Generally speaking, all religious arguments boil down to people trying to find an explanation for the observed, (and the unobserved, for the matter) with basic tools of human imagination: generally evidence-less, usually with no correlation to actual history, anthropology, geological or the fossil record (all of which support each other, by the way). The one constant is that, rather than going with ordinary or dull or difficult explanations, theists have chosen to continue to be surprised; and the more incredible and miraculous, and therefore more surprising, the explanation is, the more believable it is.
Whether we’re talking about the Adam x200B;amp; Eve, the Flood, Flying Horses, to conscious beings that created the universe all the way down to the relatively humdrum ideas behind the soul or praying, the only constant is these are imaginative attempts to make something ordinary into something extra-ordinary, supernatural and miraculous.
Even the theological arguments essentially boil down trying to explain something that couldn’t possibly be known, e.g. what happened before the universe began; or leaps into nowhere, something-something infinity, therefore “god”. And Paley’s watchmaker and Aquina’s argument on the number of angels on the head of a pin is where some of this thinking has lead: more made up stuff on top of made up stuff – literally turtles all the way down in terms of the amount of invented ideas.
While this might all seem harmless, what is happening is that theists are being conditioned on a regular basis to need an endorphin hit to maintain the notion that they have exclusive access to special knowledge about the universe. Religious leaders have taken advantage of this “opiate of the masses” for centuries to build global organization. However, in the last several decades in America, the religious have been weaponized for political uses, beginning with attacks on evolution with the Scope’s trial, the abortion fight, evolving to Trump, being the flawed king that will take America “back” to Jesus. QAnon even makes this link between patriotism, politics, and religion into a whole new level of actual weaponization that is all still in play.
To those recently peddling long-debunked arguments and asking how atheism can argue against something “so obvious”. This is why.
Plenty of us “soft” theists and even many overtly religious people are completely opposed to the weaponization of religion. I don’t even have a religion but I believe in God. My God does not contradict known science in any way and is not really even personal, it just is a probabilistic deduction of the metaphysical origins of science, to which I assign significance and offer gratitude for my existence and the beauty of nature. I sure as hell don’t want some crackpot religion’s subjective morality codes and anti-scientific drivel enforced upon me any more than atheists do.
I would simultaneously caution that you shouldn’t paint all theistic and religious people with a broad brush as enemies, and also recognize that religious people have the right to be wrong and delusional. Freedom of religion and speech are protected rights in America and most of the West, and State-enforced atheism (note this is not “secularism” but actual bans on religion and persecution of the religious) is as abhorrent a violation of rights as theocracy.
There are plenty of rational reasons to believe in intelligent design. If things were off by 1 degrees Celsius during the domino effect that lead to this, it would have failed (fine tuning argument). DNA itself is miraculous. It’s a self-correcting piece of super code that has like 3 trillion pieces of data. Can a Christian Geneticist not study that further and be excited for multiple reasons?
Life is nuts man. Science and spirituality do not have to be mutually exclusive.
In my humble opinion, you seem to be looking for a reason to demonize christians and republicans and act better than them in the name of science.
Atheism is not science. Science is a method that anyone can follow, at any time, regardless of their faiths.
[deleted]
> geological or the fossil record
You mean like [unearthing giant skeletons](https://www.google.com/search?q=unearthing+giants&rlz=1C1GTPM_enUS1012US1012&sxsrf=ALiCzsYSm-taufFPxvJUQjzQ5QjFShnyEg:1661089465360&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiMg5e8iNj5AhW9EmIAHUE9A_kQ_AUoAnoECAEQBA&biw=1524&bih=727&dpr=1.26)?
Unless you’re a witness at the time evidence is found, every government on the earth can cover-up the truth and BURY IT under a mountain of lies and cover-ups.
And even if you happened to be a witness, you can be threatened with national security non-disclosure or worse … you may never talk to anyone ever again and have an unfortunate ‘accident’.
Nah. Most of the world is religious, and by a large margin. 95%? ish? Clearly within what is essentially the whole world, there are numerous religious people who aside from their religious beliefs, completely defer to science on anything else.
I understand the culture of America of late has become something of a Mao-ish Cultural Revolution wherein every topic that can be weaponised becomes a flashpoint for ideological warfare against one’s percieved enemies, but, it does not make the claims of any one group more true just because people are more easily offended.
I have found that with the US, the political left often sees itself as the group that adheres to science. Having said that, the strong majority of them also believe in God, and many of them believe in very unscientific things. While many on the American right refuse to believe in global warming, many on the left are far more apt to believe in homeopathy. To expand on this, the small percentage of Atheists in America exist on both sides of the political spectrum. So how does that work?
A problem many people have is that they often think “I’m smart, and I’m right, and those who agree with me must also be smart and right about most things.” Atheists only agree on 1 thing – there’s no evidence for Gods. They are not a team of uber intelligent scientists that rationally adhere only to peer reviewed research. Atheists can think aliens probe their butts or there’s some value to astrology. We are not saving the world. It’s just not seeing evidence of Gods. Your pov is extremely American-centric and therefore tainted with your domestic politics / culture. Try to take a step back and separate the 2 issues.
Religion has two components, what the individual actually believes and the what the community decides it the consensus belief. Societies largely get the religion they deserve, when established religions go off the rails its not actually the religions fault, because they are driven by societal pressures and just change to match.
The kind of Christianity that attacks abortion clinics and supports modern slavery in the US penal system is the same phenomenon that gives us Hindu’s burning out and murdering their Muslim neighbours, its religion as political and cultural identity and expression.
Atheists are just as capable of such action, so we should be looking elsewhere as a source for that kind of way of thinking and acting, religion is the excuse not the reason.
Well first off, you probably ought to have this tagged for responses from theists since I’d think theists might have something to say about it.
At any rate the problem I see with the argument that atheism is a line of defense against religion being used for political ends is that I seldom see “your God does not exist” being offered by actual political office holders in mainstream pollical discourse as an answer to things like anti-abortionism, anti-gay rights, Trumpism etc. Sure atheists have things to say about politics, but in the US anyways openly declaring oneself to be an atheist is still political suicide in most states. I strongly suspect many US politicians fake a belief in God for political reasons.
> Generally speaking, all religious arguments boil down to people trying to find an explanation for the observed,
That’s what they pretend to do. Another more fundamental part of it is to justify people’s own prejudices. Because the natural world does not care about morality at all, that leads to constant surprises, but if they did care about explaining the world, they would have no problem with science.
> theists have chosen to continue to be surprised; and the more incredible and miraculous, and therefore more surprising, the explanation is, the more believable it is.
It is a preference that grew out of necessity: most religious beliefs are contradicted by evidence. So in order to survive, religions have presented faith as the ability to hold a belief in face of contrary evidences and made it a quality instead of an obvious flaw.
You can’t weaponize religion for the same reason you can’t weaponize a handgun. Atheism’s role is more like the role of gun control advocates.
> Even the theological arguments essentially boil down trying to explain something that couldn’t possibly be known, e.g. what happened before the universe began;
Many things that happened after the universe began, such as the formation of planets, appearance of life on earth etc are also unknowable.
Scientists can merely speculate. Yet, those speculations are taught in universities as gospel truths. Why is that?
> However, in the last several decades in America, the religious have been weaponized for political uses, beginning with attacks on evolution with the Scope’s trial, the abortion fight, evolving to Trump, being the flawed king that will take America “back” to Jesus.
I’m not a Christian, but….
If non-religious people can work through political channels to secure their interests, why can’t religious people do the same? Especially when they are in the majority?
What’s the origin of the idea that religious people cannot participate in politics?
Generally speaking, all religious arguments boil down to people trying to find an ~~explanation~~ *interpretation* for the observed,
Only US Christians confuse their Christianity with an ‘alternative’ to science.
I can follow, yeah.
> theists are being conditioned on a regular basis to need an endorphin hit to maintain the notion that they have exclusive access to special knowledge about the universe.
Do you see any meaningful difference between this and how conspiracy theories work?
When talking to those people I got the impression they are too lazy/stupid/afraid to put effort into learning, but still want to reap the feeling of knowing, like a shortcut. What you described sounds similar to me.
All I see in this post is calling religion wrong because it involves the supernatural, and saying that religion is bad because some religious people support political opinions that you don’t like. Even though many atheists support those political opinions as well. Sounds more like you’re using religion as a scape goat for an additional means of attacking a political position.
Disagree, but I think atheists could be, if they wanted, a defense against the weaponization of religion. One problem that we often see in this and many other subreddits is that some atheists (quite a lot really, although I suspect still a minority overall) argue in defense of radicalization and extremism.
For example, most Christians I’ve known have been vehemently opposed to slavery and look at the history of Christian involvement in the slave trade with horror. As much as possible, they promote interpretations of the Bible in support of abolitionism. Nevertheless, many atheists insist on promoting the most uncharitable interpretations of the Bible and argue that groups like the KKK or the Westborough Baptist Church are idiomatic of “real Christianity”. You can’t be taken seriously as a defense against the weaponization of religion while promoting its weaponization.
We see exactly the same thing with Islam, with many atheists at one point arguing in defense of ISIS and trying to silence Muslim critics of atheists. ISIS was even known to use atheist sockpuppet accounts to proselytize its message because they found such welcoming allies amongst atheists. So again, you can’t be taken seriously as a defense against the weaponization of religion when you actually promote its weaponization. I think even Sam Harris was forced to acknowledge at one point that being on a mission to invalidate liberal or progressive religious movements and corroborating the interpretations of the extremists who want to kill you is probably a suicidally insane strategy.
We had another atheist here recently talking about how various Hindu scriptures promote marrying 8 year old girls. I don’t think demonizing religion in that manner is helpful. If anything, it just reinforces the idea that the extremists or the ultraconservatives are justified. But you undermined the texts themselves, you’d have these conservatives questioning the legitimacy of their actions.
So I think atheism could indeed be a bulwark against the weaponization of religion, but it would require a paradigm shift in the way that atheists formulate their arguments and a massive shift away from grandstanding. I think we do see many atheists in this subreddit (not sure if I’d describe as a majority or not) who are a force for good. I think arguments that seek to invalidate or undermine confidence in a religious text target both extremist and liberal/progressive interpretations simultaneously. It is harder to justify the weaponization of religion if the argument is clearly that they whole religion or the books used to justify weaponization are fraudulent.
Anyone who uses reason and basic decency to oppose religious fundamentalism and violence is a “line of defense”, including and especially those reasonable and decent people within a religion who are willing to push back against those very things.
I would argue they are a better line of defense, as they are more likely to change how others within that institution behave and function, and they have more influence on curtailing its more insidious aspects.
It’s a team effort.