I will begin my argument by defining my belief system. I am an anti-religious agnostic. I believe that whether or not a person is religious is far more important than whether or not they believe in God.
My reasoning for this is that as there is no convincing evidence to either establish or negate God’s existence, either belief is reasonable and personally justifiable. However, as there is overwhelming evidence to disprove the literal interpretation of the Old Testament, religious belief requires a fundamentally different way of thinking than non-religious belief (for the purpose of argument, I am only referring to the three Abrahamic religions, which have the greatest influence on our society and politics. The same conclusion can be drawn, however, of any religious teaching which contradicts apparent evidence). It requires faith rather than logic. As I am totally in favour of logic and science over religious, faith-based thinking, I regard myself as anti-religious as the most hardline atheist, though I am not an atheist myself.
Prominent atheists like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens have recently gained alot of attention for attacking the belief in God, which they blame for many of the world’s problems. I would contend, however, that the real issue at fault is not belief in God but religion, or more specifically the religious concept of heaven and hell.
It can be argued that the heaven/hell duality is essential to all religion (for Hinduism and Buddhism, substitute heaven and hell with enlightenment and reincarnation). The Old Testament concept of heaven and hell is particularly offensive, however. It purports that everybody will eventually be punished or rewarded, in the most extreme terms and for all eternity, depending on whether or not they follow the correct religion. All members of the Abrahamic religions believe this, even the so-called “moderate” ones.
If accepted as truth, this insane idea can ultimately justify any action to further the cause of one’s religion. It is people who hold this belief that attack homosexuals and abortionists, blow themselves up in public places and fly planes into buildings. It is the religious concept of heaven and hell that all secular thinkers should focus their opposition towards, not the belief in God.
I’m just wondering if you’ve read either of their books…
In The God Delusion, Dawkins states from the beginning that he refers to the Abrahamic God. It is the set of beliefs that follow from this, especially that the Koran / Bible are the word of God himself, that can be dangerous.
So I think you’re arguing a straw man. After all, I wouldn’t have a problem if everybody believed in God, and defined God in the way pantheists do.
The problem isn’t the Bible, the Torah or the Q’uran or any God. The problem with belief is hominids … regardless of what that belief is directly, it is the actionability of belief that is the prime mover, and the cause of suffering. In order for belief to have action, it requires a hominid to create action.
Kim Jong Il has the belief that he has the right to impose his will by nuclear terrorism. He has no Bible, no God, no Allah, no Q’uran, no Yhwh and no Torah.
Guns actually don’t kill people, it is the hominid holding the gun, who squeezes the trigger, while aiming the gun with intent, that kills.
Rather simple really, you are blaming the gun, and ignoring the moronic slob holding it.
You should probably learn what you’re talking about before you go attacking people. Jews of ALL levels of observance believe everyone will be rewarded and hell is only temporary. Not an eternal damnation. It is taught that the most wicked of people only go for up to a year.
Yes, I’ve read The God Delusion and excerpts of God Is Not Great. For the main part I agree with what they are are saying. But there are a few points in which I disagree and, at least in the case of The God Delusion, I think are poorly argued. This is mainly to do with Dawkins’ argument for why God “almost certainly” doesn’t exist, to which he devotes a full chapter, and to his belittling of agnosticism in the section called The Poverty of Agnosticism. I think these sections detract from his main argument, which is about the inherent danger of religious belief.
I am of the view that belief in God (even belief in a deistic god, which Dawkins describes as “watered down theism”) is logically justified, as it doesn’t contradict apparent evidence. That’s not to say that I personally believe in God, I just think it’s a reasonable possibility. I can discuss my reasoning for this view if you want me to, but my point is that by arguing that belief in God defies logic, Dawkins thereby lumps non-religious deists in together with the bible bashers, and disregards agnostics like myself as inconsequential fence-sitters. I see this as detrimental to our common secular cause.
On the whole though, I’m a great admirer of people like Dawkins and Hitchens. I think if I can correct or improve upon any of their writing, even in a small way, it is a great achievement.
Koifer - He’s not attacking you, that’s the point. And by the by, my fiancee had a Jewish friend who told her that all Jews and only Jews went to heaven, whether they practiced their religion or not. I have little idea what the Jewish teachings are, and this guy is probably a minority, but watch those sweeping generalizations.
I like your thoughts, Jdog. It is indeed the thought of eternal punishment that drives many people into a religion in the first place. I was raised Catholic, and I remember having the hell literally scared out of me by a fire and brimstone sermon. Actually, not so much the sermon as the car ride home. Apparently my brother and I had been misbehaving in church, so my mom said, “Don’t you even know what the priest was talking about?” and proceeded to tell us that we could end up in hell for all eternity I was very quiet the rest of the way home.
Unfortunately, there is little chance of proving or disproving heaven or hell for the same reasons you’re an agnostic. What we can do, however, is try to prove that the ideas of heaven and hell are inconsistent with the religious dogma.
Anthem - I am aware he’s not attacking me. But he is falsely accusing the Jewish religion of condemning people to hell for an eternity. Your fiance’s friend may have been misinformed, Jews believe Jews have a different heaven than non-Jews. No better or less, just different. This is sometimes misconstrued as people believing only Jews go to heaven. It occurs in uninformed Jews.
I don’t believe in any of this, but I do know what I am talking about. All mainstream forms of Judaism believe in everyone going to heaven. I’m not including misinformed Jews or deviant sects. in that statement. It’s not a sweeping generalization, it’s something I know to be true.
But they hold as much water as any other religion. A ‘deviant sect’ has reasons for their deviations and believe they are correct.
I wonder, if Jews go to heaven no matter what, what is the reason to do good? Is it to get to their special heaven that is ‘no different’ from the other? I remember a separate but equal campaign from a while back…
In any case, other religions still do believe in an eternity of hell, which should also be combatted.
I never suggested that religion was the cause of all the world’s problems. Obviously there has been many tragedies resulting from other ideoligies and individual personalities. But I stand by my position that the world would be a better place if nobody believed that you went to hell for not following the right religion.
Koifer:
Are you telling me that all Jews believe that all good people (including non-Jews) will eventually go to heaven? Or is this just a “progressive interpretation” of Jewish texts, followed by “moderate” Jews? I have a particular theory about “moderate” religion, which I will post a new thread about soon.
Anthem:
Thank you for your encouragement. Re: proving or disproving heaven and hell, I believe that if you accept that God exists, it is logical to conclude that some form of ultimate punishment and reward also exists. However, that is entirely different from believing that ultimate punishment or reward is dependant on whether or not you follow a particular religion. I see that belief as being entirely illogical, as is religion (at least the ones based on the Old Testament) itself.
Ah, fair enough. I don’t think the existence of God guarantees a heaven and/or hell, but it is at least more likely. If God exists, I can only hope he believes that you don’t need to follow a particular religion. Otherwise, we’d all end up in hell, and I wouldn’t want to love that God anyway!
Anthem - Of course if you want to argue that deviant sects. hold as much weight as mainstream my argument doesn’t hold up. My problem is that he wasn’t referring to deviant sects., he was referring to mainstream Judaism. And the purpose of doing good is to spend less time in hell. Which, indeed, isn’t a punishment, but a soul cleansing process.
Jdog - No, this isn’t a “progressive” interpretation. I was raised Chassidic (probably about as strict and old timey as you can get) and this is what they believe also. It is a fundamental Jewish thought.
Because Jews and Gentiles connect differently to God. Therefore they each have their respective heavens where they connect to God in the optimum way for their soul.
I’m not advocating this. I think it’s bullshit. My problem is with misinformation.
Anti-religious = anti-cultish. Anti-cultish means decentralization of resources and influences, as a cult is all about single leaders and mass propaganda. That means you want ownership of social resources to be distributed and used in ways which are of sound mind and fair measure. A capitalist society, the way that America is set right now, is monist and centralizing. “God tells you what to do from heaven, up high, through his more loyal servants and messangers” equates to “the absolute capitalist imperialist above, through a pyramid structure, commands sheep worker slave servants, to obey cheap commands and put hope where none should be put.” Why else would the bankers be so “Zionist” ? The whole method of thought has to do with a hand full of mad-men seeking to command an army of fools. Societies establishing things like a slave-class will always have their righteous religiousness. The issue has taken on many forms throughout history, but has always been a dynamic revolving around un-earned and improper alocation of authoritative ownership/power over the means to living and daily goals. “Corruption” has always been parasitism, and parasitism is that which works against the whole ecological benifite, that is to say, the commune irrespective of separate classes : the whole earth instead of only the small parties being taken into consideration, for the future of the world.
You’re wrong because God instilled me with the divine right to decide what everyone thinks and I have decided you are incorrect
…if only that were true…
Joking aside, I agree. Religion is a powerful tool in expressing one’s will to power.
My roommate freshman year was from Istanbul (not Constantinople), and he explained to me that he is an oddity in that upper-class Turks aren’t usually strict Muslims, that the very religious Muslims in Turkey are usually in the lower classes. Is this a product of wealthier people tending to be more intelligent and more atheist on average? Is it a product of the ruling classes in the region using the religion in which they don’t necessarily believe in order to control the masses for centuries? I would say yes to both, and that the two questions are inextricably bound. There has to be a reason the upper class is less Muslim, and cultures don’t develop traits like this randomly. How else would this religious/non-religous schism appear?
I’m not arguing for the sake of arguing, I promise. Of course the problem with belief is hominids…considering mankind is the only species capable of belief as far as I know, according to my understanding of the definition of “believe.”
Are you implying there is some separation between belief and action? It seems in many cases action is directly caused by belief. Need I list examples?
The problem is the Bible or the Koran. If somebody believes the Koran is the word of God, then takes action based on the belief of martyrdom (where else would they get the idea to blow themselves up for 72 virgins?), I think it’s safe to say in a causal chain their belief caused their suicide. Do you disagree?
In the case of deism, I somewhat agree. It isn’t a contradiction of apparent evidence as much as it is an additional assumption about nature and reality.
Again, he first defines God as the Abrahamic God that he’s attacking in most cases, which is an unreasonable belief. “I believe in this version of God because this book tells me to,” simply isn’t reasonable.
I think that material conditions have more to do with it than belief. Once you’ve reached a certain level of desperation, rather nasty tactics become a viable alternative. Japanese Kamikaze pilots, VietCong suicide bombers, Muslim suicide bombers, Christian martyrs, Buddhist monks setting themselves on fire, Christian suicide bombers, Chechen suicide attacks, the list goes on and on. Religion, nation, family, honor, the list of reasons is list of abstractions almost as long as the list of perpetrators. I don’t think that belief can be said to really mean anything, or at least is not causative in this case because the beliefs are all very different. But if you look, the ones doing the actual dying tend to come from poor, squalid conditions, and they tend to be against the groups that they blame for putting them in that condition. I think that is a more realistic model of why suicide attacks happen, religion is incidental.
I, of course, side with Sam Harris, but expected to going into watching the debate, just so you are aware of my bias.
But there are a few problems with your argument. While it’s true that damn near anybody, with any religion, political preference, sociological ideas, etc., are capable of blowing themselves up, killing others, or lighting themselves on fire for their cause, it is quite evident that there are some belief systems that are more likely to convince believers to blow themselves up than others. If this weren’t the case, we would see equal amounts of poor people blowing themselves up in all walks of life, from all over the world. I’m confident that many more prefer to kill those they hate than die along with them. In addition, if it were only the poorest, or least educated, or most desperate, that were committing such atrocities, then I would agree; but as Harris points out, most of the terrorists involved in 9/11 were moderately wealthy, and extremely educated. Here are some excerpts from the 9/11 commission report:
How many terrorists have to blow themselves up in the name of Jihad and Allah before we actually believe that their religious zeal is what caused them to do it? To me, it just seems many Americans are ignorant to the facts, or simply fall into the trap of religious moderate thinking: the belief that there’s no way religious fervor can be the cause of such grotesque acts. What would it take to convince you, Xunz?
I was very quiet the rest of the way home.
