If this is real religion, then you can count me as an atheist

[cbayer]

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2014/aug/22/this-real-religion-count-me-atheist

The best way of getting rid of bad religion – and by that, I mainly mean violent religion – is by challenging it in its own terms

Giles Fraser
The Guardian, Friday 22 August 2014 19.29 BST


A screen grab that puportedly shows the Isis killer of US journalist James Foley

What is it with religion and violence? One man severs the head of another, and in the name of God… If this is real religion, then count me an atheist. But this is real religion, I hear you say. The history of religious belief is a history of horrendous violence: intolerance of others, burnings and lynchings, religious wars in which millions have died, torture, persecution. It’s easy to see the appeal of John Lennon’s imagining no religion.

So why is it that religion often does not have enough moral fortitude to resist its own capacity for violence? At its heart, religion is that category of belief in which the world does not revolve around me but around something other than me. It is a sort of Copernican revolution in which the human being is not at the centre of all things. That is not its only characteristic, but it is essential.

But there are two ways in which this thought can go. It can be a source of humility, a reason to admit that there is much about the world that I do not and cannot know, a basis for a sense of wonder at that which is beyond me that cannot be collapsed into my own plans and schemes. But also, and in total contrast to this, having the belief that we are indexed (and have special access to) to something higher or beyond ourselves can itself serve to make us feel more powerful, more virtuous, more in touch with the truth – the very opposite of the Copernican revolution of the spirit. And being exclusively allied to the truth is always a useful way of excusing one’s own violence, for it is all being done in the name of something else, something other than me. For God, as it were.

I have always argued that there is a difference between good and bad religion. But I am aware, and worry, that the problem with this distinction is that good religion can serve to give bad religion a good name. This is the atheistic complaint against liberal believers: that they provide ideological camouflage for their more murderous brothers, and by so doing keep bad religion going. Against this, I still contend that the most effective way of getting rid of bad religion – and by that I principally mean violent religion – is by challenging it in its own terms, rather than insisting upon the eradication of religion per se.

more at link

[msongs]

1. notice the coward wears a black hood. nt

[Brettongarcia]

2. "Good religion can ... give bad religion a good name"

We've been saying here recently, that "good" religion serves as an apologist, an enabler, for murderous fundamentalism.

[cbayer]

3. He says that, but then goes on to say:

I still contend that the most effective way of getting rid of bad religion – and by that I principally mean violent religion – is by challenging it in its own terms, rather than insisting upon the eradication of religion per se.

[Brettongarcia]

4. Yes. But ...

Last edited Sun Aug 24, 2014, 05:18 PM - Edit history (1)

1) First this article at last notes, allegedly good religionists are really "enablers" for murderous fundamentalism. (As one call-in commentator to EWTN/EWRN used to say, five years ago or so.)

2) But we need to go beyond the present article. Even worse than liberal religion being the enabler for fundamentalist murders, it's time to note that even allegedly "good" liberal Christianity has some very bad things in it; even purely in itself. For example, even the highest liberal "spirituality" has bad things in it (1 John 4.1, James 2.14-26, etc.). Especially: even their love and "heart" can go wrong. Since "the heart is deceitful above all things." Their "white" lies turn out to be black.

3) The article is partially right here though: it is often the case that our religionists just won't listen at all to any rational argument; believers are trained to listen only to holy books like the Bible. But there's a way around that: I've found that amazingly, the Bible itself began to self-critically note huge problems with essentially, every element of religion, from A to Z.

Amazingly, the Bible itself noted bad things even in essentially "all" "angels" and "anointing" and Chrsitian "apostle"s; through "baptism," "church"es, "doctrine," and "faith." All the way to huge problems in "spirit"s, "worship," and "zeal." A to Z.

This article is partially right therefore. It is even right to say that we should use the Bible, if we are trying to make points to religious folks. And amazingly, there are hundreds of elements of the Bible, that begin to make a case, against most of conventional religion.

Against the present article though? I'd note that the Bible makes a case even against allegedly "good" liberal Christianity too. Even "spirituality" itself, I like to note, ends up usually following "false spirits."

I suggest that if you really look deeply into religion? It ends up cancelling itself; nearly all of it.

[Htom Sirveaux]

5. That's a very zen perspective.

"The good Lord giveth, and the good Lord taketh away. Blessed be the name of the Lord."

"Before I had studied Zen for thirty years, I saw mountains as mountains, and waters as waters. When I arrived at a more intimate knowledge, I came to the point where I saw that mountains are not mountains, and waters are not waters. But now that I have got its very substance I am at rest. For it's just that I see mountains once again as mountains, and waters once again as waters." -Ch'ing-yüan Wei-hsin

[Brettongarcia]

13. Not just Zen; deeper down, Christianity says its own Heaven will dissolve (Isa. 34.4, 51.6; 2 Peter

... 2 Peter 3.7-12; Rev. 21; etc.). As we come to see good here, on this material earth.

I used to like Zen though, to be sure.

[MellowDem]

6. Not only that...

But good religion brings nothing new to the table for good. It does bring a whole lot of bad to the table though.

Also, while arguing against bad religion with good religion may be persuasive in some cases, it's never as persuasive as arguing against religion using reason and logic. If you use religion to argue against religion, it's an inherently weak position on the same footing as the bad religion being argued against. It's not as convincing.

[Htom Sirveaux]

7. Assumption: If it's religion, it can't also be reason and logic.

That idea has had some proponents: Tertullian, Kant, Kierkegaard... It would have very much confused Philo, Justin Martyr, Augustine, Moses Maimonides, Thomas Aquinas, the other philosophers of the Abrahamic/Platonic/Aristotelian fusion, and their spiritual descendents.

As soon as someone says, "God gave us reason and means for us to use it," your dichotomy falls apart.

[MellowDem]

8. Religion rests on presumptions...

My dichotomy doesn't fall apart just because someone ignores the first presumption and runs with logic and reason from there.

And it doesn't fall apart just because someone defines reason and logic to support whatever presumption they have.

Saying God gave us reason still leaves whether there is a god at all.

[Htom Sirveaux]

9. You may not agree with the philosophical arguments for God's existence,

but those arguments still exist and have had defenders using reason and logic for centuries.

[MellowDem]

10. I guess it depends on how

Reason and logic are defined.

The arguments for gods existence don't use logic or reason IMHO.

[Htom Sirveaux]

11. Why don't they use logic or reason?

How are you defining "logic and reason"?

[MellowDem]

17. Because they don't use valid reasoning.

The cosmological argument, for example, is illogical and unreasonable. It lacks sense or clear, sound reasoning. It's not guided by or based on good sense.

It's not surprising, given that the religion many of these arguments are defending explicitly require faith, not evidence, for their beliefs. Some decide try and provide evidence anyways, but it's never based on logic or reason.

They want to have their cake and eat it too. They want their faith based beliefs to also somehow have some evidence when it doesn't.

But how one defines logic and reason is pretty subjective. I don't doubt that some people find the cosmological argument as valid reasoning. There are whole professions, thousands of years of apologetics, of taking illogical and unreasonable arguments for god and trying to make them sound reasonable and logical.

It's like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. A belief that requires only faith trying to show itself to also be logical and reasonable.

[Htom Sirveaux]

18. Ok, but how is it invalid reasoning, illogical, lacking sense, etc.?

I feel like you are using those statements as another way of saying, "I disagree with it," especially when you say that what counts as logical is subjective.

[MellowDem]

20. It depends on the argument...

You'd have to give me specific arguments for god's existence to point out why it's illogical or unreasonable.

Know any arguments you think are particularly reasonable and logical about the existence of god?

One illogical and unreasonable aspect of many of them is that they fail to define god in any meaningful way. They are arguing for the existence of something they do not define.

Not surprisingly, the more specifically they define god, the more weakness there is in the argument to point out.

Basically, at some point with a more specific god, you often get explanations of "magic".

[Htom Sirveaux]

21. Let's take the cosmological argument that you already mentioned.

I define God as "an infinite, immaterial, eternal intelligent agent that caused the universe":

1. Non-existence is non-causal (aka: "nothing can come from nothing&quot
2. If there was ever a point in history where there was absolute non-existence, nothing would exist currently.
3. The universe we inhabit currently exists
4. Therefore, at least one thing must have always existed.

5. Either the universe we inhabit has always existed, or it has not always existed.
6. If the universe has always existed, space/time has always existed.
7. Space/time are relative, that is, they consist of relationships between at least two things
8. Therefore, if space/time has always existed, at least two things have always existed.

9. If the universe has not always existed, then it had a beginning.
10. A beginning requires the universe to move from non-existence to existence.
11. The universe cannot bring itself from non-existence to existence.
12. Therefore, the cause must be distinct from the universe.
13. A cause distinct from the universe of space/time would not consist of anything that requires space or time, nor would it be subject to space or time.
14. This cause would therefore be immaterial, always existing, and infinite. At time=0, nothing other than this cause existed.

15. If nothing existed outside this cause or before this cause, then nothing could compel this cause to create the universe.
16. Therefore, this cause was free to not create the universe.
17. That it did so anyway suggests a choice, which in turn suggests agency.

18. If the universe was caused by an agent's choice, the possibility of the universe must have been known that agent.
19. In other words, the agent was aware of the mathematics that defines the very structure of the universe.
20. That level of awareness of that level of information is reasonably characterized as "intelligent"

21. Occam's Razor states that one must not multiply entities beyond necessity.
22. Therefore, we should prefer the explanation of the universe that includes the fewest entities
23. An always-existing universe requires at least two entities to sustain space/time. A universe with a beginning requires only one entity.
24. Via Occam's Razor, we should prefer the explanation that involves a universe that has a beginning, with the consequences that I laid out.

In summary, it is rational to believe that the universe was caused by the choice of infinite, immaterial, eternal intelligent agent

[MellowDem]

24. The first point already falls apart...

It's a presumption. It's not reasonable to presume something which we have no knowledge of. We don't know what happened before the Big Bang, it's speculation. We don't know that "nothing can come from nothing". "Nothing" isn't defined either.

And the definition of god is completely meaningless. It tries to define god into existence. The first point already conflicts with the definition. It also isn't defined in a meaningful way. What qualities does an eternal agent have? If it's immaterial, can it be eternal?

If nothing can come from nothing, then god came from something, but god is eternal and infinite, meaning god came from nothing. It's contradictory. Also, god is immaterial. If he's immaterial, does that mean he is "nothing" or " something"?

And that's just looking at the first point. Taken as a whole, it gets worse. It's not based on logic or reason, it's based on presumptions and meaningless, vague definitions. Definitions that could be used to define most anything into existence.

The only logical and reasonable answer to whether there is the god of that definition is "I don't know".

[Htom Sirveaux]

26. All logical arguments start with axioms (or "presumptions" as you call them).

It would be exceedingly strange if a standard feature of logical argument were "unreasonable". The real question is how convincing is the axiom? If you find "non-existentence is non-causal" to be unconvincing, let's take it's opposite "non-existence can be causal". In that case, a non-existent God could still be the cause of the universe. So that's not very helpful for someone opposing the cosmological argument.

Non-existence is non-causal (or "nothing can come from nothing&quot , but I'm not claiming that God moved from non-existence to existence. An always existing thing (an "eternal" thing) does not need to move out of non-existence, so it does not need a cause.

The rest of your criticism that my argument is vague is itself too vague to answer. Could you expand on how my definitions "could be used to define most anything into existence"? Also, your counter-answer that "'I don't know' is the only logical, reasonable answer" is not backed up by any argument.

[MellowDem]

27. An axiom...

is a premise so evident as to be accepted as true without controversy. Nothing can come from nothing isn't such a premise IMHO. While it's true that god could have formed everything, it's just as probable as any infinite other number of unprovable, unfalsifiable premises.

To believe in the existence of something that is unprovable and unfalsifiable just because it could be true is not logical or reasonable. It would require a person to believe every unprovable unfalsifiable claim to be consistent.

You define god as eternal, and therefore never "coming from" anything. But then it's just as easy to say the universe itself is eternal, and therefore it doesn't run into the problem of nothing coming from nothing.

That is defining something into existence. Putting forth a premise of what can and cannot exist, and then defining something as to explicitly avoid the premise altogether. It's the equivalent of saying all mortal beings die, but Godzilla doesn't die because he's invincible. Sure, we don't have evidence Godzilla exists, or that invincibility exists, and no way to show it does, but if we can conceive of it, then it's easy to define anything into existence.

"I don't know" is the only reasonable answer to any unfalsifiable, unprovable question.

And what about the contradictions or inconsistencies in how god was defined? Is god something or nothing? Can an immaterial being have intelligence if intelligence comes from things? Etc. etc.

[Htom Sirveaux]

28. Answers:

Last edited Thu Sep 4, 2014, 12:00 AM - Edit history (9)

While it's true that god could have formed everything, it's just as probable as any infinite other number of unprovable, unfalsifiable premises.

But you're not arguing for any of them, or even identifying them. Just making a bare assertion that they exist. And then after assuming that they exist, you further assume that you know what the probabilities involved are, and that they are equal to the claim that actually has an argument backing it up. This is supposed to be an example of reason?

You define god as eternal, and therefore never "coming from" anything. But then it's just as easy to say the universe itself is eternal, and therefore it doesn't run into the problem of nothing coming from nothing.

No it's not just as easy, because as I said in the argument, an eternal universe would require at least two things to always exist to create unlimited relationships of space and time, since both are relative. But a universe that has a beginning only requires one always existing thing to cause it. Occam's Razor logically favors the universe with a beginning over the unlimited universe, because the universe with a beginning is the simpler model.

That is defining something into existence. Putting forth a premise of what can and cannot exist, and then defining something as to explicitly avoid the premise altogether. It's the equivalent of saying all mortal beings die, but Godzilla doesn't die because he's invincible. Sure, we don't have evidence Godzilla exists, or that invincibility exists, and no way to show it does, but if we can conceive of it, then it's easy to define anything into existence.

If you've got an argument that it's impossible for something to be eternal, and therefore that my model of God is incoherent, let's hear it. Because unless there's a logical contradiction involved, it's at the very least possible. Especially for something pre-existing space and time, and therefore not bound by space or time. It's not an ad hoc attribution of eternality, there's a genuine reason why it would be so. Whereas the claim "Everything that exists is limited in time" has a rather serious contradiction, because if time exists, then it is itself limited. If time is limited, then it has a beginning, and if it has a beginning, it needs something already existing to bring it into existence. Something that exists without time would not be limited by time. And we're back at the existence of something eternal, contradicting "everything that exists is limited in time".

Also, a second ago you were perfectly happy to say that the universe is eternal, so it's hard to then complain that calling something "eternal" is incoherent or impossible. If you're willing to agree to "the universe is eternal", it would be special pleading to deny the possibility of eternality to God.

"I don't know" is the only reasonable answer to any unfalsifiable, unprovable question.

Where is the argument beyond bare assertion demonstrating that it's the only reasonable answer?

And what about the contradictions or inconsistencies in how god was defined? Is god something or nothing? Can an immaterial being have intelligence if intelligence comes from things? Etc. etc.

Depends on what you mean by "something" and "nothing." Can you expand on this? And what is this claim that "intelligence comes from things"? Is there an associated argument, or is this another bare assertion?

[MellowDem]

29. Answers?

First quote: the bare assertion is that god exists, I'm just pointing out it's just as weak an argument as any other bare assertion that's unfalsifiable or unprovable. Your "argument" is merely a bare assertion, starting with the first presumption, which you still haven't addressed.

Second quote: why would it require two things to always exist for the universe to be eternal? Why would space and time always have to exist? Space and time being relative doesn't address that question in any way. How are you defining the universe? Isn't it possible that nothing eternal exists? Isn't it possible for the properties of the universe to change over time? We don't know what existed before the Big Bang. We don't know whether space and time are always necessary or present parts of the universe.

Between an eternal god and eternal universe Occam's Razor favors an eternal universe because it is much simpler of an explanation and one step less than a temporal universe created by an "immaterial, eternal, intelligent.... Etc. etc." being. You've just introduced a whole lot of new factors needlessly.

Occam's Razor is irrelevant, however, since the only logical and reasonable answer to the question of whether the god you defined exists is we don't know. Considering your god is immaterial, it is unfalsifiable. Any belief in an unfalsifiable, unprovable being is not based on reason or logic.

Third quote: I'm not arguing the universe is eternal, I'm saying it's an easy rebuttal to saying god is eternal. It's like saying Godzilla would win a fight because you define him as invincible, but then someone else could say that no, Mothra is invincible, so he would always win. Their argument is just as good as yours, but neither are logical or reasonable. Just because something is "possible" doesn't mean it's logical and reasonable to believe it. Anything is technically possible when talking about the supernatural. And there's no system in place to determine how one supernatural explanation is any better than another, among the infinite supernatural explanations one could think up or conceive.

Fourth quote: this is an opinion, a preference, not a claim. It's my opinion that it's impossible to know the answer to an unprovable, unfalsifiable question based on how I define "know". The reasoning behind it? It's the only useful definition IMHO. Supernatural explanations are impossible to test, and therefore have no predictive power.

Fifth quote: you're the one putting forth the claim, you have the burden to define what your trying to prove exists.

[Htom Sirveaux]

30. Answers, cont'd:

First quote: the bare assertion is that god exists, I'm just pointing out it's just as weak an argument as any other bare assertion that's unfalsifiable or unprovable. Your "argument" is merely a bare assertion, starting with the first presumption, which you still haven't addressed.

I did address it, by pointing out that taking the opposite presumption ("that something can come from nothing&quot doesn't help you either, because in that case God could still create the universe despite not existing. You have not answered this response. I am making an argument for the claim "God exists" not just asserting it.

Second quote: why would it require two things to always exist for the universe to be eternal? Why would space and time always have to exist? Space and time being relative doesn't address that question in any way. How are you defining the universe? Isn't it possible that nothing eternal exists? Isn't it possible for the properties of the universe to change over time? We don't know what existed before the Big Bang. We don't know whether space and time are always necessary or present parts of the universe.

If you're going to offer the possibility of an eternal universe, and you don't mean space/time, then could you explain what you mean by "universe"? I'm defining the universe as space/time and the physical contents therein. I already addressed what happens in the case that nothing eternal exists, in my previous response, if you'd care to comment on that.

Between an eternal god and eternal universe Occam's Razor favors an eternal universe because it is much simpler of an explanation and one step less than a temporal universe created by an "immaterial, eternal, intelligent.... Etc. etc." being. You've just introduced a whole lot of new factors needlessly.

Again, could you define what you mean by universe, if not space/time? I can't evaluate your claim that an "eternal universe" is simpler without that definition of "universe".

Occam's Razor is irrelevant, however, since the only logical and reasonable answer to the question of whether the god you defined exists is we don't know. Considering your god is immaterial, it is unfalsifiable. Any belief in an unfalsifiable, unprovable being is not based on reason or logic.

How would I falsify the belief that "any belief in an unfalsifiable, unprovable being is not based on reason or logic"? Seems like that statement is itself unfalsifiable, and so by its own terms must be discarded.

Third quote: I'm not arguing the universe is eternal, I'm saying it's an easy rebuttal to saying god is eternal. It's like saying Godzilla would win a fight because you define him as invincible, but then someone else could say that no, Mothra is invincible, so he would always win. Their argument is just as good as yours, but neither are logical or reasonable. Just because something is "possible" doesn't mean it's logical and reasonable to believe it. Anything is technically possible when talking about the supernatural. And there's no system in place to determine how one supernatural explanation is any better than another, among the infinite supernatural explanations one could think up or conceive.

Again, it's not a rebuttal if it doesn't come with an argument explaining to me why that option should be accepted.

Fourth quote: this is an opinion, a preference, not a claim. It's my opinion that it's impossible to know the answer to an unprovable, unfalsifiable question based on how I define "know". The reasoning behind it? It's the only useful definition IMHO. Supernatural explanations are impossible to test, and therefore have no predictive power.

So when scientists speculate about the multiverse, despite its existence being impossible to test, are they being irrational and illogical?

Fifth quote: you're the one putting forth the claim, you have the burden to define what your trying to prove exists.

I already defined it. You have questions about that definition, but they are vague, and I asked you to clarify. I can't read your mind and define the terms you used. The "burden of proof" isn't at issue here. I can't answer unclear questions.

[Brettongarcia]

31. So let's use your own presumption: just say the Universe always existed.

[Htom Sirveaux]

32. That's not my presumption, and I already address that possibility

in my original argument. That's the part about relativity and Occam's razor.

[Brettongarcia]

12. Early, Christian reason was not as advanced as current Reason and Science.

[Htom Sirveaux]

15. So what?

(a) you assume without demonstrating that whatever advances you are thinking of undermine the early forms of Christian arguments

(b) you assume that Christian arguments haven't been updated or defended in modern terms.

[ZombieHorde]

14. There are many different world views.

Some world views require more excuses in order to persist than other world views; e.g., the world view that claims people are inherently good or bad requires more excuses than the world view that claims there is no good or bad.

In my opinion, instead of changing the world with excuses in order to justify our world view, we should change our world view to match what is going on around us.

[trotsky]

16. "rather than insisting upon the eradication of religion per se"

Great strawman. I suppose it's easier than arguing against a real position, though.

What I'd like to see is the elimination of religious beliefs AS A JUSTIFICATION for political action. And we can't do that without the ability to question religion's privileged status.

[Htom Sirveaux]

19. Does someone have to successfully justify their religious beliefs to you* in order to

use them as a basis for their own political actions?

*"you" in the general sense of "people who don't already share them".

[trotsky]

22. If they want the rest of us to live according to their beliefs,

you bet your ass they do.

[cleanhippie]

25. This religion is as real as any other.