Several bloggers have commented on the recent Pew Survey on whether or not different religious groups support torture. Interestingly, the question they asked was unequivocal – there were no euphemisms such as “enhanced interrogation” or yes it is / no it isn’t terms like “waterboarding”. The question was unequivocally about torture:
Do you think the use of torture against suspected terrorists in order to gain important information can often be justified, sometimes be justified, rarely be justified, or never be justified?
The results by religious grouping below clearly shows that the more Christian you are, the more likely you are to think that torture was justified:
I’m not sure how statistically significant these results are. The numbers questioned in the attend religious services “weekly”, “monthly…” and “seldom or never” were 336, 225 and 168 respectively. That seems a little low to be used for drawing too many conclusions, although I could be wrong. If anyone has the statistical know-how to crunch the numbers and calculate statistical significance I’d be very interested. Also, the number supporting torture in the less religious groups is still fairly high in my view. Torture was justified at least “sometimes” by around 40% of the “unaffiliated” and “attend religious services seldom or never” groups. That compares with 54% to 62% of the religious groups.
Even so, significant or not, these results hardly support the view that religion (specifically Christianity) provides a moral compass, or that reading the Bible or going to church is necessary for one to be moral or good. And, really, should this surprise anyone? Consider what the “good book”, aka The Word Of God has to say about the use of torture. Just a few snippets:
If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property. Exodus 21:20-21
Oh yeah, you say, but that was just for slaves. Slaves are property, right? But it wasn't just slaves. Look what David did (with God’s approval) to all the inhabitants of several cities:
And he brought forth the people that were therein, and put them under saws, and under harrows of iron, and under axes of iron, and made them pass through the brick-kiln: and thus did he unto all the cities of the children of Ammon. 2 Samuel 12:31
Hum, saws, harrows, axes, the brick-kiln - well at least they didn't waterboard.
Jesus approved of the practice:
The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers. And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. Luke 12:46-48
Oh that Jesus - such a barrel of fun. But then, he got it from his dad:
And to them it was given that they should not kill them, but that they should be tormented five months: and their torment was as the torment of a scorpion, when he striketh a man. And in those days shall men seek death, and shall not find it; and shall desire to die, and death shall flee from them. Revelation 9:5-6
Much more at the Skeptic’s Annotated Bible’s What the Bible says about Torture page.
This survey really shouldn’t surprise anyone. The Bible, Christianity, religion are not necessary for one to be moral or good.
The numbers are statistically significant.
When we have above 30 participants we start getting good numbers. It is more about really random polling and doing it correctly.
The opposite is actually quite common in online polls: tens of thousands of participants but not a randomized sample - thus numbers that tell nothing.
Posted by: Boris | May 01, 2009 at 07:21 PM
It would have been interesting if the "payload" question had included an option for "torture can always be justified" -- frankly, those response numbers look suspiciously close to the "crazy fraction".
Posted by: David Harmon | May 02, 2009 at 05:21 AM
Christians have never had an issue with torture; it's always acceptable if they disobey. Look at the inquisition!
Posted by: Thomas | May 02, 2009 at 01:37 PM
I don't think this post needs the title "Christians Justify Torture". In all except one of those bar graph things the percent of people who say it can never be justified is bigger that the percent who say it can often be justified. Even looking at the rest of the results I think you're way exaggerating things when you make the statement in the title.
Posted by: Matt | May 03, 2009 at 10:52 PM
I think this post needs the title "Christians Justify Torture". In all except one of those bar graphs the percent of people who say torture can sometimes be justified is bigger than the percent who say it can rarely be justified. Looking at the rest of the results I think you're cherry picking because you don't like the tentative conclusions that can be drawn from this data.
See what happens when you only pick and choose the bits of data you want and ignore the rest?
Taken as a whole the data clearly suggests the following:
A majority of the US population supports torture in at least some cicurmstances. Guess what religion most of the US population identifies as.
Amongst evangelical protestants support for torture in at least some circumstances is considerably higher than the general US population. Guess what religion Protestants are.
Amongst white non-hispanic Catholics support for torture in at least some circumstances is higher than the general US population. Guess what religion Catholics are.
Amongst white mainline Protestants support for torture in at least some circumstances is slightly lower than the general US population (and this is the only religious group that has a greater majority that disapproves of torture overall). Did you guess what religion Protestants are yet?
Then we have the unaffiliated - which could be religious groups, which could include the non-religious, it isn't clear. The data shows that they don't support torture in at least some circumstances as much as the general US population does. Do we remember how the US population generally identifies its religious affiliations?
But it gets even clearer still with the data in the final three graphs.
Those who attend religious services at least once a week support torture in at least some circumstances more than the general US population. It doesn't state specifically that this means Christian religious services, but I think we can take a guess can't we?
Those who attend religious services either monthly or a few times a year still support torture in at least some circumstances more than the general US population. So they might not be good Christians, but they still identify as Christians and occassionally practise.
So what about those who seldom or never attend religious services? Why they support torture in at least some circumstances less than the general US population does. Indeed, this group is the only group of these three that thinks torture can never or only rarely ever be justified in greater proportion than it thinks torture can be justified.
Would you call people who never attend a religious service Christian?
And so, what groups do we think can be shown to think torture can be justified?
And which group's holy book speaks very highly and frequently of the use of torture?
And whose deity seems to have no compunctions about the use of torture?
Epic fail Matt.
Posted by: Jimmy_Blue | May 04, 2009 at 09:54 AM
lets not pretend its an easy question. I certainly don't approve of what the Bush administration did. But what about other scenarios. let's say al-Qaeda had announced that it had a nuclear weapon somewhere in the US and was going to detonate in 72 hours unless US forces became a complete pull out from the Near East and Central Asia. Suppose further that the FBI captured someone they had good reason to believe knew where the bomb was. Would you like to see that person tortured?
Posted by: Helena | May 04, 2009 at 05:27 PM
No. Next question please.
Posted by: Jimmy_Blue | May 04, 2009 at 05:38 PM
I want you to repeat something to yourself, Helena, as a mantra, each night before you go to bed: "Real life is not 24. Real life is not 24. Real life is not 24."
Posted by: Akusai | May 04, 2009 at 07:44 PM
But what if Dr Evil was going to fry Manhattan with an orbital "laser" cannon unless the UN gives him the sum of ONE MILLION DOLLARS? What then, huh?
Posted by: Dunc | May 05, 2009 at 05:27 AM
Helena,
Would you like to see that person tortured?
No, becuase it wouldn't help. That is what the whole damn problem is with government sanctioned torture. Its useless. We had hundreds of people in gitmo, many tortured there and afar. To date we have prosecuted 3. The rest? we may never know if they were just sweeped up with others, just looked funny at a serviceman, wrong place wrong time, or was OBL's right hand man. If nothing else, the last administration proved that torture is useless and provides nothing of value. It only wastes our time.
Its truly bizarre that in a world of hubble telescopes that point downward, guided robots, infrared and x-ray imaging, that we as a country have resorted to the same tactics used by the romans 2500 years ago to pretend to get useful information. Next we are going to be putting their heads on stakes along our borders.
I was recently asked by an uber neocon (not rich, but protected the rich like they were an endangered species), if someone stole my daughter and I caught them, would I torture them to get info about my daughter.
The answer is yes. I absolutely would if physically able to, even if I had to go to jail for it. But there is a huge difference between my temporary emotional irrationality and an organized government program, which has been shown for thousands of years to be fruitless, especially with respect to our modern capabilities.
Posted by: TechSkeptic | May 05, 2009 at 06:29 AM
It is telling, I think, that all of these "Would you torture then?" situations are things ripped right out of action movies. I think it speaks to the power fantasies underlying the attitudes of many of the folks who support torture as well as a general disconnect with reality. It's like asking "But if you had a watch that could stop time, wouldn't you go into the girls' locker room?" except the person asking the question is unaware that they are asking you to accept, for the sake of argument, a fictional invention. Not in the sense that these things can't or never happen, but in the sense that the question is informed entirely by popular culture perceptions of crime and punishment.
Posted by: Akusai | May 05, 2009 at 06:57 AM
The answer is yes. I absolutely would if physically able to, even if I had to go to jail for it. But there is a huge difference between my temporary emotional irrationality and an organized government program
Exactly right, and well put. We could dream up dozens of hypothetical scenarios that might lead me to kill someone - doesn't mean we should legalize murder.
Posted by: WScott | May 05, 2009 at 08:17 AM
What I found particularly funny/ridiculous about Helena's hypothetical was the idea that al-Qaeda announce their plans.
Really? They told us about the embassy bombings in Africa? The bombing of the USS Cole? The attacks on 9/11/01? The Bali bombing? The bombings on 7/7/05 in London?
Oh wait, but if we don't know it's coming we don't know we have to torture someone and Helena has to think of some other form of mental gymnastics to justify torture.
Let's just ignore the fact that these are, unfortunately, terrorists who are very intelligent, determined and capable and they don't broadcast their plans. Let's ignore the fact that they are religious fanatics who would be more than capable of resisting torture for at least long enough that any information learned would be too late. Let's ignore the fact that we train our own servicemen and women to resist torture and for some reason assume they don't. Let's ignore the fact that we train our servicemen and women to resist just long enough to make it seem realistic and then give out false information that looks realistic. Let's ignore the fact that people will say anything to end pain, including lying. Let's ignore the diversion of resources from finding this hypothetical bomb by means that might actually work to follow up leads given to us by someone trying to end extreme pain who hates our very existence and who is happily prepared to die to end it anyway.
Torture doesn't work Helena - that's why professional interrogators don't use it. That's why it was authorised by people who didn't know anything about it. If it worked, why were so many people tortured for little if any useful gain? Hell, we had in custody people high up in al-Qaeda and they were subjected to torture and yet here we are 8 years later still trying to find Bin Laden and still suffering terrorist attacks around the world. Why, if torture is as effective as you think?
Posted by: Jimmy_Blue | May 05, 2009 at 09:52 AM
jimmy,
I don't think Helena supports torture (I could be wrong). I think her post was meant to ask:
Is there any circumstance where you think torture is OK/necessary? 70% of the US seems to think torture is ok or needed under some circumstances.
I don't agree. I don't think you do either. Helena may not be so sure. I think that was all.
Posted by: TechSkeptic | May 05, 2009 at 10:41 AM
Tech
I appreciate that, and apologise to Helena for coming off a bit harsh, but her hypothetical still seems to imply she thinks torture is effective at extracting useful and time sensitive information, and from what I know that just isn't the case.
I think that may very well be the case with people who think torture is justified - they think it is more effective than it is.
But I did come across as a dick, so I apologise.
Posted by: Jimmy_Blue | May 05, 2009 at 10:03 PM
You're funny Jimmy. Circular logic is always funny very entertaining. You're good at it! Thanks.
Posted by: Jimmy_Blu | May 05, 2009 at 10:38 PM
*re-reads Jimmy_Blue's comments*
...I don't think you're actually aware of what "circular logic" is.
Posted by: Skemono | May 05, 2009 at 11:58 PM
Well, I'll chime it in answer to Helena's question by saying what others have said: since from the knowledge I've gained about torture, and the knowledge I've gained form the effects of American torture in the last few years, it seems that torture is useless as a means of extracting information, I would not support its use in that situation.
Torture is cruel, horrifying and profoundly immoral; sure, practicing it will avoid an even more horrifying and immoral situation, I'd say go ahead, but the evidence I've seen suggests it does not, and thus the one justification there can be for using is null and void.
In a situation like what Helena proposes, I would advocate for investigative work: interview people, read documents, find and analyze clues, create hypotheses and falsify them with available evidence, or look for new evidence that would falsify them, etc.
Some would say that there is no time, it's too slow... but if torture doesn't work, isn't it even slower?
Posted by: Valhar2000 | May 06, 2009 at 05:58 AM
I meant to write "IF practicing it will avoid an even more horrifying and immoral situation".
Posted by: Valhar2000 | May 06, 2009 at 05:59 AM
OK, since the html tags don't seem to be working I'll put Jimmy_Blu's comments in quotation marks. How does that saying about imitation and flattery go?
"You're funny Jimmy."
Thanks.
"Circular logic is always funny very entertaining."
Not so much funny or entertaining as annoying, irritating and indicative of other failings.
"You're good at it!"
Really? Well you'll have no problem quoting the relevant parts of my post and explaining why those quotes amount to circular logic then. Right? You're not just going to slink off and never return because you've got no answer are you? I mean, you aren't just someone who thinks they know what circular logic is and dropped that in without actually having a clue, are you? Right?
"Thanks."
Don't mention it. Giving you the opportunity to make a twat of yourself was my pleasure entirely.
Posted by: Jimmy_Blue | May 06, 2009 at 06:16 PM
I think you have a point, but it also doesn't mean that you believe in torture because ur christian.
but being christian doesn't make you a good person, i know this kid that hates everyone who isn't a white christian and he claims to be a good person yet still admits he's racist
but also the bible has some things i don't like, such as what's said above, and the stuff about gays going to hell, but there is some good stuff about loving everybody unconditionally, so i've concluded that the bible isn't something to be taken too seriously
Posted by: Ashley | May 09, 2009 at 10:45 AM
Hey Jimmy Blue, sorry for the long gap between posts. I think I may have misrepresented what I was trying to say. I meant that the numbers, while showing a pretty obvious trend, didn't merit the title "Christians Justify Torture" because I felt it was too absolute. I guess I misinterpreted the title a bit, as looking back on it makes me think I took it to be more absolute that it was. And by the way, I appreciate the time you put into that long reply, but buttoning up your replies with jabs makes you come off as a dick. We don't need to be angry here, man, peace and love, peace and love.
Posted by: Matt | May 09, 2009 at 01:03 PM
buttoning up your replies with jabs makes you come off as a dick.
I'll get over it. I'm a big mean skeptic after all.
We don't need to be angry here, man, peace and love, peace and love.
We do, in fact, need to be angry man. The list of reasons why has only gotten longer since that piece was written.
Posted by: Jimmy_Blue | May 09, 2009 at 08:12 PM
LOL jimmy,
I can't tell you ho many times I have referenced that exact post. Someone should make a Whatstheharm.net style website logging each of those type of things as they occur. whyareatheistsangry.net anyone?
Posted by: TechSkeptic | May 10, 2009 at 07:46 AM
Thanks for that article J-Blue, it's a pretty good explanation.
Posted by: Matt | May 11, 2009 at 01:28 PM
i am never taught that torture is justice in any religion!... though i ma not a relative religion researcher, but still, i can say it for sure!
Posted by: sarah | May 13, 2009 at 05:39 AM
Sarah, you must have a very narrow experience of religion. In Christianity, for example, the teachings of Jesus include non-believers being thrown into hell, where they weep, wail and gnash their teeth an agony from the flames, for the rest of eternity.
I think one can reasonably classify that as torture, and given that this is the punishment meted out by a "just and loving God" for those who failed to follow his contradictory, absurd, unethical, physically impossible or deceptively written instructions, I think that Christianity can be described as a religion that sees torture as justifiable.
Even teaching it can be a profound form of psychological abuse.
Other religions are just as appalling.
Posted by: yakaru | May 13, 2009 at 10:10 AM
I was sent to a chatolic school when I was a child, and I had too much bible teachings for my taste, (and I concluded it's true after all, that the best way to become an atheist is to get to know religion).
in one of the irritating classes that I hated,
a nun was talking about "jesus got crucified",
and I asked something very logical and innocent, for a kid at least:
"if he was the son of god and had powers,
why didn't he free himself from the cross
and got rid of the bad guys that were trying
to kill him?"
the nun got enraged and went nuts and irate,
it was very creepy and scary, and replyed
"THE DELINQUENT THAT WAS BESIDES THE LORD
ASKED THE SAME THING AND WENT TO HELLLLLL!!!" totally angry.
lol :D
hahahaha.
I bet that in the dark ages I would have gotten myself tortured by the inquisition.
if this people react like this to a simple and innocent question from a kid,
why is it so hard to believe that they support torture, when they themselves even say it?.
for the record: tell any kid that has watched tv and has imagination "this guy is all powerfull, omnipotent and almighty and is god and the son of god at the same time",
and if you don't screw up his head enough
with the contradictions, OBIOUSLY WHEN YOU
SAY "he got killed" THE KID WILL BE LIKE
"huh.....what?, isn't he all powerful?".
my conclusion:
religious people have a rock in their heads instead of brains, and if they could, be sure that they would force their idiotic beliefes on the whole population of the world, and they would torture and punish you
for silly reasons o no reason at all.
oh, I'm an angry evil atheist. boo hoo.
Posted by: Pelger | May 15, 2009 at 12:16 PM
Of course Christians support torture..the very icon that they worship shows a 2000 year old form of torture.
Posted by: Belinda | May 18, 2009 at 12:54 AM
It is both tragic, saddening and pretty much not a surprise that Evangelical Christians in the US agree that torture is acceptable under some circumstances or situations. I consider myself an Evangelical Christian. I believe that Jesus was a real historical figure that lived, was crucified, was resurrected and ascended to heaven. I believe he is the only begotten son of God and the Savior of the world. I also believe that he was tortured and killed for essentially religious reasons. I believe that we as Christians answer to a higher more moral, more ethical, more holy authority than the Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights or the laws passed by the leaders of this country especially when obviously morally corrupt. Please remember that the radical strains of Islam that are our declared enemy are primarily motivated by religious and spiritual values. Please remember that in the history of the church there have been times when Christians tortured and out to death other Christians over differences of many non-essential beliefs and doctrines that if the same actions were proposed today, we as Christians should find reprehensible. Please remember that in many countries in the world today it is illegal to become a Christian or to profess Christian faith and Christians are still being tortured and martyred for their faith. Are you Christians who support any form of torture so ignorant and blind, so thoughtless and so evil to think that in answer to this question about torture Jesus would answer as you have--YOU FOOLS--if you think so you no more know the Jesus I do than the the lowest form of non-sentient creature in existence. You are to be most pitied of all God's creatures for presumably the truth of God's love and the sacrifice of His son has been revealed to you and you are prepared to condone the same treatment on men and women in "some" circumstances as our beloved Jesus suffered. SHAME SHAME is your name and you are not fit to tie His sandal or even to speak his name. Your minds are warped and seared to the point that you forget that what you do to the least of these you do to Him. You forget that if it was you in the place of those who tortured and crucified Jesus you would have done the same thing.
We are called not to hate our enemies but to love them and pray for them. Tell me how torture does exemplifies that. Oh wait, Please don't. You just might try with some obscure and out-of-context verse from the bible that allows you to maim and kill with a clear conscience.
And now for the atheists:
Atheists are neither evil nor ignorant--they, are however, classically insane for who but the insane battle against something that does not exist. Who but the insane are compelled to rant and rave and expend exorbitant amounts of time, energy and thought in attempts to disprove what does not exist. Either God exists or God does not exist--if he does not exist--then I submit that there are better ways to use your time.
Posted by: Steve the ashamed and embarrased theist | May 22, 2009 at 08:44 AM
Either God exists or God does not exist--if he does not exist--then I submit that there are better ways to use your time.
Steve, please read this, and reconsider the reasons why atheists rant and rave. Its because theists can't keep their faith to themselves.
I believe that we as Christians answer to a higher more moral, more ethical, more holy authority than the Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights or the laws passed by the leaders of this country especially when obviously morally corrupt
including YOU.
If links still dont work...
http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2007/10/atheists-and-an.html
Posted by: TechSkeptic | May 22, 2009 at 09:07 AM
Also we batle against the actions of people, based on those beliefs. Those actions exist too.
Posted by: Skeptico | May 22, 2009 at 10:35 AM
maybe steve should read the "what's the harm" web site too, and watch some penn & teller "bullshit" episodes,
or maybe read some more of this blog...
or maybe, just maybe, answer one little
question, I'm not going to refute everything
line by line, but just one thing, that
I think pretty much would (or should)
defuse the whole thing:
he said he believes jesus was a historical
figure, (no problem with that, it can
be possible), that died,
(no problem with that, people tend to do that), and resurrected,
(ÑAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARG!!!.
here's the problem).
my question would be, steve:
why do you believe that 2000 years ago,
somebody that was dead for enough time to be beyond the "point of no returning" even for modern medicine, suddenly spontaneously resurrected?.
Posted by: Pelger | May 22, 2009 at 09:36 PM
Steve:
Really? Because with a short time spent on Google we could find copious examples of the most morally repugnant behaviour perpertrated and (more importantly perhaps) excused by christians. How would you explain that? Have you read any of the details of the Irish abuse report? Did you see Bill Donohues response? Did you see the reports of the remarks that archbishop Nichols made concerning atheists but not one mention of what his church in Ireland did to children?
If that's your higher moral and ethical authority you can keep it.
And you miss the point completely. If religious people kept their opinions to themselves, if they didn't use their religion to enact laws that affected me, if they didn't constantly proclaim their superiority to me because of their superstitions, then I wouldn't waste my time on them. However, religious people are constantly doing those things, which means I am constantly having to answer them.
See if you can really try to understand why christians get so much attention from atheists whilst Buddhists get hardly any.
Who but the insane would speak to someone who isn't there, who they think listens to them, and who they think responds? Talking to someone who isn't there but believing they are is the very definition of insane.
We institutionalise people because they think they hear voices who talk to them - they talk to people who aren't there. If they say its Napoleon we think they have a mental illness, if they say it's God we say they are devout. Please do try and explain the difference.
If it was as simple as gods existing or not then you might have a point, but it isn't. So you don't.
Posted by: Jimmy_Blue | May 22, 2009 at 10:02 PM
Steve wrote:
"I believe he is the only begotten son of God and the Savior of the world."
Savior of the world? Casting a vast proportion of the world's population into hell doesn't doesn't sound very savior-like to me. Malicious tormentor of innocents would be a better description.
Or maybe you've "interpreted" that hell isn't really part of Jesus' teachings? Seriously, Steve, when you Christians "interpret" the Bible - which you must do to get around the contradictions and stay out of prison, how do you decide what is truth and what is "metaphor"? The Bible is silent on that matter, as far as I know.
Posted by: yakaru | May 24, 2009 at 12:16 PM
I am deeply saddened to see these polling results from Pew.There is no defense or excuse for the data I see. I am also deeply disturbed by the religious intolerance I see on this website and post.
You see there is a difference between mocking specific dangerous religious practices and ideas and mocking someone for merely being religious, even a little bit. I see this line crossed way too often by both atheists and the religious.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_tol2.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_tol9.htm
(Take a look at the links, it won't kill you)
Atheism does not equal intelligence and decency any more than being religious equates to being moral. But the way some atheists talk you wouldn't know that.
Religion=always bad, never good. Atheism=always good, never bad. Talk about absolutist ideals and evangelical behavior. That's an 'us' versus 'them' attitude and that's rarely a good thing. But I, unlike some, actually know that not all atheists think alike just as not all religious people think alike either.
You know how I interpret the Bible? I interpret it as what it is: a historical document. When you look at the Bible through historical lenses it makes a hell of lot more sense and you can clearly see where the bias of the authors are present. (Hint: that means I do not think it was written perfectly by God. Shocker! There are Christians who think like that: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_inteb.htm )
Honest to frick, people, do you really believe that many Christians are fine and dandy with torture because god said so? Common sense people! To listen to some of you comment you make it sound like the average Christian is proud of the Crusades! Really, now.
Just to throw this out: Most Christians Say Non-Christian Faiths Can Lead to Salvation: http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=380
So, that means a big no to non-Christians going to hell. (Talkin to you yakaru..)
It would be nice for just once to come across an atheist that actually sees the good that can come from religion and not have a holier-than-thou attitude. I have come across a few which is a rare but nice thing. (Yes I am aware that religious people often have a holier-than-thou attitude. Which is why I get a kick out of religious people accusing atheists of the same attitude that they exhibit and vice-versa.)
Religion is not the cause of the world's problems. Religious intolerance is. Religious intolerance runs out of control in the world and it is the cause of so much death. Why are some of you apart of that? No, you may not be killing anyone or advocating for violence but you don't have to be violent to be considered intolerant.
Religious tolerance is not a one way street.
Just as religious people should stop considering atheists as immoral, atheists need to stop judging people based on their preconceived notions of what they think a person's religion is about.
As someone who sees herself as a somewhat religious person and science lover, I have been forever in search of a Skeptical Science blog that doesn't lump all religious people with the crazies like Creationists. I have yet to find very many; maybe one or two.
Simply stated: You are not better or smarter than me because I'm religious and you are atheist. You are not better or worse than me. You are not smarter or dumber than me.
Posted by: kdfsrjuvshkfjskd | May 24, 2009 at 06:31 PM
Atheism does not equal intelligence and decency any more than being religious equates to being moral. But the way some atheists talk you wouldn't know that.
I don't think you listen for the distinctions. So far, I think atheism is the only reasonable position on the god topic because there's no good evidence for the existence of gods, and often, not even good descriptions to even know what evidence to look for.
Religion=always bad, never good. Atheism=always good, never bad. Talk about absolutist ideals and evangelical behavior.
Atheism is one conclusion on one topic. It's like saying "2+2=4 isn't always good or bad." Yes, us atheists are a diverse lot, including a number of nasty people. That doesn't make religion any more useful.
If you'd like to tell me religion's a good thing, please, enlighten me, and don't bother with social groups. I'm talking about the real core of religion: Faith without evidence, not the clubs that spring up around particular dogmas.
Honest to frick, people, do you really believe that many Christians are fine and dandy with torture because god said so? Common sense people! To listen to some of you comment you make it sound like the average Christian is proud of the Crusades! Really, now.
I'd like to think it's not the average Christian, but there's a sickening group of fundies who do believe torture is fine and dandy, and that the Crusades were a good thing. I'd like to see more moderate Christians shouting them down. Too often, however, they show up to act as concern trolls.
It would be nice for just once to come across an atheist that actually sees the good that can come from religion and not have a holier-than-thou attitude. I have come across a few which is a rare but nice thing.
The good comes from some good people who just happen to be religious. It doesn't come from the religion itself. There's a difference between dogma and the people who cluster around it.
Religion is not the cause of the world's problems. Religious intolerance is. Religious intolerance runs out of control in the world and it is the cause of so much death. Why are some of you apart of that? No, you may not be killing anyone or advocating for violence but you don't have to be violent to be considered intolerant.
You have absolutely no idea what intolerance means, do you?
Criticism is not intolerance. You have the right to say whatever you want, and I have the right to say whatever I want about what you say. I will not work to deny you your right to believe whatever you want, or seek to bring about any deprivation of liberty, property, or happiness because of your belief.
Would you deny me my right to say how messed up the hubris of faith is?
Just as religious people should stop considering atheists as immoral, atheists need to stop judging people based on their preconceived notions of what they think a person's religion is about.
How exactly do you intend to enforce that? All I can do to stop the fundies from considering me immoral is to lead a moral life and criticize immorality when I see it. All I can do is use my freedom of expression to raise awareness.
And no, I do not think I'm inherently smarter. I just have yet to hear any good arguments for basing beliefs on faith.
And yes, I have stereotypes, and I've got a post in the works where I'll disclose them. I'm not perfect. Unfortunately, there's no shortage of people willing to reinforce their stereotypes than defy them.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | May 24, 2009 at 09:59 PM
I never, ever said criticism is intolerance. That's not what I said. Criticism of specific dangerous ideas is totally fine. What I said was I was tired of people being critical of me for merely having any kind of religious belief.
"Denigrating other individuals' or other groups' religious beliefs" is what I dislike.
Please, these links say essentially what I'm trying to say only the writers of this site say it better:
"In summary, we feel that:
Denigrating other individuals' or other groups' religious beliefs is not acceptable;
Acts which hurt others are unacceptable, even when they are religiously motivated;
Advocating that others perform harmful acts is unacceptable, even when religiously motivated."
http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_tol2.htm
"Is religious toleration sufficient?
Not by a long shot!
Jo Garcia-Cobb, a student in a comparative religion course at Southern Oregon University, commented:
"Surely, we can tolerate a flea. But why must people of opposing religious views merely tolerate each other?" 1
We view religious tolerance as just the lowest step on a staircase."
http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_tol9.htm
How do I intend to enforce religious people to stop being intolerant of atheism? Um, by talking about it like I'm doing right now, just like you.
Let me ask you this:
Is it okay for atheists to say that because I am Christian that I am a child-abuser, supporter of torture, genocide and racism, that I am irrational, illogical and stupid even though they really know nothing about me and they are basing their assumptions on what they define faith and religion as?
You see the real problem here is that faith and religion mean different things to different people; we can't even agree on what religion even means! I have yet to hear a definition of religion accepted by everyone.
You say people of religion are of unquestioning faith? Really? If that's true one wonders how the hell the world has so many different religions that have reformed and splintered again and again and again. If people of faith never asked questions then explain why so many of them have changed religions or even become atheists?
Perhaps I should be clearer: Tolerance is not enough. I want some kind of respect. More to the point no one has the authority to tolerate anyone. To say you tolerate me is to imply authority. Really, you have no choice but to tolerate me, unless you want to kill me.
I do not just merely tolerate atheists. No, quite the opposite. I totally value and celebrate atheism. We need you. Everybody from all religious ideas are needed to improve the world. I value and celebrate the religious diversity of the world. I do not see religion as the enemy. I find both good and evil in every religion. Until others stop seeing religion as 100% evil this world will continue to have problems.
Good can come from religious belief whether you acknowledge that or not. Just as religion can do horrible things, it can also have the power to bring people of different nations and ethnic groups together in love and peace where previously they may not have done so but for their shared religious beliefs.
In many cases religion is neither good nor bad. It just is. Other times it's both.
Posted by: kdfsrjuvshkfjskd | May 25, 2009 at 12:16 AM
Seaweed13: I'm going to largely skip over the somewhat schizophrenic opening...you talk about how bad the us vs. them attitude is among atheists and how so many of us say/think all religion is bad, then say that you understand that we aren't all the same, then continue to say things which don't seem to acknowledge the differences between people. Sure, maybe you (and a lot of other Christians) think some non-Christians can make it into the big posh country club in the sky. That viewpoint may be, thanks to all those casual pew-fillers, the majority opinion, but it's neither the most frequently (and loudly) cited position, nor is it the orthodox one. The believers we come into conflict with most frequently are the ones who tend to believe that we'll all be roasting on spits for their eternal amusement, and they claim to speak for all the rest of you (except the ones who aren't "true Christians"). If you have a problem with atheists citing that as an example of a Christian belief, then I suggest you take it up with the self-appointed spokespeople of the faith.
One of the problems with the "us vs. them" thing is that it often seems like believers expect atheists to clean our house and yours--we're expected to sort out and set straight or disavow our bunches of nutters and freaks and idiots, and also to make the distinctions between your nutters and freaks and idiots who claim to speak for all of you, and the more reasonable people who claim to speak for all of you. From over here, it looks an awful lot like there are several factions each claiming to be the "true Christians" in terms of varying strength. The liberals and moderates disavow the fundies as loons, the fundies disavow the liberals and moderates as fake Christians, the Catholics disavow the Protestants as heretics, and everyone disavows the Unitarian Universalists as atheists. We're not in a position to decide which group of you are the legitimate "true Christians," and as far as I can see, all the sides have legitimate arguments for them.
Actually, I think the average Christian is ignorant of the Crusades. The number of Christians I've seen try to justify (or call for another round of) the Crusades and the Inquisition, however, suggests that the position isn't particularly rare.No, I think that the support for torture is more likely to come out of ends-justify-means, might-makes-right, authoritarian beliefs of morality and governance, out of a concept of justice which is focused on retribution rather than rehabilitation, and out of cultivated fear of sudden death (i.e., the oft-cited "ticking time bomb" scenario). I just think that support for torture and belief in right-wing fundamentalist religion are symptoms of those underlying causes.
I have yet to see any good that can come from religion that can't also come through secular means. I don't think you'll find many atheists who would deny that religion (or more accurately, religious people) do good things that help people--building hospitals, running homeless shelters, contributing to charities. It's just that the good things religions/religious people do rarely if ever have anything to do with religion, except when it's tacked on or shoehorned into something that is already doing good. Is more good done for a homeless man who receives a sandwich and a religious tract than for one who just receives a sandwich? Keep the good stuff, no one's arguing against that, but let's separate the wheat from the chaff.Much of the bad stuff done by religions falls into the same category--secular evils done with religion tacked on or shoehorned in. Pastors fleecing their flocks out of money by doing faith healings or selling useless prayer water is no different from alternative medicine practitioners or snake oil salesmen, except their carnival barking is all Jesus-related. But then there are those evils which I'm hard pressed to find anything secular in, like when parents kill their children by denying medical care forbidden by their religious beliefs. There's no secular reason for a Jehovah's Witness to refuse a blood transfusion, and parents who refused medicine on anything but religious grounds would be immediately and unquestionably charged with neglect or homicide.
The world has lots of problems with lots of causes. Religion and religious tolerance are two such causes of some finite set of problems. Religious tolerance has nothing to do with denying children medical care, performing fatal exorcisms, telling AIDS-afflicted people not to use condoms, or shuffling pedophiles around to avoid prosecution. Okay, and so what? Yeah, I have a hard time tolerating people who infringe on others' freedoms because of their own personal (and irrational) beliefs. Tell me why I should tolerate that.This is one of the things, I think, that atheists are trying hardest to combat, this notion that we should all be wearing kid gloves when discussing religion and the religious, because we have to be tolerant of each other's beliefs. Like hell we do. It's one thing to tolerate people, it's quite another to tolerate ideas. Religion doesn't deserve the privileged pedestal that society places it on; the idea that the Earth is younger than domesticated dogs doesn't deserve the amount of debate and attention it has received in the last two centuries; we tend to regard religious beliefs as untouchable and place them beyond criticism, when they have done nothing to achieve such a grand status. If there's anything like a concerted effort among atheists today (and there really isn't), it's trying to demolish that pedestal, and to bring religious ideas down into the arena with all other ideas, to be criticized and debated and judged on their merits.
I don't judge people based on preconceived notions about their religion, I judge people based on what they tell me about their religion (and even that's not accurate). I try not to presume too much about people's beliefs when I talk/argue with them, precisely because there are so many conflicting and contradictory sects of Christianity, and even core principles like the Trinity or the existence of Hell aren't agreed upon by everyone. That being said, if we treated Christianity like its collective of believers do--a term that can be applied to any collection of almost any beliefs, regardless of how much they contradict one another--then we rob the term of any meaning or descriptive power. So we, as outsiders (and former insiders) ascribe to general Christianity those beliefs which are proclaimed by the perceived general Christian consensus. The problem with this is that it's an inherently biased sample. The religious believers who are likely to be discussed on a skeptical science blog are the ones who are crazies like Creationists. It's not often we have cause to talk about the Christians who aren't pulling stupid anti-science tricks. It's even less frequently that we have cause to discuss the beliefs of Christians who aren't doing stupid things. For instance, I like and respect Ken Miller; I think he does a lot of good for science and evolution. I disagree with his religious conclusions, but since he's not doing anything to shove them down the throats of the rest of the populace or trying to justify them through science or anything, then I have no reason to discuss them. On those rare occasions when he, or someone like him, does, then I'll explain why I think he's wrong. Otherwise, why talk about him or his convictions?If someone says "religious people are X" or "Christians believe Y," I think it's a mistake to read that, without further information, as an absolute statement rather than linguistic shorthand. I think you'll find that we generally recognize that not all religious people believe or act in the same way, but adding that disclaimer to every instance where we discuss religious people who do act in some particular way is tedious and unnecessary, even if we do recognize the existence and truth of that disclaimer.
Why should we venerate anyone's beliefs simply because they are religious in nature? If ideas deserve denigration, then why not denigrate them? I think it's a mistake to conflate respect and care for a person with respect and care for a person's ideas or beliefs. I defy you to find an atheist who says any of the above, sans "irrational" and "illogical," which I'll address momentarily. There is a difference between saying "Christians justify torture" and "All Christians justify torture." Just because the distinction isn't made explicit doesn't mean it isn't recognized.Now, "irrational" and "illogical" are something else entirely, in that they are subjective judgments about the validity of someone's ideas or beliefs. If you are a Christian, then yes, I probably think you're irrational to some degree, because I don't think the beliefs of Christianity can be supported with reason (which is the definition of irrational). Perhaps you reject all the supernatural elements of the faith, you deny the Resurrection and hold some deist or metaphorical view on God's existence...even then, even in that relatively reasonable position, I would have to question the logic behind continuing to call yourself a Christian. Naturally, this is all hypothetical, but I think it underscores the difference between calling you a child molester and calling you irrational.
You're right, lots of people disagree on what words mean, which is why we have to be relatively careful and explicit with how we define the terms of discussion. I'd say a religion is a system of beliefs, usually encompassing beliefs about deities, afterlives, and morality; there are those who would disagree, but that doesn't mean we have to throw our hands up and conclude that discussion is impossible. On the contrary, we have to come up with definitions that preserve the terms' value as descriptors. It's like the people who define "God" as "love" or "the universe"--okay, great, but that's not what most people think of when we talk about "God," and we already have words to describe those other things. When we redefine terms, we strip them of their ability to communicate meaningful information. "Unquestioning faith" (a term, incidentally, that you introduced into the discussion) doesn't mean "never asking questions about anything." Yes, there are oodles of religious sects, but many of them retain the same baseless beliefs in the same ephemeral entities and ancient texts that they shared before their schisms. One's faith in the preacher or Pope and one's faith in God are two different faiths, and one can question one without ever questioning the other.But what Bronze Dog actually said was "faith without evidence," and I'd say that that's a redundancy, since faith (in religious discussions) is generally defined as belief without evidence or in spite of evidence to the contrary. I'm with Bronze Dog on this one: I see no good evidence for the existence of any gods, and my encounters with apologists have typically ended with them falling back on some faith claim, regardless of how evidence- or reason-based they claimed their beliefs to be in the beginning of the discussion.
I'll give you the same respect I'd give any person just by the virtue of being a person. You're free to earn more than that. Your ideas, however, are not persons, and I don't see any reason to afford any such automatic respect to them. I think ideas, unlike people, have to earn every bit of respect that they're afforded, and that no idea deserves any consideration 'just because.' There is no reason for us to pretend that "gays deserve to be tortured forever" is an idea worthy of consideration--or worse, an idea beyond criticism--because it is someone's sincerely held religious belief. The same goes for any religious idea, from "women should have their clitorises removed so they remain virgins" to "these crackers are really skin even though they look like crackers." I disagree; there are plenty of religious ideas we could do without. What's needed from the Christian Scientists? From the Scientologists? From the Fundamentalist polygamist Mormons? I'm all for diversity, even religious diversity, but what you've said here is ludicrous Pollyannaism. I hate to break it to you, but even if that happened, the world would still have problems. And some of those problems would still be due to religion. So can bowling. Common beliefs and interests of any kind can cause this dame kind of camaraderie. Yet again, this is a "benefit" of religion which has nothing to do with religion. Why do we need to acknowledge the authority of any religious texts or believe in any supernatural entities in order to come together and buy the world a Coke?And I think this is where you're finding problems with the skeptical science sites. Yes, we all agree that religious people can do good things and that good things are done in the names of religions. This says nothing about whether or not the religious beliefs are true, which tends to be the focus of skeptics. My bowling team may come together in joy and happiness if we believe that we're the best in the league, but that doesn't mean we're not in last place, nor does it mean we wouldn't be coming together and having fun even without the silly belief.
Yes, there is good and bad in all religions; let's keep the good and throw away the bad. While we're at it, let's throw out the useless, the false, and the unfounded, and then we'll really make some headway.
Posted by: Tom Foss | May 25, 2009 at 02:16 AM
Seaweed13 wrote:
Let me ask you this:
Is it okay for atheists to say that because I am Christian that I am a child-abuser....?
No. Try an experiment: go to an atheist or skeptical blog and post that statement as if you believe it. They will knock it down on two counts - hateful defamation and poor logic. If they don't, come back here and tell us about it. They would get their cyber-butts kicked.
To say you tolerate me is to imply authority.
No one else here has mentioned tolerance. It's implicit in the format of this site.
Tolerance is not enough. I want some kind of respect.
And some kind of respect is exactly what you are getting. No one is saying you can't post Christian thoughts here, but, given that the focus of this site is critical thinking, those thoughts will be responded to in reference to how well reasoned they are.
Which is why I was challenging Steve to tell me his reasoning behind his interpretation of the Bible. That is important to me because the Bible itself says I will go to hell, and when I was a Christian (briefly as a teenager) it horrified me by telling me God would send my enemies to hell.
That is a major aspect of Christian teaching, and if you can reason it away, I want to know how.
It's the most horrible idea I have ever heard in my entire life. I expect Christians to feel just as appalled and horrified by it as I do.
Instead you came here to talk about tolernace and respect. Do you respect and tolerate those awful words in your Bible? Do you tolerate and respect those Christians who believe it? Do you tolerate and respect those who give Bibles to young people without warning them about the horrors it condones, or without telling them to ignore the parts they don't like?
And if you "know" that parts of the Bible are wrong, or should be seen as a "historical document" then how did you come to decide that? And having decided that one part of the Bible is wrong, then how did you decide that other parts are right?
Posted by: yakaru | May 25, 2009 at 03:06 AM
Then make sure you've got a religious belief that's supported by logic and evidence. Otherwise we'll criticize the flaws we find.
Methinks you've done a lot of misreading if you think any of us believe that about you.
As Tom correctly pointed out, I said "faith without evidence" and the redundancy he noted was added for the sake of clarification. Where there's no evidence involved, we expect divergence.
When I say I tolerate you, it means I'm not going to harm you in any way. It has absolutely nothing to do with authority. To say that you want respect beyond that requires you to earn it. If you want your faith to be respected, it has to do what other claims do to earn respect: Be logically sound.
1. Diversity is usually good because there's uncertainty, and multiple approaches means there's a better chance at finding good answers. That doesn't mean we shouldn't criticize people for clinging to bad ideas.
2. Faith without evidence is an act of hubris. Being absolutely certain that you have all the answers means that you won't be looking for them. That's why religion is a bad thing.
3. The world will always continue to have problems, even if we somehow get rid of religion. Coddling useless ideas only imposes on each other's liberties.
I have a hard time seeing religion being at all responsible for those things, except as an excuse. Any social club that forms around an idea can do good. Of course, I see faith without evidence as abnormally convenient for doing evil. The alleged absolute certainty that comes with it tends to generate feelings of innate superiority. You know, that feeling you claim we have.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | May 25, 2009 at 10:02 AM
Seems I left out a few slashes in my blockquote tags.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | May 25, 2009 at 10:03 AM
Bronze Dog:
Fixed. You had ended some blockquote tags with /i instead of /blockquote.
Posted by: Skeptico | May 25, 2009 at 10:26 AM
Dammit, I head off to watch Star Trek partway through writing my response and everybody else ends up beating me to the punch.
Posted by: King of Ferrets | May 25, 2009 at 02:15 PM
You see this is the problem.
I am not irrational. I am not illogical. From reading the responses to my comments I can already see many of you making assumptions about my beliefs and convictions. (I never said atheism has shown innate superiority, Bronze Dog. If I came off as giving that claim I certainly did not mean it.)
Yes, I know about how it is logical to conclude there is no conclusive evidence for god. I agree. I never said I was certain god existed. There is no evidence for or against god. Which is why it is faith.
Faith doesn't mean you can't be questioning. If people of faith throughout history had always said 'God did it' then you have to wonder how Newton came up with his Laws of Motion. If people of faith never asked questions I guess Galileo got lucky then?
Additionally, I am totally aware that people of different races and nations can unite around secular causes and that religion is not needed to unite people of the world. But religion is a very powerful thing. For many people it is the very core of their being and their life. It impacts every thing they do. Much more powerful than, um, bowling. But like I said, I agree we certainly can unite around secular causes.
Clearly I am not going to make any of you understand that religion is the not the most horrific thing on the planet.But if you do see religion as mostly evil then how can you claim to tolerate it?
How do you tolerate something you wish were gone? That's kind of like religious people saying they tolerate gay people but then they go out and try to 'convert' or 'fix' them. That's not very tolerant.
I guess I have such passive attitude towards religion because I grew up in a multi-faith family: Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Atheists, Agnostics and a Muslim friend. It was a wonderful and enlightening time in my life and I guess I just wish more people had what I did as a child. I am happy with the religious mix of my family, proud, even.
I should not have to feel like I need to defend that pride or be ashamed of who I am but sometimes is feels like I must. But then many of you who are atheists know what that's like, don't you? With all the attitudes you've had to endure from religious people (I include myself, sadly) it's a wonder you keep sane. Now, keep in mind how angry and frustrated you get when people judge you based on your atheism and make assumptions of what atheism is and is not. Now, that's how I feel when I'm called irrational and illogical for merely having a religion. For merely wondering about the possibility of a god or afterlife I am mocked? For just wondering and coming to the conclusion that I feel like there might be some kind of god or afterlife? Perhaps I have misrepresented myself here. Perhaps I should really say I lean toward Agnostic, although not 100%.
P.S.
I read this:
http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2007/10/atheists-and-an.html
Those things you atheists are angry about? Funny, that. There are some religious people that would agree with that anger and share it. So technically that anger is not unique to atheism and completely absent in religious people(I know you didn't exactly make that claim but it sure looks that way).
Anyway thanks for that link!
Posted by: kdfsrjuvshkfjskd | May 25, 2009 at 03:37 PM
Ah, here is a post that actually explains what I've been trying to say but I have so horribly sucked at it:
http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2007/02/having_it_both_.html
"Either religion inspires people to act, or it doesn't. It makes no sense to argue that religious faith inspires people to do evil, but not to do good."
That's the point I wanted to get across most of all.
Posted by: kdfsrjuvshkfjskd | May 25, 2009 at 03:48 PM
Well, it looks like I've found an atheist blog that I love! Whoever gave the original link to Greta Christina's Blog, thanks. Really from what I've read of it so far I tend to really agree with much of it. (I don't say all cause I've read only a few posts.) So thanks.
Posted by: kdfsrjuvshkfjskd | May 25, 2009 at 04:19 PM
Seaweed13, you raise some interesting points. I’ll try to address them in more detail in a new post in the next week or so. In the mean time I have a couple of replies to your last two comments:
If by tolerate you mean “allow without prohibiting or opposing”, then we tolerate it because we (I anyway) believe people should be free for the most part to do what they want. Even if we think it’s silly.
If you mean “recognize and respect”, I don’t tolerate it. I don’t respect it, to be sure.
If you mean “put up with; endure” – well, we have little choice.
No. First, being gay is just what some people are, and what you are (gay, straight, black, white) cannot be wrong. Religion is a group of beliefs – and beliefs can be right or wrong.
Second, many religious people try to discriminate against gay people. Few atheists (and certainly not me) want to discriminate against the religious. We just want them to stop trying to make us behave according to their religious rules.
But the anger is about the way atheists are treated. Religious people don’t have to face the things described in that post.
Yes it does. Good people do good things. Bad people do bad things. Only religion can make good people do bad things. (I should say mostly religion – perhaps there are other things, but not that many and not so much.)
Posted by: Skeptico | May 25, 2009 at 04:22 PM
I've always been annoyed by that last quote you used, Skeptico. If I'm anything, I'm Lawful (kinda) Neutral. Where do I fall on that?
Posted by: King of Ferrets | May 25, 2009 at 04:46 PM
Don't quite understand your question KoF.
Posted by: Skeptico | May 25, 2009 at 05:17 PM
Okay, good people do good things, bad people do bad things. But I, and I think a lot of people, if we had a DnD-ish alignment, would be some sort of neutral. We do both good things and bad things. There really isn't a good people and bad people divide, for the most part.
Posted by: King of Ferrets | May 25, 2009 at 06:22 PM
LOL Skeptico,
whats the matter? No D&D during your high school years? Yeah, me either much. But I still thought it was a funny comments.
Seaweed,
Yes, Greta's blog is one of my favorite blogs. I'm glad you visited it.
Other than that, I have little to add here. I think you are suffering from some persecution complex. no one here thought you are a child abuser because you are religious. When atheists point at event like the recent Irish abuse scandal, or more recently that Hauser woman who is literally going to kill her kid, we are mostly pointing out that religion has nothing to do with morals. It doesnt instill them, it doesnt prevent bad behavior, or anything like that. religion is irrelevent when it comes to morals.
BTW< I have spent a lot of time at the religious tolerance site. I think its a pretty good one.Sadly, if you look at the "fan" mail, you'll see that about 1 in three emails they get wishes harm on them, or that they watch their daughters get raped, or something else horrible.
Read through those... how many of them come from atheists? Now ask yourself how atheists are generally treated in modern American society (although, I do admit...its getting better), from such fine, respectful religious folks as those that write emails like that.
Posted by: TechSkeptic | May 25, 2009 at 07:09 PM
Huh?
Posted by: Skeptico | May 25, 2009 at 07:16 PM
Two other things: first, "certainty." If you mean "100% sure," then there's no such thing. The only thing I'm 100% certain of is that I exist (and that's only for particular definitions of "I"). Everything else has a margin of error attached. You'll find, especially in the skeptical community, that there aren't many atheists who will proclaim "certainty" in an absolutist sense about anything, including the existence of God. In order for terms like "knowledge" and "certainty" to have any meaningful value, then they must be applied practically. I am certain of lots of things, to a degree, and would change my position with sufficient evidence.
Which leads to "there is no evidence for or against god." This sounds suspiciously like trying to find some golden mean position, some middle ground of agnosticism, when such a position is unnecessary. If there is no positive evidence in support of a proposition, then the only reasonable position is disbelief. There are an infinite number of concepts for which there exists no evidence for or against; this is simply the principle of the null hypothesis, and the recognition of where the burden of proof lies. There is no middle position between "I believe" and "I do not believe;" anything which is not the former is necessarily the latter. And until the claimants meet their burden of proof, the former position cannot be justified through reason and evidence.
Again, you're acting as though unquestioning faith in one proposition necessarily entails unquestioning faith in all propositions. I don't see anyone making such a claim but you. Newton had an unquestioning faith in God, and that (in part) led him to the laws of motion, because he believed that they revealed the perfection of the Creator and whatnot. Galileo questioned the obviously false doctrine of geocentrism (and wasn't the first to do so), but so far as I know, he never renounced his faith in God. Questioning one belief does not necessarily lead one to question all of them; similarly, there are plenty of people who may be perfectly reasonable in one area and noticeably irrational in others. You speak as if there's no such thing as compartmentalization or inconsistency. Yes, for many people, religion is very important. And if they didn't have religion, something else would be just as important. Something, perhaps, rooted in reality. Something, perhaps, more productive and not tied to backwards superstition and ancient prejudices. No one is arguing that religion isn't important to some people--heck, even to most people--what we'd argue is whether or not it's good, necessary, or true. Religion isn't the most horrific thing on the planet. Again, I'm not sure where you're getting some of this, and your hyperbolizing is starting to seem a lot like strawmanning.This doesn't mean that religion isn't often horrific, it is. But there are plenty of horrors that have little or nothing to do with religion. Carrot Top, for instance.
Um...by not having a choice? By recognizing that other people's wishes are just as valid as mine? By balancing personal desires with personal freedoms?I think the world would be a better place without religion, but I don't think it would get there if religion were forcibly taken away from believers. I'd like to see society as a whole grow out of religion, but until then I tolerate it because it's here and it's not going anywhere in the foreseeable future.
"Just wondering" and "believing on faith" are two different things. I wonder if there really is a place called Kokomo off the Florida Keys, but I don't believe it exists based on faith.As far as "irrational" goes, I think you're perceiving insult where none is meant. It is, definitionally, irrational to believe things that aren't supported by reason. That's what "irrational" means--not supported by reason. If you believe something based on faith, then you are believing it irrationally. Unless you have some sound reasoning to support your belief, which I think we'd all like to see.
I know that position, I was in a similar one not too long ago. Here's the thing: agnosticism has nothing to do with what you believe; it has to do with what you know (or claim to know). Moreover, it's not mutually exclusive with atheism. There are gnostic atheists (who lack belief in God and claim to know there is no God), agnostic atheists (who lack belief in God but do not claim to know whether or not there is one), agnostic theists (who believe in God but do not claim to know one exists) and gnostic theists (who believe in God and claim to know it exists). Sounds like you're in that "agnostic theist" category; depending on how we define terms like "knowledge," I could fall into either the gnostic or agnostic atheist categories.Point being, "agnosticism" isn't the middle ground between atheism and theism; it's a response to an entirely different question.
Posted by: Tom Foss | May 25, 2009 at 09:03 PM
There's so much to respond to in Seaweed13's posts that this response is probably going to jump around a bit so bear with it.
On tolerance, really my response is very simple:
Why should we tolerate any belief? It has been said already by others but it is worth repeating - why do we have to tolerate religious belief?
Seaweed13 says:
So you demand respect, but you give no good reason for why you deserve it. Simply because you hold beliefs which you think should be tolerated? Why?
Religious beliefs are no more deserving of tolerance than any other belief - but you demand that and respect.
Why?
Who says that? Who are these 'some atheists' you speak of? Certainly no one here speaks that way because we know that isn't the case.
That's a strawman.
Which begs the question - why do you treat atheists in your posts like we are one homogenous block with one set of arguments and ideas?
What, precisely, does this mean? How do you interpret the Bible? What rules or guidance do you use for interpreting the Bible? How do your interpretations differ from mainstream christian interpretations?
So, how do you know which bits are the authors biases and which aren't? What basis is there for determining this consistently?
Written perfectly by, or written at all by? Do you think some of it is written by God? Which bits? How do you determine this consistently?
I don't know why many christians believe torture is ok in some circumstances - but they do. That is what the survey results clearly show if you bother to look at and understand the results.
I'm sorry, you must be looking at a different page than the one you linked to if you think this makes a crushing point in regards to christian toleration. The page states:
My emphasis. Just over half think that some faiths can lead to salvation - which means that most christians (the 52% and the rest) still think no faith and many other faiths still go to the great heretic roast underground for all eternity.
Hardly the picture of moderate christian tolerance you seem to think it is.
Indeed, the results show that 30% still think that ones faith is the only way to salvation. A quarter still say only their faith can lead to salvation. The figures also show that the number of people who say other faiths can lead to salvation is dropping. It shows that the higher the rate of religious observance, the more likely a person is to think their faith exclusively is open to eternal life.
Some good can come from religion. There you go.
Sorry, that needs correcting. Religion is not the cause of all of the world's problems.
Then on the point of religious intolerance you do appear to contradict yourself:
Then:
Since all we are doing is criticising, then you do appear to be saying criticism is intolerance.
For the record, I do consider myself intolerant of religious belief, and I am glad that I am. No belief is automatically worthy of tolerance.
Why do you assume that our arguments and criticisms are based on prejudices and not actual knowledge or experience? Do you think we live in an isolated bubble of pure atheism? I for one was raised as a catholic for 18 years and attended catholic schools for 14. My mother is a practising catholic, my in-laws are very religious, my wife's grandfather was a preacher - I understand religious beliefs very well. Do I know yours? No. But then you haven't mentioned what they are. The people we usually argue with very clearly state what they believe.
This is the part of all of your posts that annoyed me the most. You seem to be of the belief that the things we find most offensive, irrational or absurd about religion are the beliefs held only by the 'crazies'. Well, you are wrong.
The endemic child abuse in Ireland was not just the crazies - it was carried out by moderates and it was covered up by moderates and it is still being excused by moderates. Opposition to gay marriage is not a position held only by the crazies, it is the default moderate position (and even the position of some liberal religious people). The belief that homosexuality is a sin is not one held only by the crazies. Opposition to abortion is the default position of moderate christians. Belief in creation over evolution and Big Bang theory is so widespread you would have to argue that most christians in America are crazies. Support for torture is widespread amongst religious people who attend services at least once a week - are they crazies? Amongst the christians I know, belief that women are subordinate to men is common - they aren't crazies. Abstinence only sex education is not a belief held only by the crazies.
Or do you just define 'the crazies' as people who don't hold your set of religious beliefs?
Now who is being intolerant?
The simple fact is that the beliefs we oppose and ridicule are in fact, held by crazy, moderate and liberal religious people. You might like to pretend that 'the crazies' don't represent the mainstream, but they do. If you don't like it then stop bloody complaining about those who point it out and do something about it.
And whilst I'm complaining about mainstream christians please indulge this little anecdotal aside.
I work in retail in Highlands Ranch, Colorado. It's a very affluent area and its inhabitants are not shy about proclaiming their mainstream religious affiliation - there are a lot of churches and a lot of religious symbols on display. The worst customers to deal with - the rudest, most ignorant, most unreasonable and most demanding - are those who have obviously just been to church service on a Sunday (well dressed, show up just after the church services finish and have the whole family in tow). In fact, I got so sick of these people that I switched my day off to Sunday so I wouldn't have to deal with them. In the catering industry servers call them 'Sunday Tippers' - they don't tip very well. I know someone who was told that they were going to get a less than 10% tip because the customer didn't 'Want to give you more than I tithe to God.'
One young and religious colleague of mine told me that he hated the fact that these people represented his religion. They were not 'the crazies'.
If you don't like these people representing your religion then do something about it. Complaining that we don't tolerate their beliefs or respect them is not going to cut it.
Quite right. But whether you like it or not I am more rational than you. Belief in something for which there is no evidence is faith. Belief in something for which there is no evidence is irrational. Please stop pretending otherwise.
Why just dangerous ideas? What is wrong with criticising any ideas? More importantly - why is criticising beliefs intolerant? Why should we respect beliefs? Why should we respect believers?
Tough. Welcome to the grown up world, where beliefs are fair game for questions, ridicule and criticism.
Don't do it then. Bury your head in the sand and pretend that all beliefs are equal, all ideas are worthy and all individuals fair, responsible, intelligent, tolerant and capable.
Whether you like it or not, some beliefs and individuals are worthy of ridicule, criticism and scorn.
I wouldn't say any of the above other than that you are irrational, and I'd take a guess that you may very well be illogical depending on what your beliefs actually are and how you justify them.
Here you miss the point completely. Taking just christianity, there have been schisms not on what was worshipped, but how it was worshipped. Protestants still unquestioningly believe in God just like Catholics. They just do it differently. Theology changes, but the target of the belief doesn't.
Exposure to new ideas or they weren't believers of unquestioning faith. And anyway, who said religious people were all believers of unquestioning faith?
Yes, you are. Stop trying to pretend that faith is anything but. Do you have faith? Do you believe in anything that has no evidence for it? If you do, then you are certainly irrational and probably illogical in at least these beliefs.
And faith is irrational.
What the hell does unquestioning religious faith have to do with the discovery of calculus, gravity and heliocentrism?
Here you conflate wildly different things in an attempt to try and portray that faith in God isn't unquestioning. Newton's religious faith didn't preclude his scientific and mathematic discoveries. And boy was Galileo a bad example for you. His religious faith had nothing (as far as I know) to do with his scientific discoveries. On the other hand, religious faith had everything to do with the reaction to his scientific discoveries.
You are being disingenuous to link the religious faith of scientists with their scientific discoveries. You can have unquestioning, irrational and illogical religious beliefs and still make scientific discoveries because the two aren't in any way related.
More importantly though I have to ask - who said that people of faith have always said 'God did it'?
Just like crystal meth.
Should we tolerate cystal meth use and respect its users?
So why do we need religion?
I don't. I absolutely wish with all my heart that religion were gone. You just don't seem able to understand that this doesn't mean I wish religious people went with it.
It's really not, for the reason Skeptico pointed out. You choose what you believe, you do not choose to be gay.
But you are. Faith is irrational, belief in something for which there is no evidence is irrational. Stop pretending otherwise.
Well, yes.
Well, actually it's hard to say how you represented yourself because it really isn't clear. But if you feel there might be a god then you aren't agnostic.
What exactly do you believe Seaweed13, and what makes you think any of that is rational or logical?
Posted by: Jimmy_Blue | May 25, 2009 at 11:51 PM
Over the last few years, I have been wondering how true that is. Such a small minority of people become unglued to religion it makes me think that most people simply can't help it. I'm sure tp a larger degree they choose which religion, but I really wonder how many people are truly capable of leaving it any more than a gay man can choose to be straight.
To you and me it seems like a simply matter of thinking about it in the context of Santa Claus. But, it may not actually be that way. decades of having your brain develop in a world where a god is real, may make it physically impossible to let it go.
Posted by: TechSkeptic | May 26, 2009 at 06:01 AM
Do I tolerate adults who believe in Santa Claus?
Yes. I may criticize them. I may do so with a harsh tone of voice. I may pick out some choice nasty words. I may dissect their logical flaws in intricate detail. I may call them names if I feel like it.
But I'll still tolerate those believers: I will not seek to deprive them of life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness based on their belief in Santa.
I don't tolerate belief in Santa taught in science classes. I don't tolerate the idea that us a-Santa-ists should just shut up because the Kringlites have such delicate sensibilities and can't take offense.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | May 26, 2009 at 10:10 AM
It is really quite a stretch to accord Christianity any credit for the discoveries of Newton et al. I've heard it quite a bit lately.
If you want to emphasise such a tenuous link, then you should also note the case of poor Kepler, who discovered and calculated the eliptical orbits of the planets, only to reject it because it didn't accord with his religious preconceptions.
Posted by: yakaru | May 26, 2009 at 12:02 PM
Re: Skeptico
Jesus did not condone torture (and neither should christians, sad to say...)
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture
Torture, according to the United Nations Convention Against Torture, is:
"...any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions."
The most common definition of torture is the first case regarding a confession of information. Since the survey question did not further qualify the term neither will I, but I posit that was the mindset of the respondents.
Anyway, Jesus did not condone torture. It's right there in the verses, "the lord of the servant", but the story really should be told from verse 42. This is not just any servant, it's the overseer of all the master's servants which of course implies responsibility. Here's the full text from the SAB and the NIV for comparison purposes.
SAB:
12:42 And the Lord said, Who then is that faithful and wise steward, whom his lord shall make ruler over his household, to give them their portion of meat in due season?
12:43 Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing.
12:44 Of a truth I say unto you, that he will make him ruler over all that he hath.
12:45 But and if that servant say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; and shall begin to beat the menservants and maidens, and to eat and drink, and to be drunken;
12:46 The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers.
12:47 And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.
12:48 But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.
NIV (from BibleGateway.com):
42The Lord answered, "Who then is the faithful and wise manager, whom the master puts in charge of his servants to give them their food allowance at the proper time?
43It will be good for that servant whom the master finds doing so when he returns.
44I tell you the truth, he will put him in charge of all his possessions.
45But suppose the servant says to himself, 'My master is taking a long time in coming,' and he then begins to beat the menservants and maidservants and to eat and drink and get drunk.
46The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the unbelievers.
47"That servant who knows his master's will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows.
48But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.
I think it's clear this passage isn't about torture at all. It's about a steward/manager's responsibility to his lord/master. Regarding the definition of torture, it's clearly not about (1) a confession of information or (3) intimidation or (4) discrimination. It most definitely is about (2) punishment but it clearly fits the disclaimer at the end: "It [torture] does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions."
In modern America an unfaithful employee can be fired by his employer for disobeying orders and should the employee be guilty of something more like stealing from the till, the employer can call in the police. In ancient roman times (which is the setting for the book of Luke from which these verses come) masters/lords apparently had more rights and jurisdiction. It's unclear to me whether this passage refers exclusively to slave owners or more generally to employers, perhaps it doesn't matter, but I think readers can form their own opinions.
I believe this is a fallacy both as a cultural bias and a lack of context, though the fault clearly lies with the SAB commentary rather than with you, Skeptico. If I were you, I would be more careful in reading the Skeptic’s Annotated Bible in the future. Trust in an external source surely contributed to this fault. Reading the bible looking for the truth it contains will always serve a person better than coming at it with preconceived notions about what to expect. That person will surely find what they seek.
In summary maybe christians in 2009 do justify torture, it certainly appears so from the survey, but Jesus most definitely did not. Since christians are supposed to emulate christ then many have gotten far, far away from his teachings.
Posted by: dsmith77 | August 06, 2009 at 11:43 AM
so what's wrong with believing in god. we leve in a free world and I think people can think hwhat they want creation evolution dosen't matter what is important is that human stop killing one another.
and stop the wars.
Peace for you all
Posted by: circus performers | August 07, 2009 at 06:44 AM
What's right about it?
Neo-Nazis, racists, homophobes. Who cares what they think, right? It's a free world and they can think what they want so why bother with them, right?
And what people think and believe obviously has nothing to do with this, right? Religion never once was to blame for any conflict, right?
Are all people at the circus performers agency this naive?
Posted by: Jimmy_Blue | August 07, 2009 at 07:27 AM
Circus,
Personal freedom is fine. Telling children Jesus will have them tortured for eternity in the flames of hell if they make a mistake, isn't.
Posted by: yakaru | August 07, 2009 at 09:50 AM
dsmith77:
not only this sounds a lot like torture to me, but the whole thing seems to condone slavery, inflicting phisical pain as punishment, and doing nasty things to the "unbelievers".
sorry if I misread it, but your point seems to be "if it's not used to gather information, then it's not torture", in wich case, I disagree, since whatever the torturer thinks to justify the torture, doesn't change the fact that it's torture.
Posted by: Pelger | August 07, 2009 at 03:30 PM
dsmith77:
Yeah, your interpretation certainly makes it seem like Jesus doesn't endorse torture...or at least, that he doesn't endorse too much torture. If we're going to beat the slaves, just beat them a little bit.
But then, if we're going to look at Jesus in context, then we can't just take one verse in isolation, right? We have to look at the rest of the stories, like when he took the time to make his own scourge so he could use it to chase the money changers out of the temple, or how he frequently approves of the often tortuous Old Testament laws and practices, or the numerous places where he endorses a system of "justice" where some are meant to spend eternity in "unquenchable fire" with "wailing and gnashing of teeth." It's possible that Jesus didn't endorse earthly torture, but he's the source of a doctrine of eternal torture for mortal crimes.
Posted by: Tom Foss | August 08, 2009 at 01:43 AM