Why argue about religion?

Originally posted by zucchini
Atheism is not a religion. There are many types of atheists, and there are many ways of arriving at an atheistic prespective. We don't have religious texts, and we don't have churches. I have yet to meet another atheist who shares most of my beliefs. It's very hard to be bound together by a lack of belief, except by the need to be understood and stop di ...[text shortened]... ave found a ways to subdue it. (I do not mean to imply a value judgement by this statement.)

Originally posted by martin williams
Just as an aside, I note with interest that the only people on RHP who attempt to preach their faith to others are christians.

I've taken my time reading this thread and find the direction it has taken to be quite fascinating. Thank you, Prad, for steering it to stories. I am always interested in hearing stories of how people came to believe what they believe. Being the verbose and long-winded guy I am, I guess I will say a word or two 😀 along those lines also.

I grew up in a fairly religious family, of the evangelical persuasion. In many ways, though, I can look back and say that my folks were pretty tolerant, not rabid. We attended church regularly and occasionally attended services of different denominations, mostly when we were visiting someone or on vacation or for some specific event. I never thought all that much about the differences, which mostly were not all that obvious (to me). Sure, in some the minister wore some special vestments or something, but that seemed trivial. The less common attendance at a Jewish wedding or the like seemed somewhat more exotic, but that was fine too. Overall, our attitude (or at least what I gathered from it) tended toward "live and let live." My dad, the more likely parent to verbalize that sort of thing, would say "Yeah, there'll be Catholics in heaven." I don't think he was quite as sure of Jews or Muslims, but he didn't seem to think it was up to him to say that one way or the other.

I was interested in all sorts of things from an early age and I considered it somewhat odd that my dad, who was a moderately well-educated guy (he had been a physics major before he switched to social work because he wanted to do something for and with people), believed in a literal 6-day special creation. But being the "live and let live" sort, I just sort of wrote that off as an odd quirk.

At age 18, I went off to college ("university" for non-USans 🙂 ). I was still basically a believer, but certainly not fanatical about it. I did have plenty of occasion to think about the subject as we read Augstine or various other classic thinkers. And the usual dorm "bs" sessions provided some grist for the mill too. It was during this period that the denomination I had been brought up in, the Evangelical United Brethren, was to merge with the Methodist Church to form the United Methodist Church. (This was, IIRC, 1966 or possibly 1967.) The result was practically a firestorm. In my church, the prevailing attitude was that although the formal statements of belief were practically identical, the Methodists were "too liberal" and that it just would not do to join with them. From what I could see (and my information was admittedly limited) most of the Pacific Northwest Conference (of the EUB) seceded along with significant elements from elsewhere in the country to form a new denomination, the "Evangelical Church of North America." (My wife always says the name sounds more like a bank than a church. 😀)

I think now that this was more of a turning point in my life than I realized immediately. I began to think more about the concept of "organized religion" and my thoughts became increasingly less sympathetic to that concept. Since I was at college ( "university" ) in New York city, I found that larger numbers, perhaps most, of my friends were Jewish. I found that the more I thought about it, the less satisfying, and the less convincing I found the whole idea of a God. "By their fruits you shall know them," Jesus was reported to have said. Well, I found the "fruits" of Christianity less and less satsifactory. The results seemed at best mixed as I studied the history. I could see no real evidence of "God at work" in any of them. Sure, there were some fine people to be found, but there were not obviously fewer creeps than among the rest of the population and there were plenty of fine people to be found among non-Christians too. I greatly admire Ghandi, Martin Luther King, Jr., Bertrand Russell, the Dalai Lama and Mother Teresa, along with many other, less famous examples. All of these people have presented, by their conduct, a positive, praiseworthy argument for the value of their ideals. The argument from their positive examples is weakened, however, by the fact that despite the overlap in the behaviorally expressed ideals of these people, their "religious" views -- their beliefs about the existence and identity of God or gods and their beliefs about the relationship of humanity to whatever gods they believed in -- were very different.

In short, by the time I graduated from college, I had come to the conclusion that I saw no reason to believe in any gods.

(more follows...)

A couple of other random comments: zucchini says: I think morals are fluid, built mostly by man and culture, and sometimes by nature. I think it leads to trouble if you don't understand why you hold the values you do, and believing something is right just because someone else says so doesn't make sense to me. I think that we must constantly learn and strive to understand the world around us (as it is) in order to do better.

I suppose I support most of that, as long as I distinguish between morals and ethics. I will grant that morals can be fluid. I don't see any necessary rightness or wrongness in many of the "moral" questions that often get asked. Whether the use of particular "bad words" is ok or how bad they might be. How much skin you can show. I think most of us probably find the beachwear of our grandparents' day (or great-grandparents or more for some of you youngsters😀) to be rather more uncomfortable than necessary.

On the other hand, I think "ethical" questions are quite another story. I'm not as well-versed as, for example, Bennet Barr on the various ethical theories, but I am convinced that something along the lines of the "Golden Rule" or the "Categorial Imperative" is appropriate. That is, I believe that there is a good reason to behave in an ethical manner that respects other people and that reason is not dependent on the fashion whims of the day. I can understand a societal discomfort with words like "d a m n" (in case of filters, I apologize if anyone is offended), but I see no particular ethical problems with them. OTOH, I DO see a serious ethical problem with words that are intended to "insult" or "put down" or otherwise hurt an individual or group -- racial, ethnic, sexist slurs, for example. I do not see any natural moral definition of "marriage" but I do see a serious ethical problem with adultery as it is a betrayal of one's spouse.

At the very least, I believe that some sort of moral and ethical position along this line is justified because humans are social animals and because society works better when there is a fabric of trust among us. One analogy I like is that of traffic laws. The conventions we use in driving are (obviously) arbitrary. The laws differ from country to country. But it is a fact that traffic flows better when drivers tend to obey the laws and conventions than when they flout them. Stopping at stop signs or yielding right of way in appropriate situations allows you to get from place to place more quickly and more surely than simply going whenever you see an opportunity.

On the subject of religion in government: The principle of "separation of church and state" does not, by any means, imply that religion has no place in the public world. On the contrary, everyone recognizes that one's religious beliefs are closely tied up with one's moral and ethical values and therefore with one's conclusions about what should and what should not be public policy. Religion is clearly a major component of how individuals think, speak, write, lobby, etc. for issues and candidates. As long as this remains true, we have no problem. The problem arises when voters and public officials attempt to make the influence of religion explicit in the legal and official system. We may agree or disagree on issues like "abortion" or "welfare" or "capital punishment," and in many cases, our religious views constitute the underlying reasons for our stances on these issues, but in a constitutional system like ours, we are obligated to frame our laws on these subjects in a manner that is not explicitly religious. Furthermore, we are at least morally obligated to frame our arguments for public policy in a manner that remains neutral with regard to specific religious beliefs. This is not a doctrine that "religion has no place in the public world," but a recognition of religious differences in our world and an expression of respect for the beliefs of others.

Personally, I see it as an instance of the Golden Rule in that we must respect others (as we would have them respect us) by grounding our arguments and policies (though not necessarily the reason for our preferences) in temporal, secular, objective terms that we can all see and that do not depend on our own particular beliefs. As an example, I have seen claims advanced both that Christ would prefer a "welfare state" and that He would prefer unbridled "free-market capitalism", based on the individual's interpretation of the Bible. Without going into my own reading of the Bible or Christ's words, I hope it is clear that neither of those claims should be taken seriously at face value for determining policy. We cannot know such things. We can believe and we can harangue, but we cannot know and we cannot argue on the basis of our own beliefs. We can only argue within our governmental structure based on facts and the goals of policy within this world.

zucchini also said: I have examined most of my beliefs and values, and am willing to re-examine them. They are always changing. I think this is a good thing.

I'll endorse that one fully. That's why I engage in discussions of this sort and why I enjoy listening to other people's stories. I hope mine helps contribute to understanding too.

martin williams asks: Why can we not just treat others with the respect we expect from them?

I think at least some of us try to do that and some seem to do it pretty successfully. I find no little irony in the fact that much of the contrary behavior comes from some of those who claim to be following the person who said to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Best regards,
Paul

Originally posted by prn
... distinguish between morals and ethics

I'm not sure whether those definitions are adequate to do philosophy with, but I think they're at least somewhere on the right track.

It doesn't surprise me that Merriam-Webster has a circular definition. Popular dictionaries are just not designed for philosophy. They're designed to help people confirm spelling and pronunciation and to find out something about words with which they are unfamiliar. Sad, but true. That's why so many debates get sidetracked by stupid "dictionary definitions." (I don't think this is a case of that.)

Anyway, I didn't add that distinction to my post because I thought there was something fundamentally wrong with the idea of morals being (in part) arbitrary, but because I did want to point out my belief that there is something deeper too. Furthermore, I wanted to point out that the "something deeper" need not be entirely arbitrary whether or not there is a God or gods.

Best regards,
Paul

Originally posted by prn
... I thought there was something fundamentally wrong with the idea of morals being (in part) arbitrary, ...

Originally posted by prn
[bI am always interested in hearing stories of how people came to believe what they believe. Being the verbose and long-winded guy I am, I guess I will say a word or two 😀 along those lines also.
[/b]

Originally posted by pradtf
that's great paul! i have never found you to be long-winded and have always examined your posts with interest! thanks for your story! what a superbly written and interesting post - and filled with wisdom!

thanks for your story too rwingett!

there is some pretty interesting reading in this thread for sure!

in friendship,
prad

I was in my view a pretty wishy-washy agnostic who never really thought about it until the ''Religion(or lack thereof)'' thread caused me to evaluate my opinions on the subject and decide that I was an atheist. This was pretty much an articulatioin of a condition that already existed, though (hence ''in my view''😉.

Having incorrect opinions about my own beliefs is a very lazy thing which I should try to avoid.

I've decided to wait til im dead to find out "the truth." Also, using the "do the least possible harm" principle, atheists are probably the most innocent of all the belief systems and they don't even have a holiday!

Originally posted by rwingett
I was never very religious. My parents were very casual about religion. I think they're Methodists officially, but they have never attended church. They took me to Sunday school briefly when I was younger, but apart from weddings I haven't been inside a church since then. Also, I had the great fortune of being raised in a northern state, so I wasn't spoo ...[text shortened]... consciously decided that religion was all a bunch of garbage. I've been an atheist since then.

Originally posted by huntingbear
It's amazing how similar our stories are! I could almost have written your post word-for-word as an accurate account of my own life. The only difference really is that my parents had not even an official church affiliation. And my Boy Scout troop met in a church building.
Oh, and the other little difference is that I was an atheist only until the age o ...[text shortened]... om there I went on to accept Him as my Lord and Savior.

Our stories are almost identical 😉😀

Originally posted by martin williams
Why is religion such a sensitive topic anyway?

This question was posed in another thread, and I think the answer is worth some examination.

As far as I can see, we all argue about religion because regardless of what we believe in, we have an absolute belief that ours is the one true belief. We all believe that anyone who does not think as we d ...[text shortened]... orld, or at least the Internet, or even just RHP a better place to be and exchange our thoughts.

Originally posted by rwingett
So what caused you to become a christian? How were you persuaded that the fable of the reserrection was the historical truth?

I'm not interested in having this debate. With all respect, I decline to answer.

How old are you now?

Only 29. I have been a baptized Christian for just over 4 years.

I also get the impression that your "atheism" was of a very passive nature. That it seemed more plausible than christianity to you at the time, but that it wasn't something that mattered to you much one way or the other. Is this impression correct?

No. I was outspoken and passionate about it. I went so far as to define my atheism as commitment to the belief that there is no God, and not merely disbelief in theism. I used to argue with Christians, insult their faith and intelligence, and all that jazz.

As for myself, I have been an atheist for 25 years. I will die an atheist. I have read atheist books, subscribe to atheist publications, and belong to [b]American Atheist. It is something that I identify with very strongly. [/b]

I know. I was not an atheist, nor have I been a Christian, for as long as you have been an atheist. I was never a member of any atheist organizations and neither did I spend much time with their literature. That says nothing about my commitment to the belief. I just wasn't much for 'organized religion' in those days 🙂
I've read more anti-Christian literature in the last four years than in my entire life before becoming a Christian.
I never meant to suggest that your atheism was merely a phase which would eventually give way to faith in Christ. I hope you did not read such a suggestion out of my post. I used to detest such condescension when I was an atheist.
I was merely amused, as I hope you were, by the similarities in our stories, considering how different our views are now.