This is a rant on why I think the world is not quite ready to be completely god-free. There may be some errors, just read through them if they exist.
Many atheists (I have been guilty of this myself) believe that their set of beliefs are the both the best for themselves and the best for everyone else. This is one big similarity among both believers and nonbelievers. Would the world be a better place if everyone believed in a god (I'm intentionally not be specific)? Would the world be a better place if no one believed in a god and took on a relativism view of morality?
My stance is different than most outspoken atheists. I do think that religion has its place, and that perhaps it should have more of a place in certain people's lives. To focus on atheists for a bit, I believe that atheists can be divided up into two groups (while there is a continuum, it is easier to label). You have atheists that hope that there is no God due to an awareness of their own moral short-comings—hoping they will not be punished by hoping their is no punisher. Then you have the atheists that don't believe in a god, not because they hope that there isn't one, but because they can rationalize that it is very improbable (those atheists typically refer to themselves as 'agnostic'). In other words, you have your open-minded atheists (sadly, some minds are too open), and your close-minded atheists (unable to think outside the box, will cognitively deal only with what is already known). Also, a close-minded atheists has a difficult time understanding subjectivity.
A close-minded atheist is typically a person who came to atheism because they were made aware of that alternative view of the world by someone else (I like to call them 'sheep-atheists'). All people (excluding rare minorities) can be moved towards a view of non-belief, given enough time to soak up the information destructive to their previously held world-view. What I am claiming is that being an atheist alone does not make a person "special" in any way. Some use atheism as a way to escape perceived moral obligation so that they can more easily obey impulsiveness. Such people would probably behave better if they did believe in a god (pain vs. pleasure rational is so easy to understand a mouse can do it).
Much of religion deals with moral questions, and views morality as being objective (oftentimes "created by God". Morality is a set of beliefs that battle harmful impulses for what is perceived as being good. If all humans naturally behaved well, concepts like morality and ethics would not be needed. Oftentimes our beliefs sharply contradict our impulses, and this contradiction is where the concept of morality is formed.
Many atheists claim that "morality is innate", and that may be true in some cases. For example, it is "immoral" to cannibalize (certain obvious exceptions), and that is innate within the vast majority of humans (who may get sick at the mere though of it). But, I would not say that all people that don't eat humans are behaving morally, but naturally instead. But, on the other hand, people that do eat other humans are behaving immorally (immorality = lack of needed morality to prevent harmful impulsiveness).
Religion has caused many individuals to rebel against their nasty impulsiveness (and the reverse could be said as well). Many criminals, for example, have used religion to keep their impulse to harm others in check. But, on the flip-side, there exists religious beliefs that cause people do to behavior that is harmful (to themselves and others) that they wouldn't ordinarily do. The whole point of morality is to benefit the functionality of a society ("point" as in evolutionary purpose). Many people have the impulse to murder, but it is their belief in a god (or belief in the law) that prevents them from doing it (many also use their belief in a god to rationalize murderous impulse).
All of this is to get me to my main point. Religion oftentimes seems to be a vessel that is able to provide unintelligent, thoughtless, impulsive individuals with a moral structure. What must be understood is that some people have a piss-poor ability to empathize with others. The ability of one person to put themselves in another's shoes is the bed-rock of moral reasoning. But, not all people are able to do this (like some people are bad at math).
Empathetical intelligence is a continuum—not a dichotomy of good or bad (even though labeling can be easier, and sometimes more useful); those low on this scale we refer to as sociopaths, while those high on it are viewed as being good, moral individuals. As an example, there are many horrible kids that behave like saints around Christmas because they want presents! These are the sort of people that need religion. Some people will only behave well if they believe that it will be personally beneficial.
To clarify, not all people have an impulsive nature to behave poorly, some people are naturally good; i.e. they are nice for no reason at all. Naturally "good" people are not behaving "morally" per se, they are behaving naturally. Moral behavior is behavior that contradicts a harmful impulse (as previously stated).
So what is the point here? Well, we must accept that some people have an impulsiveness that is destructive (both to themselves and/or society), these people need a moral structure like Christianity (reward/punishment) to keep their behavior in line. I want all people to give a lot of thought to the subject morality, and stop behaving based on impulse, but I also want a billion dollars and a pony. The world should not give up religion until its people are able to improve their empathetical intelligence. The world in its present state not only can't give up religion, it shouldn't, and many atheists should go back to church for the sake of everyone else. In a culture of "me me me" (thanks to the influences of things like Facebook, certain music, Jersey Shore, America's Next Top Model, etc. have on individuals cognitive behavior), empathy is a force that is weak within us.
If you have made it this far, thanks for reading my post.
Many atheists (I have been guilty of this myself) believe that their set of beliefs are the both the best for themselves and the best for everyone else. This is one big similarity among both believers and nonbelievers. Would the world be a better place if everyone believed in a god (I'm intentionally not be specific)? Would the world be a better place if no one believed in a god and took on a relativism view of morality?
My stance is different than most outspoken atheists. I do think that religion has its place, and that perhaps it should have more of a place in certain people's lives. To focus on atheists for a bit, I believe that atheists can be divided up into two groups (while there is a continuum, it is easier to label). You have atheists that hope that there is no God due to an awareness of their own moral short-comings—hoping they will not be punished by hoping their is no punisher. Then you have the atheists that don't believe in a god, not because they hope that there isn't one, but because they can rationalize that it is very improbable (those atheists typically refer to themselves as 'agnostic'). In other words, you have your open-minded atheists (sadly, some minds are too open), and your close-minded atheists (unable to think outside the box, will cognitively deal only with what is already known). Also, a close-minded atheists has a difficult time understanding subjectivity.
A close-minded atheist is typically a person who came to atheism because they were made aware of that alternative view of the world by someone else (I like to call them 'sheep-atheists'). All people (excluding rare minorities) can be moved towards a view of non-belief, given enough time to soak up the information destructive to their previously held world-view. What I am claiming is that being an atheist alone does not make a person "special" in any way. Some use atheism as a way to escape perceived moral obligation so that they can more easily obey impulsiveness. Such people would probably behave better if they did believe in a god (pain vs. pleasure rational is so easy to understand a mouse can do it).
Much of religion deals with moral questions, and views morality as being objective (oftentimes "created by God". Morality is a set of beliefs that battle harmful impulses for what is perceived as being good. If all humans naturally behaved well, concepts like morality and ethics would not be needed. Oftentimes our beliefs sharply contradict our impulses, and this contradiction is where the concept of morality is formed.
Many atheists claim that "morality is innate", and that may be true in some cases. For example, it is "immoral" to cannibalize (certain obvious exceptions), and that is innate within the vast majority of humans (who may get sick at the mere though of it). But, I would not say that all people that don't eat humans are behaving morally, but naturally instead. But, on the other hand, people that do eat other humans are behaving immorally (immorality = lack of needed morality to prevent harmful impulsiveness).
Religion has caused many individuals to rebel against their nasty impulsiveness (and the reverse could be said as well). Many criminals, for example, have used religion to keep their impulse to harm others in check. But, on the flip-side, there exists religious beliefs that cause people do to behavior that is harmful (to themselves and others) that they wouldn't ordinarily do. The whole point of morality is to benefit the functionality of a society ("point" as in evolutionary purpose). Many people have the impulse to murder, but it is their belief in a god (or belief in the law) that prevents them from doing it (many also use their belief in a god to rationalize murderous impulse).
All of this is to get me to my main point. Religion oftentimes seems to be a vessel that is able to provide unintelligent, thoughtless, impulsive individuals with a moral structure. What must be understood is that some people have a piss-poor ability to empathize with others. The ability of one person to put themselves in another's shoes is the bed-rock of moral reasoning. But, not all people are able to do this (like some people are bad at math).
Empathetical intelligence is a continuum—not a dichotomy of good or bad (even though labeling can be easier, and sometimes more useful); those low on this scale we refer to as sociopaths, while those high on it are viewed as being good, moral individuals. As an example, there are many horrible kids that behave like saints around Christmas because they want presents! These are the sort of people that need religion. Some people will only behave well if they believe that it will be personally beneficial.
To clarify, not all people have an impulsive nature to behave poorly, some people are naturally good; i.e. they are nice for no reason at all. Naturally "good" people are not behaving "morally" per se, they are behaving naturally. Moral behavior is behavior that contradicts a harmful impulse (as previously stated).
So what is the point here? Well, we must accept that some people have an impulsiveness that is destructive (both to themselves and/or society), these people need a moral structure like Christianity (reward/punishment) to keep their behavior in line. I want all people to give a lot of thought to the subject morality, and stop behaving based on impulse, but I also want a billion dollars and a pony. The world should not give up religion until its people are able to improve their empathetical intelligence. The world in its present state not only can't give up religion, it shouldn't, and many atheists should go back to church for the sake of everyone else. In a culture of "me me me" (thanks to the influences of things like Facebook, certain music, Jersey Shore, America's Next Top Model, etc. have on individuals cognitive behavior), empathy is a force that is weak within us.
If you have made it this far, thanks for reading my post.
A good piece of thought. I believe so myself, that there is no need to dictate people, whether to take religion or not. It is there for a good reason, and when people no longer need one, it will naturally go away.
ReplyDeleteI am raised in a religious family, and although I am secretly not religious myself, I believe there is no need to convert everyone into scepticism.
These days I often see people pull an offensive debate in order to convert someone into letting go of their faith, and i think it's disturbing and pointless.