Politically speaking, I agree with you in the obvious--condescension by secular humanist thinkers toward those who hold a "Religion" or follow a "Faith" isn't likely to endear them--or their political party to those on the receiving end. Nobody likes it when someone else is condescending (and subsequently holds their belief system in contempt) toward them.
Warning: This is a very long-winded response, which upon later consideration, may or may not be worth the effort to read... Proceed as your interest dictates and don't feel bad if at any point you feel like quitting... you won't have missed much, I suspect, and I won't mind...Being a follower of secular humanist thinking or Atheism opens one to infinitely worse condescension backed up by deliberate discriminatory actions by the "majority". Not being allowed to even run for some political offices is the least of it. It can mean becoming a social pariah and enduring rejection by one's own family as well as presenting career roadblocks. It's a lonely road that's filled with severe mistreatment and ostracism. When I say "Intellectual Integrity" or honesty, I mean that there people who no longer believe in the "God" of their "Religion" (if any God at all). They come to doubt as they live and learn and finally to be convinced of the absurdity of their previous belief which was probably foisted upon them since early childhood. There are probably hundreds of thousands (or more) such people, yet, they still attend church or otherwise still claim to 'belong'. They aren't willing to be honest with themselves or perhaps even more particularly, they aren't going to admit their disbelief to others (be it family, friends or peers) because they know what would happen. Outside of relatively covert activities such as certain forums on the internet where like minded people are to be found, many unbelievers would otherwise never express themselves. Some, however, are willing to take the plunge--come what may, and declare to anyone who cares that they don't believe. Finally becoming consistent between their beliefs and the world; no more pretending. That is what I meant about intellectual honesty.
If you consider the amount of human time, energy and resources invested in the pursuit of God, Religion or Faith, you have to recognize that it's truly enormous. Financially, it probably amounts to literally hundreds of Billions of dollars (perhaps even in the Trillions) per year. Billions of people spend anywhere from a couple of hours a week to many hours a day on the topic. Reading/studying, listening to sermons, joining in prayer and song, cooking, sharing, evangelizing and so on, the list of tasks on which energy is spent is long. Now, imagine for a moment (for argument's sake) that you've just had an epiphany and concluded that God doesn't exist and that Religion is just a man-made myth created by a small group of people who sought to control/lead the rest. The implications include the idea that much, if not most, of the time, effort and wealth expended on the study of and implementing the will of an imaginary creator... is all going to waste! If directed toward something "real", just think of all the progress mankind could be making--how far we would already have progressed! Every serious problem facing the world could have been far more thoroughly been addressed. Feeding, clothing, housing and educating the poor, increasing access to public health and medical care services, preserving the environment, the list is endless. This is what in Economics might be called an "Opportunity Cost" where one considers the potential that might be obtained by a different allocation of resources versus the current choice and perceives that potential as the "cost" of choosing the current choice. That was poorly expressed, but that's one way of thinking about Religion. If it weren't for Religion, all that potential might have been realized. Sure, Religion does create and do some useful things, but much of it isn't related to the public good and a significant amount of it is expended in study, prayer, reflection and searching/looking for signs of God's will for the individual as well as various Churches/organizations. If God is real, then He's probably pleased by all that Worship. If not, something more productive could have been done. Of course, from most people's perspective, such hypotheticals are nothing more than blasphemy and not to even be considered.
You mention intellectual dishonesty and give an example. Alas, apparently even Atheists are human and may either engage in lies or exaggerations or may be as deluded as they think Believers are when it comes to their own understanding of Science. Science doesn't have all the answers, it's as limited as mankind is, but at least it seeks to progress. Religion, on the other hand, really doesn't. It's the same old books, scriptures and dogma. It looks forward no farther than to try to convert new believers and, ostensibly, to "know" the will of God and implement it. Certainly Science is filled with examples of falsified data and individual competitiveness--and to a growing extent, greed. Just because most Scientists don't believe in God, doesn't mean that they're immune to the same weaknesses and moral turpitude as other people. I'm not even saying that Science disproves God either, I would say that they are two entirely different things. However, Science has tended to disprove many of the beliefs presented by organized religion over the centuries--a mistake of the leaders of such organizations, not necessarily one of the religion itself--or the God behind it. In any case, I cannot even imagine someone trying to claim that Science is always objective or honest; anyone who would propose such a thing simply knows nothing about the history of science and shouldn't be pontificating about it's merits. Still, it strives to correct itself, every worthwhile theory or experiment or proposal that claims success undergoes a process in which the results are "duplicated" by independent researchers. If it can't be duplicated with the same results, it's been discounted/disproven. Nice try, but no cookie. Try again if you wish... (sentiment expressed to those who made their proclamation). Therefore, at some point flawed theories are exposed and have to be re-worked or replaced. Science strives to progress.
Nevertheless, there simply exists no real evidence that can be seen, touched or measured. There are things we can't measure, yet. There are things we can't explain, yet. Still, no evidence for God. Religion can say that that is by design, if there were a way to prove God exists, there would be no need for "Faith". Of course, Atheists or secular, rational, humanist thinkers would describe "Faith" as the ability to believe outlandish things with no evidence--the more outrageous and more scarce the evidence the better! Whatever. Believers will say they "know" God exists because they've had a profound experience and "sensed" his presence or felt as one with the creator of the universe (or some such thing). Many Atheists would just think they're probably just a bit crazy. They'd be more wrong than right. Scientists studying the physiology of the human brain have actually researched such extraordinary "experiences". This was just something they'd naturally get around to studying, but interesting bits like the fact that people with a particular kind of Epilepsy (temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE)) report incredible "religious" experiences/hallucinations. Inquiring minds want to know why. With the fantastic medical advances in brain scanning equipment, they were able to quantify what goes on in those Epileptic's brains. Naturally, (rather un-naturally it seems to me), they determined to try stimulating the same areas of the brain in "normal" subjects (human Guinea Pigs). One group of scientists did this via a focused magnetic field. Sure enough, all sorts of extraordinary altered states type experiences the subjects would even describe as 'religious experiences' were had. This suggests the human brain naturally has the capacity for creating the idea of God. Did God design us to be that way? For some, that's still a valid question; for others, they can't prove it wasn't so. That's because the word "prove" is very demanding.
In fact, nobody can really "prove" any pattern for sure... the best they can do is show that it happens predictably. It doesn't mean that the 42nd Quadrillionth time it won't do something different. Even so, it just depends on how one chooses to think and how accepting they are of rational/logical thought. A convincing rational argument can be made in which some agree and accept it, while others won't. Actually, I can't think of a thing on which literally "Everyone" agrees. Someone somewhere will disbelieve anything you can describe. "The Sun rises every morning!", someone won't believe it. They might be mentally ill or suffer from some mental deficiency, but they won't believe nonetheless. Likewise it works the other way around... "The Moon is made of Green Cheese!". Somebody will believe! Again, they may be of abnormal mental faculties... but they believe! So much for proving anything.
Politics is especially prone to such differences of opinion. It's interesting that in the very same way Democrats are likely to think Republicans are deluded... So too Atheists tend to think the religious are deluded. Alas, you're right in that one party tends to lean towards rational, humanistic thinking and more often discounts the existence of God... and also therefore looks down upon the other party which tends to attract the more fervent religious people. Which is which is obvious. Certainly, unless those who believe their way of thinking is superior can suppress the urge to dismiss and/or ridicule the thoughts and beliefs of the others, they will face a handicap in convincing them of the righteousness of their analysis of the issues. Ideally, though, they could find a way to convince those who rely on faith to accept rational thinking in a greater way... It is positively awkward that the politics has so commingled with religiousity (or the lack thereof) since it inevitably devolves the discourse into arguing the value of religion!
My concept of reality actually, surprisingly, resembles yours! All the particles, the space within, the transfer and constant co-mingling, joining, changing and disassembling of sub-atomic particles are all controlled by laws of physics, much of which is still unknown to us. On a larger scale, atoms and molecules also follow the laws of physics but also obey other rules as defined in Chemistry, of which we're still just beginning to understand. There are all the forces behind the positioning and other interactions between bits of matter (gravitation, electromagnetism, the strong and the weak nuclear force) and which hold us together. It's all a fantastic, constantly changing soup composed mainly of empty space. It very well might appear to be alive in a sense, but it's really just incredibly complex relationships following the laws that define how everything interacts over time. Within this universe is everything from galaxies and interstellar space, stars, black holes, pulsars, gas clouds, solar systems, planets, asteroids and down to everything we see and know about our world, including ourselves. We are but collections of particles interacting according to the rules and existing only briefly... but special in that our organization has allowed "consciousness". We perceive. We're conceived, live, grow, perceive, interact with others and our environment, experience, remember, age and die. We are never alone in the sense that we are but a part of the vast, constantly changing universe. Then we die in the sense our individual consciousness has run it's course. It's over. Everything is as it should be. All the distress and remorse over the brevity of our existence is just a part of how our consciousness works. It wasn't "designed" but rather was just one of heptillions of potential material interactions possible given the rich set of building blocks and the natural rules that exist in this universe. We're unique to our planet and to our particular evolutionary/geologic period in the life cycle of our planet and sun. What existed before our universe was created, I don't know. What's beyond the farthest galaxy, beyond the end of space as we know it? I don't know. How did our universe arrive at having the particular kinds of sub-atomic particles and energies, I don't know--but there is no need for a designer. To me, "God" is these rules and laws of physics. "He" isn't "sentient" or even "conscious" in any way that we can understand or even recognize. While there is constant change and movement and the passage of time in our universe, it's not "alive" in the sense of the biologic life forms we're familiar with. It doesn't even make sense to refer to the force behind everything as a "He" or a "God", and it/they couldn't care less if we "worship" or "praise" it, and it has no plan for each of us or any 'will' to be implemented by us. It isn't even aware of us or anything, it just is. Similar to what "God" would say... "It is, what it is". As far as we're concerned, it has always been and always will be--though our universe will one day change beyond our wildest imaginings. And again, when it comes to the end, I'm not alone because that's a sentiment that only exists in our minds while we live and it doesn't mean anything once we die. There's no punishment after, there's simply unconsciousness after. The matter and energy that compose our bodies continues to exist in some form. In the short run, we simply dissolve back into our environment--with our preservation technologies, it may take more time, but someday, inevitably we simply become a part of everything else. But that doesn't matter for our brief consciousness will have long since ended. Imagine a flower growing in the field. It sprouts, grows, interacts (rather stationarily) with it's environment, grows old, dies and dissolves back into the field. Our lives are essentially the same except we have a consciousness of our existence as well as an awareness of our eventual mortality. The flower needs no "creator" to guide it through it's life, it does just what it's supposed to do and is a constant part of the universe--at least it's small part of the universe.
Certainly that exposition could use some editing, re-writing and drastic reduction. One might think I'm more wordy than our last Presidential contender.
I like your notion of multiple paths through reality, through the existence and time--for it's perfectly accurate. Our lives depend on everything we encounter and what happens to our part of the universe during the time we're there, and that does mean that every person has their own unique experience--and each individual therefore develops their own mental models based upon what information they encountered as well as what experiences they had--as well as being colored by the specific organization of our physical bodies and minds (genetics and developmental environments/experiences). If anything, the surprise is that we're all as similar as we are.
Back to politics. Just as you say, each of us can influence those we come into contact with, and presuming that I would in some way express condescension toward those whose beliefs involve religion, it seem likely that I wouldn't influence as many people to adopt my proposals as you would. Actually, I don't disagree--if, that is, in my efforts to sway other's thinking I'm forced to deal with their religion--and I choose to engage that part of their belief system. I figure I can make my points in a strictly secular fashion--just as the Democratic platform has done.
While owing to my particular path, I would have to admit to thinking there is a better use of an individual's time than to focus on religion, given our present relatively desperate circumstances, I would certainly avoid any attempt to "save" the religious from their "delusions". Actually, that's a pretty harsh description of my beliefs--much of what I've written here and in my previous post represents, in effect, my explanation of what a hypothetical Atheist would think--and my effort to explain why they would have such a condescending attitude. Personally, I was once religious and still have religious friends. They either know I'm an unbeliever who once thought he believed, or they think I'm just suffering an extended crisis of faith. I haven't sought to disabuse them of their beliefs, and never will. Interestingly, I don't find it difficult at all to discuss politics with them--they aren't fundamentalists (mostly) and are intelligent, rational (aside from their religious convictions) and not hard to talk to.
The Democratic Party as a whole, though, may have some problem with this. Actually, I think the Party gets blamed for every high-profile Atheist or Humanistic thinker who happens to express their anti-religious thoughts and attitudes, even if they aren't really Democrats. Even so, some high-profile Democrats do the same. As to your question of how this is emotionally different from when a Fundamentalist condemns your more liberal faith and claims his views are superior to yours... I don't see any difference. Of course, any rational person knows your views are more reasonable and therefore superior in most ways to those of the fundamentalists, but emotionally, you'd be put off just like any person of faith would be feeling rejected and belittled by the Atheist/Humanist who condemns their beliefs. I note, however, that many Atheist/Humanists are surprisingly satisfied with allowing the Religious to think whatever they want! So, whether this is a serious problem for the Party, I can't say--I'm not a sufficient expert/consultant when it comes to global trends in the Party's efforts to reach "the other side".
In any case, for more reasons why such Secular Humanists might argue that
Religion Must go (see the link). Again, that only partially reflects my own beliefs--though, it struck me as interesting and again, I have to admit to thinking the world would be a better place were it not for the "Organized Religions" (if only to have avoided the five hundred year setback known as the 'Dark Ages').
My apologies for writing this book length response. At some point it was either forge ahead or stop with the sense I hadn't fully expressed my thoughts. That, and perhaps a combination of obsessive-compulsive disorder (<--that was intended as humor with just a pinch of fear that it's true) and the idea of discovering just how long a post can I create (and this would certainly be a personal record)(phew)(I feel like a man would imagine he'd feel after giving birth!).
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
