Ask an Atheist--An Opportunity for Engagement

[Kythia]

So, a point to debate over that I've wondered from an earlier exchange here, about 'does religion/faith offer anything good at all?'.

Some churches do charity/outreach type programs towards the poor, homeless, and assorted missionary programs into poverty-stricken regions or countries, helping people out financially+materially while simultaneously using that as a bridge and/or gateway drug into their religion.

Setting the material benefits of charity aside, because non-theistic charities also exist and are equally effective on that front, here's the question to ponder. Does having faith/hope in the existence of an afterlife psychologically benefit people at the very bottom of the socioeconomic ladder? Particularly in third-world regions where social services are non-existent and the possibility of ever seeing a significant+permanent improvement in the quality of life for you/your family is quite low - is giving them the belief that perseverance through this life, however miserable it might be at times, will be rewarded with an eternity of paradise a positive thing? Or is it just a cruel false hope to promise them something that no one has any concrete guarantees will actually be delivered?

I would imagine that that specific strand of being religious - belief in an afterlife - is impossible to separate from everything else that comes with it.  I don't think one could really give the sort of quantised "well, the sense of community makes me happy, the routine makes me very happy, the belief in an afterlife makes me slightly unhappy, the belief in a loving god makes me somewhat happy" etc - or not with any degree of reliability at least.  Separating that effect out from the package of which it is part seems like a non-starter to me.

[Ironwolf85]

So, a point to debate over that I've wondered from an earlier exchange here, about 'does religion/faith offer anything good at all?'.

Some churches do charity/outreach type programs towards the poor, homeless, and assorted missionary programs into poverty-stricken regions or countries, helping people out financially+materially while simultaneously using that as a bridge and/or gateway drug into their religion.

Setting the material benefits of charity aside, because non-theistic charities also exist and are equally effective on that front, here's the question to ponder. Does having faith/hope in the existence of an afterlife psychologically benefit people at the very bottom of the socioeconomic ladder? Particularly in third-world regions where social services are non-existent and the possibility of ever seeing a significant+permanent improvement in the quality of life for you/your family is quite low - is giving them the belief that perseverance through this life, however miserable it might be at times, will be rewarded with an eternity of paradise a positive thing? Or is it just a cruel false hope to promise them something that no one has any concrete guarantees will actually be delivered?

Things Fall Apart is a very good book, and yeah it ends with the main character (who is kinda obsessed with his own macho-manly image and is an asshole, a complex asshole, but an asshole nontheless. Such as beating his son to death for converting.) Dying as he tries to rally his tribe to war against the british, they don't heed his call, and he's executed. The local governor gives him, at best, a paragraph or a footnote in his own memoirs.

And Yes it does, from a purely social perspective most churches and other temples tend to provide the only social safety net in most places. (christian groups tend to put a big emphasis on this. though the methods and effectiveness varies.) Because of the social power they wield they can motivate people, and often act as the only source of basic education and education funding in most places.
One of the biggest things that people forget is that the big three also does, is provide basic human dignity. Christianity was a revolution in thought at the time. The idea that Biggie G loves everyone including the poor and the crippled, and places for example, the Emperor of Rome, and the Lowest Slave as equals in the afterlife gives humanity to even the poorest. Especially when the systems of economics and government seem to ignore such people or outright dehumanize them.

While anything's open to being exploited because humans are involved, the ability to make a person, any person, feel human, is a good thing.

[TheGlyphstone]

I would imagine that that specific strand of being religious - belief in an afterlife - is impossible to separate from everything else that comes with it.  I don't think one could really give the sort of quantised "well, the sense of community makes me happy, the routine makes me very happy, the belief in an afterlife makes me slightly unhappy, the belief in a loving god makes me somewhat happy" etc - or not with any degree of reliability at least.  Separating that effect out from the package of which it is part seems like a non-starter to me.

Yeah, in practice they're heavily intertwined to the point of being inseparable. But philosophies like humanism can supply most of those other strands/components you mentioned, so if religion can offer anything positive that non-theistic philosophies can't, I figured it would be in that exclusive element. So it was worth proposing for discussion, at least.

[Kythia]

Yeah, in practice they're heavily intertwined to the point of being inseparable. But philosophies like humanism can supply most of those other strands/components you mentioned, so if religion can offer anything positive that non-theistic philosophies can't, I figured it would be in that exclusive element. So it was worth proposing for discussion, at least.

Well, then we get in to a whole other kettle of fish.  Is the sense of community one receives as a humanist quantitatively the same as that of a Christian?  Hell, is the s-o-c one receives from being at my church the same as the one you get from being at yours, never mind other religions? 

If we accept that its impossible to actually definitively answer the question, though, my belief would be that it does offer some consolation.  Purely because when the vast majority of afterlife believing religions were developed then the living standard of people was closer to what we would now call that of the third world and if that belief hadn't been helpful and widely accepted then it probably wouldn't be now.

[Vergil Tanner]

Well...the whole point of "What have you lost" is kind of perilously close to Pascals Wager. I mean, the options aren't "Either Christianity is right or there is no afterlife." I mean, if the Muslims are right, the Christians are all going to hell. :P

In terms of what it offers...it depends on the person. Some people I know say that they need that hope to get them through the bad times, whereas me personally...I dunno, I don't really care either way. Either I die and nothing happens - at which point I don't care - or something happens...and I see what it is. But honestly, it depends on what TYPE of afterlife you believe in; I mean, if I believed in Heaven and Hell, and I loved somebody who didn't believe in God...I wouldn't find the idea of them in hell very comforting. >.>

But I do have to note that without churches, good people would still get together to do good things; it isn't the religion specifically motivating good deeds, they're just good people...and in terms of the social safety net, some churches do offer that...but what happens when you leave that church? Suddenly, you no longer have that support in a lot of areas, and the weight of their social net can be turned against you if they're feeling particularly vindictive. And Churches are not the only place that offer a congregation place for people of similar interests; any club or team can offer that, it just so happens that religion is currently the most widespread. I mean, for me personally, my DnD group provides a better safety net than my local church did.
But then, I live(d) in England, where religion isn't really as big a deal as in the States. Hell, the Church of England is more secular than not these days. XD

[Kythia]

Well...the whole point of "What have you lost" is kind of perilously close to Pascals Wager. I mean, the options aren't "Either Christianity is right or there is no afterlife." I mean, if the Muslims are right, the Christians are all going to hell. :P

Probably not, actually.  This is more of a conversation for the Islam thread, but Christians are people of the book and won't end up in Jahannam (assuming they're "good" Christians).  (Some versions of) Christianity are the only major religion I can think of where non-members are automatically in hell (and as I intimate, that's not universal in Christianity).  So if you are Pascal's wagering to avoid hell, Christianity is probably your best bet.

[Vergil Tanner]

Really? Because I've read the Qur'an, and since Christians (by its standards) worship Jesus as an aspect of God, that counts as polytheism by Islams standards, and they're going to Hell because of it.

But if you're taking that side of things, then actually Judaism would be the best bet, since it's based off of the only book the three Abrahamic religions actually agree on. :P

In any case Pascals Wager is still fundamentally flawed, since...well, there are about a thousand and one different religions, each one with its own version of Hell...which is why we need to establish which one - if any of them - is actually true. :P

[Kythia]

Really? Because I've read the Qur'an, and since Christians (by its standards) worship Jesus as an aspect of God, that counts as polytheism by Islams standards, and they're going to Hell because of it.

Surah 98 (in relevant part).  "The polytheists" in that passage refers to non People of the Book, the Quran is pretty explicit about not seeing Christianity as polytheistic (or at least, not problematically polytheistic) and even includes a specific passage (too lazy to search, Surah 119 from memory but take that with a pinch of salt) in which Jesus is told by Allah "don't worry about he slight problems with polytheism in your followers, we're all good".  Not sure which passage you're referring to?

In any case Pascals Wager is still fundamentally flawed, since...well, there are about a thousand and one different religions, each one with its own version of Hell...which is why we need to establish which one - if any of them - is actually true. :P

Not really.  If we accept that they're all bad then which particular version of bad it is is pretty irrelevant when the choices are "going to a bad place or not", it'd only matter if the choice was "which bad place do you go to" which, as I say, isn't the case.

[Vergil Tanner]

Surah 98 (in relevant part).  "The polytheists" in that passage refers to non People of the Book, the Quran is pretty explicit about not seeing Christianity as polytheistic (or at least, not problematically polytheistic) and even includes a specific passage (too lazy to search, Surah 119 from memory but take that with a pinch of salt) in which Jesus is told by Allah "don't worry about he slight problems with polytheism in your followers, we're all good".  Not sure which passage you're referring to?

Qur'an 3:85 states that "whoever desires other than Islam as religion - never will it be accepted from him, and he, in the Hereafter, will be among the losers." Seems pretty clear to me that anybody who isn't a Muslim isn't gonna get into their clubhouse. :P
Also, 2:62:
"Indeed, those who believed and those who were Jews or Christians [before Prophet Muhammad] - those [among them] who believed in Allah and the Last Day and did righteousness - will have their reward with their Lord, and no fear will there be concerning them, nor will they grieve."
There it specifies that people before Muhammad who were Christians or Jews get in, which implies that people after Muhammad have to believe in Muhammad as a Prophet too, or they get denied.

Not really.  If we accept that they're all bad then which particular version of bad it is is pretty irrelevant when the choices are "going to a bad place or not", it'd only matter if the choice was "which bad place do you go to" which, as I say, isn't the case.

I don't think we're all bad, though. Humans aren't all bad or all good; we're complex creatures, and some of us are better or worse than others. As it is, if there's an afterlife, I want to know about it...but I also want to know which one it is. If we're going with Pascal's Wager, which is "If you believe and you're wrong, what have you lost?" Well, what if you believed in Jesus or Muhammad, and the Jews were right? Or you were a Jew, and it was actually the Vikings who got it right and because you didn't die in battle, you're going to Hel? There are more than just two options, which is why PW is fundamentally flawed as an argument. The point is that every religion that has one has specific criteria for getting into their version of the afterlife (or getting a good next life, in some cases) and many of them directly conflict. Therefore, it's impossible to live in such a way that if you die and there's an afterlife, you're 100% guaranteed to get in regardless of who's actually right. So therefore, the question of which version of bad it is does become relevant, since particularly by the words of Jesus, anybody who doesn't accept him goes to hell. Well, you can't accept him as The Word The Truth and The Light and simultaneously accept the Jewish view that he wasn't the Messiah.

So the question of "which version of bad it is" is anything BUT irrelevant when trying to get into an afterlife, since you need to know which standards you're trying to meet.

[Kythia]

Hmmm.  Not sure how good faith that was?  Hoping it's innocent, but plucking sentences out of context is pretty poor show, Vergil.  Read 3:84, literally the verse before, in which it states that there is no distinction made between followers of Moses and Jesus and the Muslims.  3:85 isn't referring to people of the book.

[Vergil Tanner]

Well, it has been a while since I read it. I remember bits and pieces. I remembered the passage, but it's possible (or probable) that I just forgot the bit before it. >.> Or I was tired and skimming when I got to that bit. XD
Either way, not intentional.

But in any case, it isn't like it actually matters, since Islam is just as unproven and baseless as Christianity as far as I'm concerned, so for me, it's kind of like saying "Which Fairy Tale do you want to hear before bed?" XD

[Mathim]

Why is religion always given a pass because 'it has the potential to do good'? If one medication has the ability to treat one's symptoms with no side effects, why would you take one that treats symptoms but has tons of side effects instead? If religion is not uniquely able to do something that no other system is capable of, then saying its potential to do good is irrelevant. We discard outdated technology and traditions routinely, but faith is the sole thing we haven't learned to evolve beyond and it's never for good reasons that it's stuck around. Lying to children, indoctrination, wars; if that's what it takes to perpetuate it then how can anyone honestly defend it?

[Kythia]

Well, it has been a while since I read it. I remember bits and pieces. I remembered the passage, but it's possible (or probable) that I just forgot the bit before it. >.> Or I was tired and skimming when I got to that bit. XD
Either way, not intentional.

But in any case, it isn't like it actually matters, since Islam is just as unproven and baseless as Christianity as far as I'm concerned, so for me, it's kind of like saying "Which Fairy Tale do you want to hear before bed?" XD

You remembered the Surah and Verse and quoted it word for word but didn't remember the immediately preceding verse at all?  *shrugs*  Fair enough.

I sometimes find your arguments a little hard to follow so let me check if I've got this right:  You believe that Pascal's wager (be that a positive version where one gets to a desirable place after death or a negative where one avoids an undesirable one) is fundamentally flawed because you believe there are at least two - and maybe more - religions whose criteria for going/not going are mutually incompatible such that it is impossible to satisfy both the requirements for going to a good place or, in the specific argument you made, avoiding the bad place in one necessitates going to the bad place in another.  As such (while it doesn't matter to you personally as you don't believe in either of those places in any form) you believe that religious people have to be certain which good and/or bad place exists in order to tailor their behavior towards that? Have I got that right? Because...you seem to have missed the point of Pascal's Wager somewhat in that.  That's not what he was arguing at all.  In fact, he was arguing the exact opposite of what I think is the point you're ascribing to him.

For the recordy problem with the wager is to do with expected valie: if the reward is infinite bliss then it would be appropriate to devote all of your resources during life to arriving at the "correct" answer as any amount of effort during life is cheap compared to the potential rewards (Pascal goes on to make a broadly similar point, actually) - this is a variation of the St Petersburg Paradox really.  As no one has ever done this, the wager  - even given your treatment of it - is inapplicable to everyday life.

[Mathim]

You remembered the Surah and Verse and quoted it word for word but didn't remember the immediately preceding verse at all?  *shrugs*  Fair enough.

I sometimes find your arguments a little hard to follow so let me check if I've got this right:  You believe that Pascal's wager (be that a positive version where one gets to a desirable place after death or a negative where one avoids an undesirable one) is fundamentally flawed because you believe there are at least two - and maybe more - religions whose criteria for going/not going are mutually incompatible such that it is impossible to satisfy both the requirements for going to a good place or, in the specific argument you made, avoiding the bad place in one necessitates going to the bad place in another.  As such (while it doesn't matter to you personally as you don't believe in either of those places in any form) you believe that religious people have to be certain which good and/or bad place exists in order to tailor their behavior towards that? Have I got that right? Because...you seem to have missed the point of Pascal's Wager somewhat in that.  That's not what he was arguing at all.  In fact, he was arguing the exact opposite of what I think is the point you're ascribing to him.

For the recordy problem with the wager is to do with expected valie: if the reward is infinite bliss then it would be appropriate to devote all of your resources during life to arriving at the "correct" answer as any amount of effort during life is cheap compared to the potential rewards (Pascal goes on to make a broadly similar point, actually) - this is a variation of the St Petersburg Paradox really.  As no one has ever done this, the wager  - even given your treatment of it - is inapplicable to everyday life.

Yeah, let's just ignore the fact that a person can't force themselves to believe in something, only to behave in such a way that conforms with whatever system they happen to be betting on at the dog track; if belief is a criteria that automatically makes anyone skeptically rational ineligible for salvation, ergo the wager is useless. Whether that's the intent or not, it's still bogus.

If he's trying to equate belief with disbelief as both being unreasonable positions, he's an even bigger jackass than ever. The default position is 'show me or shut the fuck up' and yet Pascal's argument seems to be that that is just as irrelevant and irrational as faith. It's like Matt Dillahunty is always saying, what the hell is people's problem with 'I don't know'?

I don't understand how someone can fail to see the wager fall apart at literally every turn. Even within the same religion you have different beliefs about your eternal fate and what will get you to one or the other, let alone religions completely different than the most popular one. The only appropriate use of 'infinite' in the wager is not in regard to reward or suffering, but in the number of different possibilities of afterlives and methods to get to them.

[Oniya]

So here's a question that I never see answered:

If all religious institutions were to spontaneously disappear, what would fill the vacuum?  Is there any comparable social institution that would 'step in'?

[Lustful Bride]

So here's a question that I never see answered:

If all religious institutions were to spontaneously disappear, what would fill the vacuum?  Is there any comparable social institution that would 'step in'?

Social Media probably....given how people throw tantrums on there over the slightest things and the most insane of shit on it....id probably just go like in the wilds of Alaska away from humanity. :P

[Kythia]

So here's a question that I never see answered:

If all religious institutions were to spontaneously disappear, what would fill the vacuum?  Is there any comparable social institution that would 'step in'?

The trend seems to be that the government/state fills the void.

[Mathim]

So here's a question that I never see answered:

If all religious institutions were to spontaneously disappear, what would fill the vacuum?  Is there any comparable social institution that would 'step in'?

Why assume there's a vacuum there or that people are too weak to see beyond that? Unless their entire life revolves around it, there honestly wouldn't be much change at all. People have other interests besides churchy junk (and nothing that goes on there is anything that can't be done elsewhere and revolving around any other theme; it's almost no different than changing wallpaper if you think about it) so they'd just do all that stuff more. Or they'd learn new things or develop new interests with whatever time they no longer devote to that; there really can be nothing but benefit for those who aren't using it as an opportunistic means of exploiting others. If a person is such that they'd lose all sense of identity then that just further shows how destructive religion is if it holds your entire life hostage like that. But I would be amazed if enough people to even generate a human interest story were in that category.

That also doesn't address the actual social upheaval. With no defense of all the senselessness and harm it's caused, organizations like the Vatican can finally be brought to justice and get no sympathy from the gullible or hide behind their ill-gotten profits. It would no longer be automatically socially acceptable to remain ignorant or spread ignorance to others. Abdication of one's responsibilities because of a perceived forgiving father figure or promise of salvation in exchange for nothing but blind belief would no longer be looked upon as noble or be the majority opinion. Once a person stares into the void of their own ignorance that they imposed upon themselves, the awakening will be massive. If there is indeed a vacuum big enough to need filling beyond one's casual interests, education would surely be a major use of that wasted space.

[HannibalBarca]

So here's a question that I never see answered:

If all religious institutions were to spontaneously disappear, what would fill the vacuum?  Is there any comparable social institution that would 'step in'?

Some people would do just fine.  There are already people who do fine without it.  Some people, whose psychology is tightly interwoven with their religion, would likely have a very hard time without that mental pillar there.  Many would adjust and deal with it.  Some would probably react badly.  There's a lot of variety in humanity.

[Mathim]

Julia Sweeney's Letting Go of God is actually quite nice, I think those wanting to but are afraid or conflicted about leaving their faith would benefit from seeing it.

[midnightblack]

So here's a question that I never see answered:

If all religious institutions were to spontaneously disappear, what would fill the vacuum?  Is there any comparable social institution that would 'step in'?

If that was to happen, one would realize that there is no vacuum. It would be like that point when the child screams that the Emperor is naked and the crowd is awestruck by the simple, obvious truth in plain view. What does exist, and my impression (referring to the part of the world where I live) is that institutionalized religion likes to feeds upon it ravenously, is the innate darkness of one's mind. The only way to lift that darkness is through education, but it is an effort that would stretch over the course of many generations if you want it to have a lasting and healthy impact on an entire society.

[Trigon]

So here's a question that I never see answered:

If all religious institutions were to spontaneously disappear, what would fill the vacuum?  Is there any comparable social institution that would 'step in'?

I would say that Eric Hoffer's The True Believer would be a good place to start. In particular, he points out that all religions find their origins in mass movements and/or cults, much like social or political movements. And furthermore, that what matters is not the actual content of the beliefs or doctrines themselves, but rather the psychological profile of its adherents.

So, if all religious institutions were to disappear overnight, most likely a new one will just spontaneously form to take its place. Whether it is successful will of course depend on a number of factors (i.e. basically dependent on how quickly it can gain political power and dominance over competing beliefs, and how good it is in retaining converts).

[Mathim]

And again-if religion does the disservice to its adherents of convincing them that their lives are meaningless without it-that's just another crime to lay at its feet and good riddance to it. If it has created the condition where people feel an emptiness they've imposed upon themselves (basically creating a fabricated illness so it can sell the phony cure) then they might go through a smoker's withdrawal sort of thing, likely some depression, but again, if religion had not created this unjust, inhumane condition in people in the first place, there wouldn't be that problem once it was stricken. So the only problems would occur because of what an even bigger problem religion was in the first place. Luckily, reality has plenty to offer to fill any voids and any really honest person won't pretend they don't see that and that they're fully capable of embracing it.

[Kythia]

Why the hatred, Mathim?  There are other people in this thread who've openly identified as some flavour of anti-theist but none of them seem to have the fiery burning passion about it that you do.  Is this just an artefact of you having a more emotional writing style?  Because it doesn't look like that to me.  It looks like you have really surpassed everyone else in your, well, hatred and I'm genuinely curious as to why.  It can't possibly be making you happy, or even be particularly good for you, and sometimes (not always) it makes your arguments weak because you're kinda blinded by this rage. 

[Mathim]

Why the hatred, Mathim?  There are other people in this thread who've openly identified as some flavour of anti-theist but none of them seem to have the fiery burning passion about it that you do.  Is this just an artefact of you having a more emotional writing style?  Because it doesn't look like that to me.  It looks like you have really surpassed everyone else in your, well, hatred and I'm genuinely curious as to why.  It can't possibly be making you happy, or even be particularly good for you, and sometimes (not always) it makes your arguments weak because you're kinda blinded by this rage.

What astonishes me is why more people don't feel the way I do.