I have been an atheist since I learned the definition of the word. But I question two of the arguments Michael presents here.
First the study by Gregory Paul is correct as far as it goes, but any further extrapolation risks confusing correlation with causation. Furthermore, the US is different from those other 16 countries in many ways that certainly relate to social dysfunctions. The right question (and experiment) is whether the US would be worse if it was LESS religious.
Second, the list of horrors attributed to religion probably overlooks how many of these were motivated by other issues. And claiming they were justified by religion might be correct, but in a former time EVERYTHING was justified with religious arguments. Of course, as others have done before, we can also list regional and even global atrocities committed by anti-religious groups.
In fact, declaring classic religions moot does not protect human thinking from doctrine and behavior from criminal.
I am an atheist, but I think there is an important role for religion in a mostly secular society. It is good to have a strong vocal minority that does not recognize the state as the most powerful authority, that insists there is something higher and more important. Likewise, in an age that has far too much respect for science, it is good to have people who refuse to accept science as the road to all truth. The recent dictatorship caused by a panic over a relatively harmless disease, with science being the excuse to infringe on rights that should never be questioned, shows how greatly needed is a counterweight to both government over-reach and scientific hubris. Religion is the only social power available to fill that role.
I watched sections of the video, and I am not totally surprised that your team changed more minds than your opponents. You are clearly doing something right in your Oxford-style debates.
I have always wondered if there might be an additional technique for challenging the religious and changing their minds, namely, demonstrating to them how they might have gone wrong. Let me explain with two analogies.
1, If someone gets the incorrect answer to a math problem and you can demonstrate to them where they went wrong in their calculations, they should be more receptive to the accepting the correct answer.
2, If someone's eyes are fooled by an optical illusion and you can demonstrate how their senses are being tricked, they should be more receptive to accepting that their eyes (well, actually, their eyes and their brain) are not perceiving reality correctly.
All we need are demonstrations of how someone's thinking about God is a miscalculation and how their senses and feelings are tricking them into believing in the existence of something that does not exist. Obviously, this will not be easy because numerous factors lead people down the garden path to theism, and one would want to cover all of the possible wrongheaded reasons why people become theists. Still, such an effort might be worthwhile.
Great job Michael, and Corrolla was also excellent. It would be great to see a thorugh debunking of the fine tuning and consciousness arguments that Douthat and Frances Collins are now pedalling.
One issue I have is the definition of "religion." Belief systems that are not officially religions can clearly be religious in nature -- in terms of strength of commitment and dogmatism. I see this in people hating Israel, in aspects of the Progressive's beliefs and attitudes, in climate catastrophism. And, of course, you see it in Hitler and Stalin's evil actions.
"The foundation of the belief in an absolute morality is the belief in an absolute religion grounded in the One True God. This inexorably leads to the conclusion that anyone who believes differently has departed from this truth and thus is unprotected by our moral obligations." The religious-like nature of many supposedly non-religious people is seen in the way they hate those who disagree.
These types of discussions are important but I'm not sure the conversations are framed correctly. As someone who was once very religious and is now not, I cannot simply decide to be religious again because it might have some associated benefits. Likewise, Western society cannot simply decide it needs a religious revival and embrace institutionalized religions again as it once did. In many ways, religion has lost its effectiveness, its explanatory power, and its overall usefulness.
Thus, I think the conversations need to be more about new ways forward while also taking into account the very real impacts of the Digital Age and how we might seek to overcome the erosion of community that social media and the online world have wrought.
I used to enjoy debates but now I worry that they encourage people to become overly entrenched in their positions. In this age of viral clips, 'got you' moments and incendiary statements have a real monetary incentive to manufacture. I wonder if we could put down this debate over the existence of God(s) without answering the question or one side winning out of the other.
I don't think a world without beliefs is one that remains human, people believe all sorts of stuff that seems like nonsense to others outside of religious thought. We are not wholly driven by rationality. A person can be rational their whole life and in a moment be swept up in a maelstrom of emotions that cause them to do something completely irrational. Religious belief will never be replaced by cold facts or hard sciences as long as we are human.
I believe that people should keep spiritual thoughts to themselves unless explicitly asked. Religion was once part of the framework that kept people together now it is part of what drives us apart. Maybe we shouldn't be debating theology but the manner in which a person exercises belief and the role that religion plays in one's life.
I have been an atheist since I learned the definition of the word. But I question two of the arguments Michael presents here.
First the study by Gregory Paul is correct as far as it goes, but any further extrapolation risks confusing correlation with causation. Furthermore, the US is different from those other 16 countries in many ways that certainly relate to social dysfunctions. The right question (and experiment) is whether the US would be worse if it was LESS religious.
Second, the list of horrors attributed to religion probably overlooks how many of these were motivated by other issues. And claiming they were justified by religion might be correct, but in a former time EVERYTHING was justified with religious arguments. Of course, as others have done before, we can also list regional and even global atrocities committed by anti-religious groups.
In fact, declaring classic religions moot does not protect human thinking from doctrine and behavior from criminal.
I liked the topic but found the discussion disappointing.
I would have preferred to see an answer from Mahatma Ghandhi or Sister Joan Chittister rather than these guys.
Reading this is like seeing an article titled “Are Motorcars Needed” then reading about the features and drawbacks of a Buick Skylark.
Kind of hard to book Ghandhi for debates these days.
I am an atheist, but I think there is an important role for religion in a mostly secular society. It is good to have a strong vocal minority that does not recognize the state as the most powerful authority, that insists there is something higher and more important. Likewise, in an age that has far too much respect for science, it is good to have people who refuse to accept science as the road to all truth. The recent dictatorship caused by a panic over a relatively harmless disease, with science being the excuse to infringe on rights that should never be questioned, shows how greatly needed is a counterweight to both government over-reach and scientific hubris. Religion is the only social power available to fill that role.
As usual, all excellent points.
I watched sections of the video, and I am not totally surprised that your team changed more minds than your opponents. You are clearly doing something right in your Oxford-style debates.
I have always wondered if there might be an additional technique for challenging the religious and changing their minds, namely, demonstrating to them how they might have gone wrong. Let me explain with two analogies.
1, If someone gets the incorrect answer to a math problem and you can demonstrate to them where they went wrong in their calculations, they should be more receptive to the accepting the correct answer.
2, If someone's eyes are fooled by an optical illusion and you can demonstrate how their senses are being tricked, they should be more receptive to accepting that their eyes (well, actually, their eyes and their brain) are not perceiving reality correctly.
All we need are demonstrations of how someone's thinking about God is a miscalculation and how their senses and feelings are tricking them into believing in the existence of something that does not exist. Obviously, this will not be easy because numerous factors lead people down the garden path to theism, and one would want to cover all of the possible wrongheaded reasons why people become theists. Still, such an effort might be worthwhile.
Great job Michael, and Corrolla was also excellent. It would be great to see a thorugh debunking of the fine tuning and consciousness arguments that Douthat and Frances Collins are now pedalling.
But with what religion?
https://open.substack.com/pub/luciferv/p/in-the-beginning-was-the-word?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=5e4lda
One issue I have is the definition of "religion." Belief systems that are not officially religions can clearly be religious in nature -- in terms of strength of commitment and dogmatism. I see this in people hating Israel, in aspects of the Progressive's beliefs and attitudes, in climate catastrophism. And, of course, you see it in Hitler and Stalin's evil actions.
"The foundation of the belief in an absolute morality is the belief in an absolute religion grounded in the One True God. This inexorably leads to the conclusion that anyone who believes differently has departed from this truth and thus is unprotected by our moral obligations." The religious-like nature of many supposedly non-religious people is seen in the way they hate those who disagree.
These types of discussions are important but I'm not sure the conversations are framed correctly. As someone who was once very religious and is now not, I cannot simply decide to be religious again because it might have some associated benefits. Likewise, Western society cannot simply decide it needs a religious revival and embrace institutionalized religions again as it once did. In many ways, religion has lost its effectiveness, its explanatory power, and its overall usefulness.
Thus, I think the conversations need to be more about new ways forward while also taking into account the very real impacts of the Digital Age and how we might seek to overcome the erosion of community that social media and the online world have wrought.
I used to enjoy debates but now I worry that they encourage people to become overly entrenched in their positions. In this age of viral clips, 'got you' moments and incendiary statements have a real monetary incentive to manufacture. I wonder if we could put down this debate over the existence of God(s) without answering the question or one side winning out of the other.
I don't think a world without beliefs is one that remains human, people believe all sorts of stuff that seems like nonsense to others outside of religious thought. We are not wholly driven by rationality. A person can be rational their whole life and in a moment be swept up in a maelstrom of emotions that cause them to do something completely irrational. Religious belief will never be replaced by cold facts or hard sciences as long as we are human.
I believe that people should keep spiritual thoughts to themselves unless explicitly asked. Religion was once part of the framework that kept people together now it is part of what drives us apart. Maybe we shouldn't be debating theology but the manner in which a person exercises belief and the role that religion plays in one's life.
Congratulations, Michael! We lost a few atheists who started having second thoughts over the past couple of years.
The West could use a religious enema to flush all the religious influence away.