Agnostics' view of religious believers

[BobLeeSwagger]

You have to understand that the bible was not meant to be taken literally. God created everything in 6 days. There is nothing to define how long a day was. It could have been a million years.

They were meant to be guides on how life should be led.

They were intended to be taken literally at the time. In a time when the creation of the earth couldn't be explained, it made sense to come up with an explanation that people could accept. But with the emergence of modern science, it's much harder to do so now. You really have to reject all science to take it literally now.

My first reaction when talking to religious people is to ask them how they can be sure. Eventually they turn to "the Bible says so", and the conversation usually ends shortly after. Anyone who truly believes that the Bible is the perfect guide can't be convinced otherwise and there isn't much room to debate. I think it's hopelessly naive to think that the Bible is that guide, considering how many falsehoods, inaccuracies and contradictions are in it. It seems more likely to me that there is a God and humans have warped the truth about him. It still seems even more likely that there isn't a God though.

My feeling as an agnostic is that I don't know if there's a God out there. If he does exist, I'm unconvinced that he actively participates in anything we do. I've met numerous people who tell me that they used to feel that way until they had some kind of epiphany that convinced them otherwise. Who am I to tell them that they didn't really experience that? If it really comes down to faith and not fact, then emotions take over and reason is suspended. I'm open to the possibility that I might someday experience such an epiphany, but until then, I'm unconvinced.

It's kind of like the phenomenon of "love at first sight". It seems to happen to people often enough that I can't completely rule out that it's real. But unless it happens to me, how am I to know?

 

[Calboner]

Actually, it is not only the patriotic duty of a Canadian to consider every other part of Canada as sucking, it is a condition of citizenship. Except for Winnipeg. It is, as you point out, properly referred to as a frozen shithole.

Well, the only Canadian city that I know is Vancouver, and I don't think it sucks. Montreal if full of French-speaking people, which might make it suck. (Triumph the Insult Comic Dog to a Québécois: "You're French-Canadian? That means you're obnoxious and dull.") Winnipeg, I find, is due north of the border between North Dakota and Minnesota, so I don't see how it could be anything other than a frozen shithole. I would have thought that that meant that it sucks, but maybe you can't suck if you're frozen.

 

[cdarro]

LOL. Can't top that. Only add that the reason the wind is so strong in Alberta is that Saskatchewan sucks and B.C. blows. (Except for Vancouver).

 

[Calboner]

SCIENCE IS A RELIGION

But the real hard part is that science is so arcane and so removed from ordinary life and experience that most people have no real understanding of it.
For most of us, the pronouncements of scientists are indistinguishable from papal encyclicals. That is, they are both things for which the lay person has no direct proof or understanding... both situations where an 'authority' is asking you to 'trust' what they are telling you.

I was surprised to see you advancing this claim, Phil, as it is usually heard only from defenders of theism. Or rather, such defenders use the same words, "Science is a religion," but what they mean by them is not what you seem to mean by them. What they mean, I think, is that the practice of science rests on beliefs that cannot be demonstrated to be true, such as the supposed presumption that our reasonings and judgments lead us to truth. Whatever the merits of that claim, you seem to be making an entirely different one, namely that the acceptance of science by non-scientists is a matter of their accepting things on the authority of scientists. But then it seems to me that you are expressing yourself in an entirely misleading fashion. You are saying not that science itself is a religion, but that the acceptance of science by non-scientists is a religion.

Even then, the claim is not credible. No scientist who seeks to communicate his knowledge to the public offers science as an object of worship. The fact that most people take the findings of science on faith or authority does not make science a religion any more than my taking your word for it when you tell me some fact about yourself makes my trust in you a religion.

 

[Phil Ayesho]

I was surprised to see you advancing this claim, Phil, as it is usually heard only from defenders of theism. Or rather, such defenders use the same words, "Science is a religion," but what they mean by them is not what you seem to mean by them.

Please don't mistake my intent. What I mean by that is that FOR MOST PEOPLE, the claims of science are as unproven as are the claims of religion.
If you don't understand higher math, have never conducted an experiment, do not understand how statistical significance is computed or why... then you simply don't understand science.

I see folks on the news all the time treating scientific findings as if they are religious catechism. They parrot the findings of science without comprehension of what the findings mean, nor that they are highly provisional...
In other words, for most folks what comes out of scientists mouths is Indistinguishable from what comes out of a priests... hell, they both speak in latin.

You are saying not that science itself is a religion, but that the acceptance of science by non-scientists is a religion.

Precisely... when folks accept something without understanding if it is proven nor how it is proven, then they are accepting it on faith. They are believing in an argument from authority.

This is not to say that ALL non-scientists accept science in this way... I myself am capable of understanding scientific method, have conducted experiments in the classroom, and am aware enough of human history to be able to follow the chain of scientific research from the fist cloud chamber findings all the way thru to the computer on which I type.

Ergo, I discern that science actually works... that it genuinely does give us amazing powers over reality that no religion has ever come close to offering.

But most people do not see that connection... Its just two experts arguing, one in a white smock and one in a black smock.

Even then, the claim is not credible. No scientist who seeks to communicate his knowledge to the public offers science as an object of worship. The fact that most people take the findings of science on faith or authority does not make science a religion any more than my taking your word for it when you tell me some fact about yourself makes my trust in you a religion.

I am not suggesting that scientist pawn themselves off as priests, although there is an ivory tower kinds mindset among them.
It's not unfounded, since, unlike priests, they actually DO know and understand something the average person does not.

But you have to realize that for most people science does not look that different from religion except in its own uncertainty.
You and I know that uncertainty is science's true strength... to be willing to discard any idea for a better idea...
But from the outside, it seems like scientists are always contradicting themselves... offering a picture of reality that is always changing and can never be fully trusted..

And if the JOB of science is to dispel fear and give us control... science, for most folks, seems to be doing a crappy job at it.

The average American does not link the fact that civilization would not be possible without safe drinking water... nor that water filtration and purification systems are the result of science... they twist a knob and water comes out because that's the way the water works...

But I also brought this up to point out the fallacy of the position that Science and Religion are not at odd with each other, or can co-exist.

They can not... they both seek to serve the exact same purpose in human life, and we don't really NEED both solutions... we only need the solution that is more effective.

And that effectiveness can be quantified. By science.

Religion was out first attempt at answering the unanswerable.
Science is a more recent, and BETTER method for doing the same thing.

Unlike religion, Science actually HAS saved lives... it HAS made the lame walk and the blind see... and it IS extending human life.
It actually is giving us power over the material world and more control over our destinies.

In every respect Science is the replacement for religion.
And just as any thinking person would rather have the antibiotics than a rattle shaken over their infected wound... so , too, should people prefer to supplant an ancient incantation of mumbo jumbo with the world view that has made miracles manifest in every aspect of their daily lives...
so much so that turning a knob and having safe, pure water come out does not even astound them.
When it should.

 

[dongalong]

Here are some religious beliefs that can honestly be considered as stupid:

I `ve just discovered how stupid religious belief can be...? - Yahoo! Answers

Mitt Romney's Hilarious Religious Beliefs

Suicide bombers are stupid enough to believe that their mission will be a "heroic martyrdom operation" and highly commendable when undertaken for reasons of jihad (holy war). In reality, their actions encourage longer wars and more death and misery all around.

I realise that the majority of religious people are smart enough to keep things real but the others can be dangerous!

 

[Calboner]

The average American does not link the fact that civilization would not be possible without safe drinking water... nor that water filtration and purification systems are the result of science... they twist a knob and water comes out because that's the way the water works...

But I also brought this up to point out the fallacy of the position that Science and Religion are not at odd with each other, or can co-exist.

They can not... they both seek to serve the exact same purpose in human life, and we don't really NEED both solutions... we only need the solution that is more effective.

And that effectiveness can be quantified. By science.

Religion was out first attempt at answering the unanswerable.
Science is a more recent, and BETTER method for doing the same thing.

Unlike religion, Science actually HAS saved lives... it HAS made the lame walk and the blind see... and it IS extending human life.
It actually is giving us power over the material world and more control over our destinies.

In every respect Science is the replacement for religion.
And just as any thinking person would rather have the antibiotics than a rattle shaken over their infected wound... so , too, should people prefer to supplant an ancient incantation of mumbo jumbo with the world view that has made miracles manifest in every aspect of their daily lives...
so much so that turning a knob and having safe, pure water come out does not even astound them.
When it should.

I applaud your point that it is because of science and not because of worship that we have safe drinking water on tap. But the idea that religion serves no purpose that is not better served by science seems to me absurd. What holds most people in religion is not its supposed power to explain the universe or heal the sick but the ethical community that it affords. A religion ties its adherents together in a common view of what is important in the conduct of life. (The word "religion" etymologically means "tying together.") I'm not saying that religion does this in the best possible way. A lot of religious views of life are plainly deluded, and, of course, every religious community has to define itself as much by excluding as by including people. But science is not in the business of bringing people together in any kind of ethical community at all. There is a community of scientific inquirers, but what they share is scientific practice, not a view of what human life is about and how it should be conducted.

 

[deleted213967]

Please don't mistake my intent. What I mean by that is that FOR MOST PEOPLE, the claims of science are as unproven as are the claims of religion.

[Sigh of relief]

Well, thank you for the clarification. For a moment, we were under the impression that, either:

a. Phil Ayesho had converted to Christianity.

b. Mrs. Ayesho, violently at odd with her husband's worldviews (hence the torrid marital sex), had cracked his LPSG account and was making pronouncements on his behalf.

c. Phil Ayesho was suffering from the undocumented side effects of the new male enhancement drug he'd switched to.

 

[Symphonic]

To be honest I could care less about other person's religious affiliations. There are just much more important things in the world.

 

[Symphonic]

In every respect Science is the replacement for religion.

I lol'd. Seriously?

 

[TObul]

"But science is not in the business of bringing people together in any kind of ethical community at all. There is a community of scientific inquirers, but what they share is scientific practice, not a view of what human life is about and how it should be conducted."

Yes, but the realistic approach to things can be applied to philosophy. This is the code of conduct Atheists and my fellow Sceptical Agnostics generally follow called Utilitarianism, where decisions are made purely based on what the real, present, Earthly circumstances are and what will produce the most net Good/Happiness in the end, focusing on results rather than process.

This way, we use things like economics and sociology to get an accurate, scientific picture of just what is going on in a given situation, and uses scientific neutrality, honesty, and attention to detail to determine direction and method of dealing with issues.

Done right, it's also a political philosophy. People get stuck in Right and Left arguments on philosophy of process and even end goals, when reason tells us there is always a single best way to go, and way to do.

It may not be easy to determine, or even THAT much better than the second best option but there will always be an outcome that's .001 points higher on the "Happyness Index" (or whatever you want) than the second best strategy.

 

[Calboner]

"But science is not in the business of bringing people together in any kind of ethical community at all. There is a community of scientific inquirers, but what they share is scientific practice, not a view of what human life is about and how it should be conducted."

Yes, but the realistic approach to things can be applied to philosophy. This is the code of conduct Atheists and my fellow Sceptical Agnostics generally follow called Utilitarianism, where decisions are made purely based on what the real, present, Earthly circumstances are and what will produce the most net Good/Happiness in the end, focusing on results rather than process.

This way, we use things like economics and sociology to get an accurate, scientific picture of just what is going on in a given situation, and uses scientific neutrality, honesty, and attention to detail to determine direction and method of dealing with issues.

Done right, it's also a political philosophy. People get stuck in Right and Left arguments on philosophy of process and even end goals, when reason tells us there is always a single best way to go, and way to do.

It may not be easy to determine, or even THAT much better than the second best option but there will always be an outcome that's .001 points higher on the "Happyness Index" (or whatever you want) than the second best strategy.

To your "Yes, but" I say, "Yes, but":

(1) A skeptical and realistic practice of ethical and political thought is still not a part of science. It may be informed by the findings and methods of science, but it belongs to philosophy.

(2) This still is not an ethical community in the pertinent sense. What binds people together in this pursuit is the value that they set on critical rationality: the conclusions to which they are led are likely to be widely divergent. I don't mean that this is a fault; I just mean that it is nothing like the kind of community that religion offers.

(3) Even if a group of critical thinkers achieve a measure of agreement in ethical questions, they are not likely to have rituals and observances that make these views emotionally significant to them and that weave the bits of their lives together. These are things that religion does and that neither science nor philosophy can do. There was, and perhaps still is, something called the Society for Ethical Culture that tried to do this sort of thing without any notion of God or the sacred, but I don't think that it ever spread very far. Perhaps the Unitarian Universalist Church of today is much the same sort of thing. In any case, these associations are not, so far as I know, intellectual ones. They are not concerned with inquiry, but try to fulfill the ritual and communal functions of religion. Whether it is possible to do this on a purely secular basis, I don't know. My main point is that it is something that science and philosophy cannot do.

 

[Pendlum]

I am a practical atheist. Which means, as I understand it, that for all intents and purposes in my life, god does not exist.

How I look at religious believers? I'll admit I look down on most of them if just a little bit (and often times a lot).

For one religious people are given a 'free pass' when it comes to questioning what they believe in for the most part. People don't do it because they are afraid to offend them.

Then there are people who do it for the morals. They drive me crazy. If you are smart enough to not take the bible literally, then you should be smart enough to not need it for morals. They should not be equated, and it is not necessary to have it to be a good stand up person. I was raised with zero religion in my life. The first time I was in a church was to get my MMR shot in grade school. I don't steal, or murder, or rape, etc. You don't need it to teach morals, do that yourself.

Then there are the crazy ones, suicide bombers, people who work at Jesus Camp, etc. I want to pity them, but it is so hard to when they get to cause so much harm in the name of faith. And then people tell me that I need it, it's good for me?

To make things easier, I just assume that everyone I know/meet is an atheist or agnostic unless it comes about, and I try not to bring it up as much as possible unless I think they can handle it.

 

[B_Hung Jon]

"seemingly hurt no one"?

That's the understatement of the year, Hung Jon.

Intellectual obscurantism aside, do you think that Islamic law, even as practiced in "moderate" Muslim states, "hurts no one"?

The penalty for mere apostasy in the Koran is crystal clear: death.

Then again, death is prescribed for every other peccadillo in the Old Testament as well. Suffice it to say, Yahweh-approved genocide and rape pass muster.

Domisoldo, I agree with you about how religious belief does hurt us all. But as others have said here, we are all are fearful of offending others' beliefs even if they're ridiculous or even manifestly harmful.

 

[Phil Ayesho]

I applaud your point that it is because of science and not because of worship that we have safe drinking water on tap. But the idea that religion serves no purpose that is not better served by science seems to me absurd. What holds most people in religion is not its supposed power to explain the universe or heal the sick but the ethical community that it affords.

Sorry, that is an adequate description of a bowling league, tennis club or any other simple human social construct...
But Religion is unique in that, unlike any other social groupings, it seeks to INFORM its adherents about claims it makes concerning the nature of the world, and unseen, unprovable forces that drive the world.

That puts in in head to head competition with science.

That religion can ALSO afford community and social context is immaterial, because, as pointed out above, people CAN get those things from other sources... they are not RELIANT upon religion nor religious beliefs.

A religion ties its adherents together in a common view of what is important in the conduct of life. (The word "religion" etymologically means "tying together.")

Actually, to BIND... which has connotations other than communal.

I'm not saying that religion does this in the best possible way. A lot of religious views of life are plainly deluded, and, of course, every religious community has to define itself as much by excluding as by including people.

ALL religions are, by definition, delusional because they must ALL make claims about gods or the afterlife that are insupportable and unprovable.
To claim knowledge you can not demonstrate is delusional.

But science is not in the business of bringing people together in any kind of ethical community at all. There is a community of scientific inquirers, but what they share is scientific practice, not a view of what human life is about and how it should be conducted.

I disagree. First of all, you have made an unproven assumption that the purpose of religion is to form community. Science shows that human ancestors had community PRIOR to religion, ergo, religion is not necessary to community and that can not be its true evolutionary function.
Science also proves that ALL social species have a basic understanding of ethics/morality in the form of fair play and the conflict between self interest and group interest.
Ergo Religion is NOT a source of morality, but rather, a belief system that has co-opted morality by making up a narrative of morality's creation.

Human social groups without religion act as morally or MORE morally than those who believe religion to be the foundation of their morals.

Your definition does not separate out that which distinguishes religion from a Shriner's lodge, a rotary club or a PTA.

In truth, religions MUST offer answers from an authority that must not be questioned. Period.
Science offers answers from an authority that must be questioned. period.

That is the fundamental difference between science and religion... they both seek to explain the universe and our place in it... but one brooks no disagreement, and the other embraces it.

The primary difference between the religious and the rational is not intelligence. It's courage.

The rational person faces the fact of his own annihilation without running to the comfort of fantasies of immortality.
The rational person faces the unknown with humility and the admission of their own ignorance.

It takes courage to put aside religion...
But it is solution for a child... and when I became a man, I put away childish things.

 

[Phil Ayesho]

I lol'd. Seriously?

Yes, seriously.
The only things religion offers that science does not offer a better alternative for is delusional beliefs in one's own importance in the scheme of the universe, and delusional beliefs in immortality.

Science proves prayers are not answered and miracles do not occur.
Science demonstrates the real causes and effect behind the phenomena that once mystified and frightened the masses.
Science actually does heal the sick and actually does bring the dead back to life.

and everything 'social' offered by religion can be found in social groupings not predicated upon the dissemination of delusional idiocy.

 

[424365]

I consider myself Agnostic. I find myself being more open to the ideas and possibilities put forth by all religions than just calling people stupid and gullible. When subject is brought around to religion I rarely change the subject but instead listen thoughtfully then offer my take on what was said whether the person talking to me take what I say graciously or not.

 

[424365]

Yes, seriously.
The only things religion offers that science does not offer a better alternative for is delusional beliefs in one's own importance in the scheme of the universe, and delusional beliefs in immortality.

Science proves prayers are not answered and miracles do not occur.
Science demonstrates the real causes and effect behind the phenomena that once mystified and frightened the masses.
Science actually does heal the sick and actually does bring the dead back to life.

and everything 'social' offered by religion can be found in social groupings not predicated upon the dissemination of delusional idiocy.

Who's to say that science and religion are not inexplicably intertwined? For in some instances science really can't answer. The Laws of physics and quantum mechanics fall apart at a certain point and faith and hope can actually lead to the answers.

The power of faith has healed people. People have survived when science says that by all means they should not have. I'm not trying to pick a fight I'm merely saying you should view both sides unbiasedly before making any real decision.

 

[Calboner]

Sorry, that is an adequate description of a bowling league, tennis club or any other simple human social construct...

That's bullshit, Phil, and you know it. I explained what I mean by an ethical community: it is a group held together by common views of what is important in the conduct of human life. You can't possibly believe that a bowling league is in that sense an ethical community. It is a group of people tied together by an interest in bowling, and that is all.

I disagree. First of all, you have made an unproven assumption that the purpose of religion is to form community.

I made the ASSERTION, not the assumption, that "a religion ties its adherents together in a common view of what is important in the conduct of life." That implies that this is A function, not THE purpose, of religion. I did indeed offer no proof of this assertion, because it seems to me a matter of common observation. How could something be a religion if it did not tie its adherents together in this fashion? If you can give an example of a religion that does not do so, then I will amend my assertion to say that Judaism, Christianity, Mormonism, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism are of the nature that I described.

Science shows that human ancestors had community PRIOR to religion, ergo, religion is not necessary to community and that can not be its true evolutionary function.

I don't know how science can prove any such thing: what do we know about the communal life of "human ancestors," if by that you mean species that were the ancestors of the human species? Perhaps you are using "community" in a sense that merely means herd or group behavior, such as can be observed among brute animals. If you are, then your observation, even if it is true, is irrelevant to my arguments, which concern ethical community.

Science also proves that ALL social species have a basic understanding of ethics/morality in the form of fair play and the conflict between self interest and group interest.

This is, again, irrelevant. You can dignify the social behavior of animals with such terms as "ethics" and "morality" if you like, but no chimp has ever propounded a view of what is important in the conduct of chimp life. No non-human animal on this planet has ever propounded a view of anything, because we're the only ones who have language. Behaving in a certain way is not enough to constitute having a view about how one should behave.

Ergo Religion is NOT a source of morality,

I never said or implied that it was.

but rather, a belief system that has co-opted morality by making up a narrative of morality's creation.

Human social groups without religion act as morally or MORE morally than those who believe religion to be the foundation of their morals.

And you accuse me of making "unproved assumptions"? Interesting.

 

[rheno]

I'm a PASTAfarian!
Long live the Flying Spaghetti Monster!