Religion and Ignorance

[Simurgh]

After reading this article Atheists Best Informed About Religion : Discovery News I wondered why this is that we are usually better informed about a given religion than its practitioners.

The other question that came to mind is, why do religious people not make an effort to learn about the things the take as “fact/truth” and simply follow some people who declare that they know what they talk about in regard to dogma/doctrine of a given faith.

Does anyone want to provide some input here?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

After reading this article Atheists Best Informed About Religion : Discovery News I wondered why this is that we are usually better informed about a given religion than its practitioners.

The other question that came to mind is, why do religious people not make an effort to learn about the things the take as “fact/truth” and simply follow some people who declare that they know what they talk about in regard to dogma/doctrine of a given faith.

Does anyone want to provide some input here?

Many atheists (particularly rationalists) tend to have a stronger drive to base their views on factual understanding than their more superstition-prone peers. This drive itself tends to make atheists, overall, seek out more information in general, but also specifically about what they are attempting to formulate an understanding of. In the case of religion/god, atheists will tend to explore them more fully in order to reach a rational stance based on a robust comprehension of the factors involved. Couple this with the fact that many atheists start out as members of a religion already, and it becomes pretty clear why atheists have a more in-depth understanding of religion than most religious folks.

 

[Oregon Alley Cat]

As the above poster mentioned, many atheists were religious themselves at one point and as such have a lot of knowledge about their old faith. I was a Christian (Pentecostal in particular) for about twenty years and feel I know my old faith very well.
Also, there is the tendency of atheists to engage in impromptu debates, some of us more often some of us less, with theists of various stripes and we will look into those faiths so that we dont come across as ignorant.

 

[Revoltingest]

After reading this article Atheists Best Informed About Religion : Discovery News I wondered why this is that we are usually better informed about a given religion than its practitioners.
The other question that came to mind is, why do religious people not make an effort to learn about the things the take as “fact/truth” and simply follow some people who declare that they know what they talk about in regard to dogma/doctrine of a given faith.
Does anyone want to provide some input here?

I notice that some who learn English as a foreign language become more knowledgeable about it than native speakers.
Perhaps religion is like that. Some heathens will study it with fresh eyes, & learn details that life long believers don't
need in order to practice it. I always spoke English (the correct kind, not that British slop) & had a sense of grammar
without ever giving thought to formal structure. But when I learned German, I had a more rigorous knowledge of it,
even though I had far less facility with it.

 

[Simurgh]

I notice that some who learn English as a foreign language become more knowledgeable about it than native speakers.
Perhaps religion is like that. Some heathens will study it with fresh eyes, & learn details that life long believers don't
need in order to practice it. I always spoke English (the correct kind, not that British slop) & had a sense of grammar
without ever giving thought to formal structure. But when I learned German, I had a more rigorous knowledge of it,
even though I had far less facility with it.

I was never religious, even when I was forced into acting the part as a small child. But I was always curious as to why people would believe something they could not possibly prove existed, but get all rational and superior with me when I insisted that mythical animals and the gods of the ancient peoples were just as eral as their god becuase I believed they were.

That's why I studied religions. I still don't understand though how people of any religion can claim their particular set of believes has any more truth value than those of others. I guess knowing about the various belief systems is mostly an excercise in self-defense then.

 

[dgirl1986]

After reading this article Atheists Best Informed About Religion : Discovery News I wondered why this is that we are usually better informed about a given religion than its practitioners.

The other question that came to mind is, why do religious people not make an effort to learn about the things the take as “fact/truth” and simply follow some people who declare that they know what they talk about in regard to dogma/doctrine of a given faith.

Does anyone want to provide some input here?

Personally I think it is because Athiests are not afraid to look at things from all angles and dissect things. They are also willing to look at the various different religions and practices and kinda compare things.

Some religious people do not wish to look at things from all angles and dissect things for various reasons. It can be because they feel it isnt their place, they are not worthy enough to do so, they are scared that it might conflict with what they believe to be truth etc.

Just my two cents worth.

 

[Me Myself]

After reading this article Atheists Best Informed About Religion : Discovery News I wondered why this is that we are usually better informed about a given religion than its practitioners.

The other question that came to mind is, why do religious people not make an effort to learn about the things the take as “fact/truth” and simply follow some people who declare that they know what they talk about in regard to dogma/doctrine of a given faith.

Does anyone want to provide some input here?

I dont remember if it said right there what I also believe to be a posible resson: atheists in a prdominantly religious regiom have eneraly thought about their stance.

Similar to stance on politics, religious stances are generaly hereditary and part of the identity of the person mostly because of emotional associations with the label ("christian" "buddhist" "vaishnava") images ( reverence tothe cross, to the meditative saints, to the murtis) or riguals (cremations, christian burial, etc ) than because of careful and mindfull analisis and meditation upon the doctrines and beliefs.

In other words, people rarely need reasons to go with the current, where people seldom go against the current without reasons.

Edit. Rats! Just saw this as aDIR , then again it is green so hopefully my answer is atheist friendoy enough :flirt:

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

After reading this article Atheists Best Informed About Religion : Discovery News I wondered why this is that we are usually better informed about a given religion than its practitioners.

The other question that came to mind is, why do religious people not make an effort to learn about the things the take as “fact/truth” and simply follow some people who declare that they know what they talk about in regard to dogma/doctrine of a given faith.

Does anyone want to provide some input here?

One thing comes to mind:

Often, there's a social benefit that comes with belonging to a religion and a social cost that comes with not belonging to any religion. People can choose a beneficial option just based on the benefit, but when someone chooses a costly option, it's usually because they've thought through their options and have decided that the option they chose is the best one, or the other options are untenable for some reason.

If going to church keeps your grandma happy and not going to church would make her unhappy, in most cases, you don't need much reason to keep your grandma happy, but you're not going to just up and do something on a whim that would upset her.

 

[AdityaMookerjee]

People feel ignorant, not that they are. It might be, that an interaction made them assume self ignorance. Not that the interaction was not real. What is the ignorance in the interaction? It seems evident, that what is interaction, to the individual, is also supposed to be mutually considerate to the communicated. Hence, the idea of ignorance.

 

[freethinker44]

The other question that came to mind is, why do religious people not make an effort to learn about the things the take as “fact/truth” and simply follow some people who declare that they know what they talk about in regard to dogma/doctrine of a given faith.

When I was a religious person making an effort to learn about the "fact/truth" about my faith, I ended up an atheist. I know I am not the only one in that situation, so perhaps that explains why there are not more informed religious people. Because the informed religious people become atheist, at least for some percentage anyways.

 

[ArcNinja]

When I was a religious person making an effort to learn about the "fact/truth" about my faith, I ended up an atheist. I know I am not the only one in that situation, so perhaps that explains why there are not more informed religious people. Because the informed religious people become atheist, at least for some percentage anyways.

I went through something similar. When I was younger, I blindly followed my religion, and as time went on I would try to shape that religion to fit other things that I knew were true, such as evolution. Over time I realized that my belief system could never fit that religion, and I did more research, eventually becoming agnostic/atheist.

 

[islam abduallah]

After reading this article Atheists Best Informed About Religion : Discovery News I wondered why this is that we are usually better informed about a given religion than its practitioners.

The other question that came to mind is, why do religious people not make an effort to learn about the things the take as “fact/truth” and simply follow some people who declare that they know what they talk about in regard to dogma/doctrine of a given faith.

Does anyone want to provide some input here?

i don't think that the problem in the religions itself, i think the problem in the followers themselves who are Fanatics to their religions and doctrines without suffient knowledge and being too close minded

but indeed i think a true religion should provide evidences and proofs about it's validity and should ask it's followers to look and meditating in the creation of this universe to be guided to the god and it's way and to seek knowledge till death

and say, "My Lord, increase me in knowledge." quran "20:114"

 

[Simurgh]

i don't think that the problem in the religions itself, i think the problem in the followers themselves who are Fanatics to their religions and doctrines without suffient knowledge and being too close minded

but indeed i think a true religion should provide evidences and proofs about it's validity and should ask it's followers to look and meditating in the creation of this universe to be guided to the god and it's way and to seek knowledge till death

and say, "My Lord, increase me in knowledge." quran "20:114"

You are right; of course, it is not an issue with a given religion. The problem is that people assume that just because they grow up in a particular faith they automatically know everything about it. While some apparently make the effort to learn at least something about dogma, doctrine, and scripture, others simply regurgitate something they heard and assume that their local version of belief is normative.

 

[Desert Snake]

Over time I realized that my belief system could never fit that religion, and I did more research, eventually becoming agnostic/atheist.

I never had some strict doctrine to follow, but it didn't lead me to atheism, agnosticism is an interesting term but it's too on the fence as far as definitory/descriptiveness for me, it really is a given, utilizing it's own definition.

something that can't be proven empirically wrong anyways.

 

[Sunstone]

After reading this article Atheists Best Informed About Religion : Discovery News I wondered why this is that we are usually better informed about a given religion than its practitioners.

The Trout gave a pretty good answer to this, I think. A lot of atheists come from a religious background. Moreover, many -- perhaps even most -- of them took their religion seriously enough to eventually see the contradictions and weaknesses in it. That's to say, they approached their religion as rationalists, demanding the reasons and evidences for it. That's something not everyone does.

The other question that came to mind is, why do religious people not make an effort to learn about the things the take as “fact/truth” and simply follow some people who declare that they know what they talk about in regard to dogma/doctrine of a given faith.

For many religious people, religion is not primarily about the truth or falsity of a set of views, but about being a part of a larger community. Such people naturally pay more attention to what other members of their community think and feel than they pay attention to theology.

 

[Simurgh]

The Trout gave a pretty good answer to this, I think. A lot of atheists come from a religious background. Moreover, many -- perhaps even most -- of them took their religion seriously enough to eventually see the contradictions and weaknesses in it. That's to say, they approached their religion as rationalists, demanding the reasons and evidences for it. That's something not everyone does.



For many religious people, religion is not primarily about the truth or falsity of a set of views, but about being a part of a larger community. Such people naturally pay more attention to what other members of their community think and feel than they pay attention to theology.

Ah yes, the social component Durkheim elaborated upon. I know plenty of people who are religious in that sense and actually think very little about the theological aspect of their religion. They just don't want to stand out and feel that in order to be part of their community they have to participate in the religious rituals as well.
They are an example of structural-functionalism at its best.

 

[Sunstone]

Ah yes, the social component Durkheim elaborated upon. I know plenty of people who are religious in that sense and actually think very little about the theological aspect of their religion. They just don't want to stand out and feel that in order to be part of their community they have to participate in the religious rituals as well.
They are an example of structural-functionalism at its best.

I may be wrong, but I think Durkheim would emphasize how agreeing to a shared set of beliefs creates community -- would emphasize that more than I would. I think more in terms with how a group of worshipers psyche each other up (much as sports fans psyche each other up), with how playing volleyball together as a church group unites people, with how a church community provides emotional support at times like weddings and funerals. None of those things necessarily involve much deep theological instruction or learning. So, I might be wrong about Durkheim, but I think he would place more emphasis on shared beliefs than I would. To me, shared beliefs are important, but just the tip of the iceberg.

 

[Simurgh]

I may be wrong, but I think Durkheim would emphasize how agreeing to a shared set of beliefs creates community -- would emphasize that more than I would. I think more in terms with how a group of worshipers psyche each other up (much as sports fans psyche each other up), with how playing volleyball together as a church group unites people, with how a church community provides emotional support at times like weddings and funerals. None of those things necessarily involve much deep theological instruction or learning. So, I might be wrong about Durkheim, but I think he would place more emphasis on shared beliefs than I would. To me, shared beliefs are important, but just the tip of the iceberg.

It did not seem to me that he emphasized belief more than systematic groupthink. Of course, belief is part of that, but how much of it is shared belief and how much is actually just sharing ritualized behaviors and the pretense of deriving meaning from said activity past the soical aspects.

Then again, sharing --at least on the surface--a belief system reinforces identiy and provides this sense of belonging that is extremely imoprtant to some people. Durkheim was a pragmatist, I think he perceived the structuralist-functional aspects of a belief system to be what grounded a religious framework and made it relevant.

 

[islam abduallah]

You are right; of course, it is not an issue with a given religion. The problem is that people assume that just because they grow up in a particular faith they automatically know everything about it. While some apparently make the effort to learn at least something about dogma, doctrine, and scripture, others simply regurgitate something they heard and assume that their local version of belief is normative.

i agree with you completely and this is one of the reasons that attracted me to the quran as it's completely against following the fathers without knowledge but unfortuantly most of ppl in different beliefs are doing

just for sharing examples that we are not the first who wondered from such people what allah mentioned in chapter 26 "And recite to them the news of Abraham, When he said to his father and his people, "What do you worship?"
They said, "We worship idols and remain to them devoted He said, "Do they hear you when you supplicate? Or do they benefit you, or do they harm? They said, "But we found our fathers doing thus, He said, "Then do you see what you have been worshipping,You and your ancient forefathers?, Indeed, they are enemies to me, except the Lord of the worlds. 69-77 and then they decided to burn him alive
:/

 

[Simurgh]

i agree with you completely and this is one of the reasons that attracted me to the quran as it's completely against following the fathers without knowledge but unfortuantly most of ppl in different beliefs are doing

just for sharing examples that we are not the first who wondered from such people what allah mentioned in chapter 26 "And recite to them the news of Abraham, When he said to his father and his people, "What do you worship?"
They said, "We worship idols and remain to them devoted He said, "Do they hear you when you supplicate? Or do they benefit you, or do they harm? They said, "But we found our fathers doing thus, He said, "Then do you see what you have been worshipping,You and your ancient forefathers?, Indeed, they are enemies to me, except the Lord of the worlds. 69-77 and then they decided to burn him alive
:/

But sadly it is all too common for people to "worship like the forefathers" while putting little thought into the reasons behind and for it. It would certainly be a good idea if people were to study their own scriptures and thought about what the message is without having it corrupted by those with a vested interest to do so.