I am finding it increasingly difficult to talk to religious people.

The arguments are so ridiculous I feel like I am conversing with third graders. They ignore questions I ask, use horrific illogical arguments, and state things that are not facts as if they were.

I am just getting really frustrated at the lack of intelligence I find. It used to be humorous to me, but now it is just really annoying.

Anyone else in my boat?

You betcha!

Nathan, I feel your pain, Brother Man. It's painful and frustrating, and it seems like there's an endless clone army of them (because there is!) but keep this in mind: any dialogue you have with believersis a good think. Just the simple fact that you are exposing them to a wider world out there is a start. You may not feel like you're winning any arguments, but just getting them to think about what they are saying can start a process that gets them to examine their own relationship with truth and reality. And THAT makes the world a better place.
So hang in there and stay positive upbeat and friendly - you're improving the world in ways you don't even realize!

I try to tailor my approach to the venue. If I can see that someone is going to be hostile to discussion about the larger issues (whether God exists, whether the bible is reliable, etc.), I focus on small things. Someone on the Jesus lovers board recently posted that scientists don't know why leaves change color. I politely (I think) corrected this statement and left it at that. As much as I'd like religion to evaporate into the firmament, I think it's just as (if not more) important to correct the torrent of falsehoods that are spread in the name of defeating secularism. If people are going to believe in God and deny evolution, etc., that's their prerogative, but the massive amount of propaganda that often goes along with that is something I think needs to be addressed.

I think Nathan is addressing a more core issue, though -- that of anti-intellectualism.

I don't mean intellectual elitism, so don't take me to task for that. What I mean is people who, when presented with rational though, reject it because it *is* rational thought, ignoring the merits of the idea.

I think they do this as a filter to prevent their dogmatic thoughts from being corrupted. I think the penchant for dogma arises from the overwhelming complexity of the modern world. People would like simple answers and solutions. If they cannot understand complex issues, they feel inferior, which re-enforces the wall they have built up.


A discussion with such people is almost impossible. It continually loops in circles, with constant demands for better, yet simpler explanations and evidence. But better usually means just the opposite.

I am certain what value such dialogues have, but I contain to engage in them, mostly because I am fed up with the constant dumbing down of our culture.

The Greeks had a rather high level of science and math up until the beginning of Christianity (no correlation implied, just a historic placemarker). It took 1500 years before western culture began to return to the levels of the Greeks.

Hard to believe it could happen again.

Hard to believe, but I believe it.

Here's a little more encouragement: Currently the highest atheist demographic is college students. After years of being an atheist activist, I'm actually more optimistic than ever; I really do feel a sea change in this country, and I think we'll see American reach the secular level of Europe, Scandanavia and Japan within our lifetime. Your friends will be able to say "Hey, he was an atheist BEFORE it was cool!"

Hmmm....maybe I should wear my ATHEIST shirt out to the bars tonight.

I think we'll see American reach the secular level of Europe, Scandanavia and Japan within our lifetime.

I was just reading in Free Inquiry an essay on the religiosity of the United States. The author concludes that atheism in an advanced, democratic society is most closely correlated with social welfare, so the stronger the social safety net, the higher the level of atheism. If this claim has any merit, the United States will need European-style social welfare to acheive Europe's level of secularism.

Whether a generational cleavage takes hold over the acceptance of atheism is an interesting question. The generation gap seems, more than any other factor, to have made the decisive difference in public attitudes toward sexual minorities. If generational change turns out to be the deciding factor here too, then progress really will take hold one funeral at a time.

"...so the stronger the social safety net, the higher the level of atheism"

Or the higher the level of atheism, the higher the social safety net?

In other words, atheists, with no higher power to rely on or second life to look forward too, make the best of the here and now.

Exactly. It's a correlation only, so it's hard to establish a causal relationship from one to the other. The author noted only that the correlation was exceptionally consistent.

He strongly implies, though, that a social safety net first can promote atheism later. But without a scientific study of that question (as opposed to an essay), it's hard to prove this is the case, and not the other way around.

Tyler wrote: "He strongly implies, though, that a social safety net first can promote atheism later. "

So we trade one nebulous parental figure-head, i.e. "god" for another...
"the state"? Couldn't we just stop hanging onto the parental's arm and try it another way?

Many of the atheists I have personally met have tended to be Libertarians and anarcho-capitalists. I have strong leanings in those directions myself.

Couldn't we just stop hanging onto the parental's arm and try it another way?

If you feel so strongly about the matter, why didn't you say anything on the Ayn Rand thread?

In any case, the quote above is a rhetorical remark that calls names but does little else. Capitalism itself is a collective enterprise relying upon state sponsership. It, too, is statist, but that fact doesn't render it ineffective or inherently wrong.

Many of the atheists I have personally met have tended to be Libertarians and anarcho-capitalists.

That's because they are already well situated within the current economic system and they feel the need to justify themselves to those who aren't so situated. Yet nothing inherent to high intelligence or atheism makes a person lean toward libertarianism. Economic opinions tend to be an outgrowth of the culture a person immerses himself in.

---

The author, by my reading, really does suspect that an effective social welfare system, particularly one providing access to health care, can, by itself, promote a non-religious outlook on life. If this idea can be expressed scientifically, then evidence to support it or refute it can be found.

Your broader objection seems to be that social sciences research cannot solve personal problems, and that action at the societal level is necessarily ineffective. If that's a correct representation of your viewpoint, then I disagree for the reasons I brought up to Mark in the AR thread.

Tyler said, "That's because they are already well situated within the current system and feel the need to justify themselves to those who aren't."

You are making an assumption stating my friends are "well-situated". Some are, some definitely aren't. They just value personal freedoms.

I wonder if you possess the mistaken idea that America is a capitalist system and that is what anarcho-capitalists favor. It isn't. Amerca has a bastardized system where corporate welfare reigns over the welfare of private citizens.

As to not participating in an earlier thread, I'm a newbie onto goodread's forums and have limited internet access (I'm using my cellphone as a modem), so please forgive me.

Brian --

I created a new thread ("What Economic Policies Are Best?") to continue the topic. I replied to your last post there. Thanks

Recently, at the conclusion of a major crime trial in Britain, one of the police chiefs commented upon the lack of socialisation within certain groups of people. Although he was referring to this situation in the context of 'moral' values and why they mutated to suit the needs and even desires of these people I think the same process occurs when it comes to religion also.

What Nathan writes about is not just an intellectual issue but if fact one of willing communication. We need to recognise that the everyday 'language' of the strongly religious person only includes sentiment and (I'm afraid) thought that reinforces their faith: we are outside their world.

With that said, I still hope that we continue to create curiosity (even if they chase us with seething ill-will to try prove us wrong ;-))so as to attract even small numbers of religious people to common sense.

I've just finished watching '2001' so I'm still ringing with the notion of positive advancement and a thirst for knowledge eventually overcoming closed mindedness but on a smaller scale I can tell you all that 20 years ago in Ireland the church ran and had their fingers in everything; atheists, agnostics and the secular community didn't think the machine could be broken but there was a ghost in it the whole time and now (trying not to smile) the church is outside of almost everything to do with Irish society.

That's a hell of an accomplishment Daveh! Now if we Americans can just pull the evangelicals out of government...

Heya Daveh:
If it can happen in Ireland, it can happen anywhere! Do Irish secularists have any watershed moment they point to, or does it seem to have been just a gradual process of erosion helped along by the Internet, immigration, the clergy pedophila scandal, etc? Any theories?

David,

It's funny, I had a conversation with a bitter old man recently who was bemoaning the fact that when Ireland joined the EEC in 1973 the writing was on the wall for the church. This is probably true but it took another fifteen years for the effects to truly manifest themselves and there were other demographic shifts which pushed things also.

Mass attendence in 1973 was 90% now, with the help of dying rural parishes it is struggling to hit 40% though in Dublin and in other large cities that figure is much lower. This is an important point because this is where the larger populations are and would demonstrate a more accurate picture.

But, the factors you mention, internet, education, scandal all played their part too. Also the legalising of divorce, information regarding abortion and indeed other religions all contributed to the Catholic church losing its grip on Irish society. The church thrived on ill will regarding differences and opinions that strived to take people forward, in the end they couldn't escape what people discovered because they themselves had been pushing the ideology of discrimination.
Contraception becoming available in pubs and same-sex civil partnership legislation (not yet enshrined in law but to be so very soon)also contributed to a more liberal society.
It must also be mentioned that on census forms many people DO list themselves as Catholic but do not practice the religion at all. Recently a survey found that 98% of children making their communion (a big deal in Ireland) were entering a church for the very first time which, for me, is a much more telling example of how families are in Ireland today.

Tá sin go hiontach! It really is an amazing time to be an atheist. We are the generation that's going to see the beginning of a real post-Christian world.
-D

I sure hope so David.

"We are the generation that's going to see the beginning of a real post-Christian world."

I never pegged you for an "End Times" guy David! Do we need a new series of "Left Behind" books for the Christians left behind?

Hmmm... You may be on to something. What happens after the Rapture when there IS no Rapture?

I think the books would more appropriately be titled "Stayed Behind."

"While atheists and agnostics enjoy modern progressive world of effective medical care, clean CO2 neutral power, and stable, peaceful societies, Christians are left behind in a nightmare purgatory of childhood diseases, global warming and terrorism."


Book Jacket for "Christians Left Behind -- the Series"

What happens after the Rapture when there IS no Rapture?

I know! I know! *raises hand excitedly*

They just keep believing it is right around the corner.

Ha ha! I like the book idea though.

"What happens after the Rapture when there IS no Rapture?"

I wonder who invented the Rapture. Is the word even used in the Bible? Why are people mostly raptured out of their cars? Should you bring a toothbrush? (or a towel)

I can tell you all that 20 years ago in Ireland the church ran and had their fingers in everything; atheists, agnostics and the secular community didn't think the machine could be broken

That was what I also understood the situation to be in Ireland at the time. I find it hard to understand how the country could have changed so profoundly.

Tyler,

Another major factor, and one which deserves much more time and research if you are interested is the beginning of the ending of armed conflict on both sides of the Irish border.
In a very simplistic way of summing up...when peace finally arrived people threw the baby out with the bathwater in some respects and the Catholic church and nationalism (I mean the bigoted, nasty, jingoistic, triumphalism kind!) were joined at the hip for so long that a lot of people abandoned their religion with their prejudices.
I'm not sure how many scholars and historians would agree with me...yet, but it's another factor at least that contributed to the progressive society here now.
That said, we still have crime, social problems, rising unemployment; it ain't no utopia!

I think that historically, there is evidence that more the more general affluence of a culture, the better the education, the less the extremism of all sorts including religious extremism. When people are healthy, well-fed, have a good life and hope for their own future and the future of their children, when they feel politically empowered, they tend to be tolerant and progressive. When they are poor, hungry, disenfranchised, with little hope for the future, they tend to be far more likely to join groups with a strong overriding ideology from which they can derive both identity and social support.

It isn't always about religion. Hitler was a complete nobody until the great Depression, and if it had never happened I very much doubt that he would have ever happened. Bigotry in the US South arose in part because of the disenfranchisement and poverty of the poor, poorly educated white. As the region (which is still relatively poor compared to e.g. the northeast) gains affluence and the general level of education rises, racial prejudice falls.

The history of Christianity is all about this. Who were the early Christians, but the poor and disenfranchised in early Rome? It offered them the promise of wealth and power in an afterlife to compensate them for their slavery in this one. India and Hinduism with its caste system is an even more stark example. But India is following the same track as Ireland, and as it gains affluence, it is indeed losing the caste system.

I've held for decades now that if the US really wants to combat terrorism, it should STOP fighting it with arms and START fighting it the only way that matters -- building roads, schools, infrastructure, all over the world, fighting for global social justice, getting serious with its antitrust laws and taking on the newest form of global plutocracy -- the global multinational corporation.

Who is more likely to strap on a bomb and blow themselves up just to kill somebody: a) A person raised in a happy environment who is healthy, secure, personally empowered, and has hope for the future for themselves and their children; b) A person who lives in poverty already who is always in fear of losing the little they have already, someone who is barred from political expression or restricted to a ghetto of some sort or another, a person with no hope for improvement in their lives and who actively fears for the life of their children?

Most of this isn't rocket science. It's about TEACHING science and recognizing that it is a lot harder to inflame the passions of the comfortable than it is the desperate.

rgb

Most of this isn't rocket science. It's about TEACHING science and recognizing that it is a lot harder to inflame the passions of the comfortable than it is the desperate.

Very true.

"I've held for decades now that if the US really wants to combat terrorism, it should STOP fighting it with arms and START fighting it the only way that matters -- building roads, schools, infrastructure, all over the world, fighting for global social justice, getting serious with its antitrust laws and taking on the newest form of global plutocracy -- the global multinational corporation."

Excellent ideas, but not welcomed by the 6 trillion dollar/year defense industry. They need enemies, not happy, educated, well fed, friendly nations.

They just need to go on a diet, that's all.

Of course they're just coming off a bit of a bender -- eight years of GWB and they're a bit on the bloated side.

Back when I was a kid and Kennedy was president, the US for a brief, shining moment had a policy of foreign aid that actually meant something. My father worked for Ford Foundation and I lived in (really grew up in) India. (Parents of) friends of mine worked for the Rockefeller foundation, others worked for USAID. The money spent back then, even though it was small money in many respects, saved millions of lives and very likely prevented wars and human suffering. Even the Viet Nam war, which more or less shattered US foreign relations throughout southeast Asia, didn't manage to overcome the friendship established between the US and India during that period.

The world needs a new activism. Viet Nam did one extremely positive thing for the world. It polarized a generation of Americans and filtered out a solid core that for a couple of decades actually took action to improve the world, before cynicism and bad music took over once again in the mid to late 80's.

Unfortunately, the MIC took home a lesson from Viet Nam as well, and ever since then the wars hot and cold have been fought "invisibly", with a clear understanding that they can make out like the bandits that they are as long as there are no significant US body counts and no moral ambiguity in future wars, and there haven't been until now. But even the debacle in Iraq isn't enough to move the complacent US out of its state of moral somnilence. We'll see if Obama manages the trick. Unfortunately, he's being handed the reins right after GWB hamstrung the horse, and it will be difficult to get Americans to see past the end of their noses or pension funds for a year or two at least.

rgb

Oh, and BTW, RC -- wikipedia is as always your friend regarding the Rapture.

Sort of interesting, actually. It has no real basis in scripture and seems to have been prophecied quite recently as an add-on to an older tradition of just how the second coming is supposed to work.

As for the toothbrush question -- that's a toughie. One is tempted to say that there is no tooth decay or bad breath in heaven.

I'd suggest taking a towel, though. You can always use a towel when travelling...:-)

rgb

rgb,

I agree with almost all of what you say re: the type of people who become disenfranchised, and the reasons why.
I am puzzled though by the more recent trend of British suicide bombers. These men were doctors and came from reasonably affluent families. They had a good standard of education and their financial earning potential was on the high end of the scale.
Recently an argument has broken out between Richard Dawkins and scholars who see nationalism as opposed to religion as being the reason behind this.
If thats true then its just as disturbing in another way.
What do you think?

"These men were doctors and came from reasonably affluent families."

My understanding (as interpreted by US news) is that British society is highly classed based, and other cultures in Great Britain, while financially successful, feel themselves to be second class citizens and isolated from mainstream British culture. They feel past injustices (by British colonialism) have not been answered for.

If you say to someone "Even though you are from another culture, I have let you become a doctor", you may think you are being high-minded, but the statement has built within it a derogatory attitude. And when the person on the receiving end knows the history of the relationship, it becomes not a reminder of a help given, but of harm done.

Daveh, I think suicide bombers in general are disturbing.

I think RC's post is a plausible reason -- disenfranchisement is possible in a class-based culture even without attendant poverty, as plenty of blacks have experienced in the US over the last 100 years.

There could be more to it, though. Religious fanaticism is real; just relatively rare in the truly well fed and happy. Nationalism is also real, and makes a strange sort of sense from an evolutionary perspective. Dying to defend one's tribe protect(ed) both one's genes and the tribal memes for much of human history, and we're both socially and biologically programmed from an early age to make this sort of sacrifice if called upon. Finally, one wonders who called upon them to do it, and what kind of arm-twisting they used. "Please. You must accept this bomb and sacrifice your life for our cause or we will shoot your (fill in the blank -- child, wife, dog, entire family)."

rgb

"Dying to defend one's tribe protect(ed) both one's genes and the tribal memes for much of human history, and we're both socially and biologically programmed from an early age to make this sort of sacrifice if called upon"

I agree. I think we overcome this programming by building peaceful obligations between each other. I think in another post you highlighted the rebuilding the US needs to do around the world to compensate for the mass destruction of the last several years.

Guys,

Thanks for those responses. I'm following the trial at the moment and it makes for disturbing reading. The London suicide bombers were highly impressionable even though the were teachers and university students but the more recent would be Scottish bombers were older, in Britain for generations and very well integrated in terms of friends and culture.

I think I find the initial moment of 'turning' most puzzling and also most troubling.

It's been some time since I read it, but I believe that Sam Harris in The End of Faith comments that the average suicide bomber is from a well-educated middle class background.

I'll have to re-read it to see if he proposes any theories for why this is. I highly recommend the book, though, I find Harris to be a bit too aggressive in his stance towards religion.

Cairnraiser,

I've read 'The End of Faith' and it would be interesting to compare a then and now situation with what Harris wrote back in 2004. This was before London and also before Scotland.

"Finally, one wonders who called upon them to do it, and what kind of arm-twisting they used. "Please. You must accept this bomb and sacrifice your life for our cause or we will shoot your (fill in the blank -- child, wife, dog, entire family)."
I consider this possibility every time I see a botched suicide bomb attempt. I have to wonder if the presumably coerced party lost his nerve.

Some years ago there were several religious debate/discussion chat rooms on MSN in the religion section. I used to go in and try to have intelligent, rational conversations with people. At some point i realized that i was just hearing the same arguments over and over again (often from the same people, and on both sides). At that point i decided to adopt this screen name and just amuse myself with snide, inane, or otherwise off the wall comments.

Kinni wrote: ""Finally, one wonders who called upon them to do it, and what kind of arm-twisting they used. "Please. You must accept this bomb and sacrifice your life for our cause or we will shoot your (fill in..."

Actually, it even more twisted than that: most do it just to bring money to their families. Also, martyrdom is revered so strongly that they don't have to force anybody. A few years back, I read an amazing interview with a would-be Palestinian suicide bomber who wasn't even particularly religious, and was a big sports fan whose heroes were all Israeli soccer players. Strange world...

David,

That interview mirrors a similar documentary on Channel 4 a couple of years ago where an arrested Palestinian had given himself up when he realised the target had changed to a soccer match.
He described how he couldn't bring himself to kill 'fellow' soccer fans.

Yes! I think that's the same guy I'm thinking of.
-D

It's not too far removed from the idiots who shoot up schools here in the U.S. Unfortunately, it's not too difficult to talk disaffected adolescents into doing bad things. There are a lot of good people still in the Middle East, and I don't think it's too outrageous to suggest that some have been strong armed. I have seen interviews to that effect, but I couldn't produce a link to one right now. At this late stage, I think the major players are all just trying to wash blood with blood. They'll use any tactics available to perpetuate the crazy.

You said it, Kinni. There sure is plenty of crazy to go around - from all sides...