Should religion be tolerated?

[danny vee]

Incredible amounts of things that we can imagine, are forever unprovable - no evidence can be created to render it true or false. This goes for Theism, but also for the FSM, tooth fairies, and (fictional) worlds as described in the Matrix and the Hitch-hiker's Guide To The Galaxy. All we can do is estimate the chances of such things being true. It is for the author to convince the world that his supernatural idea is true, not for the world to tediously puzzle out all the brainchildren of all madmen in human history*.

"Religion should not be tolerated" might be a bold statement, personally I find it quite effective, however a bit too general. I believe religion should be a personal matter, one that should not find response in society, and especially not in government. It is fine with me if people want to believe in something supernatural for comfort or whatever it is they're looking for. But as soon as that wishful thinking becomes organized religion, I'd like to see it criticized, ridiculed, and disapproved of - so yes: not tolerated.

*Referring to people that claim their fiction is actually not fiction at all, not mr. Douglas Adams, for example.

But if many people are convinced something is true, then what is wrong with them forming an organized group?

 

[Diederick]

But if many people are convinced something is true, then what is wrong with them forming an organized group?

Initially nothing, I agree. But I'd say it is generally accepted that by "organized religion" we mean the larger ones that are aimed at spreading and intensifying, much like any common business is. I'm sorry, it was a very inaccurate statement I made, far too generalized. It's just so hard to remain sharp and pay attention to such details when you're trying to explain things that are so obvious to yourself.

 

[Masourga]

In reading a lot of this thread, it brought to mind an analogy that sort of put things in perspective for me. At my former place of work, things were going downhill with regard to morale, and, as followed, quality of work, and so there was a big push to stream-line. To find the problems, re-organize and re-group, change the definition of roles and responsibilities, and thereby somehow build a better model for our business. This happened multiple times, but there was a common theme underlying everything no matter what changes were made, or who was given what responsibility, what steps were cut out or added, etc. That theme was that the employees as a group and as individuals did the work that needed to be done, regardless. And, obviously, that needed to be the case in order for the business to survive. Basically, it was going to happen, regardless what was changed, or what they tried to "fix", people were going to do what they had to do to get on in their line of work, period.

As it applies to this, we try to label things as secular and non-secular, as individuals we put some amount of stock, or lack thereof in the beliefs of others, we try to change rules, make exceptions, turn things around, and call it an attempt to make things better... but in the end, we're all just people doing what we feel we need to in order to survive and make do, and we will continue to do so regardless the factors within which there is an attempt at change. We're all the same in such fundamental ways, that regardless our belief system, regardless our color, our adopted political stance on a subject, the world will likely always be of the same form it is now. Religion does not change human nature. And minus it's influence, the people who feel they need it would fill the void with something else, and continue to do what they felt they needed to. There is no "root cause" to violence, beneficence, empathy, good, evil, humanity... it is all a part of what we are.

As a last note, if you feel that intolerance toward religions gives you the chance at a better life, so be it, but remember that the context in which you exist provides for others who feel the need for faith to supply that chance . . . and pushing against them is exactly the same as them trying to push their beliefs on you.

 

[Diederick]

Masourga, you seem to have the idea that non-Theism is also a form of belief, and is more or less equal to Theism. Let me give you a very clear, easy-to-understand equation:

Probability of Atheism being right: 99%
Probability of any religion having it right: 1%*
​

There is a very strong difference between non-Theism and Theism: Theism has it most probably wrong, non-Theism is most probably in accordance with reality. It doesn't matter what the definitions are, you are either right or wrong. Though I understand that we are together on this planet, and need to make the best of it; that ironically includes my opposition to religion. There is no doubt, or grey zone which would defend religion because "no one is really sure". I am pretty sure about reality, and quite far from even beginning to be slightly sure about religion.
I believe it would be better to minimize religion and gradually let it die out, because I have found it to be an undesirable factor in this world. I have never been moved on this position, in the two years that I am now digging deep in discussions; quite the contrary has occurred. And until religion proves itself to be a positive influence rather than a negative one; my resistance will continue.
*Infinitely small number rounded off to a full percentage.

As a last note, if you feel that intolerance toward religions gives you the chance at a better life, so be it, but remember that the context in which you exist provides for others who feel the need for faith to supply that chance . . . and pushing against them is exactly the same as them trying to push their beliefs on you.

That is a very unfortunate statement. First of all, no one thinks intolerance towards anything magically makes their life better. I am intolerant of religion, because it is not compatible with me and because I find it painful to see other people be enslaved by it. Besides that, there is a difference in trying to get people out of something they don't need and trying to get people into something they don't need.

 

[Storm]

Masourga, you seem to have the idea that non-Theism is also a form of belief, and is more or less equal to Theism. Let me give you a very clear, easy-to-understand equation:

Probability of Atheism being right: 99%
Probability of any religion having it right: 1%*
​

You didn't show your work. How do you calculate these odds?

 

[Diederick]

You didn't show your work. How do you calculate these odds?

It's more of an estimation, but it doesn't take much thought to come to a similar conclusion. There are several considerations that make religion this unlikely compared to reality:
- spirituality can never correspond with empirical truths
- the existence of multiple worlds in the religious terms (not the multiple universes theory) cannot be complied by physics
- the claim that a deity is omnipotent is preposterous, since everything is such a mess
- a 'God' would be impossible, since it would be impossible to coincide its existence with what we know for a fact of matter and how it behaves
- the ever growing, large amount of different religions suggests that they can not all be correct
- unlike considering a spiritual world, the temporal (real) world makes complete sense; even without knowing everything there is to know
- the inconsistencies of all religions and what their supposed leaders say and do suggests none has ever been perfect; hence not inspired by a god
- the fact that the Scientific Method and establishing facts by empirical means in general, has never failed and is not thought to ever fail, would insinuate that this world is not being tempered with by supernatural phenomena

Besides all the above, it is quite obvious that religion has evolved to stay alive in a society of ever growing knowledge of what is really going on. People no longer worship the Moon or the Sun (unless it's summer and we're all on the beach), or Wodan and Thor, or whichever previous spiritual action you can think of. This revising of religion to be fit for the current societies should be proof enough that it is man-made fiction.

 

[Storm]

All you've done is flaunt your own ignorance. Basically, you don't understand spirituality, so it must be false. Got it.

 

[Masourga]

*Infinitely small number rounded off to a full percentage.

It is interesting that you find yourself so amusing.

In response to your response, you seem to have totally missed my point. To put it in simpler terms for you, we are human regardless our systems of belief. You will have those that fall short of the ideal as long as there are humans in existence. I can promise you that with absolute confidence.

Also, I never said I believed any given religion's nonsense. The simple fact that there is more than one belief with regard to a God or higher power is enough to prove (in my mind) that there is none. The matter at hand is whether or not it is my (read anyone's) place to deem another's beliefs worthy of acceptance or intolerance (with the caveat that those beliefs do not interfere with another's ability to practice their own beliefs in freedom - at which point you would hit opposition anyway and likely someday get your buttocks handed to you with great justice having been done). And it most certainly is not.

Besides... even at close to infinite assurance that you're right, you still don't know, do you?

 

[Diederick]

I wasn't being funny, not in the part you quoted at least.

It is interesting that you find yourself so amusing.

In response to your response, you seem to have totally missed my point. To put it in simpler terms for you, we are human regardless our systems of belief. You will have those that fall short of the ideal as long as there are humans in existence. I can promise you that with absolute confidence.

Also, I never said I believed any given religion's nonsense. The simple fact that there is more than one belief with regard to a God or higher power is enough to prove (in my mind) that there is none. The matter at hand is whether or not it is my (read anyone's) place to deem another's beliefs worthy of acceptance or intolerance. And it most certainly is not.

Besides... even at close to infinite assurance that you're right, you still don't know, do you?

I don't believe I misunderstood anything really. I said that we're all humans and on this world together to make the best of it, but in making the best of it I also include my opposition to religion, for reasons stated earlier. I am not a perfectionist, but with a world as far from perfection as this, striving forward is something we should laud, not deem a waste.

Did I say you were religious? Well I sort of thought that, I'll admit, but I kept it in the undecided center. I'm not positively 100% certain that there is no God, but, like Richard Dawkins once said in an interview, it would be unscientific to say there is absolutely no God, I can't say there is no God, same as I can't say there are no fairies or pink unicorns. We have to consider the possibilities, but with those possibilities being quite infinite, I'd rather stick to what is most probably real and see what I can do with that, instead of considering every fantasy anyone has ever come up with.

 

[J Bryson]

You stick to what you can prove through scientific observation and empirical evidence. I respect that. I find it personally limited and limiting, but I respect it.

The issue as I see it is that not every worthwhile concept can be proven through your methods. Let's take love as an example: I will state for the record that I am in love with my girlfriend. I have ways of proving this and showing it, but any action that I take or statement that I make towards showing said love can be interpreted in any number of ways, some making me out to be utterly self-serving, others immature, and still others that would perceive me to be somehow co-dependent or suffering from other sort of neurosis. What I have is faith that what I feel is love, and I am fortunate enough to be with someone who accepts this...well, accepts it most of the time, at least. However, there is no scientific test that this can be put to. There is no yardstick by which you may measure this feeling, this set of shared experiences and emotions, this deep understanding of and appreciation for each other in all of our glories and miseries. Does this mean that the love does not exist? Not at all. I feel it most profoundly, and I know that she feels it as well. I know this through personal experience and intuitive sensation. I know it through a leap of faith that is as exhilarating, frightening, and utterly fulfilling as any taken by any evangelist.

The fact that we can only see God's fingerprints with a microscope or telescope does not point towards God's nonexistence anymore than it points towards God's existence.

If you have no use for an intuitive sense of the divine, then I understand, and appreciate your path as one that keeps all believers on their toes, forcing us to constantly evaluate and question our own creeds, lest we become complacent.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

You stick to what you can prove through scientific observation and empirical evidence. I respect that. I find it personally limited and limiting, but I respect it.

The issue as I see it is that not every worthwhile concept can be proven through your methods. Let's take love as an example: I will state for the record that I am in love with my girlfriend. I have ways of proving this and showing it, but any action that I take or statement that I make towards showing said love can be interpreted in any number of ways, some making me out to be utterly self-serving, others immature, and still others that would perceive me to be somehow co-dependent or suffering from other sort of neurosis. What I have is faith that what I feel is love, and I am fortunate enough to be with someone who accepts this...well, accepts it most of the time, at least. However, there is no scientific test that this can be put to. There is no yardstick by which you may measure this feeling, this set of shared experiences and emotions, this deep understanding of and appreciation for each other in all of our glories and miseries. Does this mean that the love does not exist? Not at all. I feel it most profoundly, and I know that she feels it as well. I know this through personal experience and intuitive sensation. I know it through a leap of faith that is as exhilarating, frightening, and utterly fulfilling as any taken by any evangelist.

The fact that we can only see God's fingerprints with a microscope or telescope does not point towards God's nonexistence anymore than it points towards God's existence.

If you have no use for an intuitive sense of the divine, then I understand, and appreciate your path as one that keeps all believers on their toes, forcing us to constantly evaluate and question our own creeds, lest we become complacent.

There is no reason why the phenomenon of love cannot be measured though. Once the specific neural and biochemical process involved are able to be quantified, it would simply be a matter of comparing people against a baseline to know whether they were truly in love.

Bottom line - being in love is a result of detectable, potentially measurable, physical processes. There are physical results from experiencing the emotion which give verifiable evidence of its existence.

God leaves no such physical evidence. People may have physical signs through religious experience, but that only proves they are having what we define as a "religious experience", not that there is a god.

 

[J Bryson]

Said chemicals would change over time, and as no two people are ever in love in exactly the same manner once they get past what my friend called the "toast" stage ("You like toast? Oh my God, I like toast, too! We're meant to be!"), the process is bound to change, and cannot be measured. Also, would the neural chemicals of a stalker be the same as those of someone in a reciprocated relationship? There are too many types of love, and too many differing methods of expressing such love for it to be quantified. Romeo and Juliet style? Married for fifty years and settled into a happy routine style? Drawn to someone bad for you style?

There are as many takes on love as there are people in the world, and no single test will ever prove what the "right" one is, much less whether or not such a thing exists.

Of course, I may be merely showing signs of a "romantic experience", and may not actually be in love.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Said chemicals would change over time, and as no two people are ever in love in exactly the same manner once they get past what my friend called the "toast" stage ("You like toast? Oh my God, I like toast, too! We're meant to be!"), the process is bound to change, and cannot be measured. Also, would the neural chemicals of a stalker be the same as those of someone in a reciprocated relationship? There are too many types of love, and too many differing methods of expressing such love for it to be quantified. Romeo and Juliet style? Married for fifty years and settled into a happy routine style? Drawn to someone bad for you style?

I disagree. I think you're overestimating the objective differences between various people and their relationships. There are already many studies which pinpoint the types of hormones associated with various stages of falling in love - which are consistent among individuals.

Our psychology behind why we choose who we choose may differ (although I suspect there aren't really that many basic variations on that either), but the process involved once we start to form a pair-bond attachment is defined by our genes via biochemistry.

 

[J Bryson]

So the hormonal changes are the same? Interesting. It makes me wonder why some fall out of love, while others stay in love, and while still others are in one-sided relationships. What you're saying goes against what I've personally observed in pretty much every single relationship out there.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

So the hormonal changes are the same? Interesting. It makes me wonder why some fall out of love, while others stay in love, and while still others are in one-sided relationships. What you're saying goes against what I've personally observed in pretty much every single relationship out there.

What I'm saying has nothing to do with staying together or splitting up, or even defining that people will fall in love - but that the neural/chemical results of people being in love exist - it's just a matter of decoding and measuring them.

 

[J Bryson]

But it has everything to do with it, as the neural/chemical processes should be reasonably consistent across a wide range of people. Yet some people fall in love with others and fall out of love just as quickly, while others stay the course. Which is real love? Does real love exist at all? If the chemistry is consistent and measurable, then both of those qualify as real love, and yet one is more obviously potent and lasting than the other.

I would not define that initial infatuation as real love, I would not define a stalker as feeling real love, I would not define an abuser as feeling real love...and yet it sounds as if the neurochemical processes that they undergo are indistinguishable from a relationship that develops into something strong and lasting. Therefore, I suspect that "love" may be indicated by these reactions, but is not proven. Of course, your definition of love may differ....

 

[Diederick]

You stick to what you can prove through scientific observation and empirical evidence. I respect that. I find it personally limited and limiting, but I respect it.

The issue as I see it is that not every worthwhile concept can be proven through your methods. Let's take love as an example: I will state for the record that I am in love with my girlfriend. I have ways of proving this and showing it, but any action that I take or statement that I make towards showing said love can be interpreted in any number of ways, some making me out to be utterly self-serving, others immature, and still others that would perceive me to be somehow co-dependent or suffering from other sort of neurosis. What I have is faith that what I feel is love, and I am fortunate enough to be with someone who accepts this...well, accepts it most of the time, at least. However, there is no scientific test that this can be put to. There is no yardstick by which you may measure this feeling, this set of shared experiences and emotions, this deep understanding of and appreciation for each other in all of our glories and miseries. Does this mean that the love does not exist? Not at all. I feel it most profoundly, and I know that she feels it as well. I know this through personal experience and intuitive sensation. I know it through a leap of faith that is as exhilarating, frightening, and utterly fulfilling as any taken by any evangelist.

The fact that we can only see God's fingerprints with a microscope or telescope does not point towards God's nonexistence anymore than it points towards God's existence.

If you have no use for an intuitive sense of the divine, then I understand, and appreciate your path as one that keeps all believers on their toes, forcing us to constantly evaluate and question our own creeds, lest we become complacent.

With all respect, I don't think saying you have faith in your relationship magically verifies it to be genuine. Love, as I know it, is very much a chemical process, with a bunch of manipulation from our mind. To a degree love could be measured as hormonal or at least general chemical activity in the body. Of course love doesn't last a lifetime, something we are made to think by our culture.

What do yo mean by 'god's fingerprints'? If you intend that a lack of scientific explanation would point toward a Deity, I would like to have you meet the God of the Gaps. I never insinuated that love didn't exist, though love is a very vague definition of mutual friendship or a great feeling of affection or liking for or simply having sex(ual feelings for someone).

Sticking to reality is limiting, for sure. But I'd rather keep my world-view clear of fiction, because I am a man of real solutions. I can enjoy fiction by reading or watching it or talking about it. But I don't let it congest my thoughts.

So the hormonal changes are the same? Interesting. It makes me wonder why some fall out of love, while others stay in love, and while still others are in one-sided relationships. What you're saying goes against what I've personally observed in pretty much every single relationship out there.

No one stays in love, we say we do, but we really don't. It's in our culture, it's called marriage. Not that I don't want to get married, but I don't think anyone has ever loved someone else for their entire life. Social stress or control distorts what is really going on, and I think for good reason. People are sex-machines, like all animals; our invention of monogamy puts the beast in us to rest, or at least so it tries. Monogamy is not really in our nature, but in society it may be best. That you observe monogamy in all-day life doesn't mean that's how our bodies work.

 

[danny vee]

It's more of an estimation, but it doesn't take much thought to come to a similar conclusion. There are several considerations that make religion this unlikely compared to reality:
- spirituality can never correspond with empirical truths
- the existence of multiple worlds in the religious terms (not the multiple universes theory) cannot be complied by physics
- the claim that a deity is omnipotent is preposterous, since everything is such a mess
- a 'God' would be impossible, since it would be impossible to coincide its existence with what we know for a fact of matter and how it behaves
- the ever growing, large amount of different religions suggests that they can not all be correct
- unlike considering a spiritual world, the temporal (real) world makes complete sense; even without knowing everything there is to know
- the inconsistencies of all religions and what their supposed leaders say and do suggests none has ever been perfect; hence not inspired by a god
- the fact that the Scientific Method and establishing facts by empirical means in general, has never failed and is not thought to ever fail, would insinuate that this world is not being tempered with by supernatural phenomena

Besides all the above, it is quite obvious that religion has evolved to stay alive in a society of ever growing knowledge of what is really going on. People no longer worship the Moon or the Sun (unless it's summer and we're all on the beach), or Wodan and Thor, or whichever previous spiritual action you can think of. This revising of religion to be fit for the current societies should be proof enough that it is man-made fiction.

I agree with Storm. It seems you don't know very much at all about spirituality. Your last reason for there being no God doesn't prove any non-existence of God. Most of your reasons are just opinions and have no basis whatsoever. You say that religious leaders are not perfect. Obviously not. They're humans. Humans make mistakes. We're not mindless robots. This proves nothing as to whether or not there is a God. You also say the God concept is impossible because you couldn't coincide its existence with science. Why not? As I said, your arguments are just opinions and they don't have a basis. How do you explain spiritual experiences? People who have seen ghosts, spirits, Heaven, God? And don't try to tell me their all lying, because a lot of them go on to live their life in accordance with what they saw. Also, my family members have had spiritual experiences, and I doubt they'd lie to me. If you say their hallucinations, then how do you explain many people seeing something at once? Are they all hallucinating at the same time?! Also, the EEG meter that measures brain activity is flat for some people who have had NDE's. And still they have had NDE's. Explanations?

 

[Diederick]

I agree with Storm. It seems you don't know very much at all about spirituality. Your last reason for there being no God doesn't prove any non-existence of God. Most of your reasons are just opinions and have no basis whatsoever. You say that religious leaders are not perfect. Obviously not. They're humans. Humans make mistakes. We're not mindless robots. This proves nothing as to whether or not there is a God. You also say the God concept is impossible because you couldn't coincide its existence with science. Why not? As I said, your arguments are just opinions and they don't have a basis. How do you explain spiritual experiences? People who have seen ghosts, spirits, Heaven, God? And don't try to tell me their all lying, because a lot of them go on to live their life in accordance with what they saw. Also, my family members have had spiritual experiences, and I doubt they'd lie to me. If you say their hallucinations, then how do you explain many people seeing something at once? Are they all hallucinating at the same time?! Also, the EEG meter that measures brain activity is flat for some people who have had NDE's. And still they have had NDE's. Explanations?

It's quite simple. I don't care about spirituality, I care about what is real and the latter doesn't go well with the first; that's where I assume one of them is not entirely true. So I see which is more likely to be true, reality, or spirituality? That is not a difficult comparison. My points are not opinions, they are conclusions based on obvious reality so everyone can understand them.

People who think they have encountered something supernatural are mislead people. for three simple reasons:
- wishful thinking
- the human brain looking for patterns (distorting reality to make it fit)
- social pressures

Near death experiences are dominated by brain activity, explaining the very diverse and fantastic statements by those who nearly died. This is all not hard to understand, as long as you don't try to make more of it than it really is.

 

[J Bryson]

Here's how it seems to me, and please forgive me if I oversimplify: You prefer the verifiable and empirical, and have little use for the mystical and spiritual. Indeed, you have seen that mystical and spiritual matters have been used as an excuse to do great harm. Therefore, you have decided that the problem is the mystical and spiritual experience itself, as you do not believe in such matters. Never mind that billions of people throughout the world maintain some sort of higher power belief, and gain great comfort from it.

Also, it has been stated in this thread and others that there is no good that has been done through religion that could not also be done through rational motivations. I agree with this. However, allow me to present a corollary: There is no evil that has been done in the name of misguided religious sentiment that could not also be performed in the name of misguided rationalism.