What is this anti-religious argument called

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

I dont know if this argument has a name. Ive never read about it before, but Im quite sure its been discussed. Its something I always use when Im asked why I dont believe in X religion or when someone tells me they are “sure” their religion is the correct one. Its kinda hard to put into words and I usually have trouble conveying my idea whenever I talk about it. Id like to know if it has a name or a book that covers the argument so I can perhaps hear a more efficient way to express the argument.

If Im told by a Christian that they are sure the Christian God exists, I usually respond like this… I tell them that they are born in America where Christianity is a large religion. They are taught it from an early age and they are “sure” its the truth. They have almost zero doubt that their religion is correct. I then point out that whether or not they want to accept it, if they were born in another country where another religion is the largest, they would be the religion. The thing is, they would be just as “sure” that that religion is truth and Christianity is stupid. I tell them to imagine two of themselves. One born in America as a Christian and one born in another country as, say, a Hindu. The Christian them would be “sure” Christianity is right and Hinduism is stupid. The Hindu them would be “sure” Hinduism is right and Christianity is stupid. Most people I tell this to realize this fact and agree. I then point out that one of those two of them is right, and one is wrong. (Or both is wrong, but thats not the point) Yet in both cases they are “sure”, there is no doubt in either of their minds. So this goes to show that even when you’re “sure” about your religion, you really arent. Thus you cant be sure in your religion and you have to admit you simply chose to believe the one you currently believe simply because of where you were born.

I see this as a huge problem to theists and dont see much of a way around it. It shows that no matter how sure they think they are that their beliefs are correct, they could always be that sure for a completely opposite view if they were born somewhere else.

Does this have a name? I think its a very killer argument and I would like to know where else I can read about it. Thanks.

2

why the he’ll are you so vague

sounds like you don’t know what to believe in our even want,so you just don’t make sense

Anyways, I don’t know if it has exact name,yet a person of convicted beliefs will always deny the opposite and therefore reveal the arbitrary nature of ones beliefs

so you are correct,yet your argument is self-defeiting because your belief rest in the opinion that another will give suffiecent grounds for belief which is logical as long as that opinion is not anothers opinion

The truth,in my opinion,is that no-one knows and no-one cares

and the closer you get to the truth the more appearent it becomes that you are just like EVERYONE else,however stupid,crazy,contradictory,illogical,sensible,or qualitative a they seem to be,
they will always have an opposite and it will always have a contradiction.

society though has a unique way of beating people down who don’t conform,it’s called insuffient vocabualry, we all communicate,yet we all do not share the same ideas or beliefs,even if yours encomposes more,the ones with the least inclusive belief will control our words,because we must empathize.

though I think it is important to note that there is nothing that fears people more than intelligence

and the intelligent people are trying to figure everyone else out,while those who are not,simply don’t care about other people,and neither do you or I

we just reassure our-selves that we do because if we heard our raw ego,we would scare-ourselves!

what is law and order?

comedy or serious fiction

and we all know the answer

random killers!

3

hope you had fun reading it

mother killer

you’d catch your ass

from my mother of course

4

I think it’s close to what I’ve seen called “The argument from religious Pluralism”- which basically says that religious belief is unfounded or unreliable in the face of there being so many different varieties of belief out there, each group thinking there’s is correct. I don’t think it works, but it’s rather popular right now.

5

Thanks, Ill look into that. As mentioned above, it points out the arbitrary nature in which people chose their religious beliefs. Thats the whole point of the argument; to show its an arbitrary belief. How can you have confidence in your faith when its completely unfounded and arbitrary? I think this kind of argument should shake the foundations on which theists rest. At the very least it should provide reason to go out and search for reasons they hold their beliefs over those of others.

6

It’s rooted in how people perceive themselves in relation to the world, or how they develop and perpetuate beliefs as representative of their particular part of the world. I think you’ll find it addressed pretty comprehensively in Sam Harris’ book “The End of Faith”.

7

Your argument with the faithful is a good one. It’s hard to deny the logic of such a thing.

But then, another problem:

You say that one of them is right and one of them is wrong. Or they’re both wrong. But this leaves out one other intriguing possibility:

What if they’re both right?

What if they’re referring to different aspects of one thing?

A deer compared to a mouse would be said to be quite large; a deer to an elephant would be said to be quite small. Now, taking into account relative terms and all, a deer can be both large AND small. It’s possible for opposing statements about a thing to both be true without running afoul of contradiction. It becomes clear when you see them all at once.

That said, what if these seemingly different natures of God are actually tied together when all of it is seen at once? It would do quite a bit of damage to your argument. Though perhaps not all the time - try to convince the rabid Christian that he is talking about the same deity as the rabid follower of Hinduism.

8

The problem with your argument, Rapt0rzzz, or at least the next bit you’ll have to work on, is that it doesn’t just apply to religious people. For example, depending on where, and by whom you were raised you might have a different opinion on the death penalty, abortion, legalization of drugs, slavery, religion, science or just about anything else. Indeed, if an atheist was born in the right culture to the right parents, they may well have been a life-long devoted Catholic!
So, when it comes to philosophy and politics, people seem to have strong convictions that they advocate and believe in, despite the fact that they may have believed otherwise if the circumstances of their life were otherwise. So the question is, does this apply to the religious person in a special way? If so, why? If not, then your argument could be used to say nobody should believe anything, if it’s the least bit controversial or variant across cultures. Are you comfortable with that extended conclusion?

9

I believe you misunderstand, Ucci. I see nowhere that he said it only applied to religious people. While he didn’t say he applied this argument to other topics, neither did he emphatically state that one couldn’t (although you clearly mean to extend it to absurdity).

And of course for the bulk of the citizenry, that’s how decisions & beliefs are determined. The collective ideas that we all share are part of our culture, sometimes an asset and sometimes a liability. But it is necessary- we simply don’t have time and resources to reinvent the wheel for each new human born! So we have this shorthand, for better or worse.

I think he certainly has a point- if the only reason you hold to your faith is because you were born with it and never had it questioned, perhaps you should open your mind to ideas you hadn’t considered. I suspect many religious people, and some atheists as well, merely plod along in the direction their parents and community set them without a second thought.

One thing to bear in mind: the original argument has nothing to say about the actual truth of the religion, only the merits of ones belief. I haven’t ever heard any logical proof for or against religion that was worth the time it took to read it.

10

Well, I’m just presenting it as an option, Phaedrus, I gave two: He can either say that this argument applies to religion in a special way, or he can say that this argument is really for skepticism in a wide variety of fields. I honestly don’t know which horn of the dilemma he prefers.

I completely agree with you that this is how most of our beliefs are formed, sure.

I agree that if the only reason you have your faith is that you were brought up in it, then you ought to question it IF you want to be called a philosopher. But…if his argument only applies to unreflective, non-philosophical religious people, I submit that he needs to raise his bar a bit- there’s no real need of an argument to defeat them, is there? :slight_smile:

11

Unfortunately there are many still currently at this “bar” of thinking, with little concern to question, but rather quick to quote religious passages. To raise the bar is to ask them to change their way of thinking, which is difficult to say the least.

Most responses i have heard to this question as i have used this one as well, have always included the word “faith” and this is the getaway car from all that is reasonable. Once faith enters the conversation, sprinkled with quotes of their choice from their respective divine revelations, a discussion based once on reason is now based on faith, which as we all know cannot be refuted by reason itself. Without this safety valve many arguments would lead toward a gradual change of beliefs from faith based to logic based. And what is faith with logic? Faith in Logic? Logic in faith of logic.

But perhaps one might get two differing faithful persons to agree upon having the same god. Logically this is possible, historically and factually maybe not for some but for others. Can a jehovas witness believe in the same god as a christian catholic? I’d say yes a version of the same Jesus Christ, but not entirely without a difference in dogma and way of acting in their respective religious ways.

I say let the religious institutionalization of Good through idolization of men be offered to those who need such a figure for their greater happiness, and let those who seek truth for themselves live for that quest which requires more than faith for its defense.

I lost a friend over this argument proposal (among others); may she be blissful. May my friends and yours be a wise few.

12

If you don’t believe and you convince them that you believe more than they do, there faith was a false pretense

though you may just be called the devil

I usually respond with an alternative of reason

or a reissuence, or “essence” of faith

I’m like Christ with the Eucharist on his dick

it’s more depressing than you think

13

In response I should say yes, I believe religion to be a special case. You bring up the point that depending on where and to whom you were born you can have a specific view about the death penalty and other issues. Im not going to deny that but I think there is a clean distinction.

I think our society is based on logic and reason. Whether or not those are things we should base our ideas on isnt really a concern when I present the argument. Its simply a fact of how we question and attempt to understand the world around us.

Because of this we require rational and convincing reasons to hold a belief. Capital punishment, for example, can be decided to be right or wrong based on reason. (unless perhaps you take a religious stand point and then it either is or is not based on what your religion dictates to you) I would reason that killing is wrong. I think most would hold this position because most people subjected to capital punishment are convicted of murdering. I would then reason that it seems ridiculous to punish one for killing by killing. I could then conclude that capital punishment is not right.

My argument may not be right. The thing is, I should be open to any counterargument and if I cannot refute it, I should accept that I was wrong and they are right. My feelings towards capital punishment may INITIALLY be based on where I was born, but it should not stay that way. I should eventually realize this and then take a look at the issue with an open mind and decide by reason and argumentation whether or not it is right.

This cannot be done with religion. One cannot argue the proof of their particular belief or God. You cannot prove your specific religion with logic and reason. This is how it is different. Although my views on many topics may be based on where I was born, it doesnt have to stay that way. I can “prove” (To the best of our current ability) that a certain view is correct based on whatever standards me and my society base things on.

In this sense, people from many different backgrounds should arrive at the same logical conclusions about most topics. (That is if they believe the same fundamental principles) And if they do not, they would have logical reasons not to do so. You could then debate the issue and discover who’s argument is unsound. I dont see this as being possible with religion, and in that sense I mean that it is completely based on geography. Even if you inquire about other religions, you have no logical reason to decide to change or stay the same. Theres no proof for christianity that would make one chose it over hinduism. Its completely arbitrary and based on where you were born.

So yes, I think there is a very clear distinction on why this is only open to religion and other such topics. That is, topics to which we have zero evidence for and zero logical reasons to believe.

I hope that makes my opinion on the topic clear. Id like to hear what you think about all of that.

14

I understand and believe the general ideas of what you have stated, however there are a few things that i wish to address. To elaborate on your idea of society is based on logic and reason now as opposed to before, becuae i assume you mean that in the sense of the present, and don’t regard as it always being this way.

The foundation of this society i believe did begin with religion as evidence by the colonialists escaping religious persecution and then forcing it upon native americans among others as children and adults. This foundation of religion was instilled to most of us as children, and by religion i encompass a punishment aspect to it in the sense of heaven and hell or some similar version, serving two purposes, to control children by means of threatening them with eternal damnation or lack of heaven and the prescribed “values” which are important for any society. Logically to them this must have made sense whether or not they indeed believed in what they preached.

Imagine the “faith” needed to travel to a foreign land, previously unknown to them facing dangers beyond their familiar scope. Indeed a time in need of faith as fear is involved.

However we have moved from this God fearing time into as you stated well, a time where logic reigns supreme over unfounded(logically) beliefs. Yet there are those still clinging to their past traditions dating back hundreds of years which at that time made sense, but now lack a sort of logical base now needed to support their beliefs in this ever growing logical world.

There is little time for religious beliefs, when scholars are expected and hence more logic breeds more logic, and while i do not belive logic is everything, i must emphasize logic because it is in my nature to think logically. Thinking with faith would betray my nature. Although i have tried to think with my faith before, ultimately it is useless and devoid of anything natural to me. Sometimes i wish to see things as i once did as a child, but then i realize that it was a stage of growth and i am beyond simplicity for bliss sake. Perhaps one day i will return to the faith, but for now my quest is to believe and act according to my current nature.

I also believe to an extent that these believers in strict codes for fear of damnation, do not generally seek to strengthen their beliefs as philosophers do, in that they reaffirm their beliefs by using those same beliefs, while philosophers branch out seeking out others’ ideas to add, detract or mold into their own. To seek reaffirmation form within does not effect one’s faith, and safely persuades them that indeed they are in the correct religion. Without challenge outside of their their belief there is no “muscle” to be broken down and then grown again so to speak, and without muscle their naturally is no strength. Without strength in faith their is weakness in faith.

I grew up in a catholic family, and went to catholic schools and they taught me to their are two ways to question your faith. One is good, and one is bad. the first is called constructive criticism of your faith which entails questions that fit into the God exists theme, as in proving their is God and Catholicisms rightful place among other religions. And there is the bad way to question and that is destructively criticism, which only breaks down your current beliefs to prove that they are incorrect.

Now which includes logic? This assignment was about faith, not logic and so giving out this assignment was a test of faith not of filling in the bubbles and as a result i began to understand that these teachers did not teach without bias and with logic.

To break down ones faith would have gave me greater insight at that point, however my teachers were fearful of their students becoming nonbelievers. But why, i ask now, why? If faith is so strong why not ask students to questions without labels? Certainly they could withstand any question if indeed this faith is mighty as spoken. Without fear? Fear is ingrained in these believers. Fear is the ruler that slaps wrists back into line. Fear is their God. Ah but God is all loving, omniscient, omnipotent. If there was a one single god he would be an objective god, an objective god that does not pick his people as chosen, a god that does not restrict his own peoples nature, and one who allows for criticism. God is all that is good subjectively defined. Whether God be a way of travel in a camel for someone in Egypt, a flower which blooms for a villager before her eyes, or a sunset, indeed God takes different forms, but one man he is not. And to pray to one man is blasphemous to all that is good which one man excludes.

Prayer to me is without logic, however comforting to man.

Comfort in exchange for fear. A most unworthy compromise. For fearlessness implies radicalism and this notion is far from conservative for comfortable children of gods. Live in ambition and risk, that is truly a life worth living and reliving in forms of tales… like Jesus the great man.

But again to each one’s own, this perception can only be subjective, or can there be subjective objectivity?

While this may not be succinct, it tells my thinking.

  • Joe
15

Well said. It seems we are in agreement.

16

RaptOrzzz,

Hey, sorry I missed your response, hope it hasn’t been that long.

Yes, no problems so far.

Mm, perhaps. I basically agree with this, so I’ll let it go. :slight_smile:

Correct.

Agreed.

This is done constantly. There are thousands of posts in our religion boards, hundreds of thousands of books written, and many current philosophers engaged in doing this exact thing.

And you can’t prove that the death penalty is wrong, either. You can make an argument, but whether or not you proved it depends on whether or not your audience was convinced. That’s what ‘proved’ is. To that extent, yes you can argue for your religious claims with logic and reason, and once again, people do this constantly.

 K, so then what about all the people who are raised Catholic and turn Protestant? Or all the people who are raised Jewish and turn Muslim? Or all the people born in a Christian society that become Hindu? There beliefs didn't stay that way, and if you asked them what their reasons for changing were, they would give you some- some of them would be based on logic and reason, some of them would be based on something else.

It’s simply a matter of fact, easy to observe, that people can and do change their religious views all the time for exactly the kinds of reasons and situations you describe.