Religious Joy: A Question for Atheists

[rousseau]

You seem to be convinced that religion 'doesn't improve anybody's quality of life'...

I've yet to see any lasting improvement in anybody's life that is unambiguously the product of religious belief. Even if there is a pronounced relationship between life improvements and the adoption of religious beliefs, we don't know what caused the other. Did religiosity cause the improvement, or did the improvement cause the religiosity? We generally cannot tell if there is any causal relationship here, only a relationship. However, many Christians are quick to take credit for improved lives regardless of what caused what.

...but 80% of the world practices some form of religion. Why would such a significant portion of the global population practice something that is actively harmful to them?

I don't know. People smoke, drink, and abuse illegal drugs, too. The harmful effects of such practices don't keep people from engaging in that kind of activity. I have seen people turn a blind eye to religion's harmful effects very often. Maybe religion is like an addictive drug that maintains its use despite obvious harm.

Anyway, if you are arguing that a practice is good because a large number of people engage in it, then you are arguing a non sequitur fallacy. It does not follow that if many people do something, then that behavior is good.

This is a real question, not a gotcha. Your premises seem to need further examination.

I think I answered your question to my satisfaction if not yours. Until I actually see any good evidence that religion is harmless if not good, then you have not convinced me regarding what you claimed in the OP. You made those claims, so you have the burden of proof.

The argument isn't that religion is good because a lot of people practice it, the argument is that if so many people are actively practicing it, then those people are seeing some appeal to that practice that either you aren't seeing, or aren't admitting to. The point is that in their view religion is satisfying, your point of view has no bearing on their engagement or enjoyment of religion.

You're making the linear argument that everything humans practice has to somehow be linked to social good, or has to be productive. This isn't how people actually work in practice. They do things that, when appealing to strict logic, might make no sense, but they find them appealing and enjoyable nonetheless.

This is the line of reasoning that I see most atheists apply to religion - it hinders some ambiguous form of 'progress' that religious people are too ignorant to know they want. If 80% of the world's population are happy drinking, smoking, practicing religion - why should we stop them?

 

[steve_bank]

side Who on the atheists is arguing religion is harmless? What in all of human civilization is hamless?

Science is not harmless. It enabled social media with harnful aspects. Nuclear power along with nuclear weapons.

The re are polarized irrational theists who can see nothing wrong with ther position and decare ny as[ect of atheism wrong.

On the flip side are polarized atheists who can see nothing goof =d about relgion.

Whatever the down side of religion with the decline of region in the USA and thr rise of excessive self imdulgence is there a correlation to the rise of alcoholism, drug addiction, suicide down to young teens?

I believe we all need some kind of moral compass. That moral structure with its flaws once came from religion. There are consequences.


I have asked atheists several times on the forum with no real answers, where do you derive your sense of right and wrong from? As I see it it comes from the historical western history of Christianity.


Whatever issues there are today with religion at least here in the USA it is at the bottom of my concern list.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

This is the line of reasoning that I see most atheists apply to religion - it hinders some ambiguous form of 'progress' that religious people are too ignorant to know they want. If 80% of the world's population are happy drinking, smoking, practicing religion - why should we stop them?

It depends on what kind of world you are trying to build.

 

[Politesse]

This is the line of reasoning that I see most atheists apply to religion - it hinders some ambiguous form of 'progress' that religious people are too ignorant to know they want. If 80% of the world's population are happy drinking, smoking, practicing religion - why should we stop them?

It depends on what kind of world you are trying to build.

I would prefer one characterized by peace, and tolerance of one's neighbors.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I would prefer one characterized by peace, and tolerance of one's neighbors.

I certainly prefer similarly. Maybe one day we'll get there, rise sufficiently above our instinctive fears and ignorance and start seeing ourselves in others. The irrational aspects of religious behavior are not a harbinger of good things to come.

 

[rousseau]

This is the line of reasoning that I see most atheists apply to religion - it hinders some ambiguous form of 'progress' that religious people are too ignorant to know they want. If 80% of the world's population are happy drinking, smoking, practicing religion - why should we stop them?

It depends on what kind of world you are trying to build.

In what ways do we build a coherent and unified world?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

This is the line of reasoning that I see most atheists apply to religion - it hinders some ambiguous form of 'progress' that religious people are too ignorant to know they want. If 80% of the world's population are happy drinking, smoking, practicing religion - why should we stop them?

It depends on what kind of world you are trying to build.

In what ways do we build a coherent and unified world?

The first way would obviously be to get a person to even ask themselves the question and then answer it.

 

[abaddon]

If there were such a choice, I might prefer a religious world where nature's held as sacred over the technophilic stuff that's hinted at sometimes when "secularists" aren't only presenting themselves as rationalists who merely want irrational people to stop bugging them.

That's very one-sided. It's easy to say "they're irrational so if they get out of the way then we 'rational' people can do what's best for everyone". Maybe... but what exactly is the world that the self-proclaimed "rationalists" want to "build"?

 

[Unknown Soldier]

The argument isn't that religion is good because a lot of people practice it, the argument is that if so many people are actively practicing it, then those people are seeing some appeal to that practice...

If that's what you're arguing, then I don't necessarily disagree. If I could live the lifestyles of many religious leaders, then religion might appeal to me too assuming I don't have a conscience.

...that either you aren't seeing, or aren't admitting to.

Please don't accuse me of lying. I haven't spoken to you that way.

The point is that in their view religion is satisfying, your point of view has no bearing on their engagement or enjoyment of religion.

You can say the same thing about rapists. Regardless of my opinion, it has no bearing on their engagement or enjoyment of rape.

You're making the linear argument that everything humans practice has to somehow be linked to social good, or has to be productive.

I freely admit that I'm biased toward socially positive practices and the production of what benefits society.

This isn't how people actually work in practice. They do things that, when appealing to strict logic, might make no sense, but they find them appealing and enjoyable nonetheless.

Oh sure--see my rape example above. In a civilized society we don't allow behavior that is harmful to others no matter how enjoyable that behavior is to the perpetrator.

This is the line of reasoning that I see most atheists apply to religion - it hinders some ambiguous form of 'progress' that religious people are too ignorant to know they want.

Actually, I think when it comes to the critics of religion, theists probably outnumber atheists. Protestants and Catholics, for instance, have been demonizing each other for centuries. Of course, much of this "interreligious" criticism is justified. So the religious are quite capable of seeing the harm done by religion although they may fail to see it in their own religion.

If 80% of the world's population are happy drinking, smoking, practicing religion - why should we stop them?

That's a very strange question. The very obvious answer is that what people do to themselves can have a harmful effect on everybody. Drinking can result in innocent people dying in auto accidents, and smoking can cause lung cancer in those who don't smoke. If religion encourages paranoia, superstition, and ignorance in millions of the members of a society, then the consequences for that society should not be hard to understand.

 

[rousseau]

This is the line of reasoning that I see most atheists apply to religion - it hinders some ambiguous form of 'progress' that religious people are too ignorant to know they want. If 80% of the world's population are happy drinking, smoking, practicing religion - why should we stop them?

It depends on what kind of world you are trying to build.

In what ways do we build a coherent and unified world?

The first way would obviously be to get a person to even ask themselves the question and then answer it.

Well, you invoked world building, so what's your answer? I think you could argue that we've done a pretty phenomenal job of moving beyond religion in the past few centuries, but whether the world is in any way better than it was before is very debatable.

And that's kind of what I'm getting at. I'm not arguing in bad faith, just trying to win some points. If reason is preferable to irrationality why have we seen so many problems with regards to scientific innovation? Does science actually improve the world, or is it just another tool.

If people are self-interested, and selfish regardless of what we do, maybe we just let them live in the way they prefer, as long as they aren't breaking laws?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Well, you invoked world building, so what's your answer? I think you could argue that we've done a pretty phenomenal job of moving beyond religion in the past few centuries, but whether the world is in any way better than it was before is very debatable.

And that's kind of what I'm getting at. I'm not arguing in bad faith, just trying to win some points. If reason is preferable to irrationality why have we seen so many problems with regards to scientific innovation? Does science actually improve the world, or is it just another tool.

If people are self-interested, and selfish regardless of what we do, maybe we just let them live in the way they prefer, as long as they aren't breaking laws?

I invoked community building is all, just on a world scale. World building is no different than community or city or state building. How is it that France and England and Spain were mortal enemies for centuries but not anymore? Why are Egypt and Israel not still trying to exterminate each other? What changed? City states and tribes that were mortal enemies now exist in tolerance. How do we get to acceptance, that's the question. We all accept, tolerate and reject.

We may be seeing the benefits of a more developed prefontal cortex. What I think changed is that emotions got nudged a bit to the side and that mutual beneficial tolerance - even progress - became likely, although grudgingly because the world has gotten smaller. Self preservation seems to have been the driving force.

We have some decent laws in the U.S. against violence between people but we reserve the right to wage violence outside the U.S. unilaterally. How does that work? Don't explain it, fix it. I could go on but you get the idea.

 

[steve_bank]

I believ part of it is that at the heart of the ASbrahamic relgions there is a common thrad of lokking for peace.

The Egyptin and Israeli ace was opposed by conservatves in both Israel and Egypt.

Part of it was the USA military aid to Egypt.

It takes leaders who are willing to take risks. Sadat was assassinated , not unexpected.

Both Gandhi and King knew from the start they would be assassinated.

 

[steve_bank]

Is there a difference between religious collective joy and collective joy tr a pop muisc concert? People waving arms and swaying in apparent ecstasy.

 

[Elixir]

People waving arms and swaying in apparent ecstasy.

Or on ecstasy...

(That might be just the tip of the iceberg of chemical differences.)

 

[abaddon]

Is there a difference between religious collective joy and collective joy tr a pop muisc concert? People waving arms and swaying in apparent ecstasy.

Yes. The source of the joy is different.

If the commonality is joy, so what?

Apples and oranges both taste sweet. It doesn't make them the same.

 

[steve_bank]

I'd argue t is the same psycho-physical promenade. Love the pop icon and feel assured the pop icon loves you back.

Remember thteen song 'we love you Beattles we love you true'? People crying in the audience when the Beatles played the Ed Sullivan show?

When I see some concert clips I see what amounts to a church service.

In the late 60s I saw Sly And The Family Sone at the Fillmore East in NYC. At the end of the first show nobody left. People were wanimng hands and jumping around. The last song was 'Higher ' and the crowd got into it.The crowd for the second show crashed the doors. Sly Stone leaped off the stage into the crowd and ran out into the street followed by crowd dancing around in the street.

Music from classical to pop can be a 'religious' experience, so to speak.

There was the recent tragedy where a cowd of round 10,000 pressed the stage for a rapper known for stirring up the crowd literal;y suffocating people from restricted chests.

To me as I like to say religion is one manifestation of a common human trait. Group idenity and the herd instinct along with the need to follow a leader.

 

[southernhybrid]

I would say that music and religion can both be emotional experiences, not spiritual. But then again, the term spiritual is a rather meaningless term these days. It's interpreted by the individual. A lot of things that are simply emotional are sometimes referred to as spiritual. Whatever floats your boat, I guess.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

I would say that music and religion can both be emotional experiences, not spiritual. But then again, the term spiritual is a rather meaningless term these days. It's interpreted by the individual. A lot of things that are simply emotional are sometimes referred to as spiritual. Whatever floats your boat, I guess.

I think that when the religious claim to be "spiritual" they are being condescending implying that they have a perception of a truth or truths that we skeptics lack. In other words, they allegedly see what we are blind to. For example, soon after I lost my religious belief a woman I know became angry with me and told me I have "no spirit."

 

[steve_bank]

I'd argue t is the same psycho-physical promenade. Love the pop icon and feel assured the pop icon loves you back.

Remember thteen song 'we love you Beattles we love you true'? People crying in the audience when the Beatles played the Ed Sullivan show?

When I see some concert clips I see what amounts to a church service.

In the late 60s I saw Sly And The Family Sone at the Fillmore East in NYC. At the end of the first show nobody left. People were wanimng hands and jumping around. The last song was 'Higher ' and the crowd got into it.The crowd for the second show crashed the doors. Sly Stone leaped off the stage into the crowd and ran out into the street followed by crowd dancing around in the street.

Music from classical to pop can be a 'religious' experience, so to speak.

There was the recent tragedy where a cowd of round 10,000 pressed the stage for a rapper known for stirring up the crowd literal;y suffocating people from restricted chests.

To me as I like to say religion is one manifestation of a common human trait. Group idenity and the herd instinct along with the need to follow a leader.

The difference is the religious believers are convinced the experience comes from a deity and is unique.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I think that when the religious claim to be "spiritual" they are being condescending implying that they have a perception of a truth or truths that we skeptics lack. In other words, they allegedly see what we are blind to. For example, soon after I lost my religious belief a woman I know became angry with me and told me I have "no spirit."

That's your standard fear response. Your position is also perceived by devout believers as an attack on their identity. Cult behavior 101.