Who Needs God?

[EdwardAbbey]

Why do people think they need God to get through the day?

 

People who believe in God seem to think that He gives them reason to live and without God they have no meaning and purpose. I think that is kind of a sad way to look at life.

 

I wonder what would happen to some of these people if they came to the realization and conclusion that God is just as fake as Santa Claus and there just is no God at all?

 

How would you live your life with the knowledge there is no God?

[Spiderwire]

How would you live your life with the knowledge there is no God?

 

In Sam Harris' book, The End Of Faith, he describes such a scenario.

 

What if all our knowledge about the world were suddenly to disappear? Imagine that six billion of us woke up tomorrow morning in a state of utter ignorance and confusion. Our books and computers are still here, but we can't make heads or tails of their contents. We have even forgotten how to drive our cars and brush our teeth. What knowledge would we want to reclaim first? Well, there's that business about growing food and building shelter that we would want to get reacquainted with. We would want to relearn how to use and repair many of our machines. Learning to understand spoken and written language would also be a top priority, given that these skills are necessary for acquiring most others. When in this process of reclaiming our humanity will it be important to know that Jesus was born of a virgin? Or that he was resurrected? And how would we relearn these truths, if they are indeed true? By reading the Bible? Our tour of the shelves will deliver similar pearls from antiquity - like the "fact" that Isis, the goddess of fertility, sports an impressive pair of cow horns. Reading further, we will learn that Thor carries a hammer and that Marduk's sacred animals are horses, dogs, and a dragon with a forked tongue. Whom shall we give top billing in our resurrected world? Yaweh or Shiva? And when will we want to relearn that premarital sex is a sin? Or that adulteresses should be stoned to death? Or that the soul enteres the zygote at the moment of conception? And what will we think of those curious people who begin proclaiming that one of our books is distinct from all others in that it was actually written by the Creator of the universe?

 

There are undoubtedly spiritual truths that we would want to relearn - once we manage to feed and clothe ourselves - and these are truths that we have learned imperfectly in our present state. How is it possible, for instance, to overcome one's fear and inwardness and simply love other human beings? Assume, for the moment, that such a process of personal transformation exists and that there is something worth knowing about it; there is, in other words, some skill, or discipline, or conceptual understanding, or dietary supplement that allows for the reliable transformation of fearful, hateful, or indifferent persons into loving ones. If so, we should be positively desperate to know about it. There may even be a few biblical passage that would be useful in this regard - but as for the whole rafts of untestable doctrines, clearly there would be no reasonable basis to take them up again. The Bible and Koran, it seems certain, would find themselves respectfully shelved next to Ovid's Metamorphoses and the Egyptian Book of the Dead.

 

The point is that most of what we currently hold sacred is not sacred for any reason other than that it was thought sacred yesterday. Surely, if we could create the world anew, the practice of organizing our lives around untestable propositions found in ancient literature - to say nothing of killing and dying for them - would be impossible to justify. What stops us from finding it impossible now?

 

 

I'd like to think that if such a notion as "GOD" had never been dreamed up, the world would be a very different (and probably better) place.

[EdwardAbbey]

How would you live your life with the knowledge there is no God?

 

In Sam Harris' book, The End Of Faith, he describes such a scenario.

 

What if all our knowledge about the world were suddenly to disappear? Imagine that six billion of us woke up tomorrow morning in a state of utter ignorance and confusion. Our books and computers are still here, but we can't make heads or tails of their contents. We have even forgotten how to drive our cars and brush our teeth. What knowledge would we want to reclaim first? Well, there's that business about growing food and building shelter that we would want to get reacquainted with. We would want to relearn how to use and repair many of our machines. Learning to understand spoken and written language would also be a top priority, given that these skills are necessary for acquiring most others. When in this process of reclaiming our humanity will it be important to know that Jesus was born of a virgin? Or that he was resurrected? And how would we relearn these truths, if they are indeed true? By reading the Bible? Our tour of the shelves will deliver similar pearls from antiquity - like the "fact" that Isis, the goddess of fertility, sports an impressive pair of cow horns. Reading further, we will learn that Thor carries a hammer and that Marduk's sacred animals are horses, dogs, and a dragon with a forked tongue. Whom shall we give top billing in our resurrected world? Yaweh or Shiva? And when will we want to relearn that premarital sex is a sin? Or that adulteresses should be stoned to death? Or that the soul enteres the zygote at the moment of conception? And what will we think of those curious people who begin proclaiming that one of our books is distinct from all others in that it was actually written by the Creator of the universe?

 

There are undoubtedly spiritual truths that we would want to relearn - once we manage to feed and clothe ourselves - and these are truths that we have learned imperfectly in our present state. How is it possible, for instance, to overcome one's fear and inwardness and simply love other human beings? Assume, for the moment, that such a process of personal transformation exists and that there is something worth knowing about it; there is, in other words, some skill, or discipline, or conceptual understanding, or dietary supplement that allows for the reliable transformation of fearful, hateful, or indifferent persons into loving ones. If so, we should be positively desperate to know about it. There may even be a few biblical passage that would be useful in this regard - but as for the whole rafts of untestable doctrines, clearly there would be no reasonable basis to take them up again. The Bible and Koran, it seems certain, would find themselves respectfully shelved next to Ovid's Metamorphoses and the Egyptian Book of the Dead.

 

The point is that most of what we currently hold sacred is not sacred for any reason other than that it was thought sacred yesterday. Surely, if we could create the world anew, the practice of organizing our lives around untestable propositions found in ancient literature - to say nothing of killing and dying for them - would be impossible to justify. What stops us from finding it impossible now?

 

 

I'd like to think that if such a notion as "GOD" had never been dreamed up, the world would be a very different (and probably better) place.

 

That is so freakin true my friend. I lost count myself at how many times such thoughts came to mind. What if God were never invented? Yes I think the world would have been a whole lot better off and a much better place to live. It would probably be devoid of all wars and the majority other crimes as well to a certain extent. By the way, what chapter is that Harris quote? It's been a long time since I read his book. Keep me posted. Great post friend.

[Spiderwire]

That is so freakin true my friend. I lost count myself at how many times such thoughts came to mind. What if God were never invented? Yes I think the world would have been a whole lot better off and a much better place to live. It would probably be devoid of all wars and the majority other crimes as well to a certain extent. By the way, what chapter is that Harris quote? It's been a long time since I read his book. Keep me posted. Great post friend.

 

It's in the very first chapter of the book - pages 23 and 24 in the edition I'm reading (for the third time). He's fantastic, isn't he? There was a time when I had a "live and let live" mentality about religion, but the farther away I'm able to stand back and look at ALL of them, the more I see that they're all just a different brand of poison. I certainly don't advocate harming anyone for their beliefs, but the days of respecting Iron Age mythology have got to come to an end. Religion is holding our civilization back and threatening millions of lives. I can't imagine that there wouldn't be war or crime or greed and many of the other things that ravage our world today, but I also can't help but think things would be different and quite possibly better if human beings weren't killing and dying over ancient religious texts.

 

I can't claim to have any original thoughts on the matter, but I'm getting better at recognizing bullshit and in using my thought process to weigh and consider what is reasonably stated. What Sam Harris has to say about so many things forces me to THINK. I like that.

[Neon Genesis]

This is just my personal opinion, but I don't think religion is necessarily a dangerous threat to society in and itself. It certainly has the potential to be dangerous but then you could say that for just about anything humanity creates. Should we then get rid of anything humans make that could be potentially dangerous? But then we wouldn't have a whole lot left, then, would we? Take technology for example. Technology has and can be used for either negative or positive things for society. Since technology was created by humans rather than god and has the potential to be dangerous, does that mean we should get rid of every single technological invention we create instead of trying to create it so that it benefits us instead? If the gods are made by humans, why can't they be used for the benefit of humanity instead of simply getting rid of it? I think the real danger of religion isn't having faith in gods but it's when people let religion control them instead of people controlling religion. To me that's the real problem of fundamentalist religion because it discourages people from thinking for themselves and forming their own beliefs and instead forces people to do whatever the leader says or else suffer the consequences.

 

However, not all religions are necessarily like that nor does religion always have to be like that. If religion is made by humans, then it's up to humans to decide on whether or not religion can be used for the benefit or destruction of society. The same is true for anything else humans create. Like the saying goes, "Gods don't kill people. People with gods kill people." I also don't think getting rid of religion is going to solve all of our problems and make society a better utopia. I mean, there's lots of people in society who don't believe in the existence of fairies, but has the lack of belief in fairies solved the problems of society or is there something more at work here? Certainly it seems like the most secular societies have the lowest crime rates than the most religious societies, but it doesn't mean those secular societies are totally free from all problems. For example, I don't have the link on me, but I recall reading that even though a secular nation like Japan has a lower crime rate than a more religious nation like the U.S., I recall reading once that they had a higher suicide rate than the U.S. Someone correct me if I got that info wrong. So, I don't think getting rid of religion will get rid of all our problems. I think we'll just have different problems to deal with and different approaches on how to solve them, but I think we'll always still have problems. As for why people think they need a god, I'm not an expert on the subject, so take what I say with a grain of salt, but IMO, I think one of the main reasons why people believe in god is the fear of death and the unknown. Death can be a scary thing for a lot of people and it's natural to fear the unknown, so some people find belief in a loving god and a peaceful afterlife comforting to them.

[Eric_PK]

I think the real danger of religion isn't having faith in gods but it's when people let religion control them instead of people controlling religion. To me that's the real problem of fundamentalist religion because it discourages people from thinking for themselves and forming their own beliefs and instead forces people to do whatever the leader says or else suffer the consequences.

 

However, not all religions are necessarily like that nor does religion always have to be like that.

 

I agree with your first point - that's why religions are dangerous.

 

I don't really agree with your second point. Most of the major religions that feature belief in god also feature god as a lawgiver. Once you have that feature, it's going to be dangerous. It's the "god is all powerfull, do what he says is right" facet, and if you take either of those away, you end up with one of:

 

1) God is all powerful, but do what you think is best

 

2) God isn't all powerfull, but do what he says is right

 

Neither of those really work as constructs you can organize around, though while people might hold them individually, they wouldn't be organized religions.

[Spiderwire]

This is just my personal opinion, but I don't think religion is necessarily a dangerous threat to society in and itself.

 

I want to start off by saying I enjoy your posts a lot and I agree with what you have to say an overwhelming majority of the time. I gotta disagree with you on this one. Here's why...

 

Nearly all religions claim exclusive rights to truth. Their way is, in their minds, the correct way. The right way. How can a person who is committed to their religion genuinely have respect (not just show respect) for someone who, in their mind, isn't just wrong but bound for hell? There is an epic disparagement in progress when that is the case.

 

But most importantly, it's not religion or religious doctrine that is the real problem. It's the level at which a person actually believes the religion or the religious doctrine. For example, Exodus 22:18 says, "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." In our society, there are many Christians who would probably say that the practice of witchcraft or any other type of dark art is something they want nothing to do with, but they don't take the scripture literally. They can justify that, perhaps, in the past it was something that needed to be done, but they really don't think that someone who is into witchcraft should be killed in this day and age. That's most certainly true for most Christians, I'd say. However, there are Christians who believe that is the very word of God and that they would be remiss if they didn't kill a witch because... well... God said to. They could kill such a person with a clean conscience - in fact, believing they were commanded to do so. The fact of the matter is that there are people in this world who read their religious doctrines, believe them with every fiber of their being, and they just might have you or someone you love in their cross hairs. Entire nations fall easily into this category and then there's the possibility of mass destruction. There isn't hatred in their hearts, but rather blind devotion to their god. This aspect makes them even more dangerous than someone who is in a frothing rage, who has been crushed under someone's boot, or who is seeking political revolution. It is a cool and casual disregard for human life that's based upon the reading of an ancient religious text. That makes religion a threat to society and to our future as a civilization.

 

Those are my thoughts (with a little help from Sam) and I hope you don't take them as a personal attack. I really enjoy your posts. I just disagree with you on this subject.

[Neon Genesis]

I'm not offended by your post, Spiderwire. I enjoy reading your posts too and the variety of different opinions on this forum is one of the things I love about ex-c. I can understand your concerns about religion. I used to hold a similar stance once myself. I just think now though that there are more productive ways of handling the problem of blind devotion than just getting rid of the whole thing of faith. After all, both Plato and Aristotle defended slavery and yet don't we still find value in the positive aspects of their philosophies even though we know slavery is immoral? Certainly the majority of religious believers do blindly believe in an unjust and cruel god, but not all of them do nor do all religious believers read their holy scriptures as the literal word of god. There are some religious believers out there who do focus on the loving and kind aspects of their texts and would agree that the immoral doctrines found in those same texts could never possibly be the words of an all-loving god. I think instead of trying to deconvert the religious, we should focus on encouraging this view and for me at least, I think the ideal religion would be something like Unitarian Universalism, where people of all faiths or even no faith at all are accepted. The UUs also help fight for the equal rights of blacks, women, and gays, and are a strong supporter of the ACLU. It's people like that why I just can't hate all religions. As the great John Shelby Spong says in this video,

(which is really great and inspiring and well worth watching; kudos to AM for PMing it to me), I think it would be more productive if we concentrate more on purging the tribal mentality from religion and encouraging a stronger focus on the loving and spiritually uplifting aspects of religion rather than just dismantling the whole thing.

[Antlerman]

The problem I have with the more outspoken voices of modern atheism, such as Harris and Dawkins, is because they look at one slice of it, paint the whole thing as that one slice, then attack it from a rationalistic point of view, ignoring vast amounts of research into extremely complex issues of human society. They are appealing, because of people's frustrations with the more vocal elements of American Evangelical Christianity, in much the same way Evangelical Christianity appeals to people frustrated with problems of modern society. But at the end of the day, it's just as much a narrow look at life as what comes out of those who see the Bible as addressing all issues human. It's basically choosing which religion of "answers" to follow - in one case religious, in the other secular. I don't see either as really addressing the issues. They're more just offering a promise of relief to the symptoms, which is why they have appeal to either side.

 

The belief that getting rid of religion will get rid of the problems we see, is as unfounded a presupposition as saying the world will be better if we all converted to Christianity! People create religion. They create God in their own image. Those who abuse religion, will find some other system to create their own image in. You don't think those who latched onto the OT to burn witches, couldn't have found some other excuse for their beliefs? Do all people who read the Bible act that way? No. Do all people who believe in the fact of evolution abuse it for supporting genocide? Of course not.

 

So how is Dawkins or Harris saying getting rid of religion any different in this context than the fundamentalist saying getting rid of belief in evolution will solve a problem? They're both just opposite sides of the same coin. Harris' arguments are not that good. Would people recreate something that looks like religion? You bet they would. They do it every day. That's why you have all sorts of new religions created every day, all manner of changes within religions, and movements of secular philosophies. It's all driven by the same thing: Being human; something I don't hear being explored at all in what Dawkins says in how he chides religion. I dislike the rhetoric because it sounds the same as what I left in Christianity.

[Spiderwire]

I agree with you in that Harris and Dawkins present a radical element of "non-belief". And what they have to say is attractive to me for the very reasons you've mentioned. I'll admit that.

 

Dawkins is a bit high brow for me and his arrogance is a turn off. Hearing him speak, I feel that he's saying, "There is no God and I know this because I'm so much more intelligent than you are." I know he's not saying that, but that's how I feel - even though I do like some of the points he makes. Science and the theory of evolution aren't huge issues to me, but they do matter, and in layman's terms, they make sense to me. When it gets too scientific, well, my ignorance betrays me and I quickly lose track of the references that are made. Kinda like when lawyers begin referring to landmark decisions. Maybe I need my horizons broadened a bit in order to fully get on the Dawkins bandwagon.

 

What I like about Sam Harris - he can be arrogant, too - is that he does acknowledge that "spirituality" is a necessary and beautiful thing in life. He doesn't crush things of that nature. He sees them as a portion of the process of life. The main point I get from Harris is that religious belief has been immune from criticism for far too long. He's of the opinion that if one were to have unconventional beliefs in the areas of, say, mathematics or meteorology that it would be necessary for that individual to demonstrate convincing evidence as to why they believed in such a manner. He has no issues with someone saying, for instance, that hydraulic pressure is the result of leprechauns working together within the cylinders of a machine. He's of the opinion, however, that such a statement or belief is open to criticism, and in the case of hydraulic power, there's no reason to respect such an outlandish belief just because someone has the right or option to believe it. In reality, we know this isn't how hydraulic power works, so why should we tolerate it when someone says it's so? An idea like that doesn't help anyone, it doesn't solve anything, and it just holds society back. He feels the same about religion. I agree with that.

[Neon Genesis]

The problem I have with the more outspoken voices of modern atheism, such as Harris and Dawkins, is because they look at one slice of it, paint the whole thing as that one slice, then attack it from a rationalistic point of view, ignoring vast amounts of research into extremely complex issues of human society. They are appealing, because of people's frustrations with the more vocal elements of American Evangelical Christianity, in much the same way Evangelical Christianity appeals to people frustrated with problems of modern society.

I've noticed that a lot, too. I haven't read Harris yet, but I have read Dawkins and Hitchens and one of the main problems I have with their arguments is that they make the same mistake that many Christians and non-Christians make that the literal interpretation of the bible is the only correct way to read the bible and moderate believers are just cherry pickers who don't understand the "one true way." This is an easy mistake to make, but if you do a little research, it isn't so much that moderate believers are "cherry pickers." Rather they have completely different ways of interpreting scriptures from fundies to the point where it almost seems more like a different religion rather than just "cherry picking." One example of this is how Dawkins thinks that the book of Genesis was always meant to be read literally and because of this all Christian beliefs are automatically incompatible with evolution and everyone else is a cherry picker. But if you research it a bit, you'll find out that in the original Hebrew language, the word for days literally means generations, and the six days of creation are really six generations, thus the book of Genesis was never meant to be read literally. Rather it's meant to be an allegorical fable to teach spiritual truths and not scientific truths. There were even Christians during the early centuries of the church long before evolution came along that believed Genesis was an allegory, such as St. Augustine and Philo Of Alexandria. It should also be noted that the bible never actually says that the scriptures are meant to be read literally or that there's only one way of interpreting the scriptures.

[Abiyoyo]

This is an easy mistake to make, but if you do a little research, it isn't so much that moderate believers are "cherry pickers." Rather they have completely different ways of interpreting scriptures from fundies to the point where it almost seems more like a different religion rather than just "cherry picking." One example of this is how Dawkins thinks that the book of Genesis was always meant to be read literally and because of this all Christian beliefs are automatically incompatible with evolution and everyone else is a cherry picker. But if you research it a bit, you'll find out that in the original Hebrew language, the word for days literally means generations, and the six days of creation are really six generations, thus the book of Genesis was never meant to be read literally. Rather it's meant to be an allegorical fable to teach spiritual truths and not scientific truths. There were even Christians during the early centuries of the church long before evolution came along that believed Genesis was an allegory, such as St. Augustine and Philo Of Alexandria. It should also be noted that the bible never actually says that the scriptures are meant to be read literally or that there's only one way of interpreting the scriptures.

 

Thats the way I look at things. I just posted in another thread http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?show...st&p=391999 speaking much of my mind about the interpretation of scriptures. No one person can say that this Book is the absolute truth, or literal. Truths in it are distraught, vague, almost like a puzzle. And, literally, its a story wrote by people. A literal interpretation of the Bible would result in chaos. Nevertheless, the people that hold to literal translation should be more confused than most.

 

To the OP. I say, as was said earlier. People would just create another God, or look toward an existing belief structure.

[chefranden]

I can't claim to have any original thoughts on the matter, but I'm getting better at recognizing bullshit and in using my thought process to weigh and consider what is reasonably stated. What Sam Harris has to say about so many things forces me to THINK. I like that.

 

Reading Recommendation: How to Think about Weird Things

[Antlerman]

What I like about Sam Harris - he can be arrogant, too - is that he does acknowledge that "spirituality" is a necessary and beautiful thing in life. He doesn't crush things of that nature. He sees them as a portion of the process of life. The main point I get from Harris is that religious belief has been immune from criticism for far too long.

Actually that's only partially true. It has hardly been immune from internal criticisms, as is clearly evident by the rise and metamorphosis of Protestantism. It certainly has also had a fair share of criticism externally as well, however not to the degree as a more modern secular society has afforded us, and it's that point that the statement that it's been immune is made. But it's not true in the sense that its not had any critics until him and the modern atheists. That statement almost make it sound as if he's positioning himself as a new, revolutionary voice, which isn't true by any stretch.

 

He's of the opinion that if one were to have unconventional beliefs in the areas of, say, mathematics or meteorology that it would be necessary for that individual to demonstrate convincing evidence as to why they believed in such a manner. He has no issues with someone saying, for instance, that hydraulic pressure is the result of leprechauns working together within the cylinders of a machine. He's of the opinion, however, that such a statement or belief is open to criticism, and in the case of hydraulic power, there's no reason to respect such an outlandish belief just because someone has the right or option to believe it. In reality, we know this isn't how hydraulic power works, so why should we tolerate it when someone says it's so? An idea like that doesn't help anyone, it doesn't solve anything, and it just holds society back. He feels the same about religion. I agree with that.

And this is where I say the fault of Dawkins and company comes in. Yes, of course taking symbolic images (the Christ, the Father, the Dove, etc), and using them for explaining the natural world in a literal, scientific way is clearly an inappropriate way of thinking. That's obvious. But it's also a bit of a Straw Man. It's saying that religious belief equals this, and is therefore silly, antiquated, and should be discarded. It's not just that. Literalism is.

 

If he or Dawkins were to say, "It's absurd to take religious beliefs and use them to discuss an understanding of the natural world in a way that will allow us to build upon it scientifically through knowledge of how it works," then that's an appropriate argument. But if he tries to say that is what religion equals, that everyone who uses it is doing that, then he's ignorant and is making a false argument, and one I find isn't helpful because it isn't speaking to reality. I would prefer if they recognized the difference then, that they would qualify what aspect of religion they are exactly criticizing - literalism. They should say, "Fundamentalist Religion," or "Literalist Beliefs". But in all honestly, IMO, they may well be literalists themselves, and therefore see it as an issue of which literal belief is literally right.

[Spiderwire]

I agree with what you have to say. What I'm hearing you say is that extremes are the cause of the problem, no? An extremist viewpoint - the literalistic stance - one either side of the spectrum is inflexible and illogical? I agree.

 

It's probably apparent, in my current stage of deconversion, that I'm angry with Christianity and my experiences with it. Dawkins and Harris do speak to that part of my mind and I admit feeding on some of their statements. I think I'm learning, however. As I read what you and Neon Genesis had to say, I can see the "extremist" in myself. It's certainly one reason why I dug so deeply into Christianity! In my learning process, I hope to temper my views with wisdom. I believe that as long as I'm willing to hear as many sides of the issue as possible, I can become adept at it.

 

Thanks for taking the time - all of you - to put your thoughts out there for me to see and evaluate. This fella can use all the help he can get.

[Antlerman]

I agree with what you have to say. What I'm hearing you say is that extremes are the cause of the problem, no? An extremist viewpoint - the literalistic stance - one either side of the spectrum is inflexible and illogical? I agree.

 

It's probably apparent, in my current stage of deconversion, that I'm angry with Christianity and my experiences with it. Dawkins and Harris do speak to that part of my mind and I admit feeding on some of their statements. I think I'm learning, however. As I read what you and Neon Genesis had to say, I can see the "extremist" in myself. It's certainly one reason why I dug so deeply into Christianity! In my learning process, I hope to temper my views with wisdom. I believe that as long as I'm willing to hear as many sides of the issue as possible, I can become adept at it.

 

Thanks for taking the time - all of you - to put your thoughts out there for me to see and evaluate. This fella can use all the help he can get.

Well that's totally cool. Believe me, Dawkins resonates with me on some levels as well, but I've learned to take some of the rhetoric with a grain of salt. Rightly so, there's cause to be frustrated, or outright feeling let down or betrayed by those who promised eternity and delivered something so sub-standard it makes you feel ashamed to have ever trusted them. But part of my process has been to realize that there's something in my personality that made them seem attractive to me; something that if I'm not careful will find another form of belief to replace it with that will ultimately let me down as well. I think the most important thing I've learned is to look to explore why we do what we do, why we are attracted to certain ways of thinking over others, and why others are attracted to other ways of thinking. The danger is in seeking to find a conclusion to the question of what is truth; in looking for "the answer". I suppose I've found the greatest benefit in recognizing that the answer to that question is that the answer is the question. It's in that that it's opens us up to discovery, and in that a progressive sense of meaning. The moment I feel I have it figured out, the next moment I realize the question has changed. I guess I'd rather be an explorer than a conquerer.

[Neon Genesis]

I agree with AM that it's perfectly natural and understandable to be angry at Christianity but I think there are constructive and destructive ways to deal with anger. One way that I look at it is to imagine owning a house. Some parts of the house has been badly damaged and most people would of course hate the damaged parts of the house. But if there's still good parts to the house, most people wouldn't tear the entire house down and replace it with a completely different house. Instead you'd likely work to repair the damaged parts of the house to make the house better than what it was before. That's why I think it would be better to focus on reconstructing the damaged parts of religion instead of destroying the whole thing to make religion better than it was before. I just think it's more important to fight against religious fundamentalism for freewill rather than for anti-theism. Because if we fight against fundamentalism for the right to live our life the way we want to, whether this eventually leads people to atheism or if they stay with believing in god, at least then it would be because of freewill and not because they were forced to do so by the fundamentalists. And I think having the right to live our lives the way we want to is the most important thing.

[chefranden]

That's why I think it would be better to focus on reconstructing the damaged parts of religion instead of destroying the whole thing to make religion better than it was before.

 

That's interesting. How would you do that?

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

One thing I agree with Harris on is that moderate religionists give the fundamentalist nut a space to live in. However, I think that it is a ludicrous idea to think that religion can be done away with. Neither can it be reformed into niceness. Religion has been reformed countless times with little outcome in the niceness department.

 

Much is made of the idea that everyone is born an atheist as if that were the default spiritual state. Everyone is born without a language too, but I doubt anyone would conclude that scribble talk is the default language. I wouldn't be surprised if spiritual disbelief in a population of wild humans turned out to be a defective adaptation. However, it would appear that spiritual disbelief has a good chance of being good adaptation for tame humans.

 

Perhaps the solution to achieving a less religious world is breeding. That is humanist/atheist couples should breed like rabbits or Catholics. Problem is it is just these couples that are most likely to use birth control.

[Neon Genesis]

That's interesting. How would you do that?

I don't know, but this is a complex issue with no simple solution to the problem. I just feel like there's gotta be a better solution than simply recreating the "turn or burn" mentality of fundamentalism that the New Atheists are proposing. Working together with the liberal believers rather than polarizing more people against us would be a good place to start, though. To me saying that moderate believers give fundies a space to live in is like saying because some white people are racist, that means white racists are the true white people, and the existence of white people gives white racists a space to live in. So instead of trying to work together to end racism, we should then get rid of all whites.

[Antlerman]

One thing I agree with Harris on is that moderate religionists give the fundamentalist nut a space to live in.

I've heard someone else say this before, and for the love of me I don't understand how that can be seen as a valid line of thought. If you get rid of religion, does Harris think you'll get rid of the fundamentalist? Hardly. Fundamentalism isn't a religious thing, it's a personality defect and they'll find a home to live in somewhere else. Who do you think comprise the faithful of Nationalism? Should we get rid of moderates with national pride because of the kooks who take it to the extreme? Or should we criticize moderates who hold up environmental standards because of the few extremists who are environmental terrorists? Should we label them as nuts too, or consider them guilty of supporting a belief where the wackos happen to find a home? Any belief that can be held passionately, will draw the nuts. Should we get rid of passion?

 

In light of this, it almost makes someone like Harris sound like they are couching their desire to see religion eliminated in terms of a sort of logic argument, and one not well considered. I'm hearing something very similar to the fundamentalist who thinks moderates are compromising with sin, giving it a place to roost. I think this is why when I hear things that Harris and Dawkins say, I'm left hearing a religious argument from the atheist side. Maybe I'm wrong, and am not understanding some possible depth behind him saying this?

[sojourner]

Hi everyone

 

What an insightful thread! I enjoyed reading it and just wanted to say that as a very liberal christian universalist I very much dislike extremism no matter what form it takes.

 

I find that I have more in common with non-extremist folks that have no belief in a religion than I do with extremists of my own religion.

 

I also can have wonderful conversations with folks from any religion at all and find much in common, if they are not extremist but I just find that I cant really commune with an extremist. Hence, I have not read Hitchens and Dawkins. Not because I dont think they have some wonderful valid points but because the quotes I have seen reek of extremism to me and that overshadows their valid points to the place that I wouldnt go out and buy their books. And that is sad to me because frankly those of us that sincerely dislike fundamentalism and literalism could work together to make a difference. But folks like me shy away from extremists.

 

However, I could chat with Antlerman and Alice all day and learn much from them and many more folks on this forum even though we are different in our religious beliefs. They build bridges not walls!

 

I hope that as more and more folks get educated on extremist thinking and how divisive it is that it will become a thing of the past.

 

I think we can be passionate people with many different views and religions without extremism. Im hoping for this to be a reality for the generations to come.

 

 

 

 

 

sojourner

[EdwardAbbey]

The problem I have with the more outspoken voices of modern atheism, such as Harris and Dawkins, is because they look at one slice of it, paint the whole thing as that one slice, then attack it from a rationalistic point of view, ignoring vast amounts of research into extremely complex issues of human society. They are appealing, because of people's frustrations with the more vocal elements of American Evangelical Christianity, in much the same way Evangelical Christianity appeals to people frustrated with problems of modern society. But at the end of the day, it's just as much a narrow look at life as what comes out of those who see the Bible as addressing all issues human. It's basically choosing which religion of "answers" to follow - in one case religious, in the other secular. I don't see either as really addressing the issues. They're more just offering a promise of relief to the symptoms, which is why they have appeal to either side.

 

The belief that getting rid of religion will get rid of the problems we see, is as unfounded a presupposition as saying the world will be better if we all converted to Christianity! People create religion. They create God in their own image. Those who abuse religion, will find some other system to create their own image in. You don't think those who latched onto the OT to burn witches, couldn't have found some other excuse for their beliefs? Do all people who read the Bible act that way? No. Do all people who believe in the fact of evolution abuse it for supporting genocide? Of course not.

 

So how is Dawkins or Harris saying getting rid of religion any different in this context than the fundamentalist saying getting rid of belief in evolution will solve a problem? They're both just opposite sides of the same coin. Harris' arguments are not that good. Would people recreate something that looks like religion? You bet they would. They do it every day. That's why you have all sorts of new religions created every day, all manner of changes within religions, and movements of secular philosophies. It's all driven by the same thing: Being human; something I don't hear being explored at all in what Dawkins says in how he chides religion. I dislike the rhetoric because it sounds the same as what I left in Christianity.

 

With everything you have said here, you give the impression of an atheist who has a misunderstanding of other atheists who are taking a very bold stand against religion. Dawkins and Harris aren't advocating getting rid of religion. I take it you are an atheist correct? They're exposing fundamentalism for what it really is. Superstition and nonsense. And superstition (religion) can and is very dangerous to a society. There isn't anything I find positive about it. It's a virus of the rational mind and if it isn't dealt with and challenged by more atheists, than superstition will win by default. When I say superstition, I'm referring to just that, religion period. The only thing that is going to get rid of religion is critical and rational thought about such crazy beliefs as Christianity. Eventually people will recognize religion/superstition for the absurdity that it really is and place it on the fictional sections of our society once and for all.

[Neon Genesis]

With everything you have said here, you give the impression of an atheist who has a misunderstanding of other atheists who are taking a very bold stand against religion. Dawkins and Harris aren't advocating getting rid of religion.

I've never read Harris, but I've read Dawkins and Hitchens and it seems pretty clear to me that they are advocating getting rid of religion. They both claim that fundies are the "true believers" as if fundies somehow magically created religion when there's no evidence they did, and all other religious believers are phonies because they say so. Funny that the New Atheists claim that hardcore atheism is the one true way but then they hypocritically turn around and make broad and baseless statements about the nature of religion as if they somehow know what the religious founders were thinking when they wrote the bible a 1000 years ago even though the New Atheists have no evidence to prove they know the intentions of the religious authors. Yet at the same time they fail to back up their claims that fundies are the "true" believers or that moderate belief creates a space for fundamentalism without any actual evidence. If simply believing in god at all creates a space for fundies, why is it that moderate believers even exist and hate fundies as much as atheists do? And if atheism will magically make the world better, then going by the logic of the New Atheists, Stalin should have been the nicest guy in existence yet he was as immoral and evil as Hitler, who was a Catholic.

 

Yes, atheism didn't make Stalin evil and immoral because atheism is not a dogma or a philosophy and cannot be blamed for Stalin's immorality. Yet that doesn't change the fact that not being a theist didn't magically make Stalin a better person. Isn't it funny how the New Atheists accuse moderate believers of being cherry pickers yet they cherry pick their evidence for their fundamentalist anti-theism? The New Atheists are just as big as cherry pickers as religious believers are since they only use critical thinking and evidence when it suits their argument and then fail to present evidence and make baseless statements when it doesn't. Also, given how if recent surveys are to be believed, if most Christians don't even know what the first five books in the bible are let alone what the scriptures actually say, how can religion in itself be blamed for immoral fundies? And someone explain to me how getting rid of religion is magically going to make people nicer? And why shouldn't we work together with moderate believers against the tribal mentality of fundamentalism?

[Euthyphro's Thorn]

Isn't the very foundation of most Christianity the literal belief in a Christ who died and was resurrected to save humanity from original sin? By extension, the story of Adam and Eve would have to be taken literally as well, otherwise there is no original sin to save us from, so either (1) there wasn't a resurrection, or (2) the pain and suffering of Jesus did nothing for our salvation and he wasn't resurrected, or (3) none of those events really happened.

 

Sure, some people may call themselves Christians because they like the philosophies that were attributed to Jesus, but in all the churches I visited in my believing days, they all taught about a literal execution and resurrection of the Christ. Based on my own experience and from what I have read online, I would say that the vast majority of Christians take the resurrection story literally, which means they would have to believe the fall of man story literally as well, otherwise Jesus (if he existed) was just another Socrates or Confucius, and I don't see any churches worshiping them.

 

I haven't read Hitchens, but the point I made in my first paragraph is the point that Dawkins makes in The Root of All Evil?. I have also read The God Delusion, but I don't recall him advocating the elimination of all religion. As it seems to me, he merely wants to inform people about how the world really works, while attacking straw men arguments that are erected by creationists. If he appears a little arrogant, it is simply because he is dumbfounded at how anyone can possibly believe some of the baseless creationist nonsense he keeps hearing, that flies contrary to all known fact.

[Antlerman]

With everything you have said here, you give the impression of an atheist who has a misunderstanding of other atheists who are taking a very bold stand against religion. Dawkins and Harris aren't advocating getting rid of religion. I take it you are an atheist correct? They're exposing fundamentalism for what it really is. Superstition and nonsense. And superstition (religion) can and is very dangerous to a society. There isn't anything I find positive about it. It's a virus of the rational mind and if it isn't dealt with and challenged by more atheists, than superstition will win by default. When I say superstition, I'm referring to just that, religion period. The only thing that is going to get rid of religion is critical and rational thought about such crazy beliefs as Christianity. Eventually people will recognize religion/superstition for the absurdity that it really is and place it on the fictional sections of our society once and for all.

From what I'm seeing here you are directly equating religion with superstition, which is to lump all forms of religion on the level of fundamentalist nonsense. That's the very problem I have with Dawkins. He fails to see past the easy target of the fundamentalist, who I would agree with is delusional. But he takes that easy target, applies scientific rationality against it, wins easily, then takes that victory over the idiot soldier, and in essence boasts of victory of a perceived foe of far different face than the fool he easily just trounced. I've never hear him make the distinction between fundamentalists and other forms of religion. From what I've seen, he equates it as all the same.

 

If you're under the impression that all people who hold a religious belief are superstitious, I couldn't agree with that. I think it operates on many, many levels, and the superstitious form is but one minor aspect of it. I can't go with it, because it denies the a huge, vast, mind-boggling understanding of humanity by, in essence, just dismissing it out of hand as "primitive". This is where Dawinks loses respect in my eyes. It's where it's no longer research, and is nothing but political rhetoric.

 

If religion in all forms the true danger to society, then we'd have died long ago. It's the same argument in reverse that I make against those who say that without God, people would be out of control and live in chaos. If that's true, we'd also have gone extinct long ago. Take away religion, you haven't taken away the problem. Religion is a product of man. Change man, change their religion. That does happen, and will continue to happed, but you have to understand cycles in how change occurs. "Getting rid of religion", is just political hype, hardly are real solution.