…and this is a 
He has sent me a response to my criticisms of his criticisms of the New Atheism. Look below the fold for what he sent me.
A lot of online feedback is remarkably angry, hostile, and generally melodramatic. Every time I write an online piece I get an army of people calling me a "moron," or telling me I'm too smart for my own good, or I'm too stupid for my own good. People vent spleen and project all kinds of things onto the article and the writer. I find all this amusing and don't take it personally.
As a regular contributor to publications like SKEPTIC magazine, the SKEPTICAL INQUIRER and THE HUMANIST, I have received a lot of mail from vitriolic theists telling me I'll burn in hell for my atheistic views. Before the digital days, they were urgent hand-written letters with cribbed scrawling that ended at the bottom of the page and then turned sideways to continue up and around the margins. I have a whole file of these hilarious screeds. Now, I have a digital file of similar histrionic rants, only these are from the atheists.
Since I also got some very thoughtful and well-reasoned comments about my article, I will endeavor to respond and clarify my position. First, I'm actually a fan of some of Sam Harris's arguments (most of which are actually David Hume's and Bertrand Russell's arguments), and I also respect some of the important work by Dawkins, Dennett, and Hitchens.
There's a common confusion among my more melodramatic atheist readers that my criticizing them must make me a naïve theist or an apologist for God. I don't really need to answer this, since my own six books and dozens of articles make my twenty-years of skeptical agnosticism quite clear. A Democrat who criticizes another Democrat, does not automatically become a Republican. That said, I'm trying to help some otherwise very smart people (the Four Horsemen) appreciate an aspect of religion (a core aspect) that they have not properly addressed -namely, the emotional virtues of religion.
My argument is that religion, like art, has direct access to our emotional lives in ways that science does not. Yes, science can give us emotional feelings of wonder and the majesty of nature, but there are many forms of human suffering that are beyond the reach of any scientific alleviation. Different emotional stresses require different kinds of rescue.
A student told me recently of how his brother had been brutally stabbed to death five years ago. He and his whole family were utterly shattered by the loss. He told me that his mother would have been institutionalized if it were not for her belief that her son was in a better place now and that she would see him again.
For the more extreme atheist, all this looks irrational and therefor unacceptable. But I'm arguing something more delicate; yes, I agree, it's irrational, but that doesn't render it unacceptable or valueless. Why not? Because the human brain is a kludge of three major operating systems; the ancient reptile brain (motor functions, fight or flight types of instincts, etc.), the limbic or mammalian brain (emotions), and the most recent neocortex (rationality).
The new atheists are evaluating religion at the neocortical level -their criteria for assessing it is the hypothetico-deductive method. Now, I agree with them --religion fails miserably at the bar of rational validity. But we're at the wrong bar. The older brain --built by natural selection for solving survival challenges -was not built for rationality. Emotions like fear, love, rage, even hope or anticipation, were selected for because they helped early mammals flourish. Fear is a great prod to escape predators, for example, and aggression is useful in the defense of resources and offspring. Care or feelings of love (oxytocin and opioid based) strengthen bonds between mammal parents and offspring, and so on. Emotions are in many cases quicker ways to solve problems than deliberative cognition. Moreover, our own human emotions are retained from our animal past and represent deep homologies with other mammals (see the empirical work of Jaak Panksepp, father of Affective Neuroscience).
Now for we humans, the interesting puzzle is how the old animal operating system of emotions interacts with the new operating system of cognition. How do our feelings and our thoughts blend together to compose our mental lives, and our behaviors? Our cognitive ability to formulate representations of the external world, and manipulate them, is immersed in a sea of emotions. When I think about the heinous serial killer, my blood runs cold. When I call up the images of my loved ones in my mind's eye, I am flooded with warm emotions. Neuroscientist Antonio Damasio has shown that emotions saturate even the seemingly pure information-processing aspects of rational deliberation.
My argument is that religion helps people, rightly or wrongly, manage their emotional lives. And while it doesn't do very much for me and other skeptics (I prefer art), I would be very inattentive if I failed to notice how much relief and comfort it gave to other people. No amount of scientific explanation or socio-political theorizing is going to console the mother of the stabbed boy. But the irrational hope that she would see her murdered son again sustained her, according to my student. And it's reasonable to suggest that such an emotional belief may have given her the energy and vitality to continue caring for her other children (so we can imagine a selective pressure for such emotional beliefs at the "group" or "kin" level of natural selection).
People who critique such emotional responses and strategies with the refrain "But is it true?" are missing the point. I agree with the atheists: Most religious beliefs are not true. But here's the crux. The emotional brain doesn't care. It doesn't operate on the grounds of true and false. An emotion is not a representation or a judgment, so it cannot be evaluated like a theory. Emotions are not true or false. Even a terrible fear inside a dream is still a terrible fear. This means that the criteria for measuring a healthy theory, is not the criteria for measuring a healthy emotion. Unlike a healthy theory -which must correspond to empirical facts -a "healthy emotion" might be one that contributes to neurochemical homeostasis or other affective states that promote biological flourishing. The intellectual life answers to the all-important criterion: Is this or that claim ACCURATE? But the emotional life has a different master. It answers to the more ancient criterion: Does this or that feeling help the organism THRIVE? Often an accurate belief also produces thriving (how else could intelligence be selected for?). But frequently there is no such happy correlation. Mixing up these criteria is a common category mistake that fuels a lot of the theist/atheist debate.
Some people have suggested that my appreciation of emotional well-being (independently from questions of veracity and truth) is tantamount to "drinking the Kool-Aid" and "taking the blue pill" (from the Matrix scenario). But the real tension is not between delusion and truth -that's an easy one. The real tension is between the needs of one part of the brain (limbic) and the needs of another (the neocortical). Evolution shaped them both, and the older one does not get out of the way when the newbie comes on the scene.
Now many people have confused my attempts to describe and understand emotional religion as a defense of religion, when in fact I am really trying to defend the emotions. The new atheists tend to adopt the traditional dismissive view of emotions that one finds in neocortex-based neuroscience, cognitive science, and evolutionary psychology. My own view is heavily influenced by theories of embodied cognition and affective science (e.g., Antonio Damasio, Richard Davidson, and Jaak Panksepp in neuroscience, Mark Johnson in philosophy, etc.). There is nothing spooky, or mystical, or magical about the idea that the mind is more than just rational consciousness. I am simply acknowledging that the logical neocortex is built on top of a subcortical emotional mountain. Science and rationality are not best suited to navigate some of those crags and chasms of feeling, but other human cultural tools (like religion and art) can engage them effectively.
My description of animism was not an endorsement of it. I used this example to demonstrate two things -one, the emotional comforts religion can provide, and two, the way that empirical rationality must take its starting point from a specific CONTEXT. More importantly, my overall DESCRIPTION of emotional religion should also not be taken as a NORMATIVE endorsement. I agree with all the good folks who pointed out that it would be better to have a medical clinic in a poor village than a shaman. I said as much in the article. But until the medical clinic gets there, let's tolerate the shaman. And if the shaman is "in the way of" the coming clinic, then by all means let's campaign against him.
Ultimately, my goal in the article is to contribute to our UNDERSTANDING of religious people -like a Democrat tries to understand a Republican, or vice versa. I'm not yet in a position to make many substantial normative claims, but I'll venture this important provisional one. If you want to get rid of religion, you can't ARGUE it out of existence with rationality. Instead, you have to "feed" the hungry emotions something new as a healthier replacement. The emotional brain has a voracious and different dietary appetite than the rational brain. And until we create some new emotional superfood, religion will continue to feed it. But the emotions should not be seen as some inconvenient garbage-eating monster in the basement of the brain. The emotional life provides the vitality and the dynamism that we mammals require. Science itself would not be successful if it wasn't driven by the passions of inquiry. The passions of inquiry, however, will be cold comfort to certain sorts of suffering, and that is why we have other kinds of culture (including religion).
I think he's still missing the boat, and is arguing here against a lot of things that weren't present. I didn't see much insult being thrown around (at least not for here!), and I know I certainly didn't assume he was a Jebus-freak — his essay is pretty plain on the subject of his own views. I would be the last person to claim that emotion wasn't an important part of the human experience, and I've told people that we need more appeal to those lower centers of the brain…but this idea that atheists are all a bunch of Spock-like uber-rationalists, or that we aspire to a coldly logical society, is simply an annoying stereotype that isn't true. And the whole point of what I wrote is that "it makes me feel good" is inadequate support for a complex set of beliefs about the world—"it's true" is also essential. His reply doesn't really address that.
Comments
Posted by: Hypatia's Daughter
|
January 27, 2011 9:57 AM
The problem, Mr Asma, is that, based on your arguments for the benefits of religion, you should support the shaman against the clinic. He provides all the touchy-feely things you listed above for religion. And if you campaigned against him, wouldn't you then be accused of being a nasty, militant rationalist?Posted by: Insightful Ape
|
January 27, 2011 9:58 AM
Long platitude that was.
Short version: it's a lie, but that's just fine as long a it makes people feel better.
Next week: the emotional benefits of heroin.
PS: Speaking if emotions, I have a deep, gut wrenching disdain for thosep who hold the truth in such low regard.
Posted by: Pyrion
|
January 27, 2011 9:59 AM
Although i fully agree with PZ, i liked Mr. Asmas repsonse very much, there is truth in it. A secular society needs to care about emotional needs too, like religions do at the moment.
Posted by: zike
|
January 27, 2011 10:00 AM
After reading the whole text, I would just point out this:
"A Democrat who criticizes another Democrat, does not automatically become a Republican."
I don't understand why people can't see that criticizing Dawkins or Hitchens doesn't make you less atheist. I welcome critics because it's the only way to see eventual flaws in our arguments, if there are any.
I am pretty sure that Dawkins doesn't mind being criticized by Mr. Myers, so why should we understand his critics as attacks or apologetics?
I say go on.
Posted by: whyevolutionistrue
|
January 27, 2011 10:02 AM
I don't think most of us are too damning toward faiths that provide consolation and whose adherents don't force their views on the rest of us. As PZ once said, none of us would try to dissuade our dying but religious grandmother from finding succor in the thought of heaven. But many religions—and certainly Christianity, Judaism, and Islam—often try to force their religiously-inspired morality and politics on the rest of us. At that point, it's not only fair but mandatory to attack the truth claims of faiths underlying those things.
Not many of us would waste time on religion if it were all like Zen Buddhism!
Posted by: azumahazuki
|
January 27, 2011 10:03 AM
PZ, hate to say this but he's right. Yes, in the purely academic sphere it's easy to point out all the idiocies of $RELIGION, to dig up a hundred years of philosophy and logic and archaeology and higher criticism and say "This is retarded." And it should be done. But we don't live in the purely academic and most people don't have 1/10th the knowledge or education you do.
When you see someone your R-complex has bonded to get smashed by a car but not killed, or slowly dies of cancer, when you hear screams a human should not be able to produce, your higher brain does not care. He makes an extremely important point that religion is a product, perhaps an inevitable one, of the lower and higher brains trying to make sense out of a world not designed for us.
Its universality and the similarity of certain core themes, to me, is inductive evidence for it being a natural phenomenon, in the same way that like the NDE, they differ mostly in cultural details. Religion is not a disease; it's an outmoded epistemological position founded mostly on emotional reasoning. Which is probably why it's such an effective political tool, come to that.
I think we nonbelievers of all stripes need to keep this in mind, else we becme irrelevant ourselves. Atheism has a hard time spreading because, like harsh monastic religion, it demands immense strength of mind and character and offers very little comfort in the here and now. We humans seem to love deceiving ourselves, and somthing simply being true doesn't endear it to most people. I'm one of those weird exceptions, but I'm also a little off mentally and have seen some awful stuff.
Posted by: Belgian atheist
|
January 27, 2011 10:03 AM
I'd like to add to that quote by Hypatia's Daughter, what's the point of tolerating the shaman in the first place when you know he's gonna oppose real help and when he's instilling opposition against real help in the people that need it most.
Taking such a stance is actually evil in my view, it's like saying let catholic priests watch your children as long as there's no daycare.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo
|
January 27, 2011 10:04 AM
*shrug*
I'm a big fan of the 'truth' criterion too, but at least this guy is only trying to defend the more defensible consequences of some untrue religious beliefs.
Posted by: Ivar Husa
|
January 27, 2011 10:04 AM
I appreciate seeing Asma's entire response. Asma's is the most articulate to anything PZ has posted that I can recall. Thanks for posting it.
Posted by: Pinkydead
|
January 27, 2011 10:05 AM
The big problem I have with this argument for religion is clearly seen when you perform a simple substitution of the word 'heroin' in place 'religion'.
Posted by: cervantes
|
January 27, 2011 10:05 AM
Actually, crude consolation such as the denial of death is not the only function of religion that makes it difficult to eject from people's lives and minds. Religious congregations also provide community and social support -- they are an important center of many people's social lives, and they often provide mutual aid, charitable works, schools (for better or for worse), etc.
We need a secular "church," a way of replicating the defensible contributions of religious communities without the nonsensical mumbo jumbo. To some extent humanist societies have tried to do this, but without much success so far. It's worth working on, in my view.
Posted by: Kristjan Wager
|
January 27, 2011 10:12 AM
When I hear or read such statements, I cannot help think "how do they know that?". Humans are much less fragile than they think they are, and can bear much heavier burdens, so how can you be sure of this? Are there more (relatively) institutionalized grieving atheists than grieving religious people?
If one is religious, one would naturally turn towards religion for grief relief, but if one is not religious, one turns towards other sources - friends, the local community etc.
Posted by: green-hairstreak
|
January 27, 2011 10:14 AM
There is the further problem that in many religious people their religion does not simply make them feel good but also makes them feel they can and should impose it and all its little (and big) rules on everyone else.
Posted by: Anubis Bloodsin the third
|
January 27, 2011 10:14 AM
I really do not give a flying copulation on the wings of a dragon how religion and theism can be an emotional response to external stimuli...
As a fairly radical atheist and therefore obviously the butt of this dudes whine, my bitch is that that emotional response...( I have no reason to doubt it is there) is used and thoroughly abused by organized institutions to inveigle themselves and their dogma into a position that directly affects those that are not so awe struck by the patent bullshite liberally distributed by those same organizations.
The harnessing of the barking masses is a powerful tool...methinks a bunny called Paul worked that one out fairly quickly a couple of millenia ago, and for an ambitious bunny, it was to good a opportunity to miss.
A point not lost on the present crop of fairy tale addicts.
I think that the religious claims and their tacky immoral bigotry ensconced in their dogma should be challenged robustly and deeply.
I feel it is not done enough.
Seems to me that it is the vogue to gnu-atheist bash just to raise an authors profile.
I do think 'chummy' missed the point in his original screed if emotional reaction and the tactic adopted to cope with that emotional reaction is so beneficial how come all religions do not sing from the same song sheet.
Why so much distrust and hatred amongst themselves...one would think that the emotional response is not the main reason for the practice and promotion of religion.
There is another agenda being pursued...money, ego and influence are never far away in the scheme of things methinks!
Posted by: neverclear5
|
January 27, 2011 10:15 AM
Again, the net "benifit" of religion is assumed not demonstrated. I remain unconvinced. My mother has to delude herself that I'll 'come around eventually' or that 'the seeds have been planted' in order to avoid the conclusion that I'll burn in hell. Every family gathering is tainted in some way for me by having to hold my tongue on some small point of religion or derail the celebration or conversation into a religious debate. This sort of thing goes on everyday and I would contend that it may easily balance out whatever consolation some people may feel. That's ignoring the real physical problems caused by religions of all stripes that PZ has discussed many times before.
Posted by: P. Coyle
|
January 27, 2011 10:21 AM
Perhaps another way of putting this is that his mother would have gone batshit crazy if it hadn't been for the fact that she was batshit crazy.
Posted by: raven
|
January 27, 2011 10:21 AM
Which emotions? The one that makes people rip the throats out of the Fake People of the next tribe over that have that nice watering hole.
The ones that make primitive tribepeople stand in front of a Planned Parenthood clinic and harass a young woman going in for a BC pill prescription?
The ones that make people hijack planes and fly them into skyscrapers or blow themselves up in a crowd of strangers?
How about the ones that make them try to sneak mythology into children's science classes and take over the last superpower and destroy it.
Asma is an idiot. He focuses on some alleged positive aspects of religion while ignoring all the blatantly, blindingly visible negative aspects.
1. I suppose it is an open question whether the positive results of religion outweighs the negative results.
2. All religions aren't equal. Some are more benign than others. It is quite clear that some religious sects are as malevolent as anything humans can produce, the FLDS, the Branch Davidians, various groups of Moslems, the loony xian fundies.
What is needed here is some data and some consideration of the varieties of religious good and evil. Not Asma's sweeping, nebulous and mostly incorrect generalities.
Posted by: palefury
|
January 27, 2011 10:24 AM
Sure religion can provide (false) comfort to the grieving, offer (false) hope of reunion with a dead loved one. If that were all it did, that might be acceptable, after all if a person wants to delude themselves in a time of grief, it is probably not particularly healthy but at least it gets them through the day. Fine.
I don't think that this is the problem that most atheist have with religion. We are fans of the truth, sure, but if others want to live in a fantasy land, we may think it is silly, but we are not really upset by it.
The problem with religion is that it is used to justify all sorts of bigotry, and somehow makes this bigotry socially acceptable.
"I believe in god and so I believe I will go to heaven when I die." = delusional but not dangerous and if this was where it ended,OK, but it doesn't.
"I believe in God so it is OK to hate/impede the civil rights of/kill gay people, people that don't believe in the same god I do, people that say bad things about my god, people with different a skin color from me, people that want to teach science in science classes, people that want to give free health care to poor people, people that talk about global climate change, and worst of all people that don't believe in a god at all" = delusional AND dangerous
Posted by: synapticsync
|
January 27, 2011 10:25 AM
Someone should tell him about the use of italics.
Posted by: MarkNS
|
January 27, 2011 10:27 AM
The problem with the concept of "believing lies is ok if it makes you feel better" is that this belief almost always results in some sort of concrete action. While the "feel better" part is fine, the next step of, for example, applying an arbitrary, anti-freedom, bronze age morality on others causes real harm. Or perhaps one eschews modern medicine and relies on prayers to cure an ill child with the predictable deadly outcome.
Lies, while they make you feel momentarily better, almost always result in harm.
Posted by: Anubis Bloodsin the third
|
January 27, 2011 10:27 AM
# 18
Yes indeed...exactly what I tried to express in #14...but you managed far more eloquence.
Posted by: carovee
|
January 27, 2011 10:28 AM
I think Mr. Asma is missing an important point, which is that religions can foster negative emotions as well as positive emotions. Sure, its nice that the woman in the story was comforted by believing she would see her son again. But what if her son were gay and her religion taught her that he was burning for eternity in hell? Pretending that religion is all puppies and kittens is disingenuous at best.
Posted by: slugsie
|
January 27, 2011 10:28 AM
I think that a lot of atheists/humanists/etc openly admit that one thing that religion does is provide emotional support and community. It's also been commented a lot that that is something that a secular society needs to provide somehow too. SO, nothing new there.
I must also repeat the old mantra, just because something feels good and is popular doesn't make it right. There are an awful lot of us that value truth and evidence, despite the fact that it doesn't necessarily make us feel all gooey inside.
Posted by: reasonaboveall
|
January 27, 2011 10:28 AM
Emotional or not, if you believe in a sky fairy then I have to doubt your opinions.
If you are a creationist I will even doubt whether you actually do think that soup was tasty.
Posted by: hillaryrettig
|
January 27, 2011 10:29 AM
did I not read carefully enough, or does he elide the enormous suffering that religion itself has caused?
the whole thing also seems overblown. yes the brain is greater than the sum of the parts. yes we have an imagination. and yes we have needs. none of this is surprising. It is less religion itself I care about - especially as a coping mechanism - than its privileging.
OTOH, Eric Maisel's new book The Atheist's Way has gone a long way toward convincing me that even "benign" religions are inherently bad. He writes from a unique perspective - he's one of the top creativity coaches in the world - and does a great job describing the joy and freedom of atheism.
http://theatheistsway.com/
Posted by: nathaniel.tagg
|
January 27, 2011 10:29 AM
I think PZ is making implying a statement he hasn't yet made to the satisfaction of Asma. The statement is something like: "Once we know what is true, we can work to rebuild our culture to support us without the need for lies." Indeed, the stronger version of this is that atheists around the world already HAVE done this, at least in their own lives.
Some of us think that the the mother who lost her son to stabbing would NOT have gone insane if she lacked faith.
Some of us think that the mother would have done just as well or better with psychological counseling.
Some of us think that we don't yet have anything as good as religion to comfort the mother.. but we shouldn't stop looking for one.
Posted by: Deluded Creodont
|
January 27, 2011 10:31 AM
No they don't. But if they use the same language as Republicans to criticize an opponent for, say, opposing "Too Big To Fail" or the like, and then goes on to make a habit of such actions, it should come as no surprise when the other Democrats decide there needs to be a check on credentials.
Posted by: JBlilie
|
January 27, 2011 10:33 AM
Religion encourages and cheers on a false version of morality that permits its adherents to commit heinous crimes. Reason enough to oppose it vocally.
As Dr. Coyne notes above, if it were all Zen Buddhism, none of us would bother about it.
I just yesterday heard a man call in to say he opposed the acceptance of gay people into the US military because, "it was a moral issue." This is the sort of nonsense religion actively promotes (also see PZ's post on Uganda today).
Get up, stand up! Stand up for your right (truth)!
Posted by: flawedprefect
|
January 27, 2011 10:34 AM
Guess I can't argue now with my crazy friend who believes every word of JK Rowling in true, and that her dead parrot is now living at Hogwart's. Sure, we know it's a lie... but it makes her feel better!
Posted by: midwestguy
|
January 27, 2011 10:34 AM
I don't like that approach. He's saying, "Well, I don't believe it, but those unwashed masses sure do seem happier with those silly stories. They aren't mature like you and me, so let them pretend in magic if it helps them live their simple lives."
Second note, the point that he claims 'the four hoursemen' have never addressed has been. Beautifully. Read Dennett's chapter called "Is Music Good for You?" in Breaking the Spell.
Posted by: MattMc
|
January 27, 2011 10:35 AM
Like I said on the previous thread, he still sounds like a bokononist.
Posted by: maarten.jan
|
January 27, 2011 10:39 AM
"Does this or that feeling help the organism THRIVE?"
No it doesn't. Believing I have a million dollars in my account would make me very happy, but when reality catches up with me I could have a million debt. Falsehoods do not make oganisms thrive.
The 'older' parts of the brain were useful. Nowadays, a lot of it is baggage that isn't very useful to us at all. We should acknowledge that and deal with it, instead of putting a security blanket over it, like religion.
Posted by: theophontes (θεός γαμώτο)
|
January 27, 2011 10:39 AM
Like PZ, I have lost a younger sister (to breast cancer at the age of 32). I spent a lot of time with her as the disease took some five terrifying years to finally claim her young life. The emotional pain for everyone who new her was excruciating - the more so that she was often also in much physical pain. We had a lot of opportunity to talk in this time and we also had the opportunity to talk about faith and healing. Apparently faith can play a role in keeping one healthier. Its just that it does not matter what you have faith in. You can have faith in your cat and it will show the same benefit as believing in Wotan, or Yawhe or the FSM.
We ended up just facing reality. I recall at one point thinking that if I could turn to god or make a pact with the devil, to relieve just some of her suffering, I would do it in an instant. Then I realised that this would just be a lie. As much as we all would like otherwise, we should be honest and face these terrible emotions head on, not drunken on fantasies, drugs, alcohol or lies.
All who knew my sister suffered along with her. No pacts with the devil, no pacts with the gods. And in a way she does live on. Very much so and all the more for having faced this so directly. My memories are clear and true. The love she had for life and the lessons she taught me have become part of who I am and strengthened me ever since.
Posted by: StarScream
|
January 27, 2011 10:40 AM
I would say that Asma is off in his estimation of how religion operates in the brain. His argument basically states that emotionalism is the root of religious belief. I, as well as probably the majority of researchers in the cognitive science of religion, would dispute that.
Yes, emotion plays a vital role, but it is more in an ad hoc manner. People have to think something is intellectually plausible before they believe it and have emotions about it. Starving people don't sit around and pretend to eat make-believe food to act as an emotional salve. The grieving mother has to firstly believe that an afterlife is plausible before it gives comfort. She cannot need comfort and so start believing in heaven because of that.
Asma gets the order wrong. It isn't the emotions before cognition; it is cognition before emotions.
So, if you make something intellectually implausible, you take away its emotional impact and importance. Should this be done in the case of the grieving mother? Of course not. But I'd wager that if she didn't have a belief in an afterlife in the first place, she wouldn't have needed to rely on it in time of grief. She would have coped in another manner.
Posted by: fmartinez
|
January 27, 2011 10:40 AM
What Asma means here is: "hey, you and me, we know that religion doesn't have anything to do with truth or reality, but let those simpletons believe in it, it helps them emotionally"
It is like arguing in favour or homeopathy: we know is basically water but don't let everybody know, and so they could benefit from the placebo effects. Well duh, until the moment they need real medication and the placebo is not enough.
Anyway... someone can imagine why splitting population in two branches, those who are going to do science (rational ones) and those who aren't (woo believers), is not a good idea?
Posted by: Karthik
|
January 27, 2011 10:43 AM
Daniel Dennett addresses these very issues here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5tGpMcFF7U
Posted by: truthspeaker
|
January 27, 2011 10:44 AM
If it's an inevitable consequence of human psychology, why do atheists exist?
I really don't think I have significantly more strength of character than religious people, nor am I better at dealing with stress or emotional trauma. And yet I have no need for the emotional support religion allegedly provides. Are atheists like me some kind of freaks, or is religious belief not as inevitable as Asma's hypothesis implies?
Posted by: frog, Inc.
|
January 27, 2011 10:50 AM
maarten.jan: "Does this or that feeling help the organism THRIVE?"
No it doesn't. Believing I have a million dollars in my account would make me very happy, but when reality catches up with me I could have a million debt. Falsehoods do not make oganisms thrive.
Believing that I'm above average in looks and intelligence does help. A large portion of "success" in the world is a function of self-confidence -- of believing lies about yourself (but limited lies -- you can go from a 3 to a 6, not a 1 to a 10). Others will believe it -- and for "social facts", that transforms the lie into a social truth.
Some "rationalist" seem to live in that same world where they ignore even the most trivial empirical facts to protect their precious world view.
Posted by: yvrous
|
January 27, 2011 10:54 AM
Comment by Pinkyhead
'The big problem I have with this argument for religion is clearly seen when you perform a simple substitution of the word 'heroin' in place 'religion'.'
Also the problems associated with overdosing on religion is overwhelming greater than with heroin .
Posted by: Defaithed
|
January 27, 2011 10:57 AM
It's a well-written reply, and I can understand the point about the need to address irrational but real emotional needs. Yet I think Asma leaves three key points unaddressed:
1) *Does* religion really address those needs as well as Asma claims? It's easy and common to claim that it does, but is religion really so comforting to so many? Especially with the fears of displeasing the god(s), the worry over thinking/worshipping wrongly, the conflict (big or tiny) with believers in other (or no) religion, and the internal stress of always having to paper over beliefs that contradict reality?
2) Similarly, in the bigger picture: Do religion's arguable benefits outweigh its evils? I think the Gnu atheists etc. are actually right alongside Asma in acknowledging social and emotional benefits of religion – but they also acknowledge its far, far worse evils. Isn't that unbalance really the crux of the matter?
3) PZ made a great point earlier: the comfort and security of "my god(s) will take care of things" dulls the drive and urgency to tackle tough problems ourselves. I didn't see Asma address that.
Posted by: Bernard J. Ortcutt
|
January 27, 2011 10:57 AM
My mother was raised on 20 years of Catholic catechism. Now, she's a wishy-washy quasi-atheist but she believes in Heaven. She's also a biologist and I asked her how her belief in Heaven relates to her belief in the brain basis of the mind. She said she wanted to believe. OK... I think that it's really too late for some people. Some beliefs are simply too firmly implanted. But it's not too late for everyone. Why do people like Asma think that Atheists like Dawkins think they can convince everyone. Dawkins says what he says because (1) it is true and (2) it may help some people to hear the truth. There are a lot of people out there who are not convinced theists or atheists. They can be swayed one way or the other. Reading the New Atheists also benefits people who are already atheists. We live in a society where we are the outcasts, and it is good for our limbic systems to read someone write that we're not the ones who should feel ashamed of our beliefs.
Posted by: SC OM
|
January 27, 2011 10:57 AM
As I argued on the previous thread, his description of animism is inaccurate and condescending.
I find that hard to believe.
What if the shaman is telling people that their children are witches and need to be killed? That a satanic tribe has caused their woes? That they won't get AIDS if they chew on some bark? I don't think he's really thought this through. Comforting beliefs include hateful and harmful beliefs. Accepting some unfounded beliefs you see as harmless because they may be comforting is opening the door to all of them.
Posted by: victimainvictus
|
January 27, 2011 10:59 AM
We've all seen this argument before, and I for one am sick of its sneering, obscurantist condescension and intellectual dishonesty. It boils down to "Well, religion is obviously false, but their poor feeble minds can't handle the truth, so we should just humor them in their delusion. Besides, reality doesn't really matter anyways."
We should vehemently reject this. People ARE strong and capable enough to handle reality, and if I were a theist I would be highly insulted at Asma's suggestion to treat me with kid gloves. And there is no such thing as a "harmless" or "positive" delusion. Once you disregard reality, you can't suddenly take it back when they start stoning gays and establishing theocracy. If you believe whatever makes you feel the best, anything goes, no matter how morally atrocious.
Posted by: coughlanbrianm
|
January 27, 2011 11:00 AM
So true! Competence will only get you so far; add overweening self confidence to a modest intellect and you've got the mental template of practically every politician on the planet.
Posted by: gregfromcanada
|
January 27, 2011 11:02 AM
Mr. Asmas response was very thoughtful and has some merit but as PZ said, still misses the point.
Whether or not someone "feels" better by ignoring facts is not the real issue. Using this as an argument to support public policy choices based on things that are not true, or cannot be proven to be true is the problem.
Using religion to delude oneself or others to make them feel better is short sighted and ultimately counter productive. Like lies, delusions must be maintained, and each time a crack appears the delusion must be reinforced with more delusion, or break. In the example of the mother that lost her son to a brutal crime and only her religion kept her from being institutionalized I don't see why the delusion is better. The mother now lives with a compounding delusion that will distort her life forever, where as if she actually did get psychiatric help she might have instead come to accept and overcome the tragedy. For now she lives a lie, a lie that can breakdown at any time, a lie that must be maintained by more lies, both from herself and those that love her. And lies are insidious, because if you can lie about something as painful as death to yourself and too your loved ones, you can lie about anything to anyone.
Look around, ours is a world built on lies, and religion is as much a foundation for those lies ans anything else.
Posted by: iknklast
|
January 27, 2011 11:03 AM
One thing I constantly seen thrown around is "It makes people feel good", invariably followed with an anecdote about a particular person who says they coped with tragedy (usually horrific death, perferably of a child) by visualizing the loved one in "a better place". I have one question for all of those who use this argument:
Where is your data?
Anecdotes are not data, and I have not seen any hard evidence yet to back up the claim that religion "makes people feel better". I was brought up in a fundamentalist Christian family, and I could share all sorts of anecdotes...but NONE of them are about religion making them feel better. In fact, it made them frightened, angry, mean, and intractable. But...that's just anecdotes, so I can't presume that it makes people in general frightened, angry, mean, and intractable. I would need data.
So, let's look at hard data. Surely atheists are outnumbering religionists in mental hospitals and other places set up for treatment of depression, right? (I've seen some small amount of data on this...the answer appears to be no).
Surely atheists are more afraid to die than theists? Again, the data would suggest the answer is no.
Surely atheists are all angry, unhappy, miserable people? Well, the data aren't in on this...but I have met many atheists...and that hasn't been my experience. Sure, we have angry,unhappy, miserable atheists. We're not "Stepford" people. But in my informal survey, it doesn't seem to be any higher in number, and actually in my personal circles, is lower in number, than the percentage of angry, unhappy, miserable theists. I'd love to see someone do a WELL-DESIGNED, properly double-blinded, study on this.
Until we have data, however, I would please request all those who claim to skeptical credentials, such as Asma (writer for Skeptic, etc), to refrain from throwing around a hypothesis that has not been properly tested, and using it to try to silence all those who question its validity.
Posted by: jack.rawlinson
|
January 27, 2011 11:05 AM
And if religion was only ever used by people as an emotional crutch in times of weakness, we wouldn't have much of a problem with it, would we? However...
I could go on at length pulling apart this extended yet essentially one-point defence of Asma's, but it isn't worth it. The reason we have the knives out for religion is that, given current and past events, and the endless evidence of the massive harm done by religion, his defence is demonstrably not enough to justify sheathing those knives. Not yet. Not by a long way.
Posted by: theshortearedowl
|
January 27, 2011 11:05 AM
This is a great response, articulate, well-worded; makes an important case for not neglecting the emotional side of human affairs in the quest for rationality. But:
So where does this leave the parents of the Columbine shooters? Knowing that not only will they not see their children again, but that they will burn in Hell for all eternity?
Or the parents of a gay child? In this case religion causes additional, unnecessary emotional torment.
And why are atheist parents not institutionalised when terrible things happen to their children? Could it be that people can find non-faith based means of coping?
The argument does not stand up to scrutiny.
Posted by: Kryten
|
January 27, 2011 11:07 AM
Palefury at #18 wrote
This hits the nail on the head, and I would sum up this point and PZ's insistence on truth in the following way:
Religion might be a product of our emotional brains, but it gives rise to views like the one above. Views like that are delusional and dangerous and truth (or at least the approximation of truth we get through the methods of science) is the only defense we have against the harm that such ideas can cause.
Posted by: The Tim Channel
|
January 27, 2011 11:07 AM
Someone please point out where these so called new atheists are rudely attacking religion. Putting signs on the side of a bus doesn't count. Standing up and speaking out about the worst abusers of religion (Ham, Catholic pedophilia, et.al) doesn't count.
I wish we had this highly motivated group of new age atheists that everybody wastes so much time having fantasy arguments over. Did I miss the pictures of screaming new-age atheists loudly protesting the Presbyterian Sunday school lessons somewhere? WTF? It's just more of this phony-baloney false equivalence bullsquat that seems to be in vogue right now. If there's an atheist equivalent to Westboro Baptist Church it's a pretty highly guarded secret.
Enjoy.
Posted by: Tyro
|
January 27, 2011 11:08 AM
Yes, I hear that a lot from theists. Do we see more people institutionalized in secular countries or in the atheist population? Sorry but no we don't.
The best conclusion is that these people are grieving and distraught but they're simply wrong when they say they'd be worse without religion. When we hear these stories, we can not and cluck sympathetically but we'd have to be pretty soft in the head to take these stories at face value and accept them as a true, objective evaluation.
Posted by: rushmc
|
January 27, 2011 11:11 AM
I would not want to be the kind of human being that he is promoting. If you are going to promote the hindbrain over the fore, then ultimately culture and civilization are a wrong turn that must be abandoned in favor of brute emotionalism.
Posted by: KG
|
January 27, 2011 11:13 AM
This is not nearly as strong a point as you assume; don't be fooled by the "War on Drugs" propaganda. Heroin is actually a fairly benign drug, and most of the dangers are a result of it being illegal, and hence expensive and often contaminated with poisons and/or of unknown purity. If you have a reliable, affordable supply, the worst part of it medically is the need to either smoke or inject it; and many people live productive lives for many decades while being heroin addicts. There's even some reason to believe it is a preventative for schizophrenia, as schizophrenic junkies are practically unknown (to be fair, this could be because being a junkie is a demanding lifestyle, and schizophrenics just can't cut it).
Posted by: spaninquis
|
January 27, 2011 11:13 AM
What is this animal, this "extreme atheist"? Is it someone who has looked at all the evidence for the existence of gods proffered by every theist of every ilk, color and stripe, and found none convincing? Is it someone who enjoys and employs emotion on a regular basis, but finds emotion useless when determining whether gods exist? Is it someone who takes atheism to it's logical conclusion and decides that there are no gods?
If so, then I must be an extreme atheist.
Posted by: Lynna, OM
|
January 27, 2011 11:15 AM
Regarding the mother who lost her son to a stabbing: chances are great that adherence to a religion played a part in keeping her from growing into a fully-functioning, rational adult.
Most religions make an effort to keep women somewhat childlike, obedient, and functioning at less than their full potential as human beings. (Actually, they do this to all their sheeple, but they just do it more thoroughly to women.)
So, yeah, the mother who lost her son in an act of horrible violence turned to religion for comfort. The child is comforted by Heavenly Father.
It's a vicious circle of dependence. Nurture dependence and, if not irrationality, at least less-than-optimal employment of the neocortex, and what do you end up with? You end up with a supposedly adult human who acts like a child. And is praised for doing so.
Posted by: Erulóra (formerly KOPD)
|
January 27, 2011 11:18 AM
In my experience, Christianity does not actually prepare a person to deal with loss. It promotes avoiding the issue. Thinking "he's in a better place" is just a way of never having to admit he's gone. Facing reality on its own terms may not always be comforting, but it's not impossible.Posted by: frog, Inc.
|
January 27, 2011 11:18 AM
coughlinbrian: So true! Competence will only get you so far; add overweening self confidence to a modest intellect and you've got the mental template of practically every politician on the planet.
Not just politician. Every successful administrator, salesman, manager, actor, and a big chunk of successful scientists (you can go a long way by being a good lab administrator, with post-docs of better intellect and honesty than yourself -- you can even get Nobels).
Do people really think we evolved these massive expensive brains to kill fuzzy little animals or garden?
Posted by: pasadena beggar
|
January 27, 2011 11:20 AM
It's a lovely rebuttal, which still manages to miss PZ's central point: even at its best, religion is only wishful thinking. It may, arguably, comfort people in times of emotional crisis. It MAY. As someone writes beautifully upthread, what Asma is claiming is anecdotal, not data. But even granting that every word Asma writes is true, what he's arguing is that wishful thinking is OK because people have a really good excuse for indulging in it. Do they? And if granting that they do, is it in their best interests?
Posted by: sullenfish
|
January 27, 2011 11:20 AM
Some people feel really good about linking autism to vaccination, too.
Go Team Lizard Brain!
Posted by: Sven DiMilo
|
January 27, 2011 11:21 AM
What do we want?
Single-payer kolinahr for everyone!
When do we want it?
Three fucking thousand years ago!
Posted by: Dude... Real Men Watch Ponies!
|
January 27, 2011 11:22 AM
Different people cope differently.
The argument does stand as an anecdote that there are people who may religion in times of crisis. Whether that argument supports whatever statement he's trying to make, I'm not sure.
Posted by: Randomfactor
|
January 27, 2011 11:22 AM
When my wife died suddenly I was devastated. It would have been comforting to know that we would meet again in heaven--she said as much during her life as she progressed from semi-believer to agnostic to atheist.
It would've been even more comforting to know that she'd actually been replaced with a lifelike dummy and had been spirited away to undergo secret rejuvenation treatments at the alien base under Hawaii, and would be knocking on my door any day now. But that would be crazy.
The Christians have it almost correct: I won't be together with her again when I die, but I'll no longer be without her. That's enough. I suppose.
As for religion hitting the right notes to soothe the emotional needs of the brain...that's what other people are for, not imaginary buddies-in-the-sky.
Posted by: KG
|
January 27, 2011 11:23 AM
This idea that "the older brain" is the seat of emotion and the neocortex that of rationality is, at best, a gross over-simplification. Emotions such as hope or anticipation, mentioned by Asda, and indeed those such as rage and grief, have an intrinsic cognitive component: you can't hope or anticipate without having ideas about the future, about possibility, about different states of affairs that may or may not come to pass; and even such supposedly "primitive" emotions as anger, fear or love, are in general directed toward specific objects of thought in the human case at least.
Posted by: Victor
|
January 27, 2011 11:23 AM
Boy, Asma really gets distracted easily, doesn't he? Even if religion can calm emotions, it can also rile them up, inappropriately direct them, and give people false causes for them. Asma has fallen into the apologetic trap. The loonies are telling the doctor what to think.
Posted by: frog, Inc.
|
January 27, 2011 11:27 AM
KG: This is not nearly as strong a point as you assume; don't be fooled by the "War on Drugs" propaganda. Heroin is actually a fairly benign drug, and most of the dangers are a result of it being illegal, and hence expensive and often contaminated with poisons and/or of unknown purity.
And this is why so many arguments driven by statistics are crap -- a good anecdote is often more useful (particularly as a negation) than a huge dump of poorly defined and poorly analyzed data, statistics with impossible controls, and badly posed questions.
I'd rather listen to the personal experiences of teachers, for example, than the kind of crap statistics that comes out of research programs into education. The drug war data is the simplest example though -- it isn't lies, per se, but poorly posed questions and bad stats that are sufficient to drive completely false conclusions.
Posted by: Pinkydead
|
January 27, 2011 11:28 AM
@KG #53
I don't disagree.
But I don't think we should be prescribing heroin to some mother who has a problem dealing with loss.
Same goes for religion.
Posted by: Randomfactor
|
January 27, 2011 11:28 AM
Someone please point out where these so called new atheists are rudely attacking religion.
Well, I have been called to account for using the phrase "invisible sky buddy" in public...
Posted by: Numenaster
|
January 27, 2011 11:30 AM
Asma claims that
But if the emotional reaction leads you to an answer that conflicts with reality, how can you call the problem solved? His defense only works if the most important thing is to THINK, or rather FEEL, that you have solved a problem, whether you have or not.
I take the position that if you have a problem, your greatest need is not your perception of it, it's the problem itself. And if you feel that you've resolved the problem and then learn you were wrong, you are worse off than before, because now you have your original problem AND the knowledge that your tools are inadequate to deal with it.
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
January 27, 2011 11:32 AM
The man is disingenuous:
No, it wasn't a defense of religion, it was support for religion:
Also, it's bizarre how he's all of a sudden 'defending the emotions,' when he was running a self-righteous attack on the Gnus and acting as if somehow they know nothing about animism.
Now, I wouldn't wholly disagree with any number of things that he's written. But he doesn't keep his stories straight, shifting the goalposts when he's called to answer for a good many tenuous claims and questionable premises.
Glen Davidson
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
January 27, 2011 11:34 AM
I got as far as...
And my "Who Gives a Fuck?" meter blew.
Posted by: Victor
|
January 27, 2011 11:35 AM
Be sure to read #34. Great (and factual!) response.
Posted by: mikerattlesnake
|
January 27, 2011 11:37 AM
I think one thing we let people get away with too much is baldly asserting that religion provides "emotional support." That's bullshit. Of course people who have spent their whole lives being fed a lie rely on that lie to deal with the difficult things in their life, but that doesn't mean the support is real or long-term. In reality the ways one must twist and bend their psyche around the bizarre rules and "truths" of religion creates a whole slew of anxieties and disfunctions that permeate one's whole worldview. To say "so-and-so wouldn't have survived tragedy x without religion" is deeply disrespectful to that person and their strength.
Humanists are the ones who would tell a schizophrenic that he needed medication, not an exorcism. Humanists are the ones that would advocate for evidence based therapy over praying. Humanists recognize the reality of the material brain and it's many frailties, while dualist religions cause people to blame themselves. Humanists tell people that they have value and that they are good and that they can and should work to get better while religion tells them they are born evil, will never be good, and can only be saved through belief.
Admittedly, the above paragraph is skewed towards christianity and islam (the original complaint of the OP, I know), but the author himself seems to ignore the violently fundementalist buddhists and animists who have existed.
My point is that when it comes to really working to create people with healthy psyches and long-term emotional health, I'd go with the evidence-based humanists over whatever variety of shaman or priest one can scrounge up any day.
Posted by: SC OM
|
January 27, 2011 11:39 AM
I'm so tired of this bullshit. I do not go to funerals and mock people talking about an afterlife. (And when people send me sympathy cards with the "better place" mantra, I appreciate the sentiment.) Try to get it through your thick skulls, accomodationists: Writing books and blog posts saying beliefs should be founded in reason and evidence is not barging into hospital rooms, banning religion, or committing genocide.
Posted by: Forbidden Snowflake
|
January 27, 2011 11:39 AM
This. Also, the "religion helps people cope with problems" argument would have been more viable if religion hadn't been so prolific in creating problems.Posted by: Rokkaku
|
January 27, 2011 11:43 AM
There's a lot of the naturalistic fallacy in that post. Additionally he makes great pains to point out that science can't - not doesn't, not cannot yet, but can't - address certain types of emotional distress. That is a remarkably dogmatic statement and one that, given that it's science that's helped us understand the multifaceted state of the human brain, is wholly inaccurate.
It's like saying that because there's no medical cure for the common cold, science can't address anything to do with the cold. It's a combination of the naturalistic fallacy, special pleading and a gross misapprehension of what science actually is. In short, it's a religious argument and should be treated as such.
Posted by: christophe-thill.myopenid.com
|
January 27, 2011 11:45 AM
But it would have helped the poor woman even more if she had been able to believe that her son is not dead at all and that she could see him again, not in an afterlife, but here and now. And if she could hallucinate and see him, and even have conversations with him.
So, religion can help you, but losing touch with reality and sliding into psychosis is even more ehlpful. Or is it ?
Posted by: Randomfactor
|
January 27, 2011 11:45 AM
To say "so-and-so wouldn't have survived tragedy x without religion" is deeply disrespectful to that person and their strength.
Similarly, "so-and-so wouldn't have survived the plane crash without a divine miracle" ignores the 106 other people who were killed as collateral damage in producing said miracle.
Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes
|
January 27, 2011 11:45 AM
Thus, the conflict isn't between the believer and the new atheist*, but between a rational interpretation of reality and irrational but comforting thoughts that believers hold in their heads simultaneously**.
I would rather not be ruled by the irrational ideas of others. Is it such an offense to point out the irrationality of those ideas in defending myself from their manifestation in the form of rules that I am expected to follow?
*whatever the fuck that really means.
**Must hurt.
Posted by: jaydamion
|
January 27, 2011 11:51 AM
Imagine what else might sustain this grieving mother:
* Remembering her son's life--his first day of school, how he laughed, the joy he brought to others, how much he reminded her of his father.
* Deep anger, channeled into a devotion to assist other victims of violent crime.
* A strengthened commitment to her other children and their safety.
All of these flowing from the knowledge that her son had just one life, that it was cut tragically short, and that she will never see him again.
Posted by: Sastra
|
January 27, 2011 11:51 AM
As other have pointed out, this is a Little People argument, and it's condescending and arrogant. The Little People need faith because they don't have the mental or emotional capacities which the atheist have. They're different than us.
This attitude doesn't build bridges or respecdt the other side. It dismisses people and diminishes them.
One of the problems Asma fails to address is that the Believers do not conveniently admit that their beliefs are not true. On the contrary, they either insist that the evidence so clearly points to the existence of God that those who do not believe are morally culpable -- or they admit that the evidence is not so clear, but faith is an act of love so sublime that those who do not believe are morally deficient.
You need lots of people addressing that truth aspect, because of this little problem.
Posted by: revjimbob
|
January 27, 2011 11:51 AM
His remarks about religions feeding our emotional brains is all well and good, but he ignores the fact that at least some religions and religious practices feed OFF our emotional needs like parasites, or corrupt and distort them. Think of the guilt and fear seared into Catholic minds or the humourlessness and distrust of pleasures like music and dancing of some of the Free Scottish churches and Wahabist Islam.
Posted by: fmartinez
|
January 27, 2011 11:53 AM
#67
And that's rude? then what is "imaginary sky psycopath"?
Posted by: mcsnebber
|
January 27, 2011 11:55 AM
An eloquent response. My personal experience--raised in the catholic church, agnostic, then atheist. I am a scientist; eventually the "cognitive distress" encountered when my scientific brain tried to coexist with religious or agnostic "beliefs" was too much for me. I abandoned those beliefs. But as others have described, it was a gradual, at times painful process for me. However, when I finally "made it" and realized I was an atheist, really, then it was a great burden lifted off my shoulders. It was the end of a distressing process, but the more I learned about the world, and about religion, the more atheism was the only way of thinking that made sense. A great relief.
But I have occasional flashes, I think of them as "throwbacks" to the time when religion was able to provide comfort to me in my delusional days. Atheism doesn't make you feel better because reality is harsh. But Amsa's response touched a note, because those throwback feelings occasionally occur; I remember the emotional warmth and community I felt in church, and I miss it. Really though, I feel that those feelings were more child-like in a way, and that atheism is a much more adult approach to the world.
An earlier comment upthread I think also made an important point--atheists in general I think are better educated--remember the atheists scored better on understanding the nuts and bolts of religions than the religious did? And certainly a scientific education more so, but education in general gives one the tools to get to atheism (at least for those raised in a religious community). MORE education will make more people "grow up"--to a more adult way of thinking, and many don't have access to education (along with clean water, medical care, etc) and the more we work on those, the better. I know this is not an exact correlation (look at the creationist PhDs) but in general one seems to find more atheists among the scientific comunities and the intelligentsia.
Posted by: Louis
|
January 27, 2011 12:01 PM
Madame Palm is meeting Monsieur Face due to this response from Stephen Asma.
This is unusual, for unless one is in the presence of true idiocy, Monsieur Face is not Madame Palm's most regular visitor.
Louis
Posted by: frog, Inc.
|
January 27, 2011 12:03 PM
Sastra: As other have pointed out, this is a Little People argument, and it's condescending and arrogant. The Little People need faith because they don't have the mental or emotional capacities which the atheist have. They're different than us.
So what? It's irrelevant whether it's "condescending and arrogant" -- the question is whether it's empirically wrong.
Is it actually a fact that almost all human beings are capable of leading their life by their most rational thoughts most of the time -- or is it a comforting story we tell ourselves to justify our preconceived notions about equality? Is it even a fact -- and not merely a claim -- that atheists in fact aren't basically emotional, irrational, random beasts that just happen to have picked this particular issue to be "reasonable"?
How would we know? Is there any way to get an objective take on this? We can't compare societies -- too many confounding factors. We can't get good data on individuals.
Everyone pretty much lacks foundations for making claims here. There are endless untested assumptions in all claims -- making one wonder whether simply claiming a preference with no objective basis is the only honest position one can stake.
Posted by: JackC
|
January 27, 2011 12:03 PM
If "religion" were working to put itself out of business (increasing human knowledge), then I probably would agree more with Asma. They are not, so I do not, though I submit that he does have some points.
They are just very weak ones.
JC
Posted by: Randy (not Randy)
|
January 27, 2011 12:06 PM
I'm more put off by his apparent suggestion that in order to get a group of people to do some good together that they have to be religious. Or, more that the only choices are warm, fuzzy religion and cold, unfeeling science.
In the past two years, I have been laid off from work, diagnosed with cancer and separated from my wife.*
At each calamity, I had a support system and people concerned for my well being. Both from family, close friends, casual acquaintances and from total strangers. Some of them probably were religious, but it never came up. I do know factually that many of them, from all categories, weren't.
I hate the "Can't be good without God" fallacy enough when it comes from the religious. It's even worse when it comes from somebody who claims to know better.
*I'm not looking for sympathy at this point, I'm just saying. Though you all were wonderful.
Posted by: frustum.myopenid.com
|
January 27, 2011 12:16 PM
Yes, religion offers comfort to people who are already predisposed to the lie. But if they hadn't been indoctrinated to the lie, it wouldn't offer any comfort. It is like a prepayment plan: one day when you need the benefit, it seems free, but really, you've been paying for it your whole life.
One of my brothers died in a car accident at 23. My mother, raised Catholic through high school (where her education ended), was nearly ruined by grief (normal) and the lingering thought that her beautiful son was suffering eternal torment because he wasn't a regular church-goer. For years she was depressed. For years she could only sit in the last rows of the church and couldn't take communion because if she moved forward she got woozy from anxiety that she and her son had been judged and found lacking. She had failed her son.
Comfort my ass.
Posted by: lykex
|
January 27, 2011 12:23 PM
@Stepehn Asma:
I agree with all the good folks who pointed out that it would be better to have a medical clinic in a poor village than a shaman. I said as much in the article. But until the medical clinic gets there, let's tolerate the shaman. And if the shaman is "in the way of" the coming clinic, then by all means let's campaign against him.
And how are we to campaign against him? When the villagers have grown up with the shaman and for generations considered the office of shaman to be sacred and beyond reproach, how the hell do you suppose that we convince them that the clinic won't draw evil spirit to their village?
Further, do you even for a second think that a half-way intelligent shaman won't see that the medical clinic is a threat to his authority? That he won't immediately tell the village that it's a western plot to infect them all with AIDS or that the doctors will damage their auras and cause possession by demons?
There is also the problem of the inherent tendency in irrationality to spread. Sure, believing your relatives are happy in the next world might be comforting, but if you rely on this belief for your emotional health, then it ties you to it by way of investment. You are now obligated to accept not only this belief, but also any other belief which is tied to it. If someone convinces you that the same god which holds the fate of your relatives in his hand also wants you to tithe, then you will. How could you not?
Once irrationality has its foot in the door, anyone can come along and convince you of more crap. After all, how are you going to resist? You can't use rational analysis, because doing so would undermine your belief in the afterlife, which you need for your emotional well-being. You are invested in the belief system.
Besides, I'm not sure that becoming delusional is really a very healthy way of dealing with grief. It's not as if the woman you mentioned really came to terms with the loss of her son, rather, she convinced herself that she hadn't lost him after all.
A bit like keeping grandma's corpse in the guest room and telling the kids that she's just sleeping.
Actually, let me make that a direct question:
Would you support keeping grandma's corpse in the guest room and pretending she was just asleep if it helped the family cope?
Posted by: katharos
|
January 27, 2011 12:23 PM
I've had a lot of unfortunate things happen to me in my life--raised in abuse and poverty, legal troubles, close friends and family falling ill and dying. And I left religion because I felt the emotional support was inadequate and I could no longer believe in the idea that everything would work out in the end (which is really what religion is about--good people go to heaven and bad people go to hell).
Instead, I came to a scientifically-informed understanding that the world is really a randomly brutal place. Bad things happen to good people, and vice versa, not because there's some "plan" that I don't understand yet, but because events happen randomly. Yes, the probability of one event or another is influenced by the choices we make (someone who commits crime is more likely to encounter violence), but at the heart of it, there is randomness.
This is not a robotic understanding that involves no emotion. This is how I come to make peace with feelings of unfairness about the world. I strongly resent anyone telling me that this is an inferior way of coping with life's difficulties.
It's not necessary to have religion to cope with emotional turbulence. It's one way, that some people have found useful. But there are others.
Posted by: Legion
|
January 27, 2011 12:26 PM
Asma:
This is such a weak and easily refutable cop out to religion. I would argue that the beautiful lie of life after death is more likely to lead to wasted lives and missed opportunities than accepting the truth about ourselves and making the most of the life we have.
I know people who are wasting their lives right now because they think that god is going to hit CONTROL + Z after they die and give them a second chance at life.
Wouldn't it be better to acknowledge our mortality and work hard to be the best person that we can be, here and now?
Wouldn't the world be a better place if we fixed our broken relationships with our loved ones and tried to create our own paradise right here, right now?
Asma apparently thinks not.
Drugs and religion are for people who can't handle reality, but both addictions can be cured with the right help. Accomodationism is simply another drug that prevents people from learning to live and love, in the real world.
Posted by: lykex
|
January 27, 2011 12:28 PM
Obcviously, the first paragraph was supposed to go in blockquote
Posted by: Phil65
|
January 27, 2011 12:38 PM
I'm so tired of this bullshit. I do not go to funerals and mock people talking about an afterlife.
Yeah, oddly enough it's the most ardent believers who do shit like that.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
January 27, 2011 12:40 PM
To paraphrase Arthur C. Clarke, it may be that sometimes believing a lie and being happy is better than knowing the truth and being unhappy, but it is best of all to know the truth and be happy as well, and shouldn't this be what we should aspire to?
Posted by: razov
|
January 27, 2011 12:41 PM
An imaginary friend may help a child in period of stress when he has no other sources of affection or company, but it is an actitude that would not be considered healthy in the long term.
Mr Asma seems to think that it is ok for adults, though.
Posted by: joed
|
January 27, 2011 12:41 PM
Kinda' boils down to; do you want to be ignorant or misinformed.
I prefer ignorance to misinformed.
The author of this article can't produce any evidence of what he is claiming about emotion(except of course the anicidotal blah-blah.)
No, if you gotta' bullshit your self to feel good then you ain't being honest or real--so fuck off.
Posted by: DeePhlat
|
January 27, 2011 12:46 PM
It is true that you can't rationalize someone out of religious belief because you need to replace the source of emotion - like methadone and heroin addiction. I needed to get my sqees from molecular biology and evolution to replace religious sqees, and most people cannot do this.
I've not been able to fully replace the oxytocin from the community that the church provided though and I do miss it.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
January 27, 2011 12:46 PM
During the last great religious war, the Thirty Years War (1618-1648*), about 1/3 of the population of Central Europe died. In 1628 the Sack of Magdeberg reduced the population of the city from 20,000 to less than 5,000. Is this sort of thing the kind of emotions we should be grateful religion engenders?
*There is truth in advertising. The Thirty Years War did last 30 years.
Posted by: natural cynic
|
January 27, 2011 12:48 PM
For those who feel that there is no evidence that having religion has any positive effects on health, I think that there is a fair amount of data that correlate longevity with religious belief. However, this may be a case of correlation not equaling causation. General studies of this type usually show that the churched live longer. The fact that the religious groups most often shown to be long-lived were 7th Day Adventists and Mormons might give a clue as to why religious faith and longevity are correlated: it probably comes more from drug and dietary proscriptions than anything else.
Posted by: Beatrice, anormalement indécente
|
January 27, 2011 12:54 PM
So, we are supposed to ignore all the evils of religion because it sometimes makes someone feel all fluffy and warm inside?
Asma's answer is obviously better worded but it boils down to that.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler
|
January 27, 2011 12:55 PM
Asma: But the emotional life has a different master. It answers to the more ancient criterion: Does this or that feeling help the organism THRIVE?
Haven't ever had to deal with depression or depressed persons, have you? Or the chronically anxious, or paranoiacs, or anger-management failures, or any other of the countless examples of persistent counter-productive emotional states?
If so, perhaps you would recognize in religion the deliberate and well-honed exploitation of such conditions, and possibly even begin to comprehend the negative (ahem) feelings of most socially-engaged atheists regarding same.
Posted by: Andrew
|
January 27, 2011 12:57 PM
On the flipside -- If we took religion away from people (as if) how would those many institutionalized individuals dress up their delusions?
You'll find many crazies (the politically incorrect term) claiming to be Jesus or the latest newest, bestest messiah within the walls of mental institutions (not the Harvard sort). Or something satanic. How do we atheists propose to fill that void, huh? HUH!? Without a belief in their own divinity, these people would be lost. Lost, I tell you!
More seriously, thanks to Kristjan (#12) for turning the focus to the unsupported nature of assertions about the benefits of religion.
Does religion really provide comfort, in sum? One piece of research I recall found that those with strongly theistic beliefs AND strongly atheist "beliefs" fared better with terminal illness than did those with weaker beliefs. In the least, it is a complicated issue. One that not religion, but science, will help us better understand and devise an effective plan to resolve, if necessary.
Posted by: cag
|
January 27, 2011 12:57 PM
If there were no religion, humans would find different ways to cope. If you don't have a nail, use a screw. Atheists of the world also experience tragedies. The
religioussuperstitious look in their toolbox and find a convenient lie while the atheist finds a tool that works for them. Sometimes the tool does not work.Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmVT1LBhwmO9ej9LNg7a5e9d-AVJ8ezfmE
|
January 27, 2011 1:00 PM
Didn't Mark Twain adequately illustrate this problem in "The Mysterious Stranger" when the stranger drives the unhappy man mad so that he's happy, thinking he's Napoleon Bonaparte? Our immediate reaction is revulsion, that the man lost his mind - we value the idea that our actions and understanding of the things that happen to us are more or less grounded in reality. Pointing to religions as a means of consolation is asking to be driven slightly mad as a coping strategy for reality.
Posted by: cowalker
|
January 27, 2011 1:00 PM
I think the selected quotes summarize Mr. Asma’s argument accurately. From the last sentence I quote, I think he agrees with most on this site that religion is a flawed and makeshift solution for handling the conflicts between the emotional and rational aspects of our nature.
In the course of his argument he compares religion to two things, but I think the first comparison (religion as manager of the emotions) is closer to his meaning than the second comparison (religion as food for the emotions). To me, comparing religion to a food for the emotions obscures the truth that religion is a cognitive product that developed in response to human emotions. In turn, humans have emotional responses to religion, for good or ill, as they do to all experiences. Certainly we don't need religion to have emotions. It merely serves as one cognitive construct for managing them. Of course "manage" just means getting what you want from your emotional life. Most religious beliefs can be used to foster anger, revenge fantasies and mindless rejection of new ideas and experiences.
I like his description of the human brain very much: “the logical neocortex is built on top of a subcortical emotional mountain. Science and rationality are not best suited to navigate some of those crags and chasms of feeling . . . .” For me, this pinpoints the precise location of the “God of the gaps.” As we learn more about our own brains, those crags and chasms will keep shrinking, and so will the God filling.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/O.jullMj0I2VvJaxMMVeNKSfOPf73voLSxJAe9PdlOWwi8Y-#258ec
|
January 27, 2011 1:03 PM
KG said "Heroin is actually a fairly benign drug, and most of the dangers are a result of it being illegal, and hence expensive and often contaminated with poisons and/or of unknown purity. If you have a reliable, affordable supply, the worst part of it medically is the need to either smoke or inject it; and many people live productive lives for many decades while being heroin addicts."
being "addicted " to something is not a healthy coping skill is it?
There are many "functional alcoholics" they are still alcoholics with all the physical and emotional negative effects but manage to get by without having to sleep in a cardboard box, that does not make it a "healthy Life style".
there seems to me be another similarity to addiction about religion and it is in the defense of religion. The reaction to any questioning of religion gets a response that sounds to me not that unlike the response to any questioning of an addict about their personal addiction. The same emotional response, the same denial, the same kind of aggressive assault irrationality.
Like the time I was working in my garden and some guy through a bear can in my yard and I asked him to not through his trash in my yard and he yelled angrily in response that he could drink if he wanted to.
Asma does have a point about emotions but I think he misses something that is rather important about religions. The emotional aspect of religion is only partly connected to the particular beliefs of the religion I think that the majority of the emotional support of religion comes from the community of the religious believers and by extension to "God". We are a social animal and thrive as groups. I have no doubt that a society without religion will develop other activities and mechanisms to supply our need for the same kind of emotional support that sense of community that is currently supplied by religion. Until then I see no reason to accept religion because it supplies that "emotional support". So does addiction but that does not make it a good idea it may be a symptom of unmet needs. There are other parallels to addiction in withdrawal and the self perpetuating and increasing need.
uncle frogy
Posted by: frog, Inc.
|
January 27, 2011 1:03 PM
naturalcynic: The fact that the religious groups most often shown to be long-lived were 7th Day Adventists and Mormons might give a clue as to why religious faith and longevity are correlated: it probably comes more from drug and dietary proscriptions than anything else.
They also have extremely strong social networks. It may not be necessary to have some kinda traditional damn-foolishness to build tight social networks that are essential to social cohesion and health -- but it sure does increase the probability of it.
The flip-side of it is that when it turns ugly, it can turn very very ugly due to that same social solidarity.
Posted by: happyboy
|
January 27, 2011 1:06 PM
I liked the whole thing, but I think this really nailed it: "If you want to get rid of religion, you can't ARGUE it out of existence with rationality. Instead, you have to "feed" the hungry emotions something new as a healthier replacement."
The minority, of which I am one, do not have this hunger. The vast majority, however, do. Which means that PZ, et al, can get as angry as they want as loud as they want for as long as they want, but it's not going to have the desired effect. Which doesn't strike me as an approach that's, well, rational.
Posted by: Celeste
|
January 27, 2011 1:08 PM
I don't see this as being an argument FOR religion, so much as an argument that we need something better to replace religion. The fact that Asma doesn't yet know what that thing would be, doesn't invalidate his argument.
He also never claims that ALL aspects of religion are comforting and emotionally sustaining, but specifically mentions those little lies religion provides that help people deal with tragedy. I see a lot of straw men in the arguments above.
Posted by: nejishiki
|
January 27, 2011 1:10 PM
Yes, Asma, we already knew religion was the opiate of the masses, "the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions."
We ask that people not vote under the influence of it.
We wonder if something better might not be found for its users, given that there are people who don't use it and are apparently still alive.
We doubt whether there is anything essentially unique about its ability to comfort. It is a strange claim you make, that religion affects the 'old, emotional brain,' in a way that is currently indispensable.
We are wary of the other emotions religion leads to: the assured look on the face of the suicide bomber, for one.
We are wary that religion comforts people in the face of death primarily by cheapening life; the suicide bomber and the grieving mother are using the same mental trick by imagining that death is merely someone passing through a veil, essentially denying reality and deadening their senses like an opium user. The fact that the grieving mother does so with good justification is recognized. However, we can't overlook the negative side effects of such beliefs.
Imagine religion as a literal drug. It has been shown to relieve pain a little bit, but has all these nasty side effects. How would we proceed?
Would we continue using it, or would we call for its replacement? Suppose there were other alternatives that didn't have these negative side effects, but perhaps killed the pain less robustly. Might not we offer these instead?
The idea that someone can't cope with pain or grief without religion is an old story - so is the one where the same kinds of events, e.g. the loss of a loved one, prompted the sufferer to begin questioning religion. You're familiar with the argument from evil, of course.
Given that the first task of every institution in society is to justify its own existence, it is rather disappointing that you would take what is essentially propaganda for organized religion at face value. Apart from the question of whether religion is true, there is the question whether the purported benefits of religion are real. To answer this question we would need to go beyond anectdotes. This would mean using the new brain, over the objections of the old.
Posted by: Andrew
|
January 27, 2011 1:12 PM
On the subject of the benefits of religion, this post is directly relevant: How Religion, and Gardening, Improve Health
Posted by: truthspeaker
|
January 27, 2011 1:13 PM
Evidence?
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmVT1LBhwmO9ej9LNg7a5e9d-AVJ8ezfmE
|
January 27, 2011 1:13 PM
Hypothesizing that religion may have some benefit, now can we talk about cost-benefit analysis? It seems to me that there's a lot of "overhead" in religion...
Posted by: SpaceGhoti
|
January 27, 2011 1:14 PM
KG, you're right that the War on Drugs is bullshit, but the reason drugs are being compared to religion is that they're both external attempts to manage the way we feel. People who depend on them for their emotional security aren't addressing the reason they're emotionally insecure, they're masking it. The problems are still there, but they're operating on the assumption that if they can't feel it then the problem is gone!
There are plenty of secular, non-religious and non-medicated ways to come to grips with emotional trauma. Most of the time when drugs are prescribed for therapy, they're meant either to address a long-term chemical imbalance or as a temporary measure so the flood of emotion isn't quite so intense so we can engage our higher brain functions.
Religious addiction, like drug addiction, can be managed and some people do. But it often has extremely adverse side effects.
Posted by: Dude... Real Men Watch Ponies!
|
January 27, 2011 1:15 PM
Except when it gets ugly, it's generally bad to the people in the "out" group. So not really a lot of selective pressure to NOT have a religion.
Say what you will about Catholics church, they're very good at maintaining a group of follower large enough that they'll do literally ANYTHING they say.
It's like an army, except a lot more obedient.
Posted by: Garnetstar
|
January 27, 2011 1:18 PM
Asma describes the effect of religion on the emotions very well.
However, I must agree with those who have pointed out that religion also comes with very many negative emotional effects, including a dangerous retreat from reality.
What would Asma say could replace religion in the way that it soothes? What other mechanism could he think of would so address emotional needs? Or perhaps he just can't imagine something else, especially in those who are so poor and needy?
Others have stated above that people, therapy, their memories of those they have lost, their scientific and atheistic views, etc., performed this function for them. Any other methods that anyone could suggest? I rather think that those stated are sufficient, but just wonder if there's anything else.
To those who have recounted their tragic losses in this thread, I offer my deep sympathies.
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine
|
January 27, 2011 1:20 PM
The problem with Asma's opiate dealing to the masses is that if I depend upon a lie for my emotional well being, I may insist that others share my belief in that lie. I may band together with those who share belief in similar lies and try to impose by force of law--if not violence--on the society. I may come to absurd conclusions based on my belief in a lie, e.g.
1)that a 4-cell zygote has the same rights or more than a woman
2)That whether someone lives or dies should depend on them loving the right kind of person.
3)that my lie trumps science (e.g. evolution or climate change)
4)that my lie gives me rights over this land or these people
5)and on and on.
Asma may contend that it need not be so, and yet the fact that it always seems to be so makes me wonder how he can rationally contend that. He may contend that Buddhism does not lead to such factionalism. The Tamils of Sri Lanka would likely not agree.
Mohammad said, "My people shall not agree upon an error." Perhaps so, but only if they never agree on their religion.
Posted by: Legion
|
January 27, 2011 1:21 PM
Andrew:
As noted above, heroin can provide "comfort." One could also make the argument that while religious belief may provide comfort during difficult times, those same beliefs fuel emotions of fear, guilt, and hate at other times in an individual's life.
A better question then is, does religion provide a net positive benefit to a person's life? I don't know of any studies that address this specific question. I do know that there are studies which claim to show that theists are happier than non-theists, but I would take those results with a grain of salt. Why?
In some versions of the xtian cult, for instance, adherents are taught that to acknowledge ones unhappiness is tantamount to doubting god's ability to make you happy. Xtians are thus instructed to lie about their true state of happiness if it does not match the xtian ideal.
In the xtian cult in which I was held captive as a child, it was standard practice to reply to any query about ones well being with something akin to "I'm happy in Jesus' name."
You could have been a diabetic being wheeled into the O.R. to have your last withered limb amputated, and you were still expected to give the above reply -- and you were expected to say it like you meant it.
Posted by: Garnetstar
|
January 27, 2011 1:22 PM
And, how do the Swedish (89% atheists, I believe) cope with grief?
They seem to avoid being institutionalized en masse.
Posted by: happyboy
|
January 27, 2011 1:22 PM
truthspeaker, what specifically are you asking for evidence of?
Posted by: frog, Inc.
|
January 27, 2011 1:26 PM
An example of a social group believing in magical fairies -- and kicking asses precisely because of it: the Gaussian Copula as applied to mortgage tranches.
A completely inappropriate economic model which is inconsistent with known empirical facts, yet our entire financial class -- mainstream economists, financiers, hedge fudge managers and legislators -- were willing to believe in magical invisible unicorns all gussied up in sciency sounding maths.
What were the results? They've all made off like bandits, severely depleting the rest of us of our wealth. The truth-value of the proposition was irrelevant -- and the belief of the victims was irrelevant. The experts who made off with the money believed the lies -- and became incredibly wealthy due to believing fantasies.
So tell me again that it's better to have a real description of reality than a false fantasy one. The opiate of the experts works! It leads to concerted social action that is in their interest -- regardless of the empirical facts.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmVT1LBhwmO9ej9LNg7a5e9d-AVJ8ezfmE
|
January 27, 2011 1:27 PM
A recent study suggests that a good secular control for studies on the health benefits of religion might be members of a horticultural club — activity in a group that shares a passion for plants and gardening.
It's possible that members of a horticultural club are also wealthier and have more leisure time (in which to engage in health-enhancing activities) Correlation does not imply causality.
Posted by: JackC
|
January 27, 2011 1:30 PM
... unless his name is Joe Lieberman....
</cheapshot>
JC
Posted by: MudPuddles
|
January 27, 2011 1:30 PM
I might be wrong, but reading the comments here I get the impression that a lot of people just don't get the nub of Mr. Asma's main argument. I agree with PZ that he hasn't addressed some of the main issues PZ raised, but I don't see him promoting or advocating for the benefits of religion, and I think I agree with him on many things.
My father passed away last summer. My mum has been devastated ever since. The hardest things for her are the many aspects of life in which Dad played a central part for the 40 years of their marriage, and where she now misses him terribly - him welcoming her at the door when she comes home from shopping or some other outing, him being there when going to sleep at night and when waking in the morning, meals together, their daily routines and conversations etc. On top of that, my Dad ran all of the practicalities of life for both of them - like finances and home repairs.
But she is getting by, largely because she believes that my Dad is watching her now and guiding her through every day. That belief is, in my opinion, incorrect and irrational - she is coping because she has the strength within herself. But I also see that her religious beliefs have helped her to find that strength when she needed it most. And I'm perfectly happy with that. She is keeping herself stable and happy, getting on with life, harming neither herself nor anyone else. And I am 100% OK with that.
I do not see my Mum's own personal faith and its current emotional benefits to her as an excuse for religion. I detest all organised religion. Personally, I think it would be great if my Mum was an atheist and had a more rational humanist approach to life. But she is not and she does not. She's a widow in her 70s who lives alone and her beliefs keep her happy. Religion sucks, but my mother's own individual outlook on the world, which she promotes to nobody, gives her comfort. And, to be honest, knowing that she is quietly at peace in herself gives me, my siblings and others comfort too. That threatens nothing and no-one.
I think that's the message Asma is putting across. Some people gain vital emotional support from their beliefs, and if all else is equal then so what? Why the hell would that bother anyone else except the most irrational moron with too much time on their hands? I don't see Asma as excusing religion, simply recognising that the beliefs an individual has, even if they're a bit nutty or out-of-the-ball-park insane, can provide them with support. Better that they don't have those beliefs, but there it is. Its just a simple fact.
I think amphiox (#94) has it bang-on right in Clarke's message. But I won't be following the more extreme line of thinking (like joed #96), and I certainly don't believe anyone has the right to tell my Mum to fuck off.
Posted by: frisbeetarian
|
January 27, 2011 1:32 PM
Again, show us the statistics that show that atheists have a more difficult experience when dealing with tragedy, like higher suicide rates or greater depression. Oh, maybe their arguments can also be merely based on emotions, no truth needed.
Posted by: drbunsen
|
January 27, 2011 1:36 PM
Does this look familiar to anyone?
1. Only religion[s] provide a passionate, committed, socially engaged life.
2. This thing you're involved in [atheist activism, gardening, environmental activism] appears to makes you passionate, committed and socially engaged.
3. Therefore, your thing is a religion.
Posted by: truthspeaker
|
January 27, 2011 1:39 PM
The part I quoted - that the majority of people have an emotional hunger that a minority lack.
Posted by: yashwata.info
|
January 27, 2011 1:39 PM
Asma says, "My argument is that religion helps people, rightly or wrongly, manage their emotional lives."
But he simply does not know this. The rhetoric of religion prevents us from knowing what its real effects are. When you ask a religious person whether religion is helping them, they say Yes, because that's what their religion insists they say. They don't have a choice. I suspect that the help that faith gives people in managing their emotional lives has been greatly overstated. The helpfulness of religion is one of the many, many, many lies that religion tells about itself.
Posted by: frog, Inc.
|
January 27, 2011 1:39 PM
#122: Correlation does not imply causality.
Well, do you want to throw out all of sociology and most of psychology? Epidemiology as well? Huge, huge chunks of molecular biology?
These trite responses are tiresome. Yes -- one can not deduce causality from correlation. It doesn't mean that one can't increase one's estimation of the probability of causation due to the number of correlations.
We do it all the time. As a matter of fact, almost all of science is inductive -- and induction is strictly speaking a logical fallacy in that tradition. We also use in engineering and scienc abduction all the time -- which is strictly speaking a logical fallacy as well.
Please -- stop with the random throwing out of cliched phrases as if they were deep truths.
This is a message from your friendly neighborhood fallacy-Nazi.
Posted by: raven
|
January 27, 2011 1:46 PM
I'm glad your mother's religion didn't lead her to hijack a jet plane and fly it into a skyscraper with 3,000 people.
The people in NYC weren't so lucky, someone else already did that.
Or use faith healing to treat you from what could have been and sometimes does end up as a fatal illness.
Maybe she can convert to Shiite Islam and help them blow up Sunnis in Iraq.
Mud missed our point completely. A huge amount of religion and faith is anything but benign. Before we took away their heavy weapons and ropes, being an atheist, apostate, or heretic was a death sentence. Faith historically has been a killer of tens of millions.
Another homicidal idiot. Mud just killed a poor, defenseless strawperson. Won't someone think of the strawpeople?
No one gives a rat's ass what your mother (or you as an idiot) believes. Free country and all that. We do care a lot when it gets forced on us with disastrous consequences.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
January 27, 2011 1:53 PM
Just to add to my prior statement above, the opposite is also true. Sometimes knowing the truth and being unhappy is better than believing a lie and being happy.
The trick is figuring out when.
And again, you can avoid it all by trying instead to be happy by knowing the truth.
Posted by: frog, Inc.
|
January 27, 2011 1:56 PM
@raven: Another homicidal idiot. Mud just killed a poor, defenseless strawperson. Won't someone think of the strawpeople?
No one gives a rat's ass what your mother (or you as an idiot) believes. Free country and all that. We do care a lot when it gets forced on us with disastrous consequences.
Except you too are killing a straw-man here -- Asma and ilk are not arguing for a theocracy, but that "feeling accepting" about moderate religious believers because "you empathize with their feelings" somehow will lead to a better accommodation or compromise.
This is a tone argument -- which makes everyones' arguments basically strawmen, because no one in fact has any good evidence about what "works better".
There's no way to do a good study to determine whether "feeling alright with moderate religious people because it makes them feel better works better" or whether "feeling disgusted with moderate religious people works better to motivate resistance".
It's all BS hot-air blowing. Both work for some, sometimes under some unspecified conditions. This is all pure rhetorical bullshit that can never be pinned down.
It makes the arguments entertaining -- precisely because they are pure literary form.
Posted by: happyboy
|
January 27, 2011 1:58 PM
truthseeker: "The part I quoted - that the majority of people have an emotional hunger that a minority lack."
I haven't seen a better explanation for why people still believe in God.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
January 27, 2011 2:00 PM
re Frog #129;
A lot of sociology and psychology (if not all of it) has actually been criticized precisely because of this.
But I think Frog is right here. The statement "correlation does not imply causation" IS wrong. Correlation does imply causation, and the more correlations one finds, the stronger the implication. Perhaps it is more accurate to use the opposite, "Lack of correlation demonstrates lack of causation." (Assuming the lack of correlation was properly and accurately determined).
It perhaps falls on how absolute one is taking the definition of "imply" to be.
Posted by: feralboy12
|
January 27, 2011 2:01 PM
Personally, I think Asma is too smart for his own stupid.
Science is about coming to understand things that were once mysteries, and passing that understanding down to the next generation.
Right, nothing you can get emotional about there.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmVT1LBhwmO9ej9LNg7a5e9d-AVJ8ezfmE
|
January 27, 2011 2:04 PM
one can not deduce causality from correlation
Deduce, imply. Different words. Did you cum hard?
Posted by: Garnetstar
|
January 27, 2011 2:05 PM
Well, I don't have a problem with Mud's mother trying to carry on, it's definitely not up to us to judge her. Maybe it's the only way she can think of. Or rather, not think of, but grasp and use. You do what you can, what you're up to doing.
If some people aren't able to renounce the emotional benefits of religion, and choose to accept the negatives, then they need to do that, is all.
Posted by: mikerattlesnake
|
January 27, 2011 2:06 PM
I think the bizarre thing about this response is that it doesn't adress the key point or why he wrote his article in the first place. I mean, does he think we're going up to individuals with recently dead relatives and berating them?
The new atheist voice needs to exist so that we can eventually remove the shackles of religion over a long period of time. The fallacies, contradictions, and just plain untrue things about religion need to be pointed out often and visibly so that each generation is less dependent on their fairy friend than the previous one. We don't harbor delusions that we will reach and convert every believer or that it would even be a good thing to do so. We just think the truth needs to be told in public as often as possible. Does he want us to admit that for some people an imediate conversion to atheism would not be a great thing?
Ok, done. Now find someone who argues otherwise.
Posted by: Legion
|
January 27, 2011 2:07 PM
MudPuddles:
Even though your mom and my mom have similar stories, I disagree that their beliefs threaten no one. My mom was a wonderful person, but she supported religious charlatans through her charitable donations and her personal time. She burdened me and my siblings with her beliefs, which substantially contributed to some of the ignorance-fueled difficulties we each faced in adulthood.
There are millions of well meaning people like our moms out there. But how much of their tithes, offerings, and moral support are used to discriminate against gays, keep young adults ignorant about sex, deny women the right to choose, and protect child rapists from prosecution?
Consider how much religious fundamentalism has infected the American military and the lethal association that that fundamentalism has had with the deaths of thousands of people in foreign countries... people who happen to have different beliefs.
If catholic moms stopped supporting the church... stopped sending their children to church, how likely is it that the catholic church would still be in the business of funding paedophelia?
As I said, my mom was a wonderful woman. She certainly wasn't evil, but the institution and philosophy she supported definitely was.
Posted by: frog, Inc.
|
January 27, 2011 2:12 PM
#136: Deduce, imply. Different words. Did you cum hard?
Yes, dear moron. That's the fucking point, correlation can, as a matter of fact, imply causation, but one can't deduce causation from correlation.
Now shut the fuck up while the grown-ups talk, cretin. You can now return to wikipedia to read your thoughts nicely put formatted for you by the lowest common denominator.
Posted by: mikerattlesnake
|
January 27, 2011 2:16 PM
@happy boy
Ah, another tone-trolling accomodationist with a low standard of evidence who is perfectly willing to insist that other people aren't being rational enough.
"Which means that PZ, et al, can get as angry as they want as loud as they want for as long as they want, but it's not going to have the desired effect. Which doesn't strike me as an approach that's, well, rational."
Same old bullshit.
Posted by: mikerattlesnake
|
January 27, 2011 2:20 PM
In conclusion: sucks to your Asmar!
Posted by: Sastra
|
January 27, 2011 2:22 PM
I don't remember where, but not long ago I read an essay on how people start with disagreements and go on to form and stigmatize Out Groups -- ultimately justifying even violence against them. How do you "Other" other people? How do you create an unbridgeable divide?
One way was this: to tell yourself and others that "these people cannot be reasoned with." There is no point. They cannot listen, they cannot understand, they will not be persuaded. Attempts at compromise or negotiation is hopeless. They're simply not capable of arriving at a conclusion through reason, changing their mind, or seeing the light.
Claiming that the best we can do with the majority of religious people is feed them something that will satisfy their emotional needs because they simply cannot be reasoned with this does not seem like the sort of approach that is really going to foster a sense of unity and respect for those who disagree.
On an individual basis, sure -- we can pick out people in our lives who have shut down their reasoning ability in some area and good-naturedly decide to forebear. But assigning a blanket label of "beyond reason" to a huge group of people? This not only seems false to me (people can and do reason their way out of superstition, pseudoscience, and religion). It seems pernicious.
Posted by: D
|
January 27, 2011 2:32 PM
No, no, this Asma guy makes perfect sense. See, with the mother's mourning her stabbed son, her religion was like a crutch to her. And Asma is perfectly right that you can't just kick out the crutch and expect her to keep on walking. That would be cruel and unhelpful. Asma's point is simply this: you can't go around kicking people's crutches out from underneath them.
Now, of course that's true in a trivial way. Kicking out crutches will cause harm and make you look like a bully. But what Asma - and, it seems, everybody else - forgets is that you can help people overcome their need for crutches in the first place. But that's a complicated process that must be done at the individual level, so of course he just ignores it completely.
Posted by: mikerattlesnake
|
January 27, 2011 2:40 PM
@144
He also has to ignore the fact that there are no crutch-kickers. It's another massive strawman argument from the "be nice to my grandma" crowd.
Posted by: McWaffle
|
January 27, 2011 2:41 PM
I'm pretty sure this argument has been around since Plato's "Myth of the Metals" at least.
Posted by: Joshua Fisher
|
January 27, 2011 2:42 PM
Asma shares with us an anecdote about a grieving mother finding solace in the lie that her brutally murdered son (emotional appeal?) is in a better place. He claims that the comfort this religious belief gives is evidence of the good that religion can do.
I have a bit of a different take on this scenario. Religion, in fact, has disabled this woman's ability to cope, emotionally, with facts. It has damaged her to the point that she now relies on the lie as a crutch to prop up her broken coping mechanisms.
The son claims that his mother could never have survived the episode intact without her faith. How does he know? How many times has his mother tried to deal with the death of her brutally murdered son without faith and failed? I seriously doubt that her son is qualified to comment on her psychological stability at any rate.
Asma says, "Yes, science can give us emotional feelings of wonder and the majesty of nature, but there are many forms of human suffering that are beyond the reach of any scientific alleviation. Different emotional stresses require different kinds of rescue."
Beyond the reach of scientific alleviation? I am not a psychiatrist or a psychologist, but I have to imagine that people who are experts in that field would would not appreciate having their field trivialized. I am certain that there is more to learn about the human emotional mind and how to heal it, but is Asma really suggesting that we are done? That we know everything and some emotional boo-boos are just beyond healing unless we lie to people? Sounds like a rigorous scientific mind to me.
The problem with this response is that Asma just asserts that religion provides something good without backing it up at all. Asma, if you are reading this, provide me with one thing religion can provide for people that a secular institution could not.
Posted by: lordsetar
|
January 27, 2011 2:42 PM
iknklast #46: Do also note that whenever we bring up our data for the evils of religion in the forms of specific, quantifiable cases, we get Hitler and Stalin thrown at us and told that atheists do it too -- or, where I come from, told that we can't blame the events on religiosity, which then starts off an attempt at pointing out the religiosity inherent in totalitarian regimes.
Providing no data of their own while complaining about all of the opposition's data...doesn't that sound like the old creationist standard?
Posted by: spaninquis
|
January 27, 2011 2:43 PM
@#144
But the only reason she had a crutch was because she was indoctrinated at an early age into believing she was lame, when she wasn't.
Posted by: Anubis Bloodsin the third
|
January 27, 2011 2:47 PM
#124
Neither is he describing nor mentioning the very real downside of religion.
Which any way you cut it is a vicious beast with no real moral conscience.
There is NO fucking defense for religion.
Not the pink and fluffy and not the traditional.
Whether it is liked or not by the agnostics, the appeasers, the apologists, the uncle tom cobbly's and all, it is still a tool of oppression and crowd control because that was worked out by ruthless fuckers many years ago that the best regulation of a society was peer pressure,the crowd is its own jailer, the mere fact the folk
'felt better' was neither here nor there, indeed the opposite is well exemplified today by the RC crows encouraging abject misery in folks lives because they are all dirty sinners.
Make 'em miserable then throw them the 'Prozac' of redemption by swearing allegiance to one tribe and one tribe only.
Religion enables the rape children and is complicit in the genocide of ethnic communities, it has done the latter all throughout its infamous history quite regular.
And probably the former as well, till they got busted for it that is!
And both major xian delusions are as bad as each other trying to out do one and other in the holier then thou stakes!
Pretending it is all forgotten about or acceptable because it makes folks, 'feel better' is a meme encouraged by the religious as a defense or cover for their other nefarious activities which certainly do not make folk feel better.
If the nonsense was so benign it would be practiced at home and in private...but it needs to be seen to be working its dark magiks, otherwise it has no power.
That is why so many church cults exist, to display the magik, it is smoke and mirrors and fucking hysterical brain dead jeebus sunbeams being led by fucking hysterical manipulating brain dead purveyors of the inanity,that is its power, mass semi-hypnosis and outright lies to set the us against the them.
Tis a tribal totem, nothing more, and as global and as ancient as Neanderthal.
About time that was made clear to everyone that wants to wrap the delusion in cotton wool including Asma.
Posted by: CalliopeJane
|
January 27, 2011 2:49 PM
The big problem with Asma's response is that he's arguing the wrong point. Contrary to his straw-new-atheist that he's made up to refute, no one denies that religion has emotional impact for people. In that respect, he's arguing at length against a position no one has taken. The point of contention is the "and so we should....?" that follows from that. He seems to think it necessarily follows that we should tolerate religions for the beneficial emotions they produce (ignoring all the negative ones, as several commenters have pointed out). That's an unwarranted leap (even if all benefits were positive). I agree we need to understand the psycho-emotional functions that religion serves. I'm a psychologist, so I think about that a lot, in fact. But I follow that thought with: "...so we can find other ways, more constructive and rational ways, to meet those psychological needs, thus enabling more people to abandon superstitious religion."
Posted by: Kevin
|
January 27, 2011 2:53 PM
@147...free crackers and wine...well, I guess the crackers are kinda flavorless. And you only get one. And you only get a sip of wine (if that). And you risk getting hepatitis from drinking out of a common chalice. And you're expected to give money for the upkeep of the church. And you're expected to vote against logic, reason, scientific evidence and your own economic self-interests. And to feel perpetually bad about yourself as a sinner who is worthy only of destruction.
But I'm still going with free crackers and wine. Yes, that's my answer and I'm sticking to it.
Posted by: raven
|
January 27, 2011 2:59 PM
Hitler was a Catholic and a creationist. His necessary millions of willing followers were Catholics and Lutherans.
Stalin was probably an atheist. But the excesses of his Russia weren't done in the name of No Gods. It was in service to a mickey mouse failed economic ideology and totalitarianism.
Posted by: Sastra
|
January 27, 2011 3:01 PM
From the anecdote department:
I once had a friend from a very religious background who had lost her faith at Bible college and become an atheist -- much to the chagrin of the rest of her family. Among other things, they warned her that she would "need it one day."
Her grandmother was then brutally tortured and murdered by some teenage intruders.
Turned out that she (and a non-religious brother) were the ones who coped best. They made the funeral arrangements, dealt with the police, and handled their grief. The rest of the family, on the other hand, could not get over their shock and disbelief.
How and why did God let this happen to an elderly woman of great faith, who had lived her life in a virtual flood of praise and worship? Their God was a personal God, intimately involved in daily existence. Grandma had surely prayed for her life. What had gone wrong? God had a reason behind this. What was it? What were they supposed to learn? What was Grandma supposed to learn? Was it punishment? For what? Why was this necessary? Their faith that God loved and took special care of those who loved Him had failed to stand up to reality -- and now dealing with this sense of betrayal was the hardest thing of all. They collapsed.
"Everything happens for a reason" and "God never gives you more than you can handle" has a dark side.
Posted by: spencertroxell
|
January 27, 2011 3:03 PM
I didn't read the original article Asma wrote, or P.Z.'s response to it, but I like what Asma said here, and I agree with him about it (although I like the way Patton Oswalt put the same argument in his 'sky cake' bit).
Posted by: ivr
|
January 27, 2011 3:03 PM
Didn't Lennon say "whatever gets you through the night"? I don't believe he was advocating for religion, nor do i believe Asma is above.
I completely agree with Celeste's comment at #109 - Asma isn't arguing for religion to be THE place to feel emotionally comforted, but recognizing that religion does that for a lot of people. And in order for us to move past that fact, we need something positive to replace religion's role in the healing process. Just stating that religion comforts people is not saying that it is okay to do so - it is merely an observation to take into account when trying to move our society forward without religion and superstitious beliefs.
For all the people who are equating recognizing this fact with then saying that those people who rely on religion aren't capable of coping without lies - that's a strawman to change the subject. Yes, everyone's absolutely capable of dealing with tragedy without false hope and lies, and so now what can we do to provide those capable people with the emotional comfort that they currently rely on religion for? Because atheism and science haven't done it for them yet, and further shoving it down their throats isn't likely to change their minds.
Focusing on all the ills of religion is changing the subject - the subject is what do we replace religion with to help people cope without the lies?
Posted by: raven
|
January 27, 2011 3:06 PM
Religion is far more than a comfort for people with dead relatives, friends, and pets. If that was all it was, we wouldn't care and be having this discussion.
What comfort anyway? If you picked the wrong gods or the wrong passage out of the bible, your dearly departed are being tortured in hell forever by the Cosmic Monsters.
Dennett: Religion is the best vehicle ever invented for social conflict.
Once again, do the good benefits of religions outweigh the negative? It is certainly possible to have peaceful, healthy societies without it. And the worst hellholes in the world are the most religious.
Posted by: truthspeaker
|
January 27, 2011 3:10 PM
Family, friends, and a recognition that life is hard and sometimes each of us will be very sad or frightened.
I believe this already answered toward the beginning of the thread.
Posted by: raven
|
January 27, 2011 3:12 PM
Have that family read the book of Job.
Maybe god has been making bets with satan, his employee again. Is there a Gambling Anonymous for deities?
Posted by: mikerattlesnake
|
January 27, 2011 3:21 PM
@156
But this argument doesn't hold water. You seem to think that absent religion, people would not find their own way to cope with things. Atheists deal with tragedy, death, and chaos just fine. Our goal should not be for science to replace those warm fuzzies, but to remove the untrue beliefs and let the person find a real comfort in their own way. Science and atheism should not become a religion in order replace religion. They are simple philosophies that need not be cluttered with ritual and nonsense.
The biggest fallacy here (and an extremely insulting and disrespectful one at that) is that religious people are inherently unable to cope with the world (unlike us smarty pants atheists). It's the indoctrination with lies about their inadequacy that makes them feel incapable; let's not reenforce that irrational belief.
Posted by: happyboy
|
January 27, 2011 3:28 PM
mikerattlesnake: "Ah, another tone-trolling accomodationist with a low standard of evidence who is perfectly willing to insist that other people aren't being rational enough."
lol
Your tone reminds me of the Calvinists I used to argue with.
Have some chamomile, mike....
Posted by: ivr
|
January 27, 2011 3:30 PM
"Family, friends, and a recognition that life is hard and sometimes each of us will be very sad or frightened."
Not everyone has a strong support system to rely on in such times. An older person who doesn't have a lot of family for whatever reason and has had friends that have died off, is left without those loved ones to help them - and modern society has forgotten about them, while they're staring death in the face.
And it would be great if a "recognition that life is hard" would sustain everyone during their own personal crises, but it clearly doesn't. That doesn't mean those people are morons, but that they require something different to cope or simply don't have the same resources.
Posted by: P. Coyle
|
January 27, 2011 3:33 PM
So many Christians believe that God is watching out for "good Christians" and won't let truly bad happen to them, despite the absolutely overwhelming evidence to the contrary. For this, I can find only one obvious explanation -- brain damage.
Posted by: mikerattlesnake
|
January 27, 2011 3:35 PM
@161
That was a fine substitute for a response.
Posted by: happyboy
|
January 27, 2011 3:37 PM
There wasn't anything to respond to, except your sneering attitude.
Posted by: Sastra
|
January 27, 2011 3:39 PM
Irv #156 wrote:
"We" are not the elite rulers of the world, in charge of replacing religion with suitable lesser myths for the simple folk as we guide them benevolently along.
I think that the mechanisms for "coping without the lies" are already in the lives of the religious. When people lose faith they eventually find out that the things that really mattered to them and made them believe in God in the first place are pretty much left intact. Our own experiences show that we stop thinking of it emotionally as "losing faith" and recognize that it was really only "changing one's mind" on an empirical matter. Sometimes it's hard; sometimes it's easy; seldom is it regretted. We would not go back.
There are exceptions, but I think that in general religious people can be pretty emotionally tough, and surprisingly intellectually shrewd. Bottom line, I think of them as normal. Each individual can and will figure out on their own how to deal with reality: that's really the only way that ultimately works.
Posted by: What a maroon
|
January 27, 2011 3:42 PM
No, not Jeezus.
Posted by: jradxit
|
January 27, 2011 3:43 PM
As others have similarly said, if religion hadn't poisoned people's minds in childhood, they would have developed mature functional coping mechanisms for loss that didn't involve religious delusions. However, for those affected by the delusion, I fear Asma is right in that religion will be incredibly difficult to eradicate without figuring out how to replace the emotional crutch religious thinking creates and becomes. Unfortunately, the only effective measures appear to be a motivated person performing difficult self examination and honest logical thought. How to encourage people who have their very identity wrapped up in the BS is lost to me.
Posted by: tylerdurden1200
|
January 27, 2011 3:43 PM
Religious people are no happier than nonreligious people. On the contrary, a great many of them are miserable cunts waiting around for their miserable lives to end so they can attain happiness.
So much for that argument.
Posted by: mikerattlesnake
|
January 27, 2011 3:44 PM
@165
Are you serious? You haven't made a post longer than one sentence on this whole thread. Your position or one like it has been torn apart repeatedly and thoroughly on this blog. So please, elaborate on your stupid views for us. Make your ignorance obvious. I have, though not in response to you, written quite a bit on the topic at hand and made my views clear. Ctrl-F for my name and read my posts if you think all I have brought is attitude. Then do the same to your username. Then look up "projection" (the psychological variety, not the theatrical one).
"lol" indeed.
Posted by: Jacob
|
January 27, 2011 3:45 PM
Honestly the essay is just a big false dichotomy and affirming the consequent. Saying the mother would have gone crazy, institutionally crazy, if she didn't have heaven to look to is not evidence supporting religion. Same goes for 'religion creates community'.
There are plenty of communities out there that people loving being in. What makes someone love being in those versus others? It's a difficult question, but I am pretty sure the answer isn't 'there are certain people that will only be satisfied by being in a religious community.' And there is a difference between what exists now and what we should encourage to exist in the future. Yes, there are people that mentally depend on religion now. Does that mean they would spiral into dismay without religion? No, they would probably latch onto some other support network.
Without committing a slippery slope fallacy... would one consider the 'supportive community' of a cult beneficial? Most likely not. There are measurable harms and levels of ignorance that stack up against religion. Religious communities aren't helping the people of society.
Posted by: happyboy
|
January 27, 2011 3:46 PM
Also, mike, as far as I can tell, the meaning of "tone troll" is someone who "pleads for more civility in language and more respect for other points of view." I was doing neither. I was agreeing with the author of this response to PZ that argument itself isn't going to be effective, given that with religion, we're dealing with the emotional rather than the rational.
It has nothing to do with being polite, or even with showing someone respect. It's that, because it's emotional, rational argument isn't going to touch it. Even less so the sort of anger that PZ committed to in his original post. That just makes people defensive and causes them to hunker down in their emotional safe harbors.
Be angry all you want; it doesn't matter to me one way or the other. I get angry and rant about religion all the time (just bring up, say, the Catholic Church). All I'm saying, which is what I think Asma is saying, is that it's not going to work if your goal is getting rid of religion--ie, wrong tool for the job.
Posted by: truthspeaker
|
January 27, 2011 3:47 PM
Where PZ and I live, various species of ticks live in the woods and fields. After a Minnesotan returns from a walk in the woods, she checks her ankles to see if any ticks latched on, and then pulls them off (by the head, with tweezers). She does not refrain from pulling it off because she can't think of anything to replace the blood-sucking parasite with.
So it is with religion. The point of gnu atheism is that religious beliefs are factually untrue. We don't offer possible replacements; we offer the knowledge that people don't need something to replace it with. If there are people who lack the tools to cope with the hardships of life, it's because religious indoctrination robbed them of those tools.
Posted by: Erulóra (formerly KOPD)
|
January 27, 2011 3:47 PM
Some things shouldn't be replaced. Just excised.Posted by: mikerattlesnake
|
January 27, 2011 3:52 PM
@172
Thank goodness you let me know how little you care. It makes you look so aloof and above the argument. Almost makes up for your misinformed, poorly aimed jabs upthread. You can go back to not getting it, wherever it is you usually spend your time not getting it now.
Posted by: frog, Inc.
|
January 27, 2011 3:53 PM
@happyboy: It has nothing to do with being polite, or even with showing someone respect. It's that, because it's emotional, rational argument isn't going to touch it. Even less so the sort of anger that PZ committed to in his original post. That just makes people defensive and causes them to hunker down in their emotional safe harbors.
But, being irrational and emotional, being polite won't work either -- any attack will fail, short of an over-all transformation of their aesthetic.
Christians aren't stupid to define their goal as the "born-again" experience. If you're talking about changing the premises of your world-view -- nothing short of a born-again experience will change you. If you can be "argued" out of being a Christian -- or bullied, or sweet-talked or ... --- you really weren't much of a Christian anyhow.
All of this is pointless -- except as a way for atheists to feel better about their position. To not feel isolated, to vent, to work out their thoughts in a community. The entire concept of an argument between atheists and Christians is silly. One is converted, one is born again, to change basic orientations in life.
Who gives a shit if PZ makes "Christians defensive"? The most you'd get otherwise is PZ failing to interest Christians at all by being pablum -- and therefore failing to interest his intended audience, which is GNU atheists.
Posted by: happyboy
|
January 27, 2011 3:53 PM
"Then look up "projection" (the psychological variety, not the theatrical one)."
Um, yeah. See ya round, mike.
Posted by: mikerattlesnake
|
January 27, 2011 3:58 PM
Where is it, exactly, that people get the impression that we are out to convert every living christian to atheism? I don't give a shit if a single adult christian deconverts, I care that the next generation grows up in a world where they hear necessary truths about religion alongside the stupid things their parents tell them. I have yet to see any evidence that PZ's approach is a bad way to get a questioning person's attention.
And yet the argument persists, because it must for them to see themselves as the "superior atheists".
Posted by: mikerattlesnake
|
January 27, 2011 4:02 PM
@177
I really hope you stick the flounce and spend some more time reading instead of commenting. Then you might actually be able to understand an argument before you ineptly try to rebut it.
Posted by: frog, Inc.
|
January 27, 2011 4:04 PM
@mike: Where is it, exactly, that people get the impression that we are out to convert every living christian to atheism?
'Cause even many atheists still have a lot of assumptions coming out of their Christian backgrounds. Of course, we're out to "convert them" -- if we were Christians we would!
It's like the gay agenda idea -- that since Christians think that they should "convert" gays, they find it hard to believe that teh gayz aren't out to "convert" them.
Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives
|
January 27, 2011 4:07 PM
Back to that story - if the mom had been raised in a secular fashion in the first place, she could well have had enough emotional and rational mental resources to make it through the death of her son. Being dependent on religion because you were raised to be dependent on religion isn't a reason to keep religion around and keep raising new people to be dependent on religion. Also, it doesn't speak well to the woman's attachment to her spouse and other son if losing one would cause her to retreat entirely from reality rather than taking strength from the relationships she still had.
Posted by: truthspeaker
|
January 27, 2011 4:08 PM
I'd love to see adults convert from Christianity (and Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, animism, and all the others) to atheism. But I can't make them do it. I can only help convince a few, if any. It's something they will only do when they feel they're ready - when they resolve the emotional issues Asma is talking about. I can't resolve those issues for them, and it would be condescending of me to try. All I can do is point out how ridiculous their beliefs are and show them by example that humans are perfectly capable of meeting those emotional needs without religious beliefs.
Posted by: Randomfactor
|
January 27, 2011 4:11 PM
"God never gives you more than you can handle"
Metaphorically speaking, sure he does. It's called "death."
Posted by: ivr
|
January 27, 2011 4:13 PM
mikerattlesnake
"The biggest fallacy here (and an extremely insulting and disrespectful one at that) is that religious people are inherently unable to cope with the world (unlike us smarty pants atheists)."
Some religious people are, some aren't. Some non-religious people can inherently cope, some cannot. Some people don't have support systems to help them when really needing someone or something to hold onto when everything's overwhelming. What we can provide as a society to help those that cannot cope and don't have strong familial support?
Sastra
"We" are not the elite rulers of the world, in charge of replacing religion with suitable lesser myths for the simple folk as we guide them benevolently along."
I am absolutely not saying we need more myths for the simple folk. I'm without a doubt not above anyone and nowhere near 'elite'. I'm just lucky to have a great family a friend support system. A lot of lonely people turn to religion for the community and support it provides in absence of friends and family - what will replace that? Maybe the answer is nothing, maybe you are correct. I just think it's a topic worth discussion.
To me simply waving your hand and saying 'religion needs to go' doesn't solve everything. I wish it did....it certainly is true. But there's more to consider, obviously.
Posted by: happyboy
|
January 27, 2011 4:14 PM
truthseeker: "The point of gnu atheism is that religious beliefs are factually untrue. We don't offer possible replacements; we offer the knowledge that people don't need something to replace it with. If there are people who lack the tools to cope with the hardships of life, it's because religious indoctrination robbed them of those tools."
I don't disagree with that at all, ts. It's just that it seems to me that all you've done is diagnose the disease. The question here is how best to cure the patient, isn't it? Believe me, I am glad to have voices like PZ's in the public square. When it comes to things like creationists sneaking ID into schools and what not, I want guys like him to be as angry and as loud as possible. Squeaky wheel gets the grease and all that.
But when it comes to individuals, isn't it a different story? Check what frog says:
"Christians aren't stupid to define their goal as the "born-again" experience. If you're talking about changing the premises of your world-view -- nothing short of a born-again experience will change you. If you can be "argued" out of being a Christian -- or bullied, or sweet-talked or ... --- you really weren't much of a Christian anyhow."
Which is Asma's point, isn't it? It's all on an emotional level, unassailable by reason.
"All of this is pointless..."
That's all I was trying to say. The point of my posting in this thread in the first place is that, given the emotional nature of the thing, how is it more effectively addressed (I mean on the level of person to person)? Do we just yell at each other until we get tired, ignore it and hope it goes away, what? Since you can't argue with fear (the emotion I believe religion stems from), how do you interact with it?
Posted by: frog, Inc.
|
January 27, 2011 4:15 PM
#171: Honestly the essay is just a big false dichotomy and affirming the consequent.
You mean, using abduction like is done in science and engineering all the time? Man, this is crazy-making. Doesn't everyone know that deductive logic is tautological? That you can't do science with pure deductive logic?
Once again -- I beg y'all -- stop with just throwing out philosophy class 101 jargon. State how and why a specific statement can be invalidated in context instead of throwing out cliched statements.
Yes -- it is perfectly arguable that "P -> Q" && "Q" makes "P" more probable (depending on the distribution of P, Q and the overlap).
Posted by: alysonmiers
|
January 27, 2011 4:16 PM
In addition to everyone else's criticisms of the "murdered boy's mother" anecdote, I would like to add that we're getting a third-conditional emotional statement by third-hand account. We hear from Asma, who hears from her son, of this woman who "would have been" institutionalized if she had not been religious.
But we're not hearing from the bereaved mother herself. If we could find her, and ask her to tell us in her own words, who knows what other coping mechanisms she might tell us about? When taken away from Asma's filter and her surviving son's filter, who knows how different the mother's account would be?
All that said, I don't disagree with everything Asma has to say here. It's a considerably less boring piece of accommodatheism than most we see lamenting the shortcomings of the nasty Gnu Atheists. I just don't think his good points are quite the Totally New Information to us as he thinks they are.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
January 27, 2011 4:17 PM
Then where the hell is my LI™ going when she tells me she has a shift at the psychiatric hospital?
Posted by: Tulse
|
January 27, 2011 4:18 PM
D&D?
No, seriously, I know a lot of people whose primary social support group are the gamers they role play with, and who they met through RPGs. And there are similarly people whose primary social support are the people they knit with, or play Ultimate with, or volunteer with. There are plenty of purely secular groups that offer community. They aren't "atheist" groups, they are simply groups that are organized around non-religious activities and interests.
Posted by: frog, Inc.
|
January 27, 2011 4:22 PM
@happyboy: "All of this is pointless..."
That's all I was trying to say. The point of my posting in this thread in the first place is that, given the emotional nature of the thing, how is it more effectively addressed (I mean on the level of person to person)? Do we just yell at each other until we get tired, ignore it and hope it goes away, what? Since you can't argue with fear (the emotion I believe religion stems from), how do you interact with it?
No! No! No! Why the hell not yell at each other!
There is no "effective addressing" of the issue. If you want to rant and rave -- do it. If you want to politely discuss -- do that.
If it makes no difference, then it's purely a question of personal preference. Of style.
Folks don't change their minds because you avoided arguing with them. They change their minds because they enter a social context, a community, where there's a probability of their minds changing. That's why Christians care about getting your ass in the seat before trying to get their hooks in your head.
They know that if they control your ass, your mind will follow. Of course, it's all probabilistic. Anything can happen in a person's mind.
So why bother to do anything other than what fits with your style?
Posted by: thephilosophicalprimate
|
January 27, 2011 4:23 PM
If Professor Asma's essay in The Chronicle was as clearly articulated as this response to criticisms aimed at that essay, he would have been subjected to much less (and less vehement) criticism. I still think he deserves some criticism for painting a caricature/straw man of gnu atheists, and that his emphasis on emotions is wildly lop-sided (more below), but much of the criticism of Asma's Chronicle essay -- such as this brilliant take-down by Eric McDonald -- would have been a lot less harsh if he had made his points as clearly as they are made above.
That said, I think the biggest problem with Asma's view hasn't been addressed directly by any of the criticisms I've read -- not PZ's, not Jerry Coyne's, not Eric McDonald's. The problem is that Asma's discussion of the role of emotion is entirely one-sided, narrowly conceived and argued in defense of religion without acknowledging the obvious down side. And by "down side," I am not only referring to the way faith undermines reason -- although I certainly consider that important. Rather, I am talking about emotions and their role in human life, just as Asma is.
I will grant Asma's claim that "religion, like art, has direct access to our emotional lives in ways that science does not," but I question his unilateral emphasis on the broadly-speaking "positive" emotions that contribute to human thriving -- and his apparently willful neglect of the negative, harmful, decidedly anti-thriving aspects of religiously-mediated emotions. Religion may provide comfort and a sense of belonging, but it can also inspire fears and hatreds: Religion does not just unite people, it can also divide them. Religion does not just provide people with comfort, it often encourages (and capitalizes on) fear and loathing. If Asma can trot out his student's grieving mother as an anecdote to generate sympathy for his take on religion and its role in managing human emotional life, why does he not also discuss how many religious traditions and institutions instill fear and self-loathing in homosexuals? Why doesn't he address or acknowledge the way religions can and do encourage hatred, as evident in the recent religiously-inspired murder of Ugandan gay rights activist David Kato?
The fact that religion is driven by and rooted in the emotions rather than our rational faculties is hardly an unalloyed good, and shame on Asma for attempting to portray it as such.
Posted by: happyboy
|
January 27, 2011 4:28 PM
frog: "There is no "effective addressing" of the issue."
A friend of mine recommends lithium in the water supply, but I don't know how practical that is....
Posted by: mcsnebber
|
January 27, 2011 4:31 PM
--If you want to get rid of religion, you can't ARGUE it out of existence with rationality. Instead, you have to "feed" the hungry emotions something new as a healthier replacement---
This is the part that makes the most sense, and I have recently thought about this alot. The cathedrals were built in the center of town for a reason....life centered around the religion and its beliefs---the synagogue, mosque, etc. Religion and church served many functions, and I think "feeding the hungry emotions" is only one of them--and these are the supposed "good parts of religion" that society relies on religious instituions to provide...off the top of my head...
1--Provided a "moral framework" of right and wrong...I know it is all tied up with the dogma, but there are basic normative ethics that can be discussed in groups--I know this is complicated...
2--community support---caring for the community--to be there for the widows, the homeless, the sick--the bereaved, the environment
3--a pause to meditate and reflect as an individual in the human community on the the above, and one's responsibilty to be part of this, a segment sometimes being reading and discussion of some words of wisdom written by a human
probably many others, i am just thinking out loud
I remember on my journey to atheism gravitating to unitarian universalist because i thought they did the above..but still too much of an institution--
Can these needs be met the way a church does it for "good moderates" who basically want to do the right thing in life and be a part of a community?should we try as nontheists? or would this inevitably lead to forming groups that exclude "others"??? What would such an undertaking involve?? what would be the structure? Where can the good folks go--to be humanist, to be "good without god" ??Should we attempt anything like this? a community center PLUS....even now, for like minded nontheist, is this something anyone wants or feels the need for?
Sorry, too many question marks, but just looking for comments and ideas.. maybe i am just naive
Posted by: tylerdurden1200
|
January 27, 2011 4:33 PM
"... what do we replace religion with to help people cope without the lies?"
Sesame Street?
Posted by: mikerattlesnake
|
January 27, 2011 4:39 PM
@185
So your only point was that a strategy that you (and asma) made up and that bears no resemblance at all to the goals of this blog or its commentators cannot possibly be attained through the methods employed by this blog or its commentators?
Point won, sir.
Posted by: frog, Inc.
|
January 27, 2011 4:40 PM
mcsnebber: Should we attempt anything like this? a community center PLUS....even now, for like minded nontheist, is this something anyone wants or feels the need for?
Isn't that what is called in secular nations a "government"? Where folks get together, decide what you're allowed and not allowed to do, fund pensions for widows, care for orphans and build infrastructure like a gym and a meditation room for the town? Folks who don't like it, well -- they've got to leave?
Maybe there lies our error in the US. Instead of tying religion and state, and then trying to kill the religion, we did it backwards. That might not work, because it moves many of the functions of the state into the hands of the church. In the US, it's somehow fascist or communist or something for the state (town, neighborhood, etc) to do what is the natural function of a community.
The very idea of the functions of a church become tied up with "religion" rather than with "community" -- and the community is banned from functioning as a community in the name of "freedom of religion".
Posted by: truthspeaker
|
January 27, 2011 4:43 PM
As with many medical ailments, nobody can cure the patient but the patient herself. We can show the patient how, but we can't do it for her.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
January 27, 2011 4:58 PM
Clean needles and heroin?
Seriously, how about healthy support structures for the minor shit, so that people aren't overwhelmed by major events for which there aren't any magic coping bullets anyway, religious or not?
Look at it this way: what's one of the best things you can give a newly-grieving parent or widow/er? A card with some bullshit about God needing another angel? No; it's meatloaf in Ziplocs, so that the last thing they have to worry about while looking at caskets and picking flowers is what to eat for dinner. You wanna make grief easier on people? Fund affordable and accessible daycare. Make sure there are safety nets in place so that a family death doesn't coincide with a catastrophic loss of income. Pay for universal healthcare, so people don't die of stupid shit to begin with. Fund education.
Work towards a just world, and you'll have no need for the lies that justify injustice.
Posted by: WTFoxtrot
|
January 27, 2011 5:03 PM
What most of the commenter’s and even Asma seem not to realize is that the majority of people who espouse a religious belief, or even attend church on a regular basis, are not that religious in practice. Religion simply provides a framework for their social and cultural lives. It appears to me that this is more of a social phenomena and the religion is incidental for most people. In fact most people make efforts to reduce their interactions down from the larger impersonal social context we live in order to have meaningful friendships, make life manageable and to secure a spot in a socially supportive group. This is normal human behavior, and normal can certainly include irrational and even harmful elements at times but it is no less normal than a number of skeptical groups I've been involved in where the social aspect is clearly the primary goal. Personally religious beliefs were something I had to discard when I directed some rational scrutiny in their direction; and I expect that most people who claim a religion never bother to do this or they would have made the same decision I did to scrap my beliefs. And please don’t think I’m saying we should appreciate religion, just understand how normal the whole thing is and how effective rational thinking and reasonable discussion can be in confronting the dangers and harms that come from religion.
Posted by: truthspeaker
|
January 27, 2011 5:06 PM
Well said, Brownian.
Furthermore, as already noted, there are plenty of secular support structures, it's just that none of them are one-size-fits-all. There are Star Trek fandom groups, knitting clubs, bowling leagues, bird-watching groups, garden clubs, etc. etc. etc. And unlike religions, none of them require their members to hold particular beliefs, nor do any of them claim to be the universal solution for everybody.
When my grandmother was dying of congestive heart failure and losing her cognitive faculties, the preacher who visited the assisted living facility didn't offer her any comfort. The nightly bridge games* offered a little.
*Which she frequently won, despite the diminished cognitive faculties.
Posted by: frog, Inc.
|
January 27, 2011 5:08 PM
@Brownian: You wanna make grief easier on people? Fund affordable and accessible daycare. Make sure there are safety nets in place so that a family death doesn't coincide with a catastrophic loss of income. Pay for universal healthcare, so people don't die of stupid shit to begin with. Fund education.
You totalitarian monster. Don't Libertarians teach us that all of that is the role of churches or church-like entities that will naturally evolve into churches? Don't you love freedom -- so that your death panel is whether you can suck up enough to your local church by pretending to believe in their BS so that they hook you up with a doctor, instead of trying to convince some government bureaucrat following democratically determined regulations, who doesn't care whether you believe?
Fascist commie collectivist.
Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook
|
January 27, 2011 5:14 PM
Seems to me that the need that humans have for community is very great. We are social animals; there are very, very few of us who can cope with long term solitude. Solitary confinement, ostracism, these are torture for most of us. And so we will put up with all sorts of toxic shit from a community, as long as we have one. Hence the power of the church in religious societies.
I wonder if the anti-government and individualistic streak in the culture of the USA pushes these community-loving aspects of human nature into the church? Americans are just as human as the rest of us, and need community, but they've got all this individualistic rhetoric in the public sphere demonising caring for each other as liberal, socialist, weak, unmanly etc.
Here's some stories about Australians responding to the flood. These are people who are motivated to help others, and they just get out there and do it. They don't need for a church to provide a cover for their urge to help their community.
Some level of government organisation is important - the local organising busloads of volunteers, the state running emergency services, the feds providing money. We take it for granted that this is what government is supposed to do. There's virtually nobody yelling about teh EVUL SOSHALIZM and the importance of individual self-reliance, or blaming people for their own misfortune. You are allowed to see yourself as a member of a larger community without having to be religious.
Posted by: frog, Inc.
|
January 27, 2011 5:15 PM
WTFoxTrot: Religion simply provides a framework for their social and cultural lives. It appears to me that this is more of a social phenomena and the religion is incidental for most people.
It still requires following a creed -- particularly in Christianity and Islam. The creed is a result of the desire to be in the club -- sure -- but it's still there.
And please don’t think I’m saying we should appreciate religion, just understand how normal the whole thing is and how effective rational thinking and reasonable discussion can be in confronting the dangers and harms that come from religion.
That's just incorrect. Given that belief is primarily a result of wanting to belong to a club -- rational argument will only work when you don't really care about being in the club, where your world-view isn't dependent on being in the club.
If you're at that state, then you'll naturally turn your reason against religion, as you did. Otherwise, all the reason in the world won't help.
I don't care whether my momma was a cannibal -- you say one nasty word about her and I'll cut your throat. It's really that simple and that complicated.
Posted by: otrame
|
January 27, 2011 5:26 PM
Sastra's story of the family who lost their grandmother to murder reminded me of a friend who stopped by my desk late in the afternoon of 9/11, after it was pretty clear what had happened. We had talked about religion before and she knew I was an atheist. She asked me "who do you pray to when something like this happens?"
When I told her no one, that I felt no need for prayer she said she just didn't know how she could have dealt without someone to pray to and implied rather gently that she felt sorry for me.
I told her "At least I don't have to try to come up with an explanation for why God would let something like this happen"
I'll never forget the look on her face. I felt a little like I had kicked a puppy, but I am sure she managed to paper over that crack in her wall. I think part of the relief of atheism described by those who come to it as adults is no longer having to waste so much emotional and intellectual energy on filling in those cracks as reality tries to get through.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
January 27, 2011 5:27 PM
Clearly, you haven't been reading my posts. Humans are far too dangerous to be left unsupervised.
Posted by: frog, Inc.
|
January 27, 2011 5:30 PM
Cath: I wonder if the anti-government and individualistic streak in the culture of the USA pushes these community-loving aspects of human nature into the church? Americans are just as human as the rest of us, and need community, but they've got all this individualistic rhetoric in the public sphere demonising caring for each other as liberal, socialist, weak, unmanly etc.
Those are two different things. Americans are not particularly "individualistic" or "non-conformist" -- that's just our national mythology. Someone at a middle-class tech company, for example, is no different in terms of being bland organization creatures than anywhere else in the world.
Here we call it being a "team-player". It's very highly valued in American culture -- subordinating your individuality to the group needs.
However, we are particularly "anti-government". The exact same constraints from our town are totalitarian, while from our church is perfectly acceptable. Somehow, since you're nominally free to leave the church, your free-er from them than the town.
That ignores the costs of leaving the church -- when all your social welfare, business contacts and support network, leaving the church means risking your business while giving up your safety net while losing your baby-sitter and your friends.
Doesn't sound any "free-er" to me than selling the house and moving to the next town, especially given that in most towns, I get a vote, but in many churches I get no vote.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
January 27, 2011 5:42 PM
This was it for me. I went from moderate, liberal Catholic, to Buddhist-inspired pantheist New Agist before it occurred to me that I was doing a lot of mental gymnastics to redefine god in such a way that s/he wouldn't be falsified by reality. Now that I'm an atheist, I'm free to bring all of those neurons to bear on something much more important to me—using my facility with language to get away with making jokes about sex and drugs in inappropriate situations such as the workplace.
Posted by: dephlogisticated
|
January 27, 2011 5:43 PM
PZ, thanks for posting his entire response.
Dr. Asma, this is by far your best commentary. I now understand your positioning, and I find it to be a legitimate argument.
You aren't expounding on the positives dogma, but rather on how religion can affect emotional behavior for people that, quite frankly, don't know any better.
It is an interesting idea to help understand where some religious people are coming from.
I think you could have used better colloquial analogies in your earlier commentaries.
Posted by: Sastra
|
January 27, 2011 5:44 PM
frog, Inc #203 wrote:
Yes ... and no. I agree -- people's motivations and values can be very complicated. And while there are some stunning exceptions, of course, most people -- even religious people -- really do place a lot of weight on their views being reasonable. Their faith is usually claimed to be a reasonable faith, one built on facts and evidence. Tell them that it's wishful thinking based on a fear of death, a desire for comfort, a need to belong, and an unconcern for what's really true and they're insulted. No. They believe it because they think it's true. That part is important to them.
"Follow the truth wherever it goes, even if it makes you uncomfortable or has difficult consequences" is one of they maxims they live by. Or think they live by. Or want to live by.
There's a contradiction between that standard and the religion they think reinforces it. And where there is conflict, there is an opportunity to change. Once you internally recognize it, something has to give. Religious people may driven by a lot of emotional needs, but one of those emotional needs is the desire to be honest with themselves. And they are not stupid.
You can't argue someone out of believing something by telling them it conflicts with your values. You have to point out that they're in conflict with their own values. And sometimes they continue the argument in their heads -- and you're out of it. It's not ego vs. ego, winner vs. loser.
It can happen. And I think it is more likely to happen the more outspoken atheists are -- and maybe even the more aggressive atheists are. It creates a climate where the issue of whether God exists or not, whether religion is true or not, matters -- it's a live option, a genuine debate. And the side which is supposed to have nothing to offer, which is supposed to be bankrupt and unthinkable and sad and guilt-stricken -- is instead quite passionate.
I do not know, but I suspect that the very thing that apparently most annoys the religious about gnu atheism -- it's passionate concern with truth and unwillingness to simply frame it all as coming down to a matter of taste -- is also one of its most attractive aspects. It's why they're particularly annoyed. Maybe.
Posted by: doug.black
|
January 27, 2011 5:47 PM
RandomFactor @#62,
I found this touching. Sorry, can't type. I think I have something in my eye.
Posted by: WTFoxtrot
|
January 27, 2011 5:49 PM
@ Cath the Canberra Cook wrote,"That's just incorrect. Given that belief is primarily a result of wanting to belong to a club -- rational argument will only work when you don't really care about being in the club, where your world-view isn't dependent on being in the club."
One club most of us belong to is the club of vehicle drivers and we made an implicit promise to follow the rules of the road. And we all had our fingers crossed when we made this promise because we speed and violate any number of other driving club rules on a regular basis. No different for church goers. They violate the club rules all the time and they seem to understand everyone else does as well and hardly anyone cares. Many church goers don’t believe in the divinity of Jesus or any number of other creeds that are purported to be necessary. Your notion seems to imply the religious are so blinded by their social context and irrational you cannot even have a discussion with them. That seems quite an irrational and absurd notion to me.
Posted by: Dave Ricks
|
January 27, 2011 5:51 PM
Um, no. The Westboro Baptists stew in hate because their religion prevents them from managing their emotional lives. They’re not aware of their emotions as their emotions (something they could control) -- instead they believe their hateful demonstrations express the will of a god (something they cannot control).
On the brighter side, Asma's puzzling oversight of this evidence suggests another strategy -- we should teach people psychology, so people can learn to see their emotions as their emotions -- then they may learn to manage their emotions, attributed properly as their emotions.
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
January 27, 2011 5:52 PM
I so hate these terms that were coined by the ignorance of somebody who AFAIK worked on humans alone.
The limbic system extends all the way to amphioxus. That's right: all chordates (except, I suppose, adult sea squirts), not just mammals, have a limbic system.
It's also important to note that the limbic system is spread out over different places in the brain, like university buildings over Vienna. Often the "three major operating systems" are depicted as layers; that's a lie.
Cannot be said often enough!
Thread won. :-D
...
That's probably the most horrible thing I've read all week.
Magdeburg. Castle, not mountain.
It is immoral to complain about Wikipedia. Edit it instead.
Posted by: frog, Inc.
|
January 27, 2011 5:52 PM
Sastra: And while there are some stunning exceptions, of course, most people -- even religious people -- really do place a lot of weight on their views being reasonable. Their faith is usually claimed to be a reasonable faith, one built on facts and evidence.
I think that's true for some religions -- religions that are basically neo-platonist cults like Christianity, Islam and to a much lesser extent Judaism. You're much less likely to offend a Jew by claiming that they believe in Judaism because they like the comfort of being Jewish. Protestants who tried to shift Christianity towards it's neo-Platonic roots are also more easily offended than Catholics about whether their belief is "rational". There's probably a lot of tribal religions where folks would say "Of course, I believe because I'm an X."
It can happen. And I think it is more likely to happen the more outspoken atheists are -- and maybe even the more aggressive atheists are. It creates a climate where the issue of whether God exists or not, whether religion is true or not, matters -- it's a live option, a genuine debate. And the side which is supposed to have nothing to offer, which is supposed to be bankrupt and unthinkable and sad and guilt-stricken -- is instead quite passionate.
Being outspoken means people can know we exist. If they know we exist, they're less likely to fear being alone if the stop believing -- of being abandoned and set adrift.
How often is the underlying theme "Without God, I would be alone"? What they really mean is "Without my church, I would be alone".
Posted by: lykex
|
January 27, 2011 5:55 PM
I'm perfectly fine with that. After all, it also implies that religion is a bad method for dealing with emotional distress. As such, it's simply yet another reason for getting rid of it. If this is the case, then Asma is simply arguing for a different approach to fighting religion.
I would personally suggest that we be more up front and explicit in our atheism, then. Show people, through personal examples, that religion is not required; that true beauty doesn't come from lies, but from understanding; that comfort comes from real live friends, not imaginary ones.
I see this as an argument for stepping up the fight against religion, not for tolerating it.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
January 27, 2011 6:01 PM
Brownian, OM #198
One of the reasons why religion is so prevalent in the US is the insecurity of many Americans. Fear of unemployment, fear of bankruptcy due to medical bills, fear caused by an almost non-existent social net. If those fears could be dealt with in a rational manner, then religion wouldn't be as great a crutch for dealing with those fears.
Asma's student's mother may need to turn to religion for coping with her son's death because she can't afford the services of mental health professionals. Certainly large number of Americans can't afford that help.
Posted by: KillJoy
|
January 27, 2011 6:03 PM
A number of years ago my younger brother was killed by a drunk driver in a horrible accident. On my parent's wedding anniversary no less. It was a terrible, heart wrenching thing for all of us.
This all occurred smack dab in the middle of me losing my religiosity. I had been 'done' with christianity for some time. Was just getting out of my wiccan 'phase' and was into 'none of this makes any fucking sense'. And to be fair to Stephen Asma, he is correct. My nascent atheism offered scant comfort. The realization that my brother was gone gone goen, beyond anyone's reach. Ever. Was painful.
And when my mother, or my sisters would try and tell me he was in heaven now..Oh he's gone to a better place...and won't it be good to see him again when we go to heaven, praise jesus? And all that stuff it just felt like a blank and terrible lie. No matter how soothing it would have been to indulge myself in those fantasies, I just couldnt bring myself to do it.
Do you know what DID help me though? The support and love of my burgeoning group of atheist and agnostic friends. It was from them that I got hugs, and words of support. And someone there to REALLY listen when I was crying and having nightmares. From my therapist. From my lover. No platitudes, no fantasies. Just love and support.
I suppose, in short, what I have been trying to say with this is that while religion and superstition may indeed have some positive effects on people in crisis, it is not the ONLY place we human beings can derive that support, sense of community, sense of purpose. We unbelievers just have to look a little harder for it.
KJ
Posted by: frog, Inc.
|
January 27, 2011 6:04 PM
DM: It is immoral to complain about Wikipedia. Edit it instead.
Yeah -- you are active over there, aren't you?
But you're right -- I checked the "affirming the consequent page", and it's pretty bad. Looks like it was written by college freshmen who got a bit sexually excited by the idea of throwing out "Fallacy!" after taking intro to philosophy.
(But I was more complaining about the speaker -- the Wiki thing was just a cheap shot).
Posted by: azumahazuki
|
January 27, 2011 6:07 PM
@203:
I've been following your posts closely since misjudging you on the other thread and am very impressed. Out of curiosity, have you ever dealt with a presuppositionalist like Bahnsen or Frame?
I ask because it seems like all evidential apologetics falls before science and a few old philosophical canards like the Epicurean question. Presuppositional apologetics, though, is so bizarre and its approach so novel that I don't think I've ever seen a decisive victory against it.
A thread like this touches on apologetics, because we're at the point where the only real answer to "Why should anyone even bother with religion?" now is "Because your atheistic worldview can't account for the exact logic you use."
So, since I suck at logic and you apparently don't, what would you say to that?
Posted by: frog, Inc.
|
January 27, 2011 6:09 PM
Tis Himself: If those fears could be dealt with in a rational manner, then religion wouldn't be as great a crutch for dealing with those fears.
But they are being dealt with in a rational manner. Join a club with the resources you need, and accept any nonsense they ask you to believe.
It's not just an issue of dealing with the fear -- but dealing with the cause of those fears. Why do you think so many fundamentalist Christians are "Libertarians"? They surely don't believe in Liberty, do they?
Posted by: mcsnebber
|
January 27, 2011 6:11 PM
@142-I felt bad for Piggy when we read LOTF; I had an inhaler and used to hide it when I was young; poor Piggy.
Posted by: DaveL
|
January 27, 2011 6:15 PM
I hear this kind of thing all the time from theists, yet I know of not a single atheist who has killed himself or been institutionalized due to some personal tragedy.
That's because the above is not an objective fact like it's made out to be, but rather an article of religious faith. It's just yet another example of the psychological defense mechanisms built in to just about every successful religion. As I've pointed out before, this particular one is disturbingly reminiscent of the kind of tactics domestic abusers use on their victims. "You need me." "You can't survive without me." It manifestly isn't true, and one falsehood cannot serve to support another.
Posted by: MarkL
|
January 27, 2011 6:18 PM
I"m sure someone said this already,but where is his evidence??? Does religion actually help with grieving? Show me the beef!
Posted by: quantheory
|
January 27, 2011 6:21 PM
He didn't address any of my concerns with the article, which were that a) it presented a skewed view of atheism, b) it presented a skewed view of animism, and c) it fails to make the case that religion is not merely one way to obtain comfort, but in fact good enough to make up for the pain and fear it inflicts upon followers, and good enough to be left alone.
I also don't buy into his subdivision of the brain. You can't subdivide the brain neatly into parts concerned with emotion and parts concerned with conscious rationality the way he seems to want to. It's not even a central part of his argument; he could have delivered the same message without going into the "limbic" vs. "neocortical" brain or a dubious account of how the limbic system was relatively unchanged during human evolutionary history. It's this false appeal to neuroscience that undermines his credibility without shoring up his argument. Much like calling animism the religion of "most of the world" doesn't shore up his argument so much as demonstrate that he's willing to give an exaggerated account of something in order to give false weight to his words.
Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook
|
January 27, 2011 6:23 PM
WTFoxtrot, that wasn't me, that was FrogInc.
Frog Inc, as I said, I'm speculating. My hypothesis is that the church leeches off the human need for community, and that there are factors pushing people towards church in America that are much weaker in other first world countries.
But when you say Americans are not particularly "individualistic" or "non-conformist" -- that's just our national mythology., aren't you downrating the importance of a national mythology? Our says that you stand by your mates and everyone deserves a fair go. We frequently don't live up to it, but it's something of an ideal that certainly influences how we behave. Or on the nastier side, what about that climate of poisonous rhetoric surrounding the Gifford shooting? Does it, or does it not have an impact? Is this just meaningless noise with no effect on anybody?
I would add that I don't see "being a team player" in quite the same way as being part of a community. A player is aiming to win a game, not to make the rest of the team happy. It's an instrumental thing.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
January 27, 2011 6:33 PM
I required therapy and anti-depressives after a personal, emotional tragedy, but thinking back now that's in part due to a Catholic father who dealt with issues with alcohol and arson.
I was going to use myself as an example of an atheist with less-than-stellar coping mechanisms, but as it turns out...
Posted by: Erik The Viking
|
January 27, 2011 6:42 PM
Wow, Asma is like some kind of mutant cross between Timothy Leary and Robert Anton Wilson but without the humour or the LSD. Next he'll be gibbering on about semantic time-binding circuits and quantum psychology before pulling the Cosmic Trigger.
I'm all for Discordianism and drugs, but please try to hang on to a small sliver of reality before descending into the Church of the Subgenius and drowning in puddles of your own bodily fluids while wanking over William S. Burroughs.
I mean this in the nicest possible way lest I be beset by guerilla ontology in the near future.
Posted by: wockrassa
|
January 27, 2011 6:47 PM
azumahazuki @6:
I believe that's about the best, briefest summation of religion that I've ever encountered, and I fully intend to steal it and use it for myself.
Posted by: Timaahy
|
January 27, 2011 6:55 PM
I haven't had time to read all the comments, so apologies if others have raised this already, but...
I'm not sure what his point is. So... religion makes some people feel good, even though it's not true. What would he have us do? Leave the religious to their delusions?
I think it was Harris who drew an analogy with someone with a mental illness. It may make John very happy to believe that Nicole Kidman is madly in love with him... but the rest of us know he is wrong, and he would be better off if he knew the truth.
He seems to be forgetting two things. Firstly, it's the height of condescension to say "Leave the idiots alone, they're happy". And secondly, the beliefs may be benign at an individual level, but they are certainly not benign at a community or national level.
Posted by: Timaahy
|
January 27, 2011 7:08 PM
Oh, and also... it works the other way, too.
Sure, it provides consolation to some people... but others live a life of misery, believing they will burn in hell for all eternity for some non-existent 'sin'.
Posted by: bariumking
|
January 27, 2011 7:13 PM
I do see the value of religion as a comfort blanket - don't believe a word of it myself and i believe it makes you weaker than me to force yourself to believe this bollocks – I mean, Mormons? Jehovah’s witnesses?? SCIENTOLOGISTS???? to cover yourselves in a comfort blanket made of such obvious bullshit, it’s intellectually shameful.
But regarding comparing religion with heroin??? – fer christ’s sake, talk about major false equivalence. How can you compare a junkie in a bin to a christ loving old maid cycling to evensong on an summer's eve? Get a grip, sirs. Asma is in some weird sense right, even though he is wrong.
Posted by: ivr
|
January 27, 2011 7:16 PM
Brownian
I support those goals and try to vote accordingly. I just don't believe they would completely address the emotional need that a religious-type person without friend and family support systems might crave after a great loss, or while confronting one's mortality.
Again as an example, an elderly person who doesn't have a lot of family or friends left, might find comfort in the fact that they will see those lost friends in another place. Recognizing that fact doesn't mean automatic support for religion. It's just trying to understand what helps people get by on that emotional level, and what can otherwise be done to address it. How can we can satisfy that raw-nerve, emotional uncertainty without resorting to the grandiose promise that heaven provides? If the attitude is - "who cares, every person for themselves", then religion will continue to appeal to those who seek the false hope that helps them sleep at night.
Posted by: forrest.pugh
|
January 27, 2011 7:22 PM
#178
If you want to ensure that the next generation at least has the opportunity to compare the beliefs of their parents to evidence based truth and factually backed reason, you are going to HAVE to accept the "Accomodationist Tone-Trolling" that you're arguing against.
There most certainly IS a double standard in that while certain things, like the efficacy of chemotherapy vs. prayer in the treatment of cancer are not up for any real debate when you bring in the evidence, you still don't win even when you are right.
I DO NOT mean that we have to roll-over and let the believers have a bone, especially when it comes to matters of religion being promoted by government agency.
I certainly don't mean that you don't take the time to rebut someone who tells kids (their own or those of others) that Thetans, or sky-fairies, or any other imaginary force is responsible for certain phenomena; I mean that you don't go in calling Thetans, Sky-Fairies, or The Force stupid as a matter of fact statement.
It is not necessary to attack ideas or beliefs in order to present fact in the pursuit of truth. Unfortunately that is quite often what the "New" Atheists are guilty of... if you plug "Atheist" into a Youtube search you are likely to find that a good half of the results are video clips of younger atheists making jokes about believers.
Posted by: ivr
|
January 27, 2011 7:28 PM
Does this mean you cannot fathom that an atheist might have committed suicide due to personal tragedy? I know of one who killed his wife and himself and left two beautiful kids behind. It wasn't because of his atheism that he committed this heinous act, but his non-belief didn't keep him from doing it either. It was an act of insanity and religious and non-religious people are susceptible to suicide and crimes of passion/insanity all the same.
Posted by: MudPuddles
|
January 27, 2011 8:00 PM
Legion (#139): I get your point, but you miss mine. My mother obtaining comfort in her current situation through her belief system, in the twilight of her own life, is what harms neither herself nor anyone else. It is not someone's religious beliefs - the things that someone affirms inside their own head - that cause damage. Its only irrational or dangerous actions resulting from those beliefs that cause the harm - and that includes proselytising, encouraging homophobia or whatever. We don't need thought police, just education and actions based on humanism.
Undoubtedly the practices carried out in the name of "god's will" can and do harm billions. In my own profession, I work hard trying to reverse the massive social, ecological and cultural damage which missionaries and their message have been beating down on indigenous and local communities in the developing world for centuries, and its heartbreaking.
Let my mother get comfort from believing my Dad's spirit is guiding her, from sucking marshmallows, train spotting, or dancing the funky chicken - whatever gets her through the day, it does no one any harm. And though your mother may have burdened you, mine did not. I am her bisexual atheist son, and she's perfectly alright with that. My overall point was simply that religion gives some people comfort. Others go with bourbon. It's just a fact.
Posted by: MudPuddles
|
January 27, 2011 8:15 PM
( A sad fact, at that, - just like the fact that George W Bush was once President of the US - but nonetheless its true)
Posted by: mikeyB
|
January 27, 2011 8:56 PM
The emotion that has driven most religion is fear – sheer naked terror. The Bible says “the fear of the lord is the beginning of wisdom.” There are stories in the Bible about the earth opening up and swallowing whole challengers to Moses authority, or bears coming down from a hill and mauling children to death for calling the prophet Elijah “baldy.” Even Jesus warns not to fear the devil but God who can throw you into hell. You find the same things in other religions like Islam or even native religions where terror of the gods was one of the essential rites to introduce people into the ways of the tribe. Johnathan Edwards “Sinners in the hands of an Angry God,” aptly expresses the proper way people were exposed to religion in the past.
The problem of belief is mainly a modern problem. I frankly think people are naturally pragmatic about their beliefs, and don’t believe bizzare things unless they are repetitively reinforced via indoctrination. You need to get people to “believe in God” through all sorts of repetition in church services and small groups to whip people into a frenzy, because belief is not a natural part of human nature. In the past it was much easier, but it is not as easy to scare the living shit out of people any more, which is why the problem of belief has cropped up. In the past people didn’t “believe in God,” they were simply terrorized by God so belief was just a natural consequence.
Posted by: drbunsen
|
January 27, 2011 8:57 PM
Dave Ricks #212
QFT.
I was lucky enough to learn some of these skills out of school at a secular (church-funded, ironically) youth group. They saved my life, no joke. So much so that when a scheduling conflict came up between the youth group and compulsory out of hours church attendance required by my Anglican high school, I blew it off for youth group. This led to a screaming match with my lapsed-Catholic mother and my running away from home.
Being able to recognise that feelings are not facts is a basic life skill that IMHO everyone needs.
Posted by: drbunsen
|
January 27, 2011 9:00 PM
NB, there were a metric crapton of other good reasons for leaving at the time; the screaming match was just the trigger point. I didn't stick the flounce, alas. I often wonder how things might have turned out if I had.
Posted by: SphericalBunny
|
January 27, 2011 9:08 PM
I feel the need to make an emotional appeal on the behalf of this atheist. I apologize in advance for the fact this post is likely to be both long and rambling. Also I’m repeating previously mentioned points, haven’t read the entire thread. In the interests of full disclosure, my clinical diagnosis is depression and anxiety.
Emotions are subjective. So, by definition, is any reporting of the same. I can only share my personal experience, and I confess it is the word of someone who is officially mentally ill. For me, the label I have means that the emotions I feel most keenly are negative; hate, pain, loss, detachment, isolation, whatevs. I have considered the attractions of organised religion; belonging, ‘unconditional’ love, a tribal group, forgiveness, love, put your own feel-good shit trite in here as appropriate. I don’t buy it; there is no evidence, and even before I considered logical arguments for non-belief, the idea of very obviously placatory horseshit never had any emotional appeal to me. It does not make me feel good to believe in the (however pretty) patently untrue. I understand the idea of ‘make me feel loved, wanted and special, and I will love you for it’, and it is appealing. Until you see it for the banal platitude it is. Atheism, unpopular though this view may be, has an immense emotional appeal to me. It is rare in this field that anyone gives me bullshit such as ‘you’ll see them again’, ‘it was ‘meant’ to be’, ‘there is a greater plan’ etc. I am allowed to exist in reality and, insomuch as when it is normal, my pain is both accepted and normalised. I have known several believers (as opposed to pseudo-believers who spout the dogma yet are blatantly unconvinced) in various faiths and ideologies; believing does in no way inoculate them from hurt. The difference as I see it is when the hurt occurs, they retreat, it’s not real, they are unable to cope and deal with the reality of the situation. I cannot cope either, but believe me, I deal. Does religion make people feel better? Undoubtedly for many. I consider this an inability to properly connect with either reality and/or emotions though. Having been there, I dread the inevitable time when something bad happens to one of my believer friends/relatives and they repeat the mantra of ‘it’s good, because it’s all God’s plan’ and I see that hollow desperate look in their eyes as they frantically try o convince themselves it’s true. I am allowed my pain, because I am aware that bad shit happens regardless of precautions. I also remain unconvinced, especially given my personal experience as alluded above, that being a theist has a positive emotional affect. I do not doubt though that it makes others feel better; no-one likes to be around miserable people and giving and receiving shallow platitudes convinces most that you’ve done your bit, and yeah, they’re fine. They have their faith, so now we can fuck off. Religion vis-a-vis emotions is a strategy; a coping mechanism; a conventional framework useful to express yet suppress human commonalities.
Apologies for the rantiness.
Posted by: DaveL
|
January 27, 2011 9:13 PM
No, it means I cannot fathom that a religious person who did not commit suicide due to a personal tragedy would have actually done so had they been an atheist.
Pretty much my point exactly.
Posted by: Riman Butterbur
|
January 27, 2011 10:09 PM
The ideologues have wasted a lot of time, in my opinion, focussing their strawman-bashing on Asma's unfortunate use of the words "emotion" and "feelings". From several comments that have been made about his previous articles, it would seem that he is rather inarticulate. I think his argument makes more sense if you read "intuition" where he says "emotion".
Because his argument is not just about false beliefs making the believer "feel good". It's about beliefs that direct behavior, that enable the believer and their group to "thrive". It seems to me he makes this clear enough with his talk of the behavior being adaptive under natural selection, both on the individual and the kin or group level.
Despite the unclear wording, several commenters, notably MudPuddles, frog, Inc., and happyboy, do seem to have got much the same message from it that I have.
Posted by: azumahazuki
|
January 27, 2011 10:26 PM
@242
I think sometimes you know you've hit on a good explanation (in this case, evolution and persistence of theism in the generic) when it makes you go "Wow, irony" and "Yes, that makes perfect sense" all at once.
Religious behavior is adaptive, evolutionarily-speaking. It is losing its adaptive advantage now. There is bound to be friction.
Posted by: happyboy
|
January 27, 2011 10:42 PM
truthspeaker: "As with many medical ailments, nobody can cure the patient but the patient herself. We can show the patient how, but we can't do it for her."
I agree with you. But what we're talking about is how to "show the patient how."
Posted by: dannystevens.myopenid.com
|
January 27, 2011 11:23 PM
It is probably necessary to show why it matters that we do not accept religious delusion despite it providing some emotional value to the deluded.
There are many sources of delusion, some produced by chemistry, more produced by mental structure and emotional turmoil. For the latter source there is one form of treatment that is never advised, endless humouring of the delusion.
The penalty of delusions is pain and suffering.
the person experiencing the delusion constantly bumps up against conflicts between their delusion and reality, and that can cause them distress, physical harm and death. If it stopped there with the individual then perhaps I could back off a little in one of my more self concerned moods, but it doesn't.
Humouring the deluded leads to a number of secondary effects.
Delusions are contagious. Others can catch the delusion, especially in an environment where it is being humoured rather than contradicted. That expands the sphere of suffering.
Those that do not humour a delusion can be seen by the deluded as enemies and a conflict ensues that can be unpleasant for everyone. If this occurs where there are more people with the same delusion it can get very nasty for those trying to deal with it.
Finally, in the case of religious delusion its masses of devoted obstruct attempts to better the lives of everyone whenever those attempts, even in passing, suggest that the delusion is an error. And so we see concerted efforts to thwart science, one of the great tools for helping us to live long, healthy and happy lives.
So don't do it. If someone has accepted an untrue belief because it helps them emotionally, understand that the harm of humouring them outweighs the harm they are protecting themselves against by orders of magnitude.
Posted by: Thickslab
|
January 27, 2011 11:53 PM
"For we"?
Posted by: Davebot
|
January 28, 2011 12:34 AM
I dub Asma's response the "Louis Tully Defence". It goes something like this:
"Your Honor, ladies and gentleman of the audience, I don't think it's fair to call my clients frauds. Sure, the blackout was a big problem for everybody. I was trapped in an elevator for two hours and I had to make the whole time. But I don't blame them. Because one time, I turned into a dog and they helped me. Thank you."
Posted by: Aquaria
|
January 28, 2011 4:27 AM
Good grief, this Asma is an Asshole. We don't need lessons on how to deal with religious people--we do it every fucking day of our fucking existence, at least in America!
I'm a fucking grown woman. I don't need this fuckface telling me how to deal with the world!
ARGH!!!! This whining sniveling simpering fuckfacery pisses me the fuck off!
This guy needs to be hid with a clue by four!
Posted by: bastion of sass
|
January 28, 2011 6:16 AM
This oft repeated refrain of how churches provide social and emotional support for their members just baffles me. I don't recall any such thing; in fact, my memories are to the contrary.
In my experience, church members can be every bit as judgemental and rejecting of the odd child as the rest of society.
The other kids in my Catholic Youth Organization as well as my Catholic church's parochial school mostly ignored and excluded me. The nuns mostly openly disdained me and clearly didn't think I had any talents or intellect worth encouraging or recognizing. As far as I could tell, the adults in my church who even knew I existed thought I wasn't going to amount to much. At best, maybe they pitied me because I was so odd. The priest didn't even know I existed AFAIK.
I don't remember anything supportive or emotionally comforting about my childhood church.
And I won't even go into how guilty, stressed, and depressed Catholicism made me feel.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmzpxAdW8c2AeuFyTukacwULwFLKrHHsRk
|
January 28, 2011 6:46 AM
" and I've told people that we need more appeal to those lower centers of the brain…but this idea that atheists are all a bunch of Spock-like uber-rationalists, or that we aspire to a coldly logical society, is simply an annoying stereotype that isn't true. "
I think PZ is wrong here.
First of all i recall a presentation with You(PZ) as speaker where it was You yourself who requested from the audience that (we) atheists should NOT behave like Spock, that the human side of Spock was the interesting one and not the logical one. So i presumed (and still do) that You are well aware of the problem that atheists often DO appear to be exactly the stereotype that You here state to be untrue. Especially if seen from the perspective of people that (as You and the other author seem to agree) use the rationality-module less often than we.
Then you stated: "And the whole point of what I wrote is that "it makes me feel good" is inadequate support for a complex set of beliefs about the world—"it's true" is also essential."
The judgment about whether something is inadequate or not ... who is allowed to make that?
I think Stephen has a good point for example with the story of the son that died. IF an illusion is all that can keep the mother sane, THEN that illusion is as adequate as anything could be in that situation REGARDLESS of whether it is true or not. Sometimes the truth is simply not acceptable for a person at a certain point in life.
The question is not if that is so, but rather how do we deal with this.
Posted by: John Morales
|
January 28, 2011 7:04 AM
Googlemess id=AItOawmzpxAdW8c2AeuFyTukacwULwFLKrHHsRk:
Who is to disallow you to make your own?
Posted by: Nij
|
January 28, 2011 7:29 AM
Utter fucking crap.
I'll believe someone that tells me religion helps deal with emotional stress once it doesn't fucking well cause a fuckload more stress either directly or indirectly. Seriously, shoot the camel to save the water it drinks; well who the fuck is going to carry all that water now, you short-sighted fuckwit?
Anybody who defends lying and fantasising on the basis of "it makes me feel good" is a fucking moron. Sure, believing that I don't need to pay my debts because some ghost will magically erase the data could make me feel a hell of a lot better.
Doesn't change the fact that this is fucking reality, not some idealistic fairyland where everything magically gets fixed by skyfairies, you stupid fucking idiot.
Yes, I am somewhat more tilted to the "angry" side today, why do you ask?
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmzpxAdW8c2AeuFyTukacwULwFLKrHHsRk
|
January 28, 2011 7:31 AM
"Who is to disallow you to make your own?"
Anybody can form an opinion if that is what you mean. But any opinion is as good as the next one if there is no good justification for it.
The case we speak about is a rather philosophical and not a logical.
I would like to see you provide me with a good justification to objectively evaluate the belief in an illusion which keeps your mental stability as inadequate in times of distress where no "true/false" assessment will help you.
PS: just for the record.. i do NOT believe in supernatural things.
Posted by: lykex
|
January 28, 2011 8:09 AM
#250
But that's a pretty big if and no one has offered any evidence to support the idea. A few more points:
1) If she's turned delusional, how can you claim that it keeps her sane?
2) If she hadn't been raised with religion, would she have required it in this situation?
3) Is this healthy in the long term? In this situation, she hasn't actually dealt with her grief, she has repressed it.
Perhaps it would have been better for her to be institutionalized for a period of time until she learned how to cope with reality in a non-delusional way.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmzpxAdW8c2AeuFyTukacwULwFLKrHHsRk
|
January 28, 2011 9:06 AM
@lykex: I agree with the "perhaps" statement ...
I also agree that the questions you raise are valid and should be asked for each and every case.
But i disagree that my statement contains a "big" if.
I come from a pretty religious background and i still have a lot of contact with people fundamentally depending on religion.
In many cases the "if" is actually pretty small and it doesn't even require life and death situations.
I think some people fail to see the issue as they have already forgotten or don't know the believers perspective.
Remember that these people are delusional to the point that many of them reject even obvious facts like the age of the universe (like YECs).
You can't simply tell them the truth and expect them to accept it.
The only solution I see is to take away the emotional stress that makes them stick to religious convictions. That perhaps is the core hint that you can derive from Stephens text.
Posted by: azumahazuki
|
January 28, 2011 9:49 AM
@253
Well, this has a lot to do with your personal morals and possibly your logical axioms, no?
If you believe that truth has to take a backseat to human comfort, as many religious seem to (such idolatry!) then there is nothing at all wrong with this. Unfortunately, it's the exact same postmodern crap that, e.g., the Pope himself rails on about as being one of the evils of secular society!
As far as I can tell, most atheist morals are based roughly on "It's a big scary universe; we're a bunch of small whacky primates in fancy clothes. Do what you want as long as you're not hurting others, and try not to hurt yourself" plus "Truth, insofar as we can know it, is paramount."
There's also the issue of individual versus group actions. I've notice that most people arguing against any sort of delusion bring up the deleterious effects of religion in groups, or at least between one of the deluded and others who may or may not be. Whereas the ones who are arguing "let her have her fantasy" are considering her in vacuum.
Honestly I side with the "truth" crowd on general principle ("All else being equal, it's better to know the truth than lie to yourself"), mostly because I've made it policy to face life as truthfully as possible. But for some it seems not to work.
And then the question becomes "Do we do more good for more people by smashing one woman's delusions? When she's grieving? When she's recovered?" This is tricky stuff.
Posted by: mayhempix
|
January 28, 2011 2:52 PM
I find it very interesting that no one (I tried to read or skim most of the comments but I may have missed it) responded to Asma's point that for him art replaces religious or spiritual needs by connecting to the irrational part of our brains.
I make no apologies that I am an unrepentant "art snob" and that what most term as "art" are really pretty illustrations or soothing pablum. Real art as viewed by the serious and educated is about creating a visual, audible or other form of emotional paradox that appears to be "truer" that the sum of its parts. All of the great artworks since Cezanne have addressed this phenomena be it Picasso's Cubist fracture of the picture plane, Richard Serra's massive steel sculpture/installations, Warhol's soup cans, Pollock's abstractions, Stravinsky's "Rite of Spring", Serrano's "Piss Christ", etc. and it is the ability to produce objects and other conceptions that make the viewer feel as if it is the first time this paradox has again been revealed that separates the greats from the rest and determines the course of art history.
When realism was the artist's holy grail it is the works by Da Vinci, Michelangelo, Rembrandt, Caravaggio, et al who produced this same paradox by provoking a sense of imbued life that leaves the viewer feeling as if the image itself is possessed by a "spirit" of sorts, both fulfilling and yet at the same time creating an overwhelming teasing sense there is much more to come if the frozen stasis of the moment were to suddenly continue. It is also no coincidence that these artists were dealing with and reacting to the religious confines of their periods and that the still lifes and landscapes void of religious imagery and the human figure that followed were rebellion against religious control and gave us the aforementioned Cezzane and the Modern Art movement.
Before the artist was viewed as a separate entity from the priest, scientist and doctor the shaman existed as the wiseman/guru/healer who through ceremony (performance art), fetish objects (sculpture), chants and drumming (music) and storytelling (myths, fiction and history) would claim to understand and address the seemingly unfathomable mysteries of existence, pain, suffering, joy, love, sex, death and the physical world around them. Later religions would harness and exploit the power of the artist to create powerful paradoxes and deep emotional response in painting, sculpture, architecture and music to convince the populace that only an all powerful god or gods could possibly wield such inexplicable power. The Age of Reason finally split off and freed the artist as the sciences left religion at the altar of what was an initially perhaps inevitable marriage that evolved into a forced prison controlled by power and lies.
The greatest paradox to me is that it takes the rational logical mind to understand the roots of the artistic paradox and connect it to the emotional being over which it wants to control but can never completely understand because its actions, while logical in its evolutionary origins, cannot be experienced or duplicated by rational thinking alone. And while I agree belief in a god and magic souls is similar too and can be as destructive as heroin, I must disagree it means that Asman's perceptions are to be summarily dismissed because of it.
That is why I am an enthusiastic hard core atheist that revels in sensual hedonism and the creative arts.
- Some may note this is my first real comment in a long time (or more probably nobody noticed at all.) At some point I felt as if my observations about atheism and the entertaining pastime of pointing out the ridiculous positions assumed by the trolls, creationists, apologists and fundamentalist Libertarians commenting on this blog had run its course and I felt I had exhausted my contributions. Always the loyal lurker since, this subject inspired me to opine because it allowed me to again contribute to PZ's ongoing, and dare I say conceptual art piece, on science, atheism and the irrational mind.
Posted by: John Morales
|
January 28, 2011 5:37 PM
Googlemess id=AItOawmzpxAdW8c2AeuFyTukacwULwFLKrHHsRk:
1. And that answers your question: The judgment about whether something is inadequate or not constitutes one's opinion, so indeed anybody is allowed to make that.
2. Said judgement's merits were not the subject of your question, only whether making it was possibly disallowed to some.
So, your question was clearly rhetorical, as your own answer demonstrates.
Posted by: Jacob
|
January 29, 2011 8:11 AM
@frog:
"Yes -- it is perfectly arguable that "P -> Q" && "Q" makes "P" more probable (depending on the distribution of P, Q and the overlap)."
I wasn't throwing out random terms. He does commit those fallacies and I explained the first one in his post (about the mother going insane). He commits it a lot of times throughout his response.
It is not 'perfectly arguable' to say that. It of course makes a difference on how P and Q overlap. That is my whole point of calling it affirming the consequent because the distribution is simply assumed when in fact it's never been shown to be that way! That makes it a fallacy.
Do you mean abductive logic? And everyone uses abductive logic all the time, not just scientists and engineers, but science and engineering tests the results of abductive logic so they aren't just guesses anymore. Abductive logic can LEAD to the logical fallacies I listed, which is exactly what happened.
Also, everyone does know that deductive logic is tautological, but that doesn't make the findings any less important to know. The fallacy comes when you ARE NOT being tautological. You try, but you fail, and therefore fallacy arises.
"State how and why a specific statement can be invalidated in context instead of throwing out cliched statements."
I already stated that it has yet to be demonstrated that people saved by religion wouldn't or couldn't have been saved by some other mechanism (or if they actually needed to be saved and would have eventually dealt with their own emotions more rationally). That is what you use science for, to rid of spurious post hoc rationalizations, i.e. religion did it because thats the way it is for these X amount of people.