8 ms·

An Atheist Defends Religion

6 points by Kapura 13y ago

hsmyers 13y ago
Reasonable article. In support: Joseph Campbell: "These bits of information from ancient times [myths], which have to do with the themes that have supported man's life, built civilizations, informed religions over the millennia, have to do with deep inner problems, inner mysteries, inner thresholds of passage. And if you don't know what the guide signs are along the way you have to work it out yourself. " See http://www.pbs.org/moyers/faithandreason/perspectives1.html http://www.pbs.org/moyers/faithandreason/perspectives1.html
- ada1981 13y ago
  Came here to reference Campbell as well.. Campbell said the problem is that most people don't know what a metaphor is. Myth is metaphor -- so they don't understand it. Theists read the bible and say this is literally true. Atheists read it and say this is false, it's a lie. Agnostics read it and say, not sure.. But the transcendent perspective is to see that "God" is a Myth, not a lie. God is a myth that represents the unknowable ground of your being, and the religions are a mythology designed to aid your ego on it's journey of self discovery and guide society. Myth is a mirror for the ego with a schedule on it - it shows you where you are. The literalists will be hard pressed to have the spiritual salvation they seek without knowing what a metaphor is -- they will be stuck looking outside themselves when the God they seek is within -- the mythologies are designed to help find it.
mattkrea 13y ago
My first comment here (as an Atheist) would have to do with the fact that: If you believe in the Christian "creation" story you don't believe that the world is 4.5 billion (give or take a few hundred) years old. This would be a fairly significant problem for someone calling himself or herself a scientist yet while being a religious person. The bigger thing for me is that I see no facts surrounding it. So, I see people that I know taking this on faith and that, to me, is a fundamental flaw in their thinking. I think most people out there understand why religion exists and I agree with many of your points here but I still believe that it is fundamentally wrong. Humans used to believe lightning and fire was caused by a god until we understood what actually caused it. Give it a few thousands years and I think we'll be much further along. This is not to say that I go out of my way to attack it but I surely will fight if someone presses it on me.
- skrebbel 13y ago
  Did you read the article at all?
- russellsprouts 13y ago
  But you don't have to believe in the literal Christian creation story 7000 years ago. Most lines of Christian thought allowed for non-literal accounts as far back as the first century A.D.
  - mattkrea 13y ago
    Believe me I'm aware of that. I always sort of felt that picking and choosing the parts of a religion in which you believe is almost worst, however.
    - xherberta 13y ago
      The Hebrew term "Yom" translated "day" is mentioned before the sun and moon. Also, there's an unspecified amount of time between Genesis 1:1, when "God created the heavens and the earth" and 1:2, which says "But the earth became waste and emptiness." These two clues tell me the text is not meant to offer any information about dates and times.
fein 13y ago
"But ultimately, I feel, there is no satisfying answer to this question outside of religions." *in regards to the "What is our purpose" question. This has always been why I've been guilty of treating religious folk like special needs children on occasion. I don't think that religion's answer for that question is any more satisfying than ignorance. It feels like a huge life shortcut that doesn't help with the problem. Any time the answer is "Because God", it just means that the buck stops there, and no more thought occurs. How are we ever going to answer any of these important questions if we never devote time to thinking about them?
- Kapura 13y ago
  That's a more than valid point. If you allow your faith to stifle scientific thought, you are at fault. But I truly feel that there are questions that tear at the heart of a person, like "what is my purpose" that no amount of science can answer. If you're able to answer that question internally, that's wonderful, but not everybody can. I think that if we can get past this question, we can get onto more important ones (or at least ones we are better equipped to answer). In essence, though, you are correct: a person who allows their beliefs to stifle acquisition of further knowledge is not a person deserving of respect.
al1x 13y ago
This post is absurd. People attack religion "to feel superior than others and therefore feel better about themselves"? What about the fact that religion is a dangerous evil whose existence threatens the very future of humanity? What about the "minor" fact that the religious majority control politically the largest superpower in the world? What about the fact that religion shapes public policy in ways detrimental to scientific advancement and societal progress? What about the fact that religion encourages ignorance and complacency and opposes the idea of self reliance? What about the fact that it lacks any form of empirical evidence despite making claims to? But I'm supposed to forget about all of that because of "community". It's somehow a GOOD thing that ignorant birds of a feather flock together? It's somehow a GOOD thing that the scientifically illiterate majority control the public policy of the largest superpower in the world? But I'm supposed to forget all of that because it "makes them happy"? That their ignorance is bliss? That simpleminded people don't suffer existential angst? That having a book that makes up answers to all of life's questions instead of providing anything remotely approaching anything empirical is somehow "comforting"? But I'm supposed to forget all of that because religion has been around since all of recorded human history.. and that that is somehow significant? Go ahead max, dismiss the critics by forgetting that the Crusades was entirely motivated by religion, dismiss the philosophical problem of evil because you think you've found a satisfactory answer to it, dismiss the fact that the Bible is riddled with factual and historical inaccuracies, dismiss religion's blatant disregard for Science Fact because "people are inconsistent about their beliefs all the time" (because that's such a good reason). ...and by all means, continue making spectacularly ignorant blog posts and don't both enabling comments because, heaven forbid, someone might call you out on your nonsense and set you straight. Stay in school, Max, and keep thinking through these things. You've got a ways to go.
- Kapura 13y ago
  I don't know your first name, but I'll call you Alex (al1x ~= alix ~= Alex). Thanks for responding Alex. I'm glad that you have. You've brought up a number of points which I'd like to address. 1) You say "religion is a dangerous evil whose existence threatens the very future of humanity." This seems, at best, blowing something way out of proportion. In fact, you make a whole shitload of biased, uncited claims in your first paragraph. I struggled with getting the right balance between outside sources and personal stream of my own thoughts, but I think if you're going to categorise faith as an existential threat to humanity you're going to need to prove it a little bit more than just, you know, fearmongering. 2) If you don't see the power of a community, I cannot help you. To me, the happiest people have always been in a supportive group, generally focused around central beliefs. Whether it's groups of coders hanging out after work or weeaboos watching new animes together, a community seems a core component of happiness, and I view more people having a deep, personal happiness as more important than crushing faith. Then again, I don't see religion as a threat to the human race, so if you can prove (or argue compellingly) for your first point, I may have to reconsider this one. 3) Everybody always says that The Crusades were entirely motivated by religion. That is foolish; I would argue that it was another war fought for the same reason that every war has ever been fought: for power. But in this war, one of the parties was behind a flag of religious righteousness. I will again point to the fact that a bunch of people have killed, many, many more people in cases entirely devoid of religious ideologies. How many people died during the crusades? Was it less than 40 million? I did a little bit of googling, and it seems to be way less than 40 million, so it still pales in comparison to Mao or Genghis Kahn. 4) I didn't disable comments. I don't know if Medium has comments, but this is the correct forum for airing comments; that's why I posted it to hn in the first place. I've also written about the folly of allowing comments, but given your reception to this piece, I'm hesitant to link something else that might raise your blood pressure even further. Regards, -max golden
divinedefault 13y ago
Part I: The value offered by religion has absolutely no bearing on the truthfulness of the religion. Charitable acts or creating a sense of community by Mormons, Scientologists, or Christians do not mean that Joseph Smith found those gold plates, the character Xenu ever existed, or that Jesus was the son of God. It is possible to have communities without worshiping invisible beings who may or may not answer prayers. In big bold letters, the author states that "God makes people happier by providing answers." If we look at the happiest countries in the world (http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/09/business/earth-institute-world-happiness-rankings/ http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/09/business/earth-institute-world...), we see countries with large atheist populations at the top of the list...every single year. He references a "shitload of evidence", but I wonder if he's ever taken a look at crime statistics around the world. Even if he looks at just the United States, he would find higher rates of crime in states where religiosity is highest. Religion does not seem to be a barrier to immoral actions nor is it a panacea for happiness. Perhaps we have different meanings for "shitload of evidence." Part II: This is the classic strawman section. I actually agree with the author that many of the examples given in most debates are evidence of the evil of men, but he fails to recognize that religion has historically provided cover for those actions. Slavery has historically enjoyed such cover. Misogony and homophobia have luxuriated and continue to luxuriate under such religious cover. I'm quite familiar with the problem of evil and the author did absolutely nothing to negate this. If God knows that evil is happening every minute of the day, He either can do nothing to prevent it or doesn't care to. As Sam Harris points out, God is therefore either impotent or evil. Every day I hear from religious people who claim that God helped them in some manner. They regularly give Him praise for things that He does on their behalf. I find this to be narcissistic, callous, and completely immoral when I consider that at least a dozen children under the age of 5 will have died during the course of you reading my remarks here. They and their parents will beseech Heaven for food and water and this same God who answers frivolous prayers somehow finds these starving children unworthy. There is nothing humble about this line of thinking. I fail to see how the fact that our holy texts (regardless of how they have been translated or cobbled together) have frequently been shown to be incorrect is a flawed argument. An omniscient being should be able to explain in unambiguous terms what it expects. No holy book fits that description. Whether it is stopping the planetary motion of either our sun or our planet for 24 hours to allow Joshua to finish his battle (Bible - Joshua 10:13) or Muhammad splitting the moon (Qur'an - 54:1-2), these are cosmological claims being made by our religions. I fail to see how my inability to read it in Arabic somehow makes this scientifically possible. If there is a conflict between religion and science, I get the feeling that the author feels it's ok to reject the scientific account. The problem I have with this is that unlike religion, science is not subjective. It has been the most consistently reliable way for us to determine fact from fiction. When a religious person disputes evolution in favor of creationism or asserts the historicity of a prophet flying to Heaven on a winged horse, those are anti-scientific views. Plain and simple. Part III: This section basically deals with the author's desire to treat other peoples' beliefs as sacred. As H. L. Mencken said, "We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart." What the author fails to understand is that beliefs directly influence our actions. If the creator of the universe commands us to kill people for imaginary crimes like witchcraft, should we respect that belief (FYI - witch burnings still happen in places like Kenya)? If someone wants a religious belief like creationism taught alongside evolution in our classrooms, is the appropriate response one of tolerance? Unlike Jesus, I don't think we should enact thought-crime legislation, but if religious people cannot keep their unsubstantiated beliefs in check, we must oblige them to.
xherberta 13y ago
I commend you. Thank you for the large-minded, logical, and compassionate analysis. I get what divinedefault meant about thought crimes. I think (s)he refers to Jesus' bit about lust in the heart being equal to adultery, and calling someone a fool being equal to murder. I think Jesus was pointing out that there are crimes in everyone's thoughts. He was talking to ultra-religious law-keeping bigots who thought they were better than everybody.

6 points by Kapura 13y ago

Reasonable article. In support: Joseph Campbell: "These bits of information from ancient times [myths], which have to do with the themes that have supported man's life, built civilizations, informed religions over the millennia, have to do with deep inner problems, inner mysteries, inner thresholds of passage. And if you don't know what the guide signs are along the way you have to work it out yourself. " See http://www.pbs.org/moyers/faithandreason/perspectives1.html http://www.pbs.org/moyers/faithandreason/perspectives1.html

ada1981 13y ago
Came here to reference Campbell as well.. Campbell said the problem is that most people don't know what a metaphor is. Myth is metaphor -- so they don't understand it. Theists read the bible and say this is literally true. Atheists read it and say this is false, it's a lie. Agnostics read it and say, not sure.. But the transcendent perspective is to see that "God" is a Myth, not a lie. God is a myth that represents the unknowable ground of your being, and the religions are a mythology designed to aid your ego on it's journey of self discovery and guide society. Myth is a mirror for the ego with a schedule on it - it shows you where you are. The literalists will be hard pressed to have the spiritual salvation they seek without knowing what a metaphor is -- they will be stuck looking outside themselves when the God they seek is within -- the mythologies are designed to help find it.

mattkrea 13y ago

My first comment here (as an Atheist) would have to do with the fact that: If you believe in the Christian "creation" story you don't believe that the world is 4.5 billion (give or take a few hundred) years old. This would be a fairly significant problem for someone calling himself or herself a scientist yet while being a religious person. The bigger thing for me is that I see no facts surrounding it. So, I see people that I know taking this on faith and that, to me, is a fundamental flaw in their thinking. I think most people out there understand why religion exists and I agree with many of your points here but I still believe that it is fundamentally wrong. Humans used to believe lightning and fire was caused by a god until we understood what actually caused it. Give it a few thousands years and I think we'll be much further along. This is not to say that I go out of my way to attack it but I surely will fight if someone presses it on me.

skrebbel 13y ago
Did you read the article at all?
russellsprouts 13y ago
But you don't have to believe in the literal Christian creation story 7000 years ago. Most lines of Christian thought allowed for non-literal accounts as far back as the first century A.D.
- mattkrea 13y ago
  Believe me I'm aware of that. I always sort of felt that picking and choosing the parts of a religion in which you believe is almost worst, however.
  - xherberta 13y ago
    The Hebrew term "Yom" translated "day" is mentioned before the sun and moon. Also, there's an unspecified amount of time between Genesis 1:1, when "God created the heavens and the earth" and 1:2, which says "But the earth became waste and emptiness." These two clues tell me the text is not meant to offer any information about dates and times.

fein 13y ago

"But ultimately, I feel, there is no satisfying answer to this question outside of religions." *in regards to the "What is our purpose" question. This has always been why I've been guilty of treating religious folk like special needs children on occasion. I don't think that religion's answer for that question is any more satisfying than ignorance. It feels like a huge life shortcut that doesn't help with the problem. Any time the answer is "Because God", it just means that the buck stops there, and no more thought occurs. How are we ever going to answer any of these important questions if we never devote time to thinking about them?

Kapura 13y ago
That's a more than valid point. If you allow your faith to stifle scientific thought, you are at fault. But I truly feel that there are questions that tear at the heart of a person, like "what is my purpose" that no amount of science can answer. If you're able to answer that question internally, that's wonderful, but not everybody can. I think that if we can get past this question, we can get onto more important ones (or at least ones we are better equipped to answer). In essence, though, you are correct: a person who allows their beliefs to stifle acquisition of further knowledge is not a person deserving of respect.

al1x 13y ago

This post is absurd. People attack religion "to feel superior than others and therefore feel better about themselves"? What about the fact that religion is a dangerous evil whose existence threatens the very future of humanity? What about the "minor" fact that the religious majority control politically the largest superpower in the world? What about the fact that religion shapes public policy in ways detrimental to scientific advancement and societal progress? What about the fact that religion encourages ignorance and complacency and opposes the idea of self reliance? What about the fact that it lacks any form of empirical evidence despite making claims to? But I'm supposed to forget about all of that because of "community". It's somehow a GOOD thing that ignorant birds of a feather flock together? It's somehow a GOOD thing that the scientifically illiterate majority control the public policy of the largest superpower in the world? But I'm supposed to forget all of that because it "makes them happy"? That their ignorance is bliss? That simpleminded people don't suffer existential angst? That having a book that makes up answers to all of life's questions instead of providing anything remotely approaching anything empirical is somehow "comforting"? But I'm supposed to forget all of that because religion has been around since all of recorded human history.. and that that is somehow significant? Go ahead max, dismiss the critics by forgetting that the Crusades was entirely motivated by religion, dismiss the philosophical problem of evil because you think you've found a satisfactory answer to it, dismiss the fact that the Bible is riddled with factual and historical inaccuracies, dismiss religion's blatant disregard for Science Fact because "people are inconsistent about their beliefs all the time" (because that's such a good reason). ...and by all means, continue making spectacularly ignorant blog posts and don't both enabling comments because, heaven forbid, someone might call you out on your nonsense and set you straight. Stay in school, Max, and keep thinking through these things. You've got a ways to go.

Kapura 13y ago
I don't know your first name, but I'll call you Alex (al1x ~= alix ~= Alex). Thanks for responding Alex. I'm glad that you have. You've brought up a number of points which I'd like to address. 1) You say "religion is a dangerous evil whose existence threatens the very future of humanity." This seems, at best, blowing something way out of proportion. In fact, you make a whole shitload of biased, uncited claims in your first paragraph. I struggled with getting the right balance between outside sources and personal stream of my own thoughts, but I think if you're going to categorise faith as an existential threat to humanity you're going to need to prove it a little bit more than just, you know, fearmongering. 2) If you don't see the power of a community, I cannot help you. To me, the happiest people have always been in a supportive group, generally focused around central beliefs. Whether it's groups of coders hanging out after work or weeaboos watching new animes together, a community seems a core component of happiness, and I view more people having a deep, personal happiness as more important than crushing faith. Then again, I don't see religion as a threat to the human race, so if you can prove (or argue compellingly) for your first point, I may have to reconsider this one. 3) Everybody always says that The Crusades were entirely motivated by religion. That is foolish; I would argue that it was another war fought for the same reason that every war has ever been fought: for power. But in this war, one of the parties was behind a flag of religious righteousness. I will again point to the fact that a bunch of people have killed, many, many more people in cases entirely devoid of religious ideologies. How many people died during the crusades? Was it less than 40 million? I did a little bit of googling, and it seems to be way less than 40 million, so it still pales in comparison to Mao or Genghis Kahn. 4) I didn't disable comments. I don't know if Medium has comments, but this is the correct forum for airing comments; that's why I posted it to hn in the first place. I've also written about the folly of allowing comments, but given your reception to this piece, I'm hesitant to link something else that might raise your blood pressure even further. Regards, -max golden

divinedefault 13y ago

Part I: The value offered by religion has absolutely no bearing on the truthfulness of the religion. Charitable acts or creating a sense of community by Mormons, Scientologists, or Christians do not mean that Joseph Smith found those gold plates, the character Xenu ever existed, or that Jesus was the son of God. It is possible to have communities without worshiping invisible beings who may or may not answer prayers. In big bold letters, the author states that "God makes people happier by providing answers." If we look at the happiest countries in the world (http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/09/business/earth-institute-world-happiness-rankings/ http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/09/business/earth-institute-world...), we see countries with large atheist populations at the top of the list...every single year. He references a "shitload of evidence", but I wonder if he's ever taken a look at crime statistics around the world. Even if he looks at just the United States, he would find higher rates of crime in states where religiosity is highest. Religion does not seem to be a barrier to immoral actions nor is it a panacea for happiness. Perhaps we have different meanings for "shitload of evidence." Part II: This is the classic strawman section. I actually agree with the author that many of the examples given in most debates are evidence of the evil of men, but he fails to recognize that religion has historically provided cover for those actions. Slavery has historically enjoyed such cover. Misogony and homophobia have luxuriated and continue to luxuriate under such religious cover. I'm quite familiar with the problem of evil and the author did absolutely nothing to negate this. If God knows that evil is happening every minute of the day, He either can do nothing to prevent it or doesn't care to. As Sam Harris points out, God is therefore either impotent or evil. Every day I hear from religious people who claim that God helped them in some manner. They regularly give Him praise for things that He does on their behalf. I find this to be narcissistic, callous, and completely immoral when I consider that at least a dozen children under the age of 5 will have died during the course of you reading my remarks here. They and their parents will beseech Heaven for food and water and this same God who answers frivolous prayers somehow finds these starving children unworthy. There is nothing humble about this line of thinking. I fail to see how the fact that our holy texts (regardless of how they have been translated or cobbled together) have frequently been shown to be incorrect is a flawed argument. An omniscient being should be able to explain in unambiguous terms what it expects. No holy book fits that description. Whether it is stopping the planetary motion of either our sun or our planet for 24 hours to allow Joshua to finish his battle (Bible - Joshua 10:13) or Muhammad splitting the moon (Qur'an - 54:1-2), these are cosmological claims being made by our religions. I fail to see how my inability to read it in Arabic somehow makes this scientifically possible. If there is a conflict between religion and science, I get the feeling that the author feels it's ok to reject the scientific account. The problem I have with this is that unlike religion, science is not subjective. It has been the most consistently reliable way for us to determine fact from fiction. When a religious person disputes evolution in favor of creationism or asserts the historicity of a prophet flying to Heaven on a winged horse, those are anti-scientific views. Plain and simple. Part III: This section basically deals with the author's desire to treat other peoples' beliefs as sacred. As H. L. Mencken said, "We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart." What the author fails to understand is that beliefs directly influence our actions. If the creator of the universe commands us to kill people for imaginary crimes like witchcraft, should we respect that belief (FYI - witch burnings still happen in places like Kenya)? If someone wants a religious belief like creationism taught alongside evolution in our classrooms, is the appropriate response one of tolerance? Unlike Jesus, I don't think we should enact thought-crime legislation, but if religious people cannot keep their unsubstantiated beliefs in check, we must oblige them to.

xherberta 13y ago

I commend you. Thank you for the large-minded, logical, and compassionate analysis. I get what divinedefault meant about thought crimes. I think (s)he refers to Jesus' bit about lust in the heart being equal to adultery, and calling someone a fool being equal to murder. I think Jesus was pointing out that there are crimes in everyone's thoughts. He was talking to ultra-religious law-keeping bigots who thought they were better than everybody.