Why is it so hard to have an honest discussion about religion?

(I am not entirely sure whether this belongs in the theology forum, but my estimation is that these matters are more
of a meta-discussion and not actual theology/religion material, so I post it here)

I have noticed that often when people discuss religion, this quickly becomes personal
and a battle between entrenched fronts ensues. I think there are a few reasons why this happens,
and a few things that one should do when having a discussion about
religion:

1. Make sure there is a consistent definition of the word "religion" in the discussion.

Or in other words, make sure everyone is talking about the same thing.
Aside from the dictionary definition, the word "religion" means various things to different
people. It can mean anything from a vague feeling that some higher incomprehensible reality
exists to a set of very definite statements about this higher reality, including
various definite implications for everyday life and physical reality that are derived from it.
To some it can even mean a set of practices to improve quality of life, that are not even
related to any higher reality. Discussions usually go bad when people change their definition
in the course of an argument, or make blanket statements such as "religious people are persecuted"
or "religious people are deluded" without further clarfication of who exactly they are
talking about.

2. Once religion has been defined, religions should always be allowed to be measured by what they contain.

In other words, people need to own their beliefs. If I believe something, I should be able to
elaborate on the how and why, or at least not be offended when people ask the question of the how
and why. If one states that a given piece of scripture is divinely inspired, one should
expect to be confronted with quotes from that scripture.

3. Distinguish between "religious practice" and "religious tradition/culture".

It seems like such discussions always go bad when people mix the two. The distiction
is quite obvious for some religions and less obvious but also present for others.
For instance, Judaism can be understood as a religion or as an ethnicity. The two
overlap but are not identical. The statement "Jews believe in the Sabbath" is
true generally only when speaking of the religion.
It is less obvious for other traditions, but even there I think it plays a large role.
People may consider themselves Catholic, or Muslim, because they come from a family who
has a tradition of going to a church/mosque, even though they have never once spent
time thinking about the theological implications. This can sometimes lead to situations
where people react as if their family had been insulted to a theological discussion.

And finally, and most importantly:

4. No element of a religion that makes statements about physical reality which
have been proven to be wrong with a likelyhood bordering on certainty, by science, should
expect any form of recognition.

It is not offensive to call things wrong that are wrong. Not even if the person doing so
actively seeked out someone to tell them they are wrong. In fact, it is part of the job
of scientitsts to spread reason, and they should be encouraged to do so. If we foster
a culture where statements which are proven to be wrong are, out of a false sense
of respect for tradition, allowed to influence how society operates, we will pay the price.

I am sure there are more things that could be added to this list, but these are all I can
think of at the moment.

there is no discussion

Apply the scientific principal to Religion and see what happens.

on beliefs that are not supported by any physical evidence, they are all based on thought processes alone. That means that any attempt to refute these beliefs is perceived as an attack, and reacted to with an emotional response. Without a physical basis that can be demonstrated, there is little else for the believer in religious doctrines to argue with other than emotions.

As we've seen, all of this makes it almost to have a discussion from outside of the belief system in question. As an atheist, I don't and can't believe in any sort of supernatural entities at all. So, religious beliefs appear to me as superstition. How do you argue with a superstition. So, I don't.

It's very hard to look at ones own religious beliefs with a critical eye. Any critical comments are usually taken as a personal insult.

There are good and bad aspects to faith and religion, yet people generally only wish to see the good. Rarely do you find faiths with a balance.

People are quick to praise and thank God/ess yet are never so quick to show anger towards the same dieties when bad things happen.

save for a very few people because you tap directly into people's fear, especially with right wingers whose whole existence is predicated in fear. If you do confront them with fact, such as some of the Greek text of the New Testament is mistranslated into some English version of the Bible, they have to confront the possibility that their beliefs could be wrong.

This could ultimately lead to them having to consider their whole belief system could be wrong and they could even have to consider that there might not even be a G-d. That this life is all there is and at the end of the road it is just dirt in your face. That is overwhelming to them as it is a direct assault on ego through fear and they immediately go into lock down expressed through anger. (I am not arguing this from an atheist perspective as I am not an atheist)

Our communications skills seem to be well developed for face-to-face communications, much less so for communication in this medium. Any disagreement about an expressed view tends to be interpreted as some sort of insult, and the resulting conversation rapidly deteriorates into name-calling.

Outside of internet concerns, any conversation that is many-against-one is very difficult for the one. People do not allow the one to respond to each challenge to his point of view, before chiming in with other challenges. The conversation takes on aspects of people ganging up. There is a lot of frustration which tends to ruin the conversation.

As to the specifics of a religious discussion, religious beliefs (or lack of them) tend to define a persons view of the world. If you tell someone that their worldview is wrong, they are probably going to have a strong reaction. I find that, in face-to-face discussions, I can politely disagree with someone's worldview and still have a reasonable conversation. I also find that in face-to-face conversations, while I disagree with people's worldviews, I don't mock them. People seem willing to accept disagreement; unwilling to accept mockery. On the internet, and specifically in the R/T Forum, a lot of the disagreement comes across as mockery.

If the discussion is between people of different faiths, it will quickly devolve into a "my God is better than your God" pissing match (and, honestly, if you don't believe your God is the one, TRUE God, then why are you following him/her?) UNLESS the participants are entering into the discussion with no intent other than broadening their personal perspective and understanding. Few people are that intellectually pure.

And between athiests and the faithful........what's the point? There is no common ground (at least not in terms of the subject matter at hand), and one side will never convince the other that they are "wrong". Sure, it might be an interesting, intellectual exercise, but it's also an emotional powder keg with a very short fuse. To borrow an old phrase............east is east, and west is west, and never the twain shall meet.

I've grown weary in my years on this planet of being told that I'm wrong, or confused, or just not smart enough to "understand". I'm tired of perfect strangers feeling they have the right to question what is -- to me anyway -- a very personal and private matter.......and then being offended when I decline to do so. I'm tired of being accosted by people intent on sharing their beliefs with me when I didn't invite them to do so.........and then being accused of persecuting them when I ask them to stop.

Seriously, why does religion ever need to enter our everyday discussions?

"Separation of Church and State", beyond that it's a personal issue.:shrug:

There are those who think that science and religion can peacefully coexist--that there are phenomena not yet explained by science--and there are those who think that science answers every single question about life. I prefer having a discussion with someone whose mind is open to other opinions and to possibilities they have not yet considered; otherwise we're just talking at, not with, each other.

I'll point out the false dichotomy if I have to, but really, do I have to?

Don't you see it, plain as day? And if you know it's there, why spout nonsense rhetoric like this?

Do you mean the methodology of making observations, isolating variables, and performing experiments?

What alternative method do you think people use? What alternative method do you use?

Or is it only "noxious" with special pleading for religion?

Are you noxiously telling me that I shouldn't believe that telling people what they shouldn't believe isn't automatically noxious?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

don't believe in supply side economics
don't believe that the world will end soon and the rapture will take you
don't believe that the psychic you are giving your money to knows something special
don't believe that Sadam Hussien was behind 9/11

Should I keep being "noxious"?

or anything else on your "list",

but I fail to understand how any of

that relates to my point about noxiousness.:shrug:

I am telling people that they should not believe in these things. I am saying it is harmful to people and society for people to believe in these things. Am I being noxious?

In answer to your question on noxiousness, I can only say "not so far".

is not noxious?

Strictly speaking, I don't perceive you (or me) as having

the "authority" to tell other people what to think.

" Correct..and telling people what NOT to believe is as noxious as telling them what to believe."

And that's part of the problem.

who are have some kind of faith, but couldn't give a flying fook what others believe...The problem is, they are "mainstream" something

not idiotic, proslytizing, "creationist" fundy types and they don't make the news.

in creationism?

who define themselves as the "only" Christians (e.g. They don't believe that Catholics are "Christian")

than you MIGHT get a "majority"....It is decidedly NOT the majority belief of mainstream christians,

Catholics included, who outnumber the fundies by about two thirds.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/evolution-creationism-intelligent-design.aspx
http://www.gallup.com/poll/145286/four-americans-believe-strict-creationism.aspx

40% of the US population believes in strict creationism. Christians only make up 75% of the population. There's no way to make that 40% of the population less than 50% of all Christians without having about 15 million non-Christians be strict creationists (Islam and Judaism only have about 3-4 million adherents).

It's even worse for Protestants when you remove Catholics, 25% of the US population, who are highly likely to be Creationists. Factor them out and you're left with Protestants making up 50% of the US population being nearly the sole source of the 40% who are Creationists. (That would mean that about 80% of Protestants are Creationists.)

Think about it.

Catholics are decidedly NOT creationists and haven't been since at least the middle of the last century.

They do NOT insist on a literal interpretation of the bible like the Fundies, and they do NOT deny Evolution,

believing only that God "breathed a soul" into humans when they became human.


I have "thought about it" and I would question the stats overall, considering that Gallup

is now a right wing Christian organization.

It should have read, "who are highly unlikely to be Creationists."

The results of the Gallup poll are consistent with other polls. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/22/opinion/polls/main657083.shtml">This poll has a whopping 55% of Americans as creationists and http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1107/polling-evolution-creationism">this one has the number at 42%.

Studies like http://cdn.cloudfiles.mosso.com/c148221/Science_evolution_2006_SOM.pdf">this one also show the level of support for creationism near 40%, and this number is consistent with http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/08/060810-evolution.html">this study which has 40% saying that evolution is false.

The inescapable conclusion is that the vast majority of Protestants are creationists, and Protestants make up http://www.americanreligionsurvey-aris.org/reports/ARIS_Report_2008.pdf">2/3 of Christians, meaning that creationism is the majority belief among American Christians.

As for protestants, I really find it hard to believe...Could it depend

on how "creationist" is defined?.

Another thing: Everyone who rejects evolution may not be doing it for religious reasons...There are

people who are unschooled and/or simply find it "insulting" to imagine they descended from apes.

When the question asked is, "Do you believe that modern humans were created in their present form in the last 10,000 years?" you get about 40%. When you replace "in the last 10,000 years" with "and didn't evolve," the number goes up.

Oddly enough, when the question is specifically about evolution, the number more closely mirrors the first question rather than the second.

My "vicey versey" comment was meant to convey to the other poster that if he thinks christians don't also look down on atheists, he needs to walk in my shoes for about five decades. And yes I do mean the average christian who waves at me from across the street while we're mowing our lawns, and who sits next to me at the barber shop, and whose kids go to the same school as mine.

If the "average" Christian behaves in the manner described, not singling you out, or behaving in an unfriendly

manner, how do you know he "looks down" on you?

or preclude, the use of that strange matter between your ears.

And allow me to point out some hypocrisy in your statement:
"atheists often look down on people"..."I prefer having a discussion with someone whose mind is open..."

The first statement, a stereotype, removes you from the group mentioned in the second. Also, don't confuse the anger that atheists often feel at being looked down upon by believers as returning of the favor.

I've said this in two other threads now, so may as well here.


Religion is something everyone has. There are people who say they have no Religion, but they usually simply mean they are Atheists or Agnostics. But, one has to ask the Question, why is an Atheist or Agnostic not Religious? This only really works if you define Religion as belief in a god of some sort, which is not how Religion is actually defined at all.

Then people say Religion is Private and some here say it should not be discussed in everyday life, but seem to forget that Religion effects how you understand everyday life and has a profound impact on who you are and how you approach the world you live in.

The Truth is, Religion is Vitally important and should be discussed.

But at the Same Time, it should be discussed openly which most people don't do. Most simply resort to the usual stereotypes, such as how many ( not not all) Atheist call religious people delusional, or Religion Superstition.

There are a lot of Truisms people have accepted about Religion that just don't add up, such as that Religion is all about belief in a transcendent Supernatural reality, or hat Religious belief lacks Physical Evidence and is believed in on “Faith”, itself misdefined as belief without Evidence, and that as such religious beliefs can never be supported by Evidence at all.



To make matters worse, everyone seems to see the same thing that I do that even Atheists have a shared narrative with each other and tend to all have a common Philosophical Outlook. EG, most Atheists today embrace some form of Humanism. No not all, but not all Theists are Christian either. Still, when you hear someone discussing Atheism as being all about the promotion of Reason and Science, while at the same Time the Atheist has specific cultural and social views that obviously stem from Humanism or agree broadly with the Humanist manifestos, you know full well that they have a common outlook.



That is why I say everyone really has a religion. However, we're too use to saying Atheists and Agnostics are not Religious, so instead a new word was coined called “Worldview”. Now, everyone has a Worldview, but some people have a Religious Worldview and others a NonReligious Worldview.

I think this is multiplication of entities beyond need. I don;t see any real reason to make a distinction between “Worldview” and “Religion”. Religion is not belief in and reverence of gods and supernatural powers, its simply a set of beliefs regarding the Fundamental nature of our existence.

In fact, Atheists and Agnostics can become as defensive and closed mine about their “Worldview” as any “Religious person' can their own, so even in terms of the supposed Logical reasoning and Freethought Atheism affords one, the Truth is that once we have a Narrative in our heads that defines who we are and how the world works we tend not to question it and can easily see someone else who disagrees as stupid for not seeing the obvious Truth.


When someone like Richard Dawkins comes up, declares anyone who believe sin God to be delusional, and then pontificates on the superiority of Science over Religion, but clearly conflates his own Political and Moral views, as well as his own subjective or untested Philosophical presumptions with “Science” and “Reason”, he's really no different than the stereotypical Fundamentalist Preacher who condemns anyone who is not a Christian or even Christians who disagree with him. The basic message is the same: If you do not see the world the same way I do and agree with me on how we should organise ourselves as a society or live as individuals, and if you do not think of he Nature of our world in the same way I do, you are a fool who cannot see the obvious Truth and clearly are intellectually my inferior and probably also immoral or outright Evil and should be treated with justifiable contempt.


And I think this is why we can't have a reasonable discussion on Religion. Most people don't even know what Religion is, much less how to disuses it. plus, the beliefs that go into Religion ultimate define ons entire existence. In terms of Psychology, ones Religion is who one is as a person, and beyond that is also he world one lives in.


That said, I'd like to clear up a few misconceptions.

1: Religion actually does often rest on Physical evidence. The idea that Religion is Purely a Thought Process and never relies on externally observable events is a fallacy that anyone who has studied History or Theology would deny.

Modern Science in fact got started as a religious Excersise.

Until the Modern Era, Religious beliefs were thought to be physically and manifestly Real. As such, the study of the Natural World was understood to be a means to gather evidence for Religious Claims. Contrary to popular opinion, the Middle Ages were not “The Dark Ages” in which Science as not performed. They also weren't really a Time of Fundamentalist Christianity or of strict Biblical Literalism, and even prototypical Evolutionary Theories were proposed by serious Theologians to explain the emergence of Humanity in the Natural world.

Often times Religion and Religious beliefs actually are based on real Historical events as well, and one can even see this in terms of “Americanism”. Loads of Americans treat the Constitution as Sacred Scripture and revere America's Founders as near Saints, and project onto them all the Values and Morals they hold to as well as want they think of as Defining America. The Revolution is a grand Mythological Epic that tells of the Glorious origins of America. How is that really any different from any other National Epic, such as that of Moses leading the Israelites out of Egyptian Bondage? Lets not go into the claim that Moses did not exist or the Exodus did not occur. This old cobbler can be argued against and has been even by serious academics, not all of whom believe in God, and besides, we are discussing Psychology. The point is that both are understood as real Historical Events but are both presented in an Interpretive manner that makes them transcend mere History and become as much about who we are today as a people and define who are are as a people as thy are mere History.

2: Faith is not belief without Evidence. Faith comes from the Latin word “Fidese” and means “To Trust” or “To Be Loyal”, and originally our Faith was suppose to be base don Evidence and reason, not just accepted because some authority told us so. Not all Faith is Blind Faith.




3: The same problems we see in “Religion' we see in Atheism and this is ultimately a Human problem with not being a le to see past our own preconceived notions, not something unique to Religion and religious Studies.

:hi:

If we can't get past our preconceived notions, then there is very little hope for the future of humanity. I think the question remains open.

Oh yeah - edited to add: Welcome to DU! :hi:

I think its possible to look past our preconceived notions, but also think that some people won't because it violates the comfort they feel in the assurance of the Truth they hold to.

But I don't reserve this for the usual “Religious people can't think outside the Box” scenario we are all familiar with, as I've seen Atheists do the same thing with their own Religious beliefs. I used above the example of Dawkins. People have repeatedly criticised Dawkins for his simplistic understanding of Religion, his Ignorance of Theology, and his Reliance on the Draper-White Thesis which has been discredited by Historians but is still popular in the Media. Anyone who honestly observed Dawkins or any other “New Atheist” realises that he isn't really interested in Honest discourse and he's out to win converts to his very specific “worldview” and that his end goal is as much social as it is Philosophical. He wants the rest of the world to fall in line with how he thinks people should be have and organise their societies and wants everyone else to agree with him on various issues. He's really no different than Joseph Farah or and other Christian Activist who imports a Political and Social Agenda into their belief system and wants to use its Narrative to justify their own ends. EG, Dawkins wants you to be an Atheist so you will support a Controlled Economic situation of wealth distribution and Farah wants you to be a Christian so you will be a Free Market Capitalist. Of course Atheism isn't really the same as Socialism and Christianity is not the same as Capitalism, but both men mix them so thoroughly that you'd be forgiven for assuming they were the same things.

Those are just partial examples.

Both also, however, have more than that. The Religions they hodl to form the basis of how they understand themselves, it is their Identity. Dawkins wants you to embrace the same sort of Humanism he has embraced as a means to ensure the survival of his own ideas and a way to make life more comfortable for himself by not having his own beliefs challenged by those who disagree, in much the same way Farah does. Both also rely on retelling History with spin that favours themselves and both use Historically inaccurate narratives, EG, Dawkins believes that people in the

Warren, I have explained that I am Dyslexic. My reliance on Imperfect machines and on Friends to help in these posts sometimes leads to errors as what you just posted. But how does that impact my argument? This is especially noteworthy as you now know the cause of my occasional odd spelling is due to a Disability. Why focus on the imperfection of my posts owing to a known problem I did not choose and can't switch off, when you could instead focus on what I have actually said?

As for your statement about being able to say anything and this doesn't make it True, you are correct. However, that was my point. Just saying “Religious people are Delusional” doesn't mean that Religious people are Delusional. Just saying Religion never rests on Evidence and Reason dons';t mean that Religion never rests on Evidence and Reason. Just saying that being an Atheist makes you not Religious doesn't mean you aren't Religious if you are an Atheist or the same problems emerge that you criticise in Religion.

I realise you wanted the standard “Religious people make claims but this doesn't make them True' line to be promoted, but the opposite is also True.
Middle Ages thought the Earth was Flat to prove that Religion holds us back or uses the Standard retelling of the Galileo Affair to show hoe Religion tries to crush Science, whilst Farah will depict America's Founding Fathers as Conservatives and the Loyalists as Liberal progressives.

Its all done for pretty much the same reason and each uses the same tactics.

But both are also activists and extremists. I think the average Christian is not really that interested in imposing themselves and is more willing to listen to other peoples beliefs, just as I think the Average Muslim or Atheist is too. The only Time this changes is when there is sharp Societal Tension and people seek to cling to familiarity and thus are more drawn into extremism and thus into the Narratives to both make sense of the Chaos and to help form a sense of absolute Identity to hold to and rally others behind.

That said, I alsothink that peopel fall back on what they alreadybeleive and fiulter everythign throught hat end mroe often than they should. Its doen mroe for laziness though than anything else.

EG, lets say I am a Presbyterian who has a speific view of the Bibke, and I discuss it with a Methodist. he may present convincing aruments that I concede are Rational, but at the end I stil think hey are wrong. Why? Because I am a presbyterian and thus he's clearly the victim of error as he contradicts Knox.

But its usually not that extreme.

... religious and non-religious people.

I also agree with what you say about Dawkins. Some of his counters to theological arguments don't even rise to the level of being wrong; they're just nonsensical.

I agree that the real problem is a human problem and I think it goes beyond the question of preconceived notions. The real question is whether or not there is such a thing as human nature. If there is, then we probably can't use rationality - a part of that nature - to transend it. I believe the future of humanity depends upon our being able to transend certain consistent aspects of our history - mainly the propensity to war. If this history is really a reflection of our nature, then we're sure to blow ourselves off the planet. If our rationality has the power to fundamentally change our historic behavior, there is hope.

wrong about so many things write with such conviction.

Ed- Can you actually cite where I am wrong and demonstrate how I am mistaken? Or does a blanket proclamation vindicate your dismuissal of my sttaements?

who enjoy pointing out such simplistic, over generalized and ill defined drivel will give you a longer post to refute this malarkey.
I don't have the time or inclination right now.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I don't "hate Relgiion" [sic]. Try again, maybe without the ad hominems.

what makes it so hard is the plain fact that there are very few honest people that post here. My rough guess is maybe five or six that truly want an honest discussion and the rest just want to shit on any opinion not their own.

:hi:

a whole lot of what passes as discussion here degenerates into exactly what I said sometimes with sometimes without provocation.

:hi:

It may start honest, but it ceases being a discussion very early on.