Every now and then I get into theological debates with friends or family members. It never really goes anywhere, and I never push things past a certain point (which differs depending on whom I’m talking to), but it’s made me think. Do I really want to convince any of these people that I’m right?
I’ve decided the answer is no. I don’t see that “deconverting” the people in my life would be a good thing. It almost certainly wouldn’t make them any happier, and for many of them convincing them that their religious beliefs are wrong would be devastating. So why argue with them? The truth is that I argue mostly because it’s fun or because I found something someone said annoying. But if I were to give my debates a deeper meaning, they’re an attempt to get these people to acknowledge that I might be right.
Religious people are convinced that they are absolutely right and anyone who disagrees with the tenets of their religion is absolutely wrong. While I have no interest in convincing anyone that they should abandon their religion, I would like to convince them that maybe it isn’t such a sure thing. I’d like them to acknowledge the possibility that their beliefs are mistaken than that there are good reasons why someone would disagree with them.
Once we reach the point where we’re not dealing in absolutes, perhaps we can go one step further and agree that we can each have our own worldview without imposing moral values on those views. Perhaps we can agree to live and let live.
There are some people out there who want atheism to spread, who hope for the day when religious beliefs will have the same status as the belief the world is flat. I’m not interested in convincing people. I don’t care if belief is good or bad for humanity. I don’t care if universal rationalism would make the world a better place. In the big picture, it just doesn’t matter.
I figure I’ll be around for about a century, give or take. While I’m alive I’d just like to be reasonably comfortable and happy and for other people to let me be. (I realize that I’m very fortunate to live in a time and place where I can have both.) Further than that, I don’t care. As long as it doesn’t adversely affect me, if someone wants to believe in an invisible man in the sky, that’s fine with me. Just don’t bother me because I don’t.
Religious people are convinced that they are absolutely right and anyone who disagrees with the tenets of their religion is absolutely wrong.
ReplyDeleteI can't say that I have a very deep understanding of how "religious people" think, but obviously a great deal depends on how you interpret that term. If you mean those who profess belief in God (and perhaps also practice some form of religious observance), then I don't think that your generalization holds. Doesn't Dennett say somewhere in Breaking the Spell that most professed believers are just wannabelievers (I don't think he uses that term, but it's one that I like), people who think that they ought to believe and who accordingly make the profession in the hope of inducing belief in themselves? (That's ambiguous: "inducing in themselves belief" would be unambiguous, but it sounds German or Yiddish.)
Besides the wannabelievers, surely there are plenty of run-of-the-mill believers who recognize that their belief is something of a gamble: they are strongly inclined to think that God exists, they really like the idea, they don't see how to get along without it, so they cast their lot with it, though they recognize that it rests on no proof. Of course, there are plenty for whom God is as real as the ground on which they stand, and who find it incomprehensible that anyone can actually not believe in God. I suppose those are the ones that you are thinking of. But to restrict the term "religious people" to that lot seems to me arbitrary.
I think that how you are inclined to think of "religious people" depends on the sort of company that you have kept.
I respect your tolerant approach. You seem content to live and let live and again, I respect that. You say "as long as it doesn't adversely affect me...
ReplyDeleteHowever, I'm sure it does adversely affect you. Especially if you're in a more UO community, you see the rabbis say the craziest things. You see some of the most ignorant, incompetent, not to mention irresponsible and arrogant, people being given inordinate amounts of community power and control. You see children being subjected to physical, emotional and psychological trauma in their madrassas, er, schools. You see people of all ages being kept away from some illuminating knowledge that might change their entire worldview (science, evolution, bible studies, etc). You see countless thousands of the brightest students being set up for a lifetime of misery, fanaticism and extreme poverty.
How can we *not* say something?
P.S. To clarify- I don't mean we necessarily have to walk up to every balabuste and tell her to run. My point just is that on a large-scale, political level, things are not yashar. On a micro level, perhaps you can tolerate religion, preferably if it's not imposed on you. But on a macro level, big-picture view? I say let's beat it at least til it's dead...
MKR, I grant that it’s a gross generalization and even a bit of a straw-man. It’s true that there are probably lots of people who would self-identify as believers yet are willing to concede that they’re not certain. But religion does lend itself to dogmatism, and most people simply don’t think much about their beliefs. They assume that, as you said, “God is as real as the ground on which they stand.” Anyway, this wasn’t meant as some sort of general manifesto, just a statement about my interactions with some of the people I know and a bit of a grandiose justification for arguing with them.
ReplyDeleteOTD, yes, religion can be annoying. The things you hear can be frustrating. You can argue that the world would be better off without it. As I said in the post, I don’t care. As long as it doesn’t bother me while I’m alive, the rest of the world can do whatever is wants. And once I’m dead I won’t be in any position to care at all.
> How can we *not* say something?
You have a strong social conscience. I guess I don’t. And even if I did, I recognize that it’s just a hard-wired response that exists because of the survival benefits of belonging to groups.
> But on a macro level, big-picture view?
ReplyDeleteThat’s the thing. On a REALLY big picture view, none of what we do really matters. Not as individuals, not as a community, not even as a species. We’re just self-replicating carbon-based forms on a speck of cosmic dust spinning around a nuclear furnace until it explodes. The only real purpose we have is passing along our genes. And really, rationally, why should we even care about that.
The best we can do is concern ourselves with ourselves. (And let’s leave a discussion of the practical value of altruistic morals for another time.)
-As long as it doesn't bother me while I'm alive...
ReplyDeleteYou really think it won't? Think of all the political wars waged by the religious right aginst stem cell research, gay rights, etc. Would it matter if a family member or loved one was indeed affected by religion (I don't know your background, but I'm guessing you have some UO family). Is there a point that if crossed, you'll speak out? And even if you would, are people prepared to hear anti-religious rants?
I think I understand your concern about upsetting people's lives. it's the main reason I rarely proselytize in real life. However, at least in theory, I like to imagine that a day will come when people can speak openly about religion and feel liberated to choose any religion, and of course, non-religion.
>On a REALLY big picture view, none of it really matters...
ReplyDeleteThat is a major defeatist attitude. We might as well all kill ourselves right now, by that logic. To have this discussion, we have to assume that this life really matters (at least in some sense of the word). Time to take off our scientific glasses.
> Would it matter if a family member or loved one was indeed affected by religion
ReplyDeleteIt would matter to me. At that point I might fight it. Maybe not. You do raise an interesting point, though. Is it worth fighting a potential harm on the off chance it would affect me personally? I have to think about that.
> We might as well all kill ourselves right now, by that logic.
Yes. We don’t because we’re programmed for self-preservation, but I don’t know if keeping ourselves alive is rational. Something else I have to think about more.
> To have this discussion, we have to assume that this life really matters
I assume nothing. I really don’t think life matters objectively. I know that’s a horrible thing to say, but I just don’t see that it does.
Giving objective meaning to life is one of the many useful functions religion performs.
I agree that we don't know anything objectively. Obviously, it's part of the comfort of religion: having absolute, pre-packaged, recycled answers. That's the chiddush of Dawkins--we can make life meaningful and have pretty much all of the advantages of religion! It's not easy, it's not traditional (unfortunately) and it's certainly not objective, but it's doable! And best of all, it's real. Ki koroiv ailecha hadavar meod!
ReplyDeleteG*3 you seem to be the perfect example of the nihilism that is natural to the atheistic worldview.
ReplyDeleteI have a feeling Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens and the gang would be mighty pissed at you implying your non-theistic outlook leads you to embrace pointlessness in everything.
PS: I find it interesting you claim you are not interested in proselytizing yet make all these points on refuting the Search Judaism thing....
> I have a feeling Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens and the gang would be mighty pissed at you implying your non-theistic outlook leads you to embrace pointlessness in everything.
ReplyDeleteThey might be. So what. While I find what they have to say interesting and educational, there’s also a lot I disagree with. They’re trying to sell atheism as a viable, even preferable, alternative to religion. As I said in the post, I don’t care.
> I find it interesting you claim you are not interested in proselytizing yet make all these points on refuting the Search Judaism thing....
Refuting the book is just fun. I post it because it motivates me to actually write out my thoughts instead of just ranting at the book and making my wife tell me to stop talking to myself again. I see blogging as entertainment and a forum for pseudo-social interaction with people who are interested in some of the same things I am. Nothing more.