Americans and Religion

[Quark]

I know there are more (deeply) religious people in the world of natural sciences...something I can't really understand.

Many of these people tend to take the Bible as not fact, but a collection of stories and morals. Or they have a belief system not equal to Christianity.

Also commonly their belief stems from science, as in "something this complex must have ..."

[Merlinios]

Now for the definition of "arrogant" from Websters - 1 : exaggerating or disposed to exaggerate one's own worth or importance often by an overbearing manner <an arrogant official>

Add "dismissive" to that, and that is a perfect picture of Atheists when it comes to those of faith.... generally. I don't necessarily mean you. K?
-A

Atheists, eh? Actually, sounds rather more like the Internet, or, dare I say, this very lounge.

Anyway, back to some semi-serious postulation, I may have discovered another cause for the apparent abundance of arrogance in atheists. There are a couple of logical jumps here that may or may not hold water--I've slept for about an hour over the past thirty-six. Here we go.

1. In general, vocal people come across as more arrogant. Passive/shy folks, while they may be arrogant SOBs on the inside really never strike anyone that way because they don't communicate it.

2. In general, the only way to recognize an atheist is for said individual to tell you (or you hear it from another source, secondhand, but the atheist's announcement still lies at the core here).

3. It thus stands to reason that casual acquaintances who are atheists but not arrogant are not as vocal as those that are. In short, you are receiving a distorted sample.

4. People, as churchgoers, are exposed to other people of the same faith. Even driving around town, you can see some folks walking into or out of a church. Since there is (generally) no atheist congregation, and they do exist for the rest, it stands to reason that you would be able to find out about the passives' religion moreso than their lack thereof.

I hope that jumble makes sense to someone other than myself. It also extends to groups. Christians (or whomever) can receive recognition because they organize themselves into, for example, community service...groups. The same is true in negative connotations (stereotypical Muslim extremists, militant Blacks, etc.). But atheists don't really get recognition either way. The negative connotations at least come with knowledge, and weird as it is, the unknown is often more feared than the (perceived) dangerous.

--me

edit: Just realized that we have quite the inflated atheist population in this thread. Nature of the thread? The Lounge? The site? The internet? The gaming community?

[roguebanshee]

edit: Just realized that we have quite the inflated atheist population in this thread. Nature of the thread? The Lounge? The site? The internet? The gaming community?

LL has had a fairly inquisitive angle for most of its lifetime. Atheists seem to me to be more inquisitive than religious people.

[Occhidiangela]

I like the way you are thinking.
When I was studying chemistry I had a fellow student that was very religious (one of those very tough dutch forms of protestantism). At least he was thinking about his religion very much but, (call me arrogant) what he said sounden very ridiculous to me.
He seriously thought the earth was only around 6000 years old. Phenomena like the Grand Canyon he explained with actions of God, and the layer structure and dinosaur bones were 'other things'. Carbon dating was not correct because the earths magnetic field would swith polarity once in a while.
So this guy was trying to use all kind of scientific 'proofs' (that made no sense) that would make his belief correct.
I know there are more (deeply) religious people in the world of natural sciences...something I can't really understand.

There is a group of people called the Institute of Creation Research who publish a great deal of literature that is aimed at calling into question the age of the earth in particular. What your friend asserts sounds like something out of one of their pamphlets. Needless to say, they haven't quite stormed the bastions of science, and pillaged the village of research, and burned the libraries of accumulated discovery.

Occhi

[Zippyy]

There is a group of people called the Institute of Creation Research who publish a great deal of literature that is aimed at calling into question the age of the earth in particular. What your friend asserts sounds like something out of one of their pamphlets. Needless to say, they haven't quite stormed the bastions of science, and pillaged the village of research, and burned the libraries of accumulated discovery.

My will has been almost completely broken from dealing with people like that. Trying to teach superstitious people how to think rationally is discussion's equivalent of fingernails on a chalk-board. I'm always polite, but some days I feel like I'm going to snap.

The Institute of Creation Research wants to prove, scientifically, that the universe was created by an omnipotent being. Not only that, they want to prove that the omnipotent being was none other than the Christian God. Any "objective scientific" endeavor that is approached with a predetermined outcome is obviously neither science nor objective.

That said, I firmly believe that saying "There is no god" is just as foolish as saying "There is a god". Neither claim is falsifiable. Both are possible, but trying to prove either is preposterous.

I second Pete's statements wholeheartedly. I am arrogant, but only because my mind can parse logic.

[Zippyy]

Having too little or too much education seems to cause people to "know better".

Is there such a thing as too much education?

"Man, I'm really just too smart. I wish I knew less things."

I think people with good educations seem to "know better" because, generally, they do.

[Munkay]

There is a group of people called the Institute of Creation Research who publish a great deal of literature that is aimed at calling into question the age of the earth in particular. What your friend asserts sounds like something out of one of their pamphlets. Needless to say, they haven't quite stormed the bastions of science, and pillaged the village of research, and burned the libraries of accumulated discovery.

Occhi

Oh the ICR! They regularly hand out their pamphlets to BU students, especially in front of our science buildings. One week when their presence was particularly heavy, our chaplin made a small speech during a weekday service - the answers aren't found in using science to combat science, but faith to combat science.

Kind of depressing when you're own religious group fails to back you up, eh?

Cheers,

Munk

[Merlinios]

"Man, I'm really just too smart. I wish I knew less things."

Oddly enough, I feel that way all the time. Must be nice to just soak up all the garbage the media/the government/your target of choice sends out and just not give a damn about what actually matters.

--me

[Ashock]

For fun with old scriptural references, go here.

Occhi

Ahh, religion and Lego..... there's my definition of a perfect day:blink:



-A

[Ashock]

edit: Just realized that we have quite the inflated atheist population in this thread. Nature of the thread? The Lounge? The site? The internet? The gaming community?

It's The Lounge and current state of the world in general. The Lounge represents the so-called "progressive" side. Progress is usually good.... usually. Being "progressive" used to be a good thing. Kinda reminds me of the ACLU.


-A

[Rhydderch Hael]

It's The Lounge and current state of the world in general. The Lounge represents the so-called "progressive" side. Progress is usually good.... usually. Being "progressive" used to be a good thing. Kinda reminds me of the ACLU.
-A

And on that note, it's high time I get back to the task of fighting the Prime Evils of Hell in the service of an Archangel of Heaven...

...and I better get a good gem drop this time! :angry:

[Archon_Wing]

*claps*

I would be curious as to your opinion regarding the relationship of the Tao with the acceptance of Communism in China, specifically. I have seen a variety of commentary on that. Any insights you can offer?

Well, actualy you kinda answered the question in the last part of the post, I think.:P

I don't have much experience with China, since I was born in the US. I do have a lot of experience with immigrants, such as my family and other random people I come across, so take this at whatever value you want.

You could say that China has gone in the opposite extreme in the Communists' attempt to abolish religon, which people don't appreciate. You can threaten them with jail and weapons, but that doesn't change people's minds. No amount of propoganda or threats will make Tienamen Square go away But I think many people would have noted the tragedy that happens when you simply try to trash thousands of years of tradition. The later policies of Mao indeed left a really bad taste in everyone's mouth.

From my experience, Chinese religon isn't really the same as it is in the Western sense. This is of course insanely broad, since there's not just one religon of course. There is more of a focus on behavior or morals as opposed the fear or respect of any particular deity. Thus, I think it's easier for people to rationalize the morals while dumping the supernatural stuff. Ultimately, "respect" is probaly a better word then "worship." When you see Chinese people burning incense to the dead, this is an example of respect over worship. Thus, the leaders no longer claim they have the mandate of heaven but some kind of morals and virtue. It's almost like rebranding religon into something that fits into their agenda.

It could be noted that a lot of Chinese people often condem other people to be lacking in (their) values. The inability to see across the fence is a worldwide phenomon.;)

[Drasca]

often condem other people to be lacking in (their) values.

The main complaint I've seen is lack of work ethic--and given there's an entire sub-culture devoted to being lazy, there's something valid to that. Something is deeply wrong when you don't want to give consistent effort at the student and worker level. I know some of the legitimate reasons too and they aren't pretty :angry:

Also, I think it is less morals from diety, to morals from each other. Almost always been more respect for meritocracy (power from ability) than theocracy (power from religious icons). The mandate of heaven through the emperor (divine right of kings) only applied morally if he was a just and capable one. The people were obligated to overthrow crap leadership. However, external views of what is poor leadership rarely apply, as external powers have their own agendas rather than being interested in policy for internal china. War and recent occupation tend to make a nation isolationistic. Still, China's shaken off a lot of dead and ineffective emperors. History of revolution after revolution between dynasties.

It's almost like rebranding religon into something that fits into their agenda.

Need I remind you religion IS an agenda unto itself, and theocracies still rule some parts of this world. Various governments over history usually, when encountering a religion of opposing agenda, sought to get rid of it, or brokered advantage of religions with similar agendas.

Rebranding, I scoff at that. I say Mao was right when he said, "Religion is the opiate of the people", because an entire wing of religion is a power & control over people agenda.

[Archon_Wing]

The main complaint I've seen is lack of work ethic--and given there's an entire sub-culture devoted to being lazy, there's something valid to that. Something is deeply wrong when you don't want to give consistent effort at the student and worker level. I know some of the legitimate reasons too and they aren't pretty

Yea, I've seen some of that sentiment. But maybe my complaint happens when it turns into stereotyping and I get told by my family that I shouldn't make friends with people of other ethnicities because they are lazy and have no future. ;p And while our society does have a bunch of lazy bums lying around, there are also many people with a strong work ethic. Americans do work quite a bit of hours on average.

Basically, my intended point was that intolerance is not simply the repetoire of white males. :] We all live in glass houses.

Also, I think it is less morals from diety, to morals from each other. Almost always been more respect for meritocracy (power from ability) than theocracy (power from religious icons).

Why yes, I thought I wrote that in the last post that morals/respect to a deity was less important, but maybe that didn't come out right. Respect one another because it is right (and you want to be respected) as opposed to being sent into a burning stove for all eternity.

Need I remind you religion IS an agenda unto itself, and theocracies still rule some parts of this world. Various governments over history usually, when encountering a religion of opposing agenda, sought to get rid of it, or brokered advantage of religions with similar agendas.

I don't think there's any inconsistiency in anything I said. Maybe my sentence was phrased badly as an afterthought, but it seems unfair to classify religion as such. Certainly religon can be used as an agenda, but people may use religon as a reflection of tradition and morals. Now, just because certain individuals have used religion as an excuse to maintain control over people does not mean religion itself is bad. When times change, things evolve. You could say that the values are being updated in a modern context to fit into the secular agenda of the Communist party. As in, you could say that Communism is being created as a religon of some kind (Mao's cult of personality, no?) Obviously things have toned down, as I gave the reasons at the last post.

Rebranding, I scoff at that. I say Mao was right when he said, "Religion is the opiate of the people", because an entire wing of religion is a power & control over people agenda.

Well, he stole that from Marx.;)This is true too a certain degree, as many do wallow in ignorance and use religion to justify their means while provoting inaction (The leader is always right) But I still don't believe religion is always a bad agenda.

[Merlinios]

because they are lazy and have no future. ;p And while our society does have a bunch of lazy bums lying around, there are also many people with a strong work ethic.

I'm lazy, American, and most of the adults I've known through my short life have told me I have quite a bright future.

Americans do work quite a bit of hours on average.

Not exactly. Americans spend quite a few hours a day AT WORK. But if you want to look at the actual work done (IE, getting some accomplished)...

Why yes, I thought I wrote that in the last post that morals/respect to a deity was less important, but maybe that didn't come out right. Respect one another because it is right (and you want to be respected) as opposed to being sent into a burning stove for all eternity.

Again, not sure I agree. This depends on your agenda again. Being moral because you feel it is right will promote things like neighborliness (word?) and in general help accomplish things. But there are those who seek division, or control (or one through the other), and thus want fear to be the motivator.

Not to mention, in terms of actually getting the moral behavior out, the shortsighted will always favor the furnace. Lack of incentive is enough to keep most people from doing something more tedious than doing nothing (IE, "work" or being moral or helpful). For example: "Be a good person and...

-The world will be a better place."
"So? How does that benefit ME?"

-Your neighbors will like/respect you."
"I don't like them/I don't need their respect."

-You won't burn in hell for eternity."
"Oh. Good plan."


Sort of back on topic, how does Atheism fit into all of this? Atheism loses the third scenario. So, many logical people would believe they lose the prime motivation for morality. But since Atheists are (GENERALLY) more anchored in reality (not as in they are not crazy, but more like they care more about "this life"), they are more inclined to be a good person because "You won't get arrested/shot." Most faiths are geared toward some kind of preparation for something that is not HERE, however it is phrased. This is generally used as a deterrent toward bad behavior. Christians strive to get to heaven. Buddhists are too busy contemplating the mysteries of the universe to get into trouble. It's present in most of them at one level or another. So you could derive from this that the truly devout should not be swayed by the law. There is a higher power they are more afraid of, or a benefit that outweighs forty to life.

But to an atheist, the law generally IS the higher power. You can get into morality and all of that as being a power, and I guess still be (by a loose definition) an atheist, but morality doesn't normally conflict with the law. The only reason it seems to is because those cases when it does stick out like sore thumbs (and are generally loopholes) to those who feel said law is immoral.

Anyway, atheists, by this logic, even if completely amoral are still normally well within the bounds of living a moral, fruitful life. I guess it's just that most people don't/won't reason this out (or have semantic issues with immoral vs. amoral). Arrogant bastards or not, they're not exactly bereft of logic which applies to either some ethical code, or at very least, governmental law, whereas religion often "transcends" logic and occasional mutates the law into what it feels is "necessary."

(There's that arrogant bastardization for you.)

But I still don't believe religion is always a bad agenda.

Religion is not always a bad agenda, but religion as an agenda is always bad. You don't promote religion as an end (either real or perceived); you use religion as a tool to promote (morality/respect/good person-ness).

--me

[LemmingofGlory]

He seriously thought the earth was only around 6000 years old. Phenomena like the Grand Canyon he explained with actions of God, and the layer structure and dinosaur bones were 'other things'. Carbon dating was not correct because the earths magnetic field would swith polarity once in a while.
So this guy was trying to use all kind of scientific 'proofs' (that made no sense) that would make his belief correct.

I worked with a fundie who thought similarly. I had another coworker who used to dig at him.

(Coworker) So God put the dinosaurs in the earth's crust just to trick us into thinking the earth is incredibly old?
(Fundie) No. They just lived a long time ago, back when Noah was alive.
(Coworker) And the Bible says Noah lived until he was 900 years old. Do you believe that, too?
(Fundie) Life was different in those days. We don't know why people lived so much longer back then.
(Coworker) And dinosaur bones turned to rock in just a few thousand years? Do you realize how long it takes for something to petrify? To turn into ROCK?
(Fundie) The environmental conditions at the time ...

Before a recent change of jobs, for the past two years Fundie had been teaching science in a private school. And they used creationism "science" books with exciting chapter headings like "Evolution: The Great Myth of Man." Great way to prepare kids for interacting with the scientific community in university. But then... this is Alabama. Even in the university biol class I took, the prof took great pains to disclaimer evolution and gently inform students they were free not to believe it, or that they could believe it without it interfering with their belief in God (big-G, not little-g), but whatever they did, they'd need to be able to answer questions about it for the test. Makes me damn happy the Bible doesn't make people #$%& their shorts at the mention of Riemann Hypothesis and Poincare Conjecture.

Anyway, Fundie had a rather unique outlook on why the Bible is credible. He claimed that statistical analysis of the Bible was sufficient to support its claims. The argument is something like, "The probability that the different authors of the Bible, working independently, could have written the same thing is sufficiently low that the events they describe most likely happened." I don't know if when he says 'Bible' he means the Old Testament, New Testament, or both.

-Lemmy

[Zippyy]

(Coworker) So God put the dinosaurs in the earth's crust just to trick us into thinking the earth is incredibly old?
(Fundie) No. They just lived a long time ago, back when Noah was alive.
(Coworker) And the Bible says Noah lived until he was 900 years old. Do you believe that, too?
(Fundie) Life was different in those days. We don't know why people lived so much longer back then.
(Coworker) And dinosaur bones turned to rock in just a few thousand years? Do you realize how long it takes for something to petrify? To turn into ROCK?
(Fundie) The environmental conditions at the time ...

Truthiness:
Fundamentalist: "My belief is true and absolute. Therefore, all evidence must be interpreted in a way that supports my belief."

Beliefs dictate evidence.

Truth:
Skeptic: "My beliefs are dictated by evidence. The evidence will be analyzed and logical inferences will be made."

Evidence dictates beliefs.

[Archon_Wing]

Good post, sir.

I'm lazy, American, and most of the adults I've known through my short life have told me I have quite a bright future.

Yep, not everyone is the grinding working type. But they can still accomplish things.

Again, not sure I agree. This depends on your agenda again. Being moral because you feel it is right will promote things like neighborliness (word?) and in general help accomplish things. But there are those who seek division, or control (or one through the other), and thus want fear to be the motivator.

Not to mention, in terms of actually getting the moral behavior out, the shortsighted will always favor the furnace. Lack of incentive is enough to keep most people from doing something more tedious than doing nothing (IE, "work" or being moral or helpful). For example: "Be a good person and...

-The world will be a better place."
"So? How does that benefit ME?"

-Your neighbors will like/respect you."
"I don't like them/I don't need their respect."

-You won't burn in hell for eternity."
"Oh. Good plan."

Cost/benifit thingy. People tend to do things because there's a benifit to do so. Input from your fellow human beings is a motivation; most people do want to fit in. Then of course, anyone that ignores your first two reasons and clings only to the third should go to hell anyways. ;p

My observation on well... at least Chinese culture/religion is that no.3 is much less emphasized. Sure, there are few superstitions here and there but I don't see it being centered around fear of a God and such.

Sort of back on topic, how does Atheism fit into all of this? Atheism loses the third scenario. So, many logical people would believe they lose the prime motivation for morality. But since Atheists are (GENERALLY) more anchored in reality (not as in they are not crazy, but more like they care more about "this life"), they are more inclined to be a good person because "You won't get arrested/shot." Most faiths are geared toward some kind of preparation for something that is not HERE, however it is phrased. This is generally used as a deterrent toward bad behavior. Christians strive to get to heaven. Buddhists are too busy contemplating the mysteries of the universe to get into trouble. It's present in most of them at one level or another. So you could derive from this that the truly devout should not be swayed by the law. There is a higher power they are more afraid of, or a benefit that outweighs forty to life.

But to an atheist, the law generally IS the higher power. You can get into morality and all of that as being a power, and I guess still be (by a loose definition) an atheist, but morality doesn't normally conflict with the law. The only reason it seems to is because those cases when it does stick out like sore thumbs (and are generally loopholes) to those who feel said law is immoral.

Anyway, atheists, by this logic, even if completely amoral are still normally well within the bounds of living a moral, fruitful life. I guess it's just that most people don't/won't reason this out (or have semantic issues with immoral vs. amoral). Arrogant bastards or not, they're not exactly bereft of logic which applies to either some ethical code, or at very least, governmental law, whereas religion often "transcends" logic and occasional mutates the law into what it feels is "necessary."

Many people fail to realize that morals were created by.... people! Why can people be moral without a god? Well, human civilization hasn't destroyed itself. And certainly morals are not a new invention-- people in the BC era had them!

Religion is not always a bad agenda, but religion as an agenda is always bad. You don't promote religion as an end (either real or perceived); you use religion as a tool to promote (morality/respect/good person-ness).

Ack, silly logic issues. :] Just kidding.

[Occhidiangela]

Well, human civilization hasn't destroyed itself.

Yet

And certainly morals are not a new invention.

The problem arises in determining whether what is moral is a fixed quantity, or not.

Occhi

[Zippyy]

The problem arises in determining whether what is moral is a fixed quantity, or not.

Morals are like Wikipedia.