Everybody: What stance should non-believers take towards religion?

[Fluffy]

This is a debate that is open to everybody. If you are a non-believer and would like to debate this issue with just other non-believers then please go here.

There appears to be three main stances that non-believers take towards religion:
1) The Richard Dawkins approach
2) The Daniel Dennett approach
3) The UU approach

If you are unclear on the significant differences in position between Dawkins and Dennett or believe there to be none then I suggest you read this article which is a review of the God Delusion by Dennett which was published in the Free Enquiry.

Dawkins' approach can largely be characterised by the idea that the world would be better off without religion. Religion is the cause of many troubles in the world (or the root of evil as he puts it) and we should focus on evangelising theists to raise their consciousnesses to the truth. Indeed he describes this as the main objective of the God Delusion. Respect should only be given where it is earned and because religious claims are ludicrous, it devalues the idea of respect to suggest that they deserve any.

Dennett refers to himself as an agnostic on this issue and appears to be in favour of reforming religion in order to get rid of the aspects which are considered bad and also that religion can be the cause of great beauty. He seems to be especially in favour of non-literal religion such as is advocated by the Sea of Faith movement. He also feels that mutual respect is a key aspect of achieving any progress towards this end.

The UU approach is largely unconditional support of and communion with religion as it exists today. Troubles in the world are caused by extremism and not religion and so it is better to form a united front with theists to confront extremism rather than trying to get rid of or reform religion. Mutual respect is a natural state that should be encouraged and whose only goal is greater understanding, tolerance and unity.

So which stance do you think, barring a few minor details, is the correct one to take? Is there a fourth stance that you think is better than any of these 3? Poll to follow.

 

[BucephalusBB]

Voted UU aproach as I don't think religion is the problem in the world, but extremism is.

"Getting rid of" btw, is not really in my approach. I don't care what others think, it's their thought. As long as they won't use whatever thought they have to destroy the planet I live on!

 

[Ozzie]

This is a debate that is open to everybody. If you are a non-believer and would like to debate this issue with just other non-believers then please go here.

There appears to be three main stances that non-believers take towards religion:
1) The Richard Dawkins approach
2) The Daniel Dennett approach
3) The UU approach

If you are unclear on the significant differences in position between Dawkins and Dennett or believe there to be none then I suggest you read this article which is a review of the God Delusion by Dennett which was published in the Free Enquiry.

Dawkins' approach can largely be characterised by the idea that the world would be better off without religion. Religion is the cause of many troubles in the world (or the root of evil as he puts it) and we should focus on evangelising theists to raise their consciousnesses to the truth. Indeed he describes this as the main objective of the God Delusion. Respect should only be given where it is earned and because religious claims are ludicrous, it devalues the idea of respect to suggest that they deserve any.

Dennett refers to himself as an agnostic on this issue and appears to be in favour of reforming religion in order to get rid of the aspects which are considered bad and also that religion can be the cause of great beauty. He seems to be especially in favour of non-literal religion such as is advocated by the Sea of Faith movement. He also feels that mutual respect is a key aspect of achieving any progress towards this end.

The UU approach is largely unconditional support of and communion with religion as it exists today. Troubles in the world are caused by extremism and not religion and so it is better to form a united front with theists to confront extremism rather than trying to get rid of or reform religion. Mutual respect is a natural state that should be encouraged and whose only goal is greater understanding, tolerance and unity.

So which stance do you think, barring a few minor details, is the correct one to take? Is there a fourth stance that you think is better than any of these 3? Poll to follow.

Dennet reaches into the realm of mysticism to explain consciousness. His explanation leaves a very unpleasant taste in the mouth as it is excellent neurologically yet fails to reduce the first person perspective of consiousness to a third person observation as he would like to. Dawkins would have to reach into the same realm if he attempted to explain it.

 

[Yerda]

Are you suggesting a standard position should be adopted?

 

[Fluffy]

I would like to see non-believers become a bit more united on this front, yes. At the moment we have a situation in which we are screwing each other over by playing a sort of gigantic, many-headed good cop/bad cop. I think it would be better if we all investigated the question on a much deeper level than has previously been attempted in order to determine what the facts dictate.

I don't think we should all agree on this matter because disagreement leads to improvement but I do think that there needs to be some coherency in order for there to be any progress at all. I'm afraid that at the moment, the good cops are simply getting more nice but more quiet whilst the bad cops are irritating everyone and storing up trouble for the good cops as well as themselves.

Personally, I can understand all three approaches and try to empathise with the people who adopt each. However, I do feel like a compromise needs to be reached.

 

[Yerda]

I would like to see non-believers become a bit more united on this front, yes. At the moment we have a situation in which we are screwing each other over by playing a sort of gigantic, many-headed good cop/bad cop. I think it would be better if we all investigated the question on a much deeper level than has previously been attempted in order to determine what the facts dictate.

I don't think we should all agree on this matter because disagreement leads to improvement but I do think that there needs to be some coherency in order for there to be any progress at all. I'm afraid that at the moment, the good cops are simply getting more nice but more quiet whilst the bad cops are irritating everyone and storing up trouble for the good cops as well as themselves.

Personally, I can understand all three approaches and try to empathise with the people who adopt each. However, I do feel like a compromise needs to be reached.

Does the term 'non-believers' indicate non-theists only, and is 'religion' the entire range of human religious practices and beliefs?

 

[logician]

I would like to see non-believers become a bit more united on this front, yes. At the moment we have a situation in which we are screwing each other over by playing a sort of gigantic, many-headed good cop/bad cop. I think it would be better if we all investigated the question on a much deeper level than has previously been attempted in order to determine what the facts dictate.

I don't think we should all agree on this matter because disagreement leads to improvement but I do think that there needs to be some coherency in order for there to be any progress at all. I'm afraid that at the moment, the good cops are simply getting more nice but more quiet whilst the bad cops are irritating everyone and storing up trouble for the good cops as well as themselves.

Personally, I can understand all three approaches and try to empathise with the people who adopt each. However, I do feel like a compromise needs to be reached.

What are trying to make progress towards, convincing theists to become atheists? I have no desire. Otherwise, I think everyone has their own opinion of various religions and their impacts on society.

 

[Fluffy]

Does the term 'non-believers' indicate non-theists only, and is 'religion' the entire range of human religious practices and beliefs?

Essentially yes and I think there is some overlap between the two terms. For example, Buddhists and Anglicans are religious but some are also non-believers.

What are trying to make progress towards, convincing theists to become atheists? I have no desire. Otherwise, I think everyone has their own opinion of various religions and their impacts on society.

Well that appears to be the goal of some atheists but it is not one I believe in. However, I do think we should be open to asking this question and consider that as a possibility.

I agree that everyone has their own opinions on the matter but I am more curious as to what the impact of each approach will be and to then use this result to determine which stance is most rational to adopt. I'm especially interested in finding out what other non-believers think.

 

[Yerda]

Essentially yes and I think there is some overlap between the two terms. For example, Buddhists and Anglicans are religious but some are also non-believers.

I'll have to think about it.

 

[Fluffy]

I'll have to think about it.

That is almost certainly the best course of action .

 

[gnostic]

I am still not sure which to vote on in the poll.

I have no desire whatsoever to convert any believer or theist into becoming non-theist.

I don't believe in resorting violence or coercing people to believe in whatever I believe, so the "getting rid" of religion will only lead to violence, persecution and intimidation, something that I would like avoid at all cost. I don't see how you can rid of religion without violence. And I don't believe in vandalising and destroying building or books even if I disagree with their teaching.

However, I would put my point across in debate like this, if I have to something to say about a particular belief and teaching of a specific religion that I may view as being wrong, morally or intellectually, such as creationism, religious law, the scriptures, etc.

 

[Captain Civic]

Not every atheist does this, but I'd like to see a stance that doesn't ridicule or patronise those who have beliefs. I'd also like to see the reverse as well.

 

[Don Penguinoini]

Something else. Religion is there, no point trying to eradicate it.

 

[BucephalusBB]

Not every atheist does this, but I'd like to see a stance that doesn't ridicule or patronise those who have beliefs. I'd also like to see the reverse as well.

I'll second that though :clap

 

[logician]

As to an approach, the Dawkins one is the most logical one for me, I'm not interested in halfway measures.

 

[3.14]

we should restrict any religious education so you can only get it i you want it so you are not pushed into a religion unprepaired or unwanted (jehova's witnesses, parents etc) if you select a religion you will get it added to your passport (so people will think before chosing) and if you want to be in an other or without a religion you should be able to change it for a minimal fee.
when you choose your first religion (min age 14) you should get necessatys for that religion (keppel bible etc)

 

[Wandered Off]

if you select a religion you will get it added to your passport

And getting your passport stamped for all different religions would sort of be like traveling.

 

[Magic Man]

As to an approach, the Dawkins one is the most logical one for me, I'm not interested in halfway measures.

You know, I don't think you even had to say anything. I'd be surprised if anyone couldn't guess that.

 

[whereismynotecard]

Wait a minute... Didn't I already comment on this?? Hmmmm...

 

[Random]

As to an approach, the Dawkins one is the most logical one for me, I'm not interested in halfway measures.

Odd, the Dawkins approach of hastening the extinction of religion to make the world a better place has always struck me as a halfway house between scientific agnosticism and the religion of evolutionary biology he promotes...