Response to LBBP
A little over a week ago, there was an interesting comment by LBBP to my Journey of an Atheist - Part V post. I had intended to reply, but then Chad started pushing my buttons, and I went after him instead. However, I’ve been checking in on LBBP’s new (or at least “born again”) blog, Skeptic Rant over the last few days. Based on a handful of posts, I think it has a lot of promise. LBBP is a good writer and seems to be inclined toward audience involvement, which is something a lot of you have said you enjoy about this site.
Here is LBBP’s comment, in its entirety, with my response interspersed:
I AM
Ultimately, you and I have a fundamentally similar belief systems. I believe that GOD is an imaginary friend that people pull out of their psyche whenever they can’t cope with or understand what is happening around them. I believe that if more people put their faith in themselves, science, and reason, and less in myths, superstition, and fairy tales that this world would be a much better place. I believe that all of the “great” religions have been abused by the powerful to dominate and manipulate the gullible and oppressed. I believe this and I gather from your site that you believe it also.
We’re definitely on the same page so far.
However, just because we believe it does not make us right. No one knows without question all aspects of the nature of the universe (or multiverse if you prefer). If we did there would be no science and sites like yours would not exist. There are aspects that can be known, we know for example that the world is older than 10,000 years. We know that the Earth revolves around the sun, etc.. But, we don’t know if there is any other life outside of our solar system. We don’t know if there really are additional dimensions wrapped up into a tiny speck and if there are what might that mean. If there is no “soul” how do we explain consciousness? Nobody really KNOWS. My point is that there is an awful lot of room for doubt about the ultimate nature of our existence.
I don’t even want to contemplate a universe in which my site doesn’t exist. 
Seriously, though I’m with you up until the soul part. Before you ask me to explain consciousness, could you define it? Is it simply being aware of one’s surroundings? Is it identity? Is it the metaphorical definition of consciousness used by Julian Jaynes? Is it tied to memory? Depending on your answer, I might be explaining all life, only animals, only vertebrates, dolphins and chimps or humans alone. However, the fundamental answer is the same regardless of the definition: chemistry. Whether that’s DNA, neurotransmitters or hormones depends on how you frame the problem, but it’s all chemistry. And no, I don’t KNOW that there isn’t a soul, but I don’t know about the famous teapot orbiting Jupiter or the even more famous pink unicorn either. That doesn’t mean I should believe in them or allow others to without challenging their understanding and motivations. Extraterrestrial life, to which you refer, also has no evidence supporting it, but I DO think it likely because a good argument for it can be made on the basis of probablility and the known properties of the universe (or however many you like). Such an argument for the teapot or the soul has not been forthcoming
It is therefore no less unreasonable for you to state that religion should be eliminated than it is for the religious to say that non-believers should be eliminated. Tolerance, and I don’t mean the “keep your ideas to yourself and I’ll keep mine” variety, is the only real answer. Anytime you try to eliminate a group of people they are going to fight back. Nothing is more horrifying than having to admit that your understanding of the universe is wrong. People would rather believe made up crap than admit that what they “feel” is true is really a bunch of hooey.
Bullshit. First of all, there is a pretty big difference between eliminating religion and eliminating a group of people, though you use the two concepts interchangeably. This is similar to the subtle difference between the FCC’s regulation of broadcast television and the holocaust. See my point? I’m not proposing the elimination of believers, just beliefs. Now, as to the methods of eliminating these beliefs, I’m not talking about outlawing religion or burning the churches down. I can’t think of a better way to strengthen religion. I want to kill religion through understanding. 95-99% of the believers in the world today will never let go of their religions. This is true. I want their children. This is a multi-generational struggle to increase understanding, thereby banishing superstition. I would NEVER condone any action (legal or otherwise) that would prevent people from practicing religion (barring human sacrifice or something equally horrific). When the critical mass of enlightened minds has been reached, such action will be unnecessary anyway.
I read somewhere, I wish I could remember where, an opinion that the single best way to eliminate religious fundamentalism would be to require every high school student to take a “Religions of the World” course. I agree with this. For example, if everyone really understood just how much of the bible was stolen from other religions and had exposure to the vast range of disparate beliefs in the world, it might put their own beliefs into a different and hopefully less bigoted light.
I couldn’t agree more. I intend to inoculate my (as yet theoretical) children against religion by using exposure therapy. They’re going to learn more about religion by the time they’re 10 then some ministers know. I was involved in a discussion over at Hellbound Alleee’s blog last month on this very topic. To make them atheists, I’m going to take them to church… and synagogue and ashram and mosque and hounfour…
It is a common mistake made by those who appose religion to assume that the religious are stupid or just ignorant. In many cases I am certain that it is true that ignorance fuels fervor and that fervor fuels bigotry and bigotry fuels hatred etc… But, a surprisingly large percentage of people faced with the “truth” about religion will still bury their heads in the sand and continue to believe whatever the f*&% they want. Ostracizing these people will not make them go away, it will make them into suicide bombers. In our lifetime we will not be able to change this. (I personally think religious tendencies are hard coded into human DNA, but that’s another topic.) What cannot be tolerated is fundamentalism and bigotry. No matter on which side of the argument it resides.
On your first point, you’re right. Not all of the believers are stupid or ignorant. Conversely, however, nearly all of the stupid or ignorant are believers. Just because it’s not one to one doesn’t mean there isn’t a correlation.
On your second point, I don’t want to ostracize them. I want to educate them where possible and prevent them from screwing up the next generation (like by teaching creationism) where it’s not.
On your third point, I haven’t seen any evidence that religion is genetic, but that is, as you say, a whole other conversation. If you have any links on that, though, I’d love to see them.
On the final point any religion can, and eventually will, spawn fundamentalism. Eliminating the source is the only solution.
~I AM~
August 26th, 2005 at at 11:55 pm
You are a genius.
Yes, we must free the children… it bugs me how no one my age understands that religious indoctrination of children is brainwashing. We’re exposed to multiple points of view in school, but when we get to Church or Temple of Mosque, we are taught an exclusive belief system. Man, am I glad I am through with Hebrew school. Now I can try to show people my age how little sense this all makes….
August 27th, 2005 at at 12:21 am
Good post I Am!
“It is a common mistake made by those who appose religion to assume that the religious are stupid or just ignorant…
But, a surprisingly large percentage of people faced with the “truth” about religion will still bury their heads in the sand and continue to believe whatever the f*&% they want.”
Isn’t burying your head in the face of facts ignorance?
August 27th, 2005 at at 2:17 am
Well, I really didn’t expect to warrant an entire post. As I said in a response on my site; thanks, it’s nice to be noticed.
It seemed easier to create a post to respond to all of your points rather than cut and paste them all here.
BTW Tanooki Joe, burying your head in the sand in the face of facts is foolish. Stupid implies a lack of faculties, ignorance implies that you don’t know any better.
August 27th, 2005 at at 2:20 am
The permalink on my site for this discussion is:
http://www.lbbp.net/skepticrant/2005/08/on-nature-of-blogging-or-response-to.html
August 27th, 2005 at at 8:03 am
Good post. I like the interactive style with which you tackled this issue. I also liked how you pointed out that you want to educate and not marginalize Christians. I suspect that most atheists feel this way, and yet we don’t always do the best job of explaining it.
August 27th, 2005 at at 11:54 pm
“Nothing is more horrifying than having to admit that your understanding of the universe is wrong. People would rather believe made up crap than admit that what they “feel” is true is really a bunch of hooey.”
This comment on LBBP highlights the real problem. I think the problem is even larger in scope — in my opinion, most people find it horrifying to admit they are wrong about ANYTHING. I see this everyday — someone in a car will run a red light; the person in the car who has the right of way blows the horn or makes a comment to the car that runs the red light; and the person who ran the red light flips the bird or curses back.
Or someone at work will claim that their computer is broken; and when you point out to them that the PC’s power wasn’t turned on (they flipped on the power on the power strip but not the PC itself) they’ll lie right to your face and say “I KNOW I turned that on” instead of admitting their gaffe.
Everyone, myself included, does silly things and believes silly things from time to time. I have no problem admitting when I do something stupid or wrong, but for many people this is difficult. I guess it’s because just about everyone likes to think that they are intelligent, and when you point out an error in their judgment, it threatens their intellectual standing in their immediate community. All I know is, I’d rather live in a community filled with mental giants who point out my errors of logic/reasoning and where I’m the community “dunce”, rather than in a community where I’m the mental giant, because the latter would be a fairly boring community. I WANT to surround myself with people brighter than myself, so that I can learn more about the world I live in. If there’s a problem with my belief system, I want someone to point out the logical flaws/gaps in my beliefs so that I can refine them and take a step closer to finding the truth.
This is what I try to stress to monotheistic believers when they question me about my atheism. I didn’t WANT to be an atheist (I was raised a Catholic) but I was left with no other intellectually honest alternative after thinking critically about the subject for a long time. If theists could find overwhelming SCIENTIFIC evidence supporting the theory that human beings possess a “soul” which is everlasting, then I would have to accept the theory on its merits. Of course, I think the likelihood of finding such evidence is similar to the likelihood of finding that the earth is only 6000 years old; but the point is, I do not have blind allegiance to any belief system, or lack thereof — my only “blind allegiance”, so to speak, is to find the objective truth. When someone points out an error in my judgment, it is not horrifying to me — in fact, it is educational and thus empowering. I wish everyone shared this view.
August 28th, 2005 at at 4:10 pm
Indeed, people can be such dicks sometimes, like god.
August 28th, 2005 at at 8:51 pm
Hiya, just read your response, and it seems like you have a very similar non-belief to my own. I found these couple of articles recently which seem to pertain to a couple of areas of interest you mentioned. Enjoy
Religious belief ‘falling faster than church attendance’
http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/08/17/nrelig17.xml
‘God gene’ discovered by scientist behind gay DNA theory
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/11/14/ngod14.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/11/14/ixnewstop.html
August 30th, 2005 at at 10:45 am
Not to push buttons here again
But I wonder about the logic behind your concluding sentence:
“On the final point any religion can, and eventually will, spawn fundamentalism. Eliminating the source is the only solution.”
It seems to me that fundamentalism is akin to any other view taken in the extreme. Extremes are bad and dangerous, period. Whether it is in politics (fringe L or R) or religion (fundies) or anti-religion (persecutors of believers), it should be at the least be discouraged/marginalized. However, the mere existence of an extreme fringe of fundamentalism within those who adhere to religion should not dictate the need for eliminating religion any more than the existence of alcoholics should dictate the need for legislating prohibition.
August 30th, 2005 at at 10:46 pm
Chad:
I’m not sure I agree that all extremes are necessarily bad, but I’ll take it at face value for now. Let me specifically deal with your example of alcoholism, because I think it’s a poor analogy. The differences between alcoholism and religious fundamentalism are as follows:
1. Alcohol exists.
2. Most of the damage done by alcoholics is to themselves.
3. The external damage done by alcoholics is almost never intentional.
4. Alcoholics don’t want to change the way I live my life.
5. An alcoholic can cause a serious car accident. Religion is responsible for the Crusades, the Inquisition, the French Wars of Religion, etc. To start to reach the same death tolls, we’d have to start hiring alcoholics as air traffic controllers.
6. Engaging in dangerous activity (like driving) while under the influence of alcohol is illegal. Unfortunately, it’s legal to be a politician while under the influence of religious fundamentalism.
September 1st, 2005 at at 1:06 pm
“Engaging in dangerous activity (like driving) while under the influence of alcohol is illegal. Unfortunately, it’s legal to be a politician while under the influence of religious fundamentalism.”
I really like that quote.
You both make an interesting point about the relative merits of extremism. Without extremists in the equal rights movement this country might still have segregated busses. Without the extremists amongst the colonists this country might still be a British state. Sweeping change without extremism is rarely possible.
Conversely, peace is rarely possible where there are there are radically opposing viewpoints that are trying to coexist in the same space.