In Defense of Religion, Especially Christianity

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
1

Did anyone here debate in school? I was a very good debater in HS and College, and I loved it. In debate one must argue the affirmative and negative positions with equal conviction and skill. And I have to admit, I really enjoyed that aspect. Oh, sure- occasionally there’s a topic I feel so strongly about that it’s very hard to do a credible job arguing against my beliefs, but those are precisely the ones that are the most interesting.

My point: it seems like religion is really getting a black eye in public life, especially by the American media. For those not living in the US, the media here has long held a strong liberal bias, and to a great extent it has dictated what gets on the air. Recently Rupert Murchoch wrested control of a great amount of media away and has countered with a very conservative view, but historically liberals have held sway. Perhaps there are many religious Democrats in America, but most of the anti-Christian sentiment in the US comes from the radical left. In the truest sense of apologism, Islam has largely gotten a pass, so as not to antagonize those we’re at war with, presumably.

At any rate, pretty much everywhere people congregate online, and discussions of religion are permitted, it seems that the atheists and “religion haters” greatly outnumber those who identify themselves as devout. And while I’m an atheist too, I’m often embarrassed by how vitriolic many of those attacks are. In every instance I’ve seen, it was those who dislike religion that have started the personal attacks and flames. That seems odd to me, since the atheists have (to my mind) the far stronger position in the argument.

Therefore, it’s really no fun to “pile on” and join in the bashing by the overwhelming non-religious majority. I find it much more fun to play Devil’s Advocate. Frankly, many of the arguments used by atheists are pathetic, as anti-intellectual as those of the neocons (NOTE: I’m not speaking of ILP, but rather other forums that I frequent).

How about you guys? Anyone prefer the side of the underdog? Does anyone simply enjoy trying to balance out a lopsided debate? I figure, if no one can counter my arguments intelligently then they have no business lining up to tear someone elses down, either. :wink:

2

Well, I used to be quite religious when I was younger…so I understand where the Christians are coming from.

I am, however, mostly tolerant of the religious. I may, of course, discourage their beliefs since I see them as irrational, but I certainly will not be cruel about it.

Every now and then, however, I’m forced to deal with an individual that is not only religious, but is also quite the cultural chauvinist. If you want to stick to your beliefs, fine, that’s cool with me…but when you start to infringe on others’ happiness, and make flaming attacks on homosexuals, for example, then there is a problem. If you start to proclaim, “Christianity is certain while Hinduism is a man-made religion,” then you are simply being chauvinistic…this is so because Christianity, like any religion, cannot “really” call itself “for certain” since it’s a matter of “faith” (and “faith” is a matter of intellectual bankruptcy), just like any other similar superstition.

At that point, when I’m forced to deal with such individuals, I get quite offensive…but isn’t it justified, however? I can’t stand such religious chauvinism since no “faith” is able to logically justify itself and put it “over” the authenticity of another.

On a side note, check it…

I’m not an “expert” on anything, and I’ve been involved with political literature and such for only a bit over a year…eventually, the type of literature I read opened up the possibility of atheism for me, and last May, I made the move of dropping my religion. It was, of course, difficult at first, but it happened. I was liberated…but then I had to deal with so many idiotic individuals, and now I’m starting to understand the backlash against atheism.

You must understand, however, that I am a high school student and the environment is quite different than college; most of these kids have no minds of their own, so if they ever listen to what I have to say, they get quite defensive (A couple of insiginificant individuals from my past stopped talking to me over my lack of beliefs, which initially offended me, but now I understand why). When I’m in class, for example, and I see a bunch of folks going on a tyrade against homosexuality, you know I got to stand up and do my thing…I become very offensive at that point, asking for logical justification for their attacks, bringing up several points regarding the origins of Christianity, the lack of rationale behind belief, etc. Unfortunately, the teachers cannot “talk” about this subject, so one atheist in particular leaves the job to me. Am I not justified, however, in refusing to “be nice” to such hateful and idiotic individuals? Tolerant Christians are acceptable, but there is definitely a point that you cannot cross with me.

You understand what I’m saying? I can’t be expected to cater to others’ superstitions, especially when they’re purely reactionary and force society to remain at a standstill insead of being able to progress. I’ve had people stopped talking to me over my lack of beliefs, and I’ve ran into tensions with others in regards to these ideas. I’m definitely going to defend myself…and then put the superstitious on the defensive.

3

I think there’s a difference between reacting to an individual, and reacting to a belief system. There’s people of all stripes and persuasions that don’t get a warm reception from me, just because they’re jerks- A jerk can make Christianity look bad, just as they can make atheism or whatever else look bad. By the same token, one has to realize that most belief systems (even the crazy ones) are a good deal more sophisticated than what the typical high-school student, or even adult, will present to you. One of the pain-in-the neck parts of being a philosopher is that we’re obligated to look at an argument or system in it’s strongest possible form, even if it’s hard to find any proponents to present it to us!
So the problem is not, I should think, when we give this particular atheist the treatment he’s earned. The problem begins when we look at this particular atheist and say to ourselves, “This is Atheism”.

4

Just an observation: The most anti-christian, anti-islamic people in the world are the literalist fundamentalists who wrap themselves in their dogma and loudly proclaim that their values must be obeyed by the rest of the world. Do they have valid claims? Occasionally, but attempting to “debate” with these people? You cannot talk to someone who already knows how it is. These folks have no questions, only answers, and their answers are unimpeachable because it is “the word of God”. Of course, the really dangerous ones are those who talk with God directly. Some presidents and mullas have been known to profess having that ability. :unamused:

JT

5

[contented edited by ILP]

6

How so? Your comment is pure rhetoric; what do you mean? I’m only pointing out that if an atheist is using ad hominim attacks and personal smears to try to make his point instead of logic, and can’t even muster up a cogent argument for a person who’s only playing Devil’s Advocate and doesn’t believe it himself, he won’t get far against a knowledgeable theologian. Guess you had to be there.

Af far as the “wrong boards,” it oten degenerates to that here. And you’d expect a little higher standard of conduct on a forum like ILP (although obviously you don’t necessarily see it). People on other boards quite likely have no formal training in logic, philosophy or debate, so you’d expect to see arguments tending towards personal attacks and such.

AT ANY RATE, BACK TO THE ACTUAL TOPIC! Doesn’t anyone ever defend the plausibility of an proposition they don’t hold? I’m not talking about fabricating things- many atheists use arguments that, while supposedly predicated on logic, don’t have a logical leg to stand on. Mostly I am puzzled when those who hate religion just ‘explode’ at someone who is religious, pouring all of their scorn and ridecule for the idea onto someone who’s isn’t really to blame for their anger. Anyone who’s never seen this probably doesn’t get out much.

7

[contented edited by ILP]

8

Whilst I am loathe to speak for another, I think Abgrund was expecting you to conclude with a defense of Religion in the original post (per the title) rather then end with a discussion about debate in general.

Me… I haven’t seen anything affirmed or negated in this particular thread, but I may be naive about these things, as I have had only one debate in college… I had to argue for the Patriot Act :blush:
Didn’t stop me from crushing the opposition like the bugs they are though.

9

How do you do that multiple quote dealie? That’s pretty cool. Most people unfortunately use it just like you do, to pick every line apart looking for grammatical errors to pick at or to quibble semantics. :wink: Yes, point taken- my original post was made at 7 am this morning after not being able to sleep at all. :astonished: I’m sure it wasn’t crystal clear. Luckily these phpBB boards allow follow ups that let you clarify things. :smiley:

Okay, to your points:

Yes, I imagine there are forums where religious guys are making those ad hominem attacks. I don’t frequent those. Most of the forums I hang on are dedicated to audio & video electronics and music, cooking & philosophy (and one or two gaming forums- I’m an Xbox fan). Heavy emphasis on audio gear (I serve as Admin and Mod on a couple such sites). They tend to be top heavy with rational & engineering types that have a dim view of religion. I can’t think of a typical site that would have a lot of religious members, but I don’t doubt there are plenty. Maybe a Fox News forum? :wink:

You’re right about this forum: I expected an elevated standard of lofty posts, but I most decidely haven’t seen that. There are a few members that strike me as raving loons, and not everyone has a grasp of common decency and respect. Most do, but it was probably unrealistic to expect human nature would be different here.

I do have two online “identities”, too. I actually surf the audio forums under my real name. I use this moniker for a few other sites, including a game site that I hit only occasionally. The more ‘volatile’ the site, the more reluctant I am to use my real name (probably not a good idea to do so on the audio sites, either, but I’ve done so for enough years that changing now would serve no purpose).

Your final sentence shows you get my point exactly. I’m not interested in listing any specific points that I’ve refuted on behalf of religion; that’s not the point at all. Under different circumstances, where the neocons were attacking atheists with personal attacks, I’d defend the atheists (as I am one, or at the minimum agnostic).

My issue is that many atheists think only “morons” could believe in God. I think that’s a fallacy- many intelligent people are religious. Many atheists are rationalists and tend to focus on logic and reason. But religion isn’t logical, and God needn’t follow anyone’s rules. Just as you can’t logically prove religion is “true,” neither can logic alone refute it. And in no case can abuse and personal insults make “victim’s” beliefs and less true.

I’m not looking for any deep philosophical debate in this thread; it’s really as simple as the last paragraph of my first post. I was just curious if anyone enjoys “arguing the affirmative” from time to time. There’s no right or wrong- you either do it or you don’t. :smiley:

10

Yikes! :astonished: That would be tough. I’d have a tough time taking the affirmative (if that means adopting the Pat Act), but that makes it challenging. My weakness is gun control: I’m rabidly pro-gun and have an incredibly difficult time trying to argue the hoplophobe POV.

I meant the title of the thread to catch attention & draw comments, not to mislead. I see now that perhaps people initially expected me to mount a defense of religion, but that’s not really what I meant.

11

[contented edited by ILP]

12

It’s Col. Jeff Cooper’s term. Basically means “gun fearer” or “weapon fearer”, as a homophobe fears gays. I may have mispelled it slightly- my brain isn’t in gear today. :wink:

I never had to debate that in school. Probably my favorite HS topic concerned water policy, implementing a program to curb acid rain. Anyone here remember ‘acid rain’? :laughing:

13

[contented edited by ILP]

14 
Yeah, I remember reading 'Silent Spring' in my high school English class, or at least, I remember being told to read it (was I the only one for whom 'English Class' apparently meant 'political indoctrinization class'?) I think that was mostly about pesticide and not acid rain, but this still takes me back. I can remember at least 3-4 different ways in which the Earth was supposed to have become a desolate wasteland by now, and that's just since the 80's!
15

phaedrus, i know what you mean when you say its useful to argue against what you believe, it helps you see things from the other persons perspective. i can imagine arguing pro-islamic theocracy for some peaceful country and realizing that having your masses addicted to such an effective opium isnt so bad after all etc.

the problem is when your not on the fence about such an issue. like if you are rabidly pro-gun, then how silly would you feel reciting mike moores ‘bowling for columbine’ arguments. like you say to yourself in your head “people kill people not guns” and then you say out loud “guns kill people, look at the stats” it doesnt help you, it probably just makes you feel like your making a fool of yourself.

if you know all the counter arguments, then its pointless. if you dont, then certainly learning about anything is good. there is no legitimate counter argument for opulent charity donation centers or leper-loving jesus condemning leper-like gays. i know the christian counter argument for the former is ‘not all christians’ which is irrelevant; and the latter is ‘gays arent like lepers, they choose to be gay’ which is wrong. there is no christian side of the anti-christian argument, this is the only reason why its the argument i choose :wink:

16

For the truly rabid followers of a certain POV, there really is no point to debate. Take gun control for example. I don’t think anti-gun hoplophobes have a leg to stand on, but for the sake of argument, assume they did. Even if they could show horrible stats, people dying by the tens of millions in the streets each year, blah blah- I still wouldn’t care. To me, the right is more important than the potential consequences. I’d honestly rather see everyone armed, even if it means the mentally & criminally ill, too, than have everyone be disarmed. Give me a weapon and I’ll take my chances. That’s how strongly I believe in the right to bear arms.

And the people who hate guns feel just as strongly the other way. So what’s the point? I guess the “point” would have to be the hearts and minds of the middle ground, uncommitted people.

Abortion is another such issue where the extremes aren’t likely to change their position due to external influences.

17

How do you define a line between Religion as an institution and Religion as a faith issue? I used to count myself an atheist for quite a time. Well, I am not…

18 
Institutions involve many people, faith one person. Once you start talking about an institutionalized faith, your talking about trying to follow what you (one person) believe along with a bunch of other people who believe something similiar.  Since those other people aren't you, they are bound to do some things in a way you don't like.  Some of those people may be in positions of authority, since institutions have rules and leadership.
  When you reach this point, it really just comes down to why you were involved in the first place, and if you want to be rational about it. If a person is involved in religion for primarily social reasons, such as parental pressure or a desire to fit in with a certain group,  and they start to not like the institution, they can leave in the institution, can feel like 'they don't believe in that stuff anymore'.  If, on the other hand, the individual is believing for their [i]own reasons[/i], then one's relationship with the institution doesn't have to affect one's faith.  Does that make sense?
19

Thank you! It does make perfect sense. Theoretically… In my own past, watching Religion as institution seriously affected my faith. You may say, that I was too young and silly… But I meet many people in their ripe old age who actually follow institutional processes, but cannot answer the question ‘what for?’. Too many times the religion has been used as a vehicle for political power. And it works perfectly well because for an average person, it is much easier to adopt someone’s point of view, especially, if it was fed in a printed or broadcasted format.
Now I know where I stand (at this point!!!), just because I stopped listening to others and started paying attention to my own feelings and instincts. Good for me.
Thank you very much!

20

I prefer choosing the side for which to argue based on the substantive truth of the matter, rather than arbitrarily picking whichever side is less popular.

How popular that a proposition is is totally irrelevant to whether it is true, and whether it is true is the only factor that rightly determines whether it should be believed in or argued for.