Religion-Bashing

[Joe Barron]

More signage:

[Catison]

Off topic

[Tomo]

Whether one belongs to an organized religion is personal. 

My only complaint is when they tie organized religion into a political agenda.  Here in the States, the key issue seems to be abortion.  But, in doing so, they seemingly ignore, disproportionally so, things such as the death penalty and war, at times, hypocritically so.

I'm Catholic.  Yet, while I am devout in many of their teachings, I don't agree with many of their dictates.  For instance, their pronouncements on birth control in the past have left me seriously scratching my head.

In the end, I will use an internal compass on right and wrong and try to follow the spirit of what I consider true Christianity to be, not as contaminated by human nature and its accompanying corruption.  I see this as no different than if I were agnostic or an atheist.  Most have their sense of right and wrong.  Their choices are whether to resign their beliefs to something outside of themselves personally or to do act off of what their believe to be true inside (which in the end comes to be influenced by their environment anyway).  They also must decide which route to follow when their inner beliefs are in conflict with the social context in which they live.  Finally, they must opt to behave in a manner consistent with their moral beliefs or to selectively ignore them.

[DavidW]

Tomo excellent post!  It is refreshing to read a post here that shows tolerance and understanding.

[Tomo]

Thanks, David.

[Elgarian]

In the end, I will use an internal compass

Well spotted, DavidW. This is indeed a refreshing post, because it puts the responsibility where it belongs - with the individual, and not with a system. All these systems - religion, science, philosophy, the arts, and so on - lead us into disaster when we set any one of them up as supreme. The only agent we have is the subjective self. All we can do is listen to what the various systems tell us, and then choose according to the guidance of the inner compass. To quote Ruskin: we see 'through the glass, darkly. But, except through the glass, nowise.'

Incidentally, and interestingly, this doesn't lead to relativism (a sort of 'anything goes because there are no absolutes' philosophy). Relativism is the only solution to the various fundamentalisms that arise from elevating the importance of one system over others - because when you hand the decisions over to a system, and the systems are in conflict, there's no other way out. Either somebody is wrong, (which no party will concede because the systems have the last word), or nobody is. By contrast, the concept of the 'inner compass' is the natural bedfellow not of  relativism, but of pluralism - in other words, the acknowledgement that there may be an absolute truth to be discovered, but that our individual apprehensions of it are imperfect and different.

[Catison]

By contrast, the concept of the 'inner compass' is the natural bedfellow not of  relativism, but of pluralism - in other words, the acknowledgement that there may be an absolute truth to be discovered, but that our individual apprehensions of it are imperfect and different.

I was on edge reading your entire post until this sentence, when all my fears were set aside.  I do not like relativism because it is an "-ism" of emptiness.  It doesn't ever say anything, because it does not allow anything to be said.  I do not think that is the world we live in, but indeed, I think a lot of people wish it was.  It makes sense to me that there is an absolute truth and that the words "right" and "wrong" have a meaning beyond my own beliefs.  This truth is indeed beyond our grasp, as you say, but in acknowledging it exists, we must seek to align ourselves with it as best as possible.  This is how I have come to understand my own Catholicism.  I do believe that the Church contains the truth, in its absolute form, but even the Church admits it cannot tell us exactly what this truth is.  (For instance, the Pope's infallibility is negative.  He cannot, in specific circumstances, tell us an untruth, but that does not mean he will always be able to tell the truth.)  So our jobs are to try to discover and live by what reality is in all of its forms, either natural or supernatural.  And many people, in their crippled state of subjectivity, will come to follow this truth in different ways.  It would be a mistake to judge them for that.  In principle, I think even atheists would agree with me on this.

[Elgarian]

I was on edge reading your entire post until this sentence, when all my fears were set aside.

It would always be my aim to dispel fear, if I could! (Sorry to have given you an uneasy ride!)

[DavidW]

In principle, I think even atheists would agree with me on this.

Indeed.   And an excellent post.

[drogulus]

Whether one belongs to an organized religion is personal.  

    Like hygiene, do you think? Yes, it is, but what else is it, especially for those religion-bashingists who dwell here? For instance, since it's something you belong to, does that mean it isn't something you have to belong to? What sort of beliefs are you not required to hold? Principally those to which no truth conditions can be attached. That covers a wide field, so we should narrow it down a bit and confine the question to beliefs about what sort of things there are and exclude obvious value beliefs like freedom and the right to bear arms. Those are asserted because they are wanted and not because "we hold these truths to be self evident". That bit of language is an example of the kind of slippage by which confusion is introduced, and value statements are given greater (fictitious) authority by writing them into nature. It isn't good enough to desire our idea of good so we make it a truth about something even if we don't know what it's a truth about (having rejected the perfectly adequate idea that it's a truth about what we want).

     So what I think is that when you subtract imported value statements the principle motivation for traditional religion falls into some familiar categories, like tradition and incredulity arguments like "why am I here?". The apparent hopelessness of answering pseudo-questions like the latter empowers the former. You aren't any smarter than the last poor slob who was bedeviled by the unanswerable, so who do you think you are with your unbecoming lack of humility? Interesting thing, this lack of humility which makes its appearance just at the point you begin to question whether human beings really can know with certainty just what sort of disturbingly human-like creature is responsible for all existence, but not when you don't question it. I would have thought that claiming to know such things shows a lack of humility.

     Functionally humility ought properly belong to those who impose strict standards on what they assert as true, and not to those who wish to abolish such standards for their preferences. That looks suspiciously like....arrogance. But while it might be arrogant to proclaim knowledge on one hand what you claim no one can have knowledge of on the other, I have no patience with such arguments when push comes to shove because what is wrong with such claims has nothing to do with the purported defects of the person and everything with the lack of warrant for the assertion, though I'm also tempted to deduct points on the side for the seeming obliviousness involved in this error.

    That said, of course I agree with everyone about tolerance, which should never be in doubt, though the equation of sceptical arguments with "bashing" is the obvious intent of at least some of the believers. I'll tolerate them, too.

Well spotted, DavidW. This is indeed a refreshing post, because it puts the responsibility where it belongs - with the individual, and not with a system. All these systems - religion, science, philosophy, the arts, and so on - lead us into disaster when we set any one of them up as supreme. The only agent we have is the subjective self. All we can do is listen to what the various systems tell us, and then choose according to the guidance of the inner compass. To quote Ruskin: we see 'through the glass, darkly. But, except through the glass, nowise.'

Incidentally, and interestingly, this doesn't lead to relativism (a sort of 'anything goes because there are no absolutes' philosophy). Relativism is the only solution to the various fundamentalisms that arise from elevating the importance of one system over others - because when you hand the decisions over to a system, and the systems are in conflict, there's no other way out. Either somebody is wrong, (which no party will concede because the systems have the last word), or nobody is. By contrast, the concept of the 'inner compass' is the natural bedfellow not of  relativism, but of pluralism - in other words, the acknowledgement that there may be an absolute truth to be discovered, but that our individual apprehensions of it are imperfect and different.

    As always the grounds for the arguments are ethical and these are then read back as justifying the arguments against scepticism. This is nonsensical and isn't improved by the high-minded verbiage Elgarian uses over the low-rent version that atheists are bad therefore incorrect in their arguments. Nobody, not even arrogant believers is helped or hurt by these ethical sideswipes.

    Stripped to its essence, Elgarian says here that we should not make claims that put anyone in the wrong, an utterly relativistic view where a concept of ethics undermines any notion of truth. As a matter of behavior it has its place at the dinner table perhaps (you don't want to argue every point with everyone all the time, but only some people some of the time). But how, I pretend to wonder, is this a point about what's true? It isn't, of course, and the substitution does not occur because of a heightened sense of morality among believers, I think. As a group I'd say atheists tend to be a bit on the puritanical side, and moral outrage plays a part in their motivations though not, one hopes, in their reasoning. I wouldn't want to replicate Elgarian and proclaim the superiority of my brand of atheism on the grounds that unlike that scoundrel Dawkins it puts no one in the wrong. And let's have no more nonsense about one system being supreme over others. The operational differences reflect the actual truth value of statements made within them, and the limits placed on them. An individual can evaluate their usefulness and whether that usefulness relates to the truth of a claim or something else.

    And what is this supposed to mean?
   

     Relativism is the only solution to the various fundamentalisms that arise from elevating the importance of one system over others - because when you hand the decisions over to a system, and the systems are in conflict, there's no other way out.

     What on earth or elsewhere could this mean? It looks a little like "keep your head down or you'll be tagged as a self-important know-it-all". Why this loose talk about systems instead of pointed criticism about science as a route to knowledge (or as a template for a universal procedure, I would say). Why should I care whether this fellows ox is gored or that one, or whether he's a priest or a scientist or a philosophy professor? It's of no concern to me, and should not concern anyone here, unless you're a relativist (apologist?) and want to put your thumb on the scale for the home town team. The purpose of scientific procedures and methods, as well as the ethical position they embody, is to find a way not to do that. How odd it is to see it portrayed as though it was merely another disputant instead of the only way of honestly deciding among or against them.

[drogulus]

      The point is that the use of objective procedures decides things, and when they are decided all the talk about putting one system over another (or Goulds non-overlapping magisteria) is just hot air. We don't "balance" systems, we decide propositions by reasoning about evidence and let that tell us what the systems are worth. If believers wish to frame moral propositions in moral terms and make the case for them in that manner we can resolve this argument quickly. But they refuse to do this and make existence claims instead. Or they orate in the Ruskin mode and pronounce poetic and vague moralisms.

I do believe that the Church contains the truth, in its absolute form, but even the Church admits it cannot tell us exactly what this truth is.

    Yes, you do believe that. You believe in the power of belief, too. It seems a shame to use a good word like truth in this context, though. Incidentally, "this" truth doesn't look right to me. It suggests that there is a specific unknown truth they are not telling you. There isn't any such thing. This unspecific though somehow absolute truth has to stay untold or it spoils the mystery. The "egg salad recipe" must remain a secret!* Movie buffs the world over know what I mean.  


      _{* It's a secret that there doesn't have to be a recipe!}

   

[Joe Barron]

I'm Catholic ... In the end, I will use an internal compass on right and wrong and try to follow the spirit of what I consider true Christianity to be, not as contaminated by human nature and its accompanying corruption. 

And you see no contradiction in these statements? What about the authority of the church you belong to? The hierarchy is very jealous of its authority. It's like smoke and fire: Whenever a letter or a column like this appears in newspaper --- usually it can be paraphased as something like, "I'm Catholic, but I think ..." --- a dozen other people write in saying the author isn't really Catholic and Church positions are not debatable. This isn't a democracy. God's word, as interpreted by the Church, is law. Cafeteria Catholics are not Catholics at all. And so on.

Face it, Tomo. You're a heretic just like me.

[Tomo]

Face it, Tomo. You're a heretic just like me.

  Well............................maybe. 

[Elgarian]

Stripped to its essence, Elgarian says here that we should not make claims that put anyone in the wrong

On the contrary, what I'm saying is that everyone is in the wrong, to unknown degrees. This complete misunderstanding highlights yet again the utter pointlessness of these interchanges.

How odd it is to see it [i.e. the use of scientific procedures] portrayed as though it was merely another disputant instead of the only way of honestly deciding among or against them.

This is exactly what I'd expect anyone to say, who was locked within the confines of a fundamentalist system: yet another declaration of the One True Way.

[Catison]

And you see no contradiction in these statements? What about the authority of the church you belong to? The hierarchy is very jealous of its authority. It's like smoke and fire: Whenever a letter or a column like this appears in newspaper --- usually it can be paraphased as something like, "I'm Catholic, but I think ..." --- a dozen other people write in saying the author isn't really Catholic and Church positions are not debatable. This isn't a democracy. God's word, as interpreted by the Church, is law. Cafeteria Catholics are not Catholics at all. And so on.

In my personal experience, I think this argument is very tempting to many Catholics, especially those who enjoy feeling morally superior.  I don't, however, think it is necessarily right.  The Catholic church is in the business of ideals.  Things get fuzzier when the ideals are applied to real situations.  It is possible to believe the Church is absolutely correct, and in that sense be Catholic, but also to feel that your particular situation doesn't apply.  Yet while I think this is a possibility, it is probably more often used as an excuse to deny Church teachings.  But who am I to say?  Again, I think the job of a Catholic is to align themselves as fully as possible with the ideals of the Church and to seek a better understanding of how these ideals apply to his/her life.  Because ultimately it is about trying to find the best way toward God.  A Catholic is lucky, in a sense, to have a 2000 year head start on theology; he needn't feel like he has to do it on his own.

[Joe Barron]

A Catholic is lucky, in a sense, to have a 2000 year head start on theology; he needn't feel like he has to do it on his own.

Yeah, but if he does try to do it on his own, watch out. 

[Florestan]

In the end, I will use an internal compass on right and wrong and try to follow the spirit of what I consider true Christianity to be, not as contaminated by human nature and its accompanying corruption. 

You do realize that you, having a human nature yourself, contaminate "what you consider true Christianity" with your accompanying corruption, don't you?

[Brian]

I would like to thank Tomo, Elgarian, Catison, DavidW, drogulus and Joe Barron for a page of eloquent, reasonable, engaging, and most of all friendly-spirited posts in this discussion. I am very glad to see that the "Religion-Bashing" thread has been transformed into a respectful dialogue. Apart from everything else, it makes for great reading.

[Joe Barron]

Athiests rule, Catholics drool
In a recent Pew survey, self-identified atheistd scores better than any subgroup on a quiz of religious knowledge. Jewish people scores almost as well, and Catholics ranked near the bottom. (Ah, my people!) At first, I thought this might be function of education — that skeptics and  and Jews would tend to be better educated than the general population — but according to the times article,  the difference obtains even after that factor is controlled for.
So the question is, Why? I've always been interested in religion, largely, I think, because I was devout as a child and became anti-devout later on. (And I aced the quiz.) I can't speak for all nonbelievers, but I think our relatively elevated religious awareness may be due to the fact that we are constantly called upon to defend ourselves. Being an atheist is like being a vegetarian: The first thing anyone does when you declare yourself is to try to talk you out of it. Keeping up with the competition becomes a good survival strategy.  We also take the position that no one religion can claim a monopoly on truth — as opposed to the Catholic hierarchy, which does claim such a monopoly — and learning about other religions helps one make the case.
Catholics not only new less about other religions, they knew less about their own than other groups. And in all fairness, though, I should point out that there's a lot to know about Catholicism. Dogmas have been collecting for thousands of years, and Catholics aren't sending their kids to parochial schools in the same numbers that they used to. That's where we had all that stuff drilled into us. Who would suspect, for example, that Cosmas and Damian are the patron saints of doctors, pharmacists and hairdressers? Transubstantiation, anyone? Pop quiz: Explain the distinction between the Immaculate Conception and the Virgin Birth.
On a side note, I have to say I rather resented the reporter asking the head of American Atheists (O'Hare's group) for a quote. I suppose they have to go to the most obvious organization, much as they automatically go to Catholic bishops for anything having to do with religion, but for the record, these people do not speak for me. They always struck me as a too angry, and true to form, the guy said something predictably snarky. I've read the Bible. There are parts I like. Here, to close, is my favorite verse, Isaiah 1:13-17 (NRSV):

Trample my courts no more;
bringing offerings is futile;
   incense is an abomination to me.
New moon and sabbath and calling of convocation—
   I cannot endure solemn assemblies with iniquity.
Your new moons and your appointed festivals
   my soul hates;
they have become a burden to me,
   I am weary of bearing them.
When you stretch out your hands,
   I will hide my eyes from you;
even though you make many prayers,
   I will not listen;
   your hands are full of blood.
Wash yourselves; make yourselves clean;
   remove the evil of your doings
   from before my eyes;
cease to do evil,
learn to do good;
seek justice,
   rescue the oppressed,
defend the orphan,
   plead for the widow.

[drogulus]

     Joe, I'm not surprised by the survey. Probably very few people are.

On the contrary, what I'm saying is that everyone is in the wrong, to unknown degrees. This complete misunderstanding highlights yet again the utter pointlessness of these interchanges.

This is exactly what I'd expect anyone to say, who was locked within the confines of a fundamentalist system: yet another declaration of the One True Way.

     You can't make an argument based on the unknown degree everyone is wrong. After all, you might be wrong to an unknown degree. This is the trap Rorty fell into when he said "no such thing as truth". Did he mean that "no such thing as truth" wasn't true?

     Nor is the argument worthless. It's decided by what can be shown to be true and what is portrayed as true that can't be shown. Unknowns are not allowed to be treated as honorary truths just because everyone is wrong about unknown somethings. Besides, if we are all wrong about the unknown then believers are wrong, period. And sceptics who consistently maintain that you can't make existence claims about the unknown are not only right by my standard, it looks like they are right by yours as well. We are better at dealing with unknowns than believers, making no claims that we aren't in a position to make. We are therefore, in the proper sense, more humble.

     The best thing to do about the unknown is explore it. You start by asking questions, not proclaiming beliefs. 

     

I would like to thank Tomo, Elgarian, Catison, DavidW, drogulus and Joe Barron for a page of eloquent, reasonable, engaging, and most of all friendly-spirited posts in this discussion. I am very glad to see that the "Religion-Bashing" thread has been transformed into a respectful dialogue. Apart from everything else, it makes for great reading.

     There's nothing unusual about that.