Is religious belief cowardly?

[118118]

They are not: sight is what the eye *does,* what it is for.

Argue the case for that which it is for is not what it is. This chair is for sitting down in, that is what it *is*.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Ok, we're back to PD's old hobby horse, that the idea of a thing must precede the thing itself - ref: any other post by him in any other thread.

 

[In Bloom]

The mind is to the brain as sight is to the eye. While we are alive they are clearly interdependent: a man with no eyes cannot see. But we must avoid the elementary logical error of concluding that sight and the eye are the same thing. They are not: sight is what the eye *does,* what it is for. Similarly, the mind (or consciousness, or the soul if you prefer) is what the brain *does,* it is not the same thing as the brain. I am agnostic on the question of whether the mind survives the death of the brain, but there is no logical reason why it should not.

Erm, correct me if I'm wrong, but last time I checked, sight doesn't survive the removal of somebody's eyes. Why should the process of consciousness continue after the organ in which it occurs is dead?

 

[WouldBe]

Anyone is a coward who just believes what society or authority tells them to believe, without thinking it through for themselves.

You could say the same for religion.

 

[kyser_soze]

Anyone is a coward who just believes what society or authority tells them to believe, without thinking it through for themselves. In our society, the vast majority of such cowards are atheists.

Right, cos atheists obviously blindly accept whatever is put in front of them, and are well known for not having minds that question authority. And of course, deeply religious people are equally well known for questioning authority...

 

[littlebabyjesus]

*Dwyer rolls up sleeves* "Right, outside. I'll take you all on, infidel scum."

 

[Jonti]

There are different kinds of religious belief. There are modern dogmatic monotheisms. And there is that which is proto-scientific in its method, generally the polytheistic 'pagan' beliefs which preceded modern-day monotheistic Judeo-Christian-Islam (although I would argue that these are not mono- at all since they make us responsible for our actions, ie they assume the existence of free will, thus making us all gods).

This reminds me of something Erwin Schrodinger (he of the wave function) wrote in Determinism and Freewill, the epilogue to his booklet What is Life?.

... immediate experiences in themselves, however various and disparate they be, are logically incapable of contradicting each other. So let us see whether we cannot draw the correct, non-contradictory conclusion from the following two premises:

(i) My body functions as a pure mechanism according to the Laws of Nature.

(ii) Yet I know, by incontrovertible direct experience, that I am directing its motions, of which I foresee the effects, that may be fateful and all-important, in which case I feel and take full responsibility for them.

The only possible inference from these two facts is, I think, that I -- I in the widest sense of the word, that is to say, every conscious mind that has ever said or felt 'I' -- am the person, if any, who controls the 'motion of the atoms' according to the Laws of Nature.
...

 

[littlebabyjesus]

It's a sticky problem, because it would appear that a coherent system requires the denial of free will, yet few of us can live day-to-day without assuming that we do indeed have free will. I've yet to hear of a monistic account of the universe which incorporates the notion of free will, yet dualistic ones always have the 'and then a miracle occurs' moment when our immaterial intention is able to affect the material world.

I'm stuck.

Has anyone read Koestler's 'The Ghost in the Machine'?

 

[Mrs Magpie]

Ah Koestler...well known violent rapist.....

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Yeah, but he had some good ideas. Should we not read him because he was git?

 

[Stigmata]

Right, cos atheists obviously blindly accept whatever is put in front of them, and are well known for not having minds that question authority. And of course, deeply religious people are equally well known for questioning authority...

Aren't they though? Thomas Becket was deeply religious, and he questioned secular authority. Martin Luther was ultra-religious, and he positively denounced the established Church.

Also, this idea that religious people don't ever have doubts or undergo critical introspection seems a little odd, as though the only possibly conclusion one can reach when examining one's own faith is that it's a load of cobblers. Surely that's a very subjective perception?

 

[Aldebaran]

I suspect that, deep down, most believers know it's all nonsense and are in denial.

You can suspect that, but suspicion does not constitute any truth. Secondly: If you are not religious yourself, how and where do you find even a reason for this suspicion of yours?

Since you felt the call make your "suspicion" known by posting a thread on it I suspect it to be more then a "suspicion". I suspect you claim this to be "fact" and want others to take notice of this Great Discovery of yours.

I'm touched and want to help you by inviting you to prove your audience that I "know it's all nonsense and am in denial".

Good luck.

salaam.

 

[118118]

I'm touched and want to help you by inviting you to prove your audience that I "know it's all nonsense and am in denial"

I would say that most people may not know its all nonsense, but that they do know that its very easy and makes them feel good.

 

[kyser_soze]

Aren't they though? Thomas Becket was deeply religious, and he questioned secular authority. Martin Luther was ultra-religious, and he positively denounced the established Church.

Also, this idea that religious people don't ever have doubts or undergo critical introspection seems a little odd, as though the only possibly conclusion one can reach when examining one's own faith is that it's a load of cobblers. Surely that's a very subjective perception?

Criticising authority that is competition for your own views (which is what Beckett did) is hardly an overall questioning of authority is it? And at the end of the day, neither of them ever really questioned their obedience to God did they?

Besides, I was responding to Dwyers ridiculous assertion that atheists are cowards who unquestioningly accept any and all authority - try reading the context in which my comments were written.

 

[Jonti]

It's a sticky problem, because it would appear that a coherent system requires the denial of free will, yet few of us can live day-to-day without assuming that we do indeed have free will. I've yet to hear of a monistic account of the universe which incorporates the notion of free will, yet dualistic ones always have the 'and then a miracle occurs' moment when our immaterial intention is able to affect the material world.

I'm stuck.

Has anyone read Koestler's 'The Ghost in the Machine'?

I've not read that book, but the philosophy of mind has made great progress over the last ten years or so. They are far from easy reading, but a couple of papers by David Chalmers are well worth chewing on, if anyone's interested.

Facing up to the Problem of Consciousness
Moving Forward on the Problem of Consciousness

In the first paper, Chalmers convincingly argues that consciousness is not reducible to physical processes, as they are currently defined. Consequently, some new law or angle on things is required. In the second paper, Chalmers discusses the various responses he received. He also looks at the various suggested new angles or types of law that may enable science to get to grips with the natural facts of phenomenology.

It appears that the notion of information may be central to an understanding of consciousness, and the question of whether the world is causally closed (and freewill an illusion) or whether we are indeed, somehow, captains of our own minds, and able to direct the movements of our bodies.

 

[William of Walworth]

I used to be a lot more contemptuous of believers than I these days, now I'm more discerning in my criticism. I have little time for fervant doorstepping evangelists in th UK (they're eprfectly nice, but can make a real nuisance of themseves), and even less for those whose version of evangelical Christianity (or of Catholicism) would if implemented stop people making their own life or ethical decisions re sexuality, abortion, etc. A lot of overlap between hardcore moral majority evangelism in the States, and Necon Republicanism. A lot of these conservative Christians may not vote in a fortnight, but not because of the war in Iraq, much more (I read) because of that Republican senator's email dalliances with White House pageboys

But there's plenty of other Christians whose worldview and politics are sound. My atheist (and as it happens, anarchist!) mates who work for Oxfam have the utmost respect for Christian Aid workers in crisis spots -- and it's not CA who are pushing abstinence programmes in Africa instead of contraception

I don't though think anyone's a 'coward' for their belief and I'd like to agree with bluestreak (although I don't always manage it)

personally i find that provided someone isn't a cunt, i tend to not worry too much about what they believe.

As for atheists as a group being more cowardly than believers that's just prejudiced nonsense from Urban's leading anti-atheist bigot. (Who's professed to be 'non religious').

 

[frogwoman]

It's not true at all that all atheists are cowardly and will just accept anyone's authority - in fact its a load of bullshit. Just because they don't believe in g-d, doesn't mean that they don't automatically have morals or anything.

 

[phildwyer]

It's not true at all that all atheists are cowardly and will just accept anyone's authority - in fact its a load of bullshit. Just because they don't believe in g-d, doesn't mean that they don't automatically have morals or anything.

Not all of them, but I'd honestly say the *majority* of atheists have never thought about the issue properly. That is cowardly in my view. But of course atheists can be just as moral as religious believers, who are often just as guilty as atheists of accepting their position on faith.

 

[Graymalkin]

Not all of them, but I'd honestly say the *majority* of atheists have never thought about the issue properly. That is cowardly in my view. But of course atheists can be just as moral as religious believers, who are often just as guilty as atheists of accepting their position on faith.

I'd say that religious folk are the ones that don't seriously think about their beliefs. Phil, Religion is hegemonic, it's everywhere and most people when they pass you on the street will assume that you have some sort of religious belief, it's taken for granted that you have some sort of belief (even if you don't regularily visit a place of worship). Furthermore, most religious people don't have to provide justifications for their beliefs. Maybe some athiests, if they're born into athiestic families, will take their lack of belief for granted but surely you realize that many if not most atheists are born into a religious family and abandon religion by choice, and put some thought into it.

 

[phildwyer]

I'd say that religious folk are the ones that don't seriously think about their beliefs. Phil, Religion is hegemonic, it's everywhere and most people when they pass you on the street will assume that you have some sort of religious belief, it's taken for granted that you have some sort of belief (even if you don't regularily visit a place of worship). Furthermore, most religious people don't have to provide justifications for their beliefs. Maybe some athiests, if they're born into athiestic families, will take their lack of belief for granted but surely you realize that many if not most atheists are born into a religious family and abandon religion by choice, and put some thought into it.

I see you're in Canada. I don't think what you describe is the British experience at all. Most British atheists I know have never been religious and don't come from religious families. They just go along with the socially prevelent atheist ambience. Just take a look at these boards--whenever religion is discussed there is a flock of pig-ignorant twits who crowd along to shout their atheism from the rooftops, apparently under the impression that theirs is a terribly radical and shocking doctrine.

 

[Aldebaran]

I would say that most people may not know its all nonsense, but that they do know that its very easy and makes them feel good.

It escapes me what "being easy" and "making feel good" has to do with believing in God /being religious.
Besides that, even *if* some people reason like that about their belief in God and their religion, what do you have against them having it easy and feeling good?
Do you believe life must be difficult making you feel miserable?

salaam.

 

[Aldebaran]

We know our minds better than we know our brains.

I would argue it is the opposite.
I wouod think much more is researched on and discovered about the functioning of the brain then we can consciously be aware of the subconciousness of our own mind.

salaam.

 

[Aldebaran]

Ah, but the mind *can* know itself.

How does your mind knows itself? Can you- for example - describe in detail its subconcious reasoning patterns while you write your answer to this question?

It is unique in the universe in this regard. That is in fact one of the most cogent arguments for its immortality.

Where is your proof that it is unique - let alone in the universe - and what has this argument to do with immortality?
I woud say that the human mind is all but immortal. Only God is uncreated, eternal, hence can be described in human terms as *immortal* since God can't "die".

salaam.

 

[Graymalkin]

I see you're in Canada. I don't think what you describe is the British experience at all. Most British atheists I know have never been religious and don't come from religious families. They just go along with the socially prevelent atheist ambience. Just take a look at these boards--whenever religion is discussed there is a flock of pig-ignorant twits who crowd along to shout their atheism from the rooftops, apparently under the impression that theirs is a terribly radical and shocking doctrine.

I don't think that the differences between Canadian experience and British Experience is relevant. Religion is still dominant in both our societies, which I would think would make it much easier for a religious person to take their beliefs for granted. A non-religious person is confronted with believers every day. As for the rabid athiests, I went through a phase like that. Nowadays, I think that the believer/athiest conflict is a fairly meaningless dichotomy since both camps have members spanning the political spectrum. I've met fascist athiests and muslim anarchists. I don't think that religious beliefs are inherently cowardly but they certainly can be a cowardly way to close your mind. I don't think that that applies to athiests who live in a predominantly religious society.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

The mind is to the brain as sight is to the eye. While we are alive they are clearly interdependent: a man with no eyes cannot see. But we must avoid the elementary logical error of concluding that sight and the eye are the same thing. They are not: sight is what the eye *does,* what it is for. Similarly, the mind (or consciousness, or the soul if you prefer) is what the brain *does,* it is not the same thing as the brain. I am agnostic on the question of whether the mind survives the death of the brain, but there is no logical reason why it should not.

I'm not too sure what a 'mind' is, the word is heavy with baggage.

Also, I don't know if 'mind' is what a brain is doing. An ostrich has a brain - does it have a mind?

What a brain does, is think, ie process stimuli; and regulate functions.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Aren't they though? Thomas Becket was deeply religious, and he questioned secular authority. Martin Luther was ultra-religious, and he positively denounced the established Church.

Luther was also an uber jew-hater.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/luther.htm

 

[118118]

It escapes me what "being easy" and "making feel good" has to do with believing in God /being religious.
Besides that, even *if* some people reason like that about their belief in God and their religion, what do you have against them having it easy and feeling good?
Do you believe life must be difficult making you feel miserable?

salaam.

Believing in God does not make you feel better? Then he's not doing his job very well! I always thought this was the case.

I don't believe life must be miserable. But I find it strange that people can attach so much value to something so easy.

I wouldn't say that I have anything against relisous people, really.

Meh

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Believing in God does not make you feel better?

Not necessarily. What if you've sinned, and are worried about going to hell?

 

[118118]

Its the believers that are all going to hell

 

[Aldebaran]

Believing in God does not make you feel better? Then he's not doing his job very well! I always thought this was the case.

Why would it make me feel "better", which implies the idea that "previously" I didn't feel "good"? First of all there is no such "previously" situation in my life and secondly, my belief in God does not depend on "feeling good" but on belief in the existence of the Creator of All.
Holding God responsible for my yes or no "feeling good" is an idea that ridiculous that it never crossed my mind.

I don't believe life must be miserable. But I find it strange that people can attach so much value to something so easy.

(It completely escapes me why you go on with this "easy" thing.) Where on earth do you get the impression that a belief in God is "easy"? What is so "easy" about it?

salaam.