imaginary.
> requires more knowledge of science
> and philosophy, so it is harder
> to digest.
You're dangerously close to asserting intellectual privilege. The people thus demeaned might not take offense directly, but they can smell the stink of your condescension.
> You were originally only talking
> (well, typing) about "warmth" -
> you didn't mention "boundaries."
> But it's not a matter of great
> importance.
I disagree twice in one point: They're often the same thing, and it's critical. I turned conservative the day I figured out that one of the best things you can do for someone is ask them to be strong in the face of adversity... And Lord knows, this life is all about challenges. Loving parents set tight boundaries for kids without smothering them. Loving wives tame their husbands' sexuality without crippling it. Loving congregations give direction to the flock without being busybodies.
Crid at December 25, 2005 2:06 AM
"You're dangerously close to asserting intellectual privilege. The people thus demeaned might not take offense directly, but they can smell the stink of your condescension."
I'm sure if I said they are lying, and don't really believe as they claim, they would take it much better. And believers just love to be told that their faith is a delusion brought on by emotional need. (Note the sarcasm.)
I fail to see how any explanation of why people hold an unreasonable belief could be taken well by those who hold that belief. The one I mentioned is just the one that makes the most sense to me. What is your point?
"I disagree twice in one point: They're often the same thing, and it's critical."
I still don't see it. "Warmth" and "boundaries" may often go together, but certainly not always. And they are never "the same thing," even when they do occur together. But then, I tend to look at things in a literal manner.
All the best,
Charles
GodlessRose at December 25, 2005 5:06 AM
> I'm sure if I said they are
> lying, and don't really believe
> as they claim...
Is that what you believe? Are those the only choices, that A) they're not smart enough to see reality or B) they're liars?
I'm not a let's-join-hands-and-build-a-more-tolerant-tomorrow kind of guy. I deeply admire the distance between people, and believe we're not all the same in our heart of hearts.
But when atheism uses flighty rhetoric and snarky dismissals as seen in this advertisement (and subsequent comments), the pose is as silly as Pat Robertson at his workaday worst. It's a contest of mutual snot-blowing, like children fighting in the back seat during a long trip. Many of the brightest philosophers who ever lived gave their lives to churches. They weren't fucking around. Religion has done a lot to forge civilization, and remains a nourishing power in a lot of strong, sane lives. Belittling those people and the comfort they take from faith shows a tragic lack of humility.
> I tend to look at things
> in a literal manner.
One last shot at it : Love is often best expressed by setting good boundaries. It's how we improve each other.
Crid at December 25, 2005 10:30 AM
"Is that what you believe? Are those the only choices, that A) they're not smart enough to see reality or B) they're liars?"
Of course not. I'll reiterate and clarify. I think there are three possibilities: 1) A belief is the result of a cognitive process; right or wrong, it is based on perception and reasoning. 2) A belief is adopted for emotional reasons, without regard for rationality. Note that I am using "emotion" in the broad sense, meaning a state of mind in which feeling, sentiment, or attitude take precedence over cognition, to paraphrase Webster's. 3) The belief expressed is not actually held by the person expressing it; it is "mental lying", as Thomas Paine called it, or something similar.
Those are the only options that come to my mind. I lean to cognitive explanations, though I'm sure they don't account for all believers. And of course, there is overlap between these explanations.
If it pleases you to say the believers just aren't "smart", then so be it. But I think supernatural beliefs persist due to cognitive limitations that all human brains share. I don't see how theism can stand up to criticism, and I've done more than a little reading on the subject. But at the same time, it is perfectly understandable that some people would jump to such conclusions and have trouble letting go of them. I won't try to elaborate further, but there are books and magazine articles that discuss this view. How We Believe by Michael Shermer is worth a look. And Religion Explained by Paschal Boyer sounds interesting, but I haven't gotten around to reading it yet. (I may modify my views once I do.)
"But when atheism uses flighty rhetoric and snarky dismissals as seen in this advertisement (and subsequent comments), the pose is as silly as Pat Robertson at his workaday worst."
I must admit the FFRF's in-your-face approach does make me uncomfortable. But everyone is different. Some people respond better to a kick in the butt than gentle words. I'm content to see different people/groups take different approaches.
You could say there is something of a conservative-to-liberal spectrum visible in the atheist community. The "conservatives" view religion as a negative force, and see a conflict between it and atheism/humanism/freethought/etc. The "liberals" see humanism/whatever as simply a more reasoned form of religion. They see humanism as a continuation of religious traditions rather than a force in opposition to them. And I think it fair to say both views have merit. It is largely a matter of perspective and temperament.
The FFRF and American Atheists are at the "fundamentalist" end. The American Humanist Association, Humanistic Judaism, and HUUmanists Association are nearer the liberal end. And the American Ethical Union almost seem to be embarrassed by their own atheism. They avoid mentioning it, so you have to do a bit of reading about them before it becomes apparent.
There is one advantage to a confrontational approach - it gets more attention. A gentle approach is good if you have a captive audience, but otherwise it tends to be ignored. American Atheists got a fair amount of publicity due to Madalyn Murray-O'Hair's brash persona. But how many people have heard of Ethical Culture? The O'Hair approach certainly isn't for me, but I find I must respect it.
"One last shot at it : Love is often best expressed by setting good boundaries. It's how we improve each other."
That makes sense.
All the best,
Charles
GodlessRose at December 25, 2005 10:24 PM
> supernatural beliefs persist
> due to cognitive limitations
But it's not like people are STUPID or anything, right?
Don't kid a kidder.
Crid at December 25, 2005 11:48 PM
"But it's not like people are STUPID or anything, right?
"Don't kid a kidder."
Seriously? I believed in God at one time. If I hadn't been exposed to the right ideas at the right time, I think I still would. If theists as a group are stupid, then so am I, regardless of my current views.
I envy the people who never believed, at any point in their lives. (I've known a couple.) They're a step ahead of me.
All the best,
Charles
GodlessRose at December 26, 2005 3:22 AM
You were speaking only for yourself? All is forgiven.
Crid at December 26, 2005 9:52 AM
Perhaps you'll like Scott Adams' take on the matter:
http://images.ucomics.com/images/pdfs/sadams/godsdebris.pdf
Radwaste at December 27, 2005 5:15 PM
Leave a comment