|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
 Posted - 03/26/2008 : 09:50:54
|
This is mostly in response to Dude and Humbert's comments in the discussion "Why Religious People Are So Arrogant":
Here are the five points of contention (most of which are my opinions, and I am happy to debate with those who disagree with me in an intelligent and civil manner, sans insults) that I've attempted to make many times on this forum:
1.)It is currently unclear why people believe in supernatural claims, whether or if this had some social or otherwise purposes which did or still does give people with faith some sort of evolutionary advantage. Some people in the scientific community are starting to study it and come to some supported ideas, but the field of evolutionary psychology is new, so truly skeptical people wouldn't go around yet speaking as if these ideas are facts just because it supports both their worldview and socio-political viewpoint.
2.)Some atheist leaders act as if their socio-political opinions are just as factual as well supported scientific theories about the natural world, and this is not rational. In addition to not being entirely rational, their arrogance in this manner is often "to a fault", by which I meant it likely doesn't help the cause of creating the more secular and rational society, it only leads to conflict and polarization, re-enforcing prejudice against religious people by atheists and prejudice against atheists by religious people.
3.)Most people have basic human compassion and a sense of good will, regardless of how they religiously or philosophically connect to those concepts. And the religious or philosophical narrative or system through which one builds a personal worldview isn't a predictor of their ethical behavior. In short, faith or lack of faith in supernatural claims doesn't make one act nicer or meaner. Other environmental factors (such as economic background, education, family history, etc.) are much better predictors.
4.)Many progressive religions include critical thinking as part of their value system. Also, many progressive religions regard doubt as an integral part of healthy religious faith. This doesn't mean that they arrive at faith in supernatural claims through a rational process. Indeed, their faith is arrived at through an emotional and intuitive process that no hardline skeptic would accept. However, such people simultaneously hold doubt in that faith, and that doubt is arrived at through rationalism. For such people, the faith aspect is used to help them emotionally internalize their values – to act good because they are moved to act good. And the doubt aspect is used to ensure they don't become self-righteous or forget that they really can't know the divine in its true form, if it even exists. For those whose faith includes literal and specific supernatural claims, they are utilizing compartmentalized thinking. And for those who aren't making those kind of claims, they are basically secular humanists using a different semantics.
5.) Contrary to what many have said about my views on these issues, I STRONGLY HOLD THAT CRITICISM OF SUPERNATURAL CLAIMS IS NECESSARY. Not only do I not have a problem with someone who wants to argue that belief in a literal, personal God is irrational, I will join in with that debate and have on this forum! My problem is with the generalized social/political/ethical criticism of people who have religious beliefs. Those criticisms are based on no evidence and are therefore not skeptical or rational, and as a skeptic, I will continue to argue against them on this forum.
None of these points of mine are irrational conclusions. As I've said before, they might be wrong, but I have not arrived at them through an irrational thinking process, which you both have accused me of.
Also, I bring up these particular 5 points in this forum because SFN is dominated by religious skeptics. If I was on a Christian or Interfaith forum I've be focusing on entirely different discussions and debates. I don't have some problem with atheists. I am an atheist, I serve atheists as a Humanist Celebrant, I sympathize with atheists who have been hurt by religion, and I very dearly love the atheists in the communities I belong to here in Philadelphia. But despite that personal identity, I'm not going to let an "us and them" way of thinking dominate my mindset. Sorry, but I'm a Humanist before I'm an atheist.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
Edited by - marfknox on 03/26/2008 09:54:05
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 03/26/2008 : 10:11:27 [Permalink]
|
Well said, I agree with all but point number 4, which seemed whitewashed a bit by your openly pro-UU church stance*. There are many of those who belong to those religions who are as absurd and abrasive as every other non-empirical philosophy. That said I do agree that these newer faiths do tend to produce more "skeptical" individuals and they are more likely to listen to reason, rather than dismiss it out of hand.
*Then again, maybe my thoughts are whitewashed by my own openly anti-UU church stance. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
| Edited by - BigPapaSmurf on 03/26/2008 10:12:48 |
 |
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/26/2008 : 10:44:18 [Permalink]
|
BPS wrote: | Well said, I agree with all but point number 4, which seemed whitewashed a bit by your openly pro-UU church stance*. |
You know, you are right. I should have started point #4 as: Many progressive religious individuals include critical thinking as part of their value system.
I am pro-UU in general (largely because of their influence in the foundations of the modern Humanist Movement and most of their congregations' friendliness toward atheists), but there's a reason I'm not a member of any UU congregation. I have on occasion read their literature and shuddered due to the intellectual shakiness of some of the statements. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 03/26/2008 : 10:46:55 [Permalink]
|
| Sorry, not much of an arguement for ya, I'm sure The Dude will abide. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
 Posted - 03/26/2008 : 11:06:37 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
2.)Some atheist leaders act as if their socio-political opinions are just as factual as well supported scientific theories about the natural world, and this is not rational. |
It's Kim Jong-il you are talking about here, right?
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 03/26/2008 : 11:10:31 [Permalink]
|
I'm not sure Kim Jong-Il qualifies as atheist as Dear Leader and Great Leader are considered to be divine.
I'd say Penn and Teller... |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/26/2008 : 13:58:58 [Permalink]
|
starman wrote: | It's Kim Jong-il you are talking about here, right? |
I'm more thinking along the lines of people accepted by the Western freethought movement. Richard Dawkins was mentioned in the other thread. Penn and Teller were a good example. Another example is Taslima Nasrin, a writer from Bangladesh - championed by the Council for Secular Humanism here in the USA - who was once quoted as saying that all religious institutions should be banned.
Also, please don't take these criticisms to an extreme. I love the great stuff that Penn and Teller, Nasrin, and Dawkins have done to promote science, skepticism, and Humanism. I'm simply pointing out where I think they are making mistakes and even being hypocritical. Also, by no means am I suggesting that the irrationality practiced by these renowned atheists is comparable to the irrationalism of a religious fundamentalist. Those kinds of thinking are far more irrational.
However, some skeptics seem to equate the level that something is irrational with the level that that same thing is dangerous. The mistake I think many skeptics make is thinking that a Christian Dominionist or Isalmic terrorist is so dangerous solely because of their irrational beliefs. This seems silly to me since there are so many religious fundamentalists with beliefs just as irrational, but who are no danger to themselves or others.
There are many other factors which cause religious nuts to engage in actions which endanger others. Chemical imbalances and extreme stress often caused by extreme poverty or other environmental or genetic factors to start. I think the way to promote a more rational and safe world is through increased security, and I don't mean homeland security. I mean a baseline of access to shelter, food, health care, and education. We know people tend toward more extreme religiosity when they are in distressing situations, and we know that countries which have a higher average quality of life tend to become more and more secular. So it seems to me that the way to eradicate irrationality isn't to mock or even debate with people who hold irrational beliefs. The way to eradicate irrationality is to make the condition of life as best and it can be for as many people as possible. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/26/2008 : 14:07:41 [Permalink]
|
Dave wrote: | Regarding point #2, not all atheists are critical thinkers. Just sayin'. |
Of course.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 03/27/2008 : 21:22:19 [Permalink]
|
Marfknox.....
You open your thread with...| (most of which are my opinions, and I am happy to debate with those who disagree with me in an intelligent and civil manner, sans insults) |
I want to assure you that I will make every effort to be the soul of civility in discussing your topic, as I am exhausted by weeks of dealing with name calling and derogation in another thread here!
With respect to your first point| 1.)It is currently unclear why people believe in supernatural claims, or if this had some social or otherwise purposes which did or still does give people with faith some sort of evolutionary advantage. |
Evolutionary psychology would posit that adaptionist mechanisms were significantly responsible for irrational religious beliefs. There may well be some substance to this argument, but it seems to me that a somewhat simpler and certainly older theory may perhaps be a better explanation.
In the process of research and ideation relative to the subject of perception, I have had occasion to revisit the work of Albert Ellis whose writings I had not studied since the 1950's, when I was in graduate school and Ellis was writing about "rational therapy" and beginning to formulate what was to become REBT (Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy)
Greatly simpified, REBT suggests that " people in most cases do not merely get upset by unfortunate adversities, but also through how they construct their view of reality through their evaluative beliefs and philosophies about these adversities. The REBT framework assumes that humans have both innate rational, meaning self- and social-helping and constructive, and irrational, meaning self- and social-defeating and un-helpful tendencies. REBT claims that people to a large degree create and construct emotional difficulties such as self-blame, self-pity, clinical anger, hurt, guilt, shame, depression and anxiety, and behaviors and behavior tendencies like procrastination, over-compulsiveness, avoidance, addiction and withdrawal by the means of their irrational and self-defeating thinking, emoting and behaving."
Although this theorizing was developed as a foundation for a form of psychotherapy, it provides an interesting platform for examining religious belief. In short, people with irrational and superstitious religious convictions may be neurotic and possibly many be subject to one or another therapies designed to treat neuroses.
Wiki Albert Ellis and you will find....| He famously debated religious psychologists, including O. Hobart Mowrer and Allen Bergin, over the proposition that religion contributes to psychological distress. Because of his forthright espousal of a nontheistic humanism, he was recognized in 1971 as Humanist of the Year by the American Humanist Association. Ellis most recently described himself as a probabilistic atheist, meaning that while he acknowledged that it is impossible to be certain that there is no god, he believed that the likelihood that a god exists is so small that it was not worth his [or anyone else's] attention |
...and much more!
Anyway, my contention is that religious irrationality, even fanaticism, might be viewed as a neurosis possibly subject to significant ameliorization or even cure! I would appreciate your views on this suggestion!
I have no idea if these ideas are highly controversial or not and whether they will arouse primal anger in certain quarters where such emotion seems to more or less constanly simmer. However, Marf, I greatly appreciate your measured tone and reasoned comment when you state that you are "happy to debate with those who disagree with me in an intelligent and civil manner, sans insults)"
D&K have done wonders in cleaning up the schoolyard atmosphere of 4-letter rhetoric that was so common in these forums a few months ago. A little web-surfing reveals that some of the more vociferous scatologists are commenting elsewhere. It is my hope that moderation here will become somewhat more sensitized to unnecessary insult and derogation, and the energy required for appropriate response to personal insult can be directed to more productive pursuits. I fully understand that the entertainment value of such exchanges cannot be ignored by the sponsors!
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/28/2008 : 08:43:25 [Permalink]
|
bngbuck wrote: | Evolutionary psychology would posit that adaptionist mechanisms were significantly responsible for irrational religious beliefs. |
And if this is true, this is just the beginning. A lot of research would then have to go figure out exactly what those adaptive mechanisms are and how they worked and perhaps continue to work.
| There may well be some substance to this argument, but it seems to me that a somewhat simpler and certainly older theory may perhaps be a better explanation. |
If you explained what this older theory is, I didn't catch it.
I have heard a lot of people argue that accepting irrational beliefs is a side effect of related adaptive mechanisms. And given how complex the psychology and social relations of the human animal are, several theories could simultaneously hold some truth about different types of irrationality.
In the process of research and ideation relative to the subject of perception, I have had occasion to revisit the work of Albert Ellis whose writings I had not studied since the 1950's, when I was in graduate school and Ellis was writing about "rational therapy" and beginning to formulate what was to become REBT (Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy)
Greatly simpified, REBT suggests that " people in most cases do not merely get upset by unfortunate adversities, but also through how they construct their view of reality through their evaluative beliefs and philosophies about these adversities. The REBT framework assumes that humans have both innate rational, meaning self- and social-helping and constructive, and irrational, meaning self- and social-defeating and un-helpful tendencies. REBT claims that people to a large degree create and construct emotional difficulties such as self-blame, self-pity, clinical anger, hurt, guilt, shame, depression and anxiety, and behaviors and behavior tendencies like procrastination, over-compulsiveness, avoidance, addiction and withdrawal by the means of their irrational and self-defeating thinking, emoting and behaving."
Although this theorizing was developed as a foundation for a form of psychotherapy, it provides an interesting platform for examining religious belief. In short, people with irrational and superstitious religious convictions may be neurotic and possibly many be subject to one or another therapies designed to treat neuroses. |
Again, I'm not sure I caught your meaning: are you suggesting that the older theory/better explanation is that irrational beliefs are simply some sort of deficiency, either genetic or caused by some harmful experience/s? If so, I have a hard time accepting that considering the pervasiveness and variety of irrational belief exhibited by human beings. I'm convinced that there must have been some sort of evolutionary advantages to at least certain kinds of irrational belief. That said, I also find it convincing that the extent of certain types of irrationality are some sort of health problem (ex: the delusions of some severely mentally ill.)
| He famously debated religious psychologists, including O. Hobart Mowrer and Allen Bergin, over the proposition that religion contributes to psychological distress. |
Certainly religion can contribute to psychological stress just as can family and peer pressure or addictions, and other factors. Anything which produces an internal conflict causes psychological stress. And yet often we are forced to live with contradictions. Maybe that's why people are so good at compartmentalizing.
| Anyway, my contention is that religious irrationality, even fanaticism, might be viewed as a neurosis possibly subject to significant ameliorization or even cure! I would appreciate your views on this suggestion! |
If your contention is that some types of religious irrationality (does it have to be just religious? Irrationality takes many forms) is part of a mental problem, I'd only agree in cases where the irrationality goes beyond compartmentalization and extends itself to irrational actions which are profoundly harmful to ones self or others. I've brought up the comparison to drug use and abuse before. A person who drinks at all is doing some harm to their body, but the harm with moderate use is negligible and the person gains some personal pleasure from it. A person who abuses alcohol regularly to the point where they are dangerous to themselves and/or others is mentally ill and needs treatment. I rather wish society thought of religious beliefs as arts and entertainment, because in my mind, it largely serves the same purpose. This is not meant to belittle religiosity, only to bring it down to the level it deserves, and no more. I value my moderate scotch and beer drinking habits, and my visits to galleries, museums, and shows. I would fight for my freedom to enjoy them, as I would fight for anyone's freedom to participate in religious rituals.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Skepticism in harmony with religious tolerance
