Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

rug

(82,333 posts)
Mon Sep 9, 2013, 12:23 PM Sep 2013

Science Vs. Religion: A Heated Debate Fueled By Disrespect



Fire breathing only makes it harder to talk: An activist with the Science and Rationalists' Association of India demonstrates against the claim that Mother Teresa performed a miracle in Calcutta. (Deshakalyan Chowdhury/AFP/Getty Images)

by Tania Lombrozo
September 09, 2013
10:58 AM

A few years ago, over dinner, a friend and fellow academic "came out" to me as a theist.

The conversation later struck me as quite funny. Only in my exotic academic enclave, I thought to myself, would two Americans have a conversation in which the Christian theist "came out" to the atheist Jew. In most American communities, my beliefs would be the anomalies, to be revealed selectively and with caution.

A few weeks ago, writer Virginia Heffernan made a similar confession in a post at Yahoo! News:

"At heart, I am a creationist. There, I said it. At least you, dear readers, won't now storm out of a restaurant like the last person I admitted that to. In New York City saying you're a creationist is like confessing you think Ahmadinejad has a couple of good points. Maybe I'm the only creationist I know."

The response was characterized in The New York Times as "swift and harsh." One blogger described Heffernan's post as a "spectacularly bad piece." Among the 600-plus comments on Yahoo! News were charges of being "intellectually vapid" and offering "the intellectual equivalent of a ditry [sic] bomb."

http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2013/09/08/220450752/science-v-religion-let-s-be-civil
16 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
1. I like her final piece of advice
Mon Sep 9, 2013, 12:31 PM
Sep 2013
We should engage in respectful debate and discussion. We should assume, as a default, that others hold their religious and scientific beliefs deeply, genuinely and reflectively. People rarely believe what they do because they are stupid, heartless, immoral, elitist or brainwashed. Let's find some charitable ground.


She tries to make a distinction between belief and actions based on beliefs, but doesn't really go there. I think it's a distinction worth making.

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
6. That picture is great, but I don't understand how this is a protest.
Mon Sep 9, 2013, 12:54 PM
Sep 2013

I am sure there must be a backstory.

 

rug

(82,333 posts)
8. In many ways, it's more a skeptic movement than an atheist movement.
Mon Sep 9, 2013, 02:46 PM
Sep 2013

Many of the events are devoted to debunking magic tricks and magicans.

mike_c

(36,281 posts)
3. she might be right that...
Mon Sep 9, 2013, 12:44 PM
Sep 2013

"People rarely believe what they do because they are stupid, heartless, immoral, elitist or brainwashed," but that leaves a logical hole large enough to fly ignorance through, and I'm not entirely sure I agree about religious folks not being "brainwashed." But I do think the biggest reason people "believe" magical things, especially when actual evidence suggests otherwise, is willful ignorance.

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
4. I think that the reasons people continue to believe things in spite of actual
Mon Sep 9, 2013, 12:52 PM
Sep 2013

evidence against those things is complex and multifactorial. It may be willful ignorance, but it may also be a psychiatric disorder or a conflict leading to intense denial or naiveté or just believing everything one reads on the internet.

Deism, however, is not challenged by actual evidence to the contrary. While brainwashing may play a role for some, I wholeheartedly agree with her statement in general and think it's good advice.

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
14. On the gripping hand, not all ideas are worthy of respect.
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 01:07 AM
Sep 2013

And that is irrespective of religion. For instance, I doubt you'd offer much respect to the ideas or beliefs of the Westboro Baptist Church.

I think all the derision that can be shoveled in their direction is entirely warranted, and cannot be called bigotry at all.

And the same can be true of some secular ideas.

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
15. Agree, not all ideas are worthy of respect, but
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 11:59 AM
Sep 2013

she speaks of taking the default position and allowing people an opportunity to explain themselves.

WBC is a good example of beliefs vs. acting on those beliefs. If they were to sit around their little church and tell each other that "god hates fags", that's hateful. But when they take it to the streets, that's harmful.

Bigotry is not directing derision at a certain group of people based on their explicit beliefs or behaviors. Bigotry is when you expand that derision to others who may share some quality or identity with that group, even though the specific belief or behavior has not been exhibited.

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
16. Definitely a grey area but I agree WRT to your delineation of public and private behavior
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 12:05 PM
Sep 2013

and the WBC, regarding harm.

Jim__

(14,082 posts)
7. "... there's value in understanding *why* others believe what they do."
Mon Sep 9, 2013, 01:08 PM
Sep 2013

Yes. You can learn a lot through discussion with people who have beliefs that differ from yours.

 

Manifestor_of_Light

(21,046 posts)
13. The more I am around people
Mon Sep 9, 2013, 05:49 PM
Sep 2013

with beliefs in creationism, the power of prayer, the divinity of Jesus and other such unprovable ideas, the more I am convinced that they
DON'T THINK.

They have never thought about what they believe and whether it is helpful for them, and thus whether they should change what they believe. They are sheep and go along with their families without thinking. It's about conformity, wanting to fit in, and thought control. Parents want to control their children rigidly. Preachers want to control their congregations rigidly.

Why? Because they are control freaks. Disobedience is the ultimate sin. Simple authoritarianism. They don't tell their kids WHY they make those rules. It's about power over others and it destroys kids and adults and their self-esteem and self-will.


Alice Miller and John Bradshaw, among others, have written extensively about this.

http://www.alice-miller.com
Author of "For Your Own Good: Hidden Cruelty in Childrearing and the Roots of Violence" and "The Drama of the Gifted Child"


http://www.johnbradshaw.com
Expanded on Piaget's and Alice Miller's work for United States audiences; former Jesuit priest; author of numerous books, TV shows and workshops, incl. "Healing the Shame that Binds You" "Bradshaw on: The Family" "Discovering Your Inner Child". He talks a lot about dysfunctional family systems and roles each person in the family fills. This is related to Transactional Analysis (I'm OK, You're OK) and Games People Play by Eric Berne.


from http://clairefuller.net on "Authoritarian Parents":
The belief that to be good is to obey is the beating, perverted heart of authoritarianism. It functions on many levels in our society but none so stark and formative as the relationship of children to parents. Children are often explicitly taught to think, “I am good when I obey,” often to obey without questioning, resisting, or responding negatively by showing signs of pain, unhappiness, sadness, anger and other “troublesome” emotions while complying.


At other times the message is implicit in the withholding of affection or attention or resources or other unacknowledged punishment, which theorists like Alice Miller and John Bradshaw point to as the cause of the construction of a false self, an inauthentic self adapted to the demands of a parental figure in order to survive.


Perhaps the next most stark and evocative example of this dynamic is in religious teaching and hierarchies. First it stands out in the manner in which we relate to our religious “authorities.” I’ve talked before about the idea of the Bible as “the ultimate authority” and pointed to the reality that there is no such thing as a direct Biblical ethic since everything from the translation, to the application, to the picking and choosing of what would otherwise be contradictory in its content, to oftentimes the simple reading of the Bible is in fact through this argument being left to the “authorities” which often means the clergy and significantly to celebrity or widely publicized members of the clergy. The implied message is not to think or engage with ethics and spirituality yourself, but to obey the mandates of others. This is appealing because it allows us to be lazy (our inherent, original sin) and hard to escape because it threatens us with fear of rejection and damnation should our own consciences and beliefs contradict with those messages.


But more heartbreaking and what seems more personal and pivotal to me, it shapes the way we think of God, of the Divine. We see God as an authority figure – self-centered and temperamental, ready to dish out rewards for our obedience and punishment for our disobedience. We imagine God wants to police and restrict us, to water-down our thoughts, correct and censor our feelings, to constrain and reduce our desires. God wants us to conform to what God wants.


For some of us, this isn’t even as explicitly “religious” as all that. I think in our own minds most of all we find ourselves engaged in a disturbed dynamic in which obedience is equated with good. When our shame, guilt, self-consciousness or ungrounded “selflessness” guides our actions, we imagine some external authority approving of us. When we begin to listen to our own feelings, bodies, minds, and conscience we often find ourselves fearing retribution, feeling arrogant, uncomfortable and fearful that we are stepping out of line. Self-violence is the watermark left on the conscience of those raised in authoritarian contexts.
I seriously doubt that many of us would believe in authoritarianism if it were presented as such and the alternative well represented. But we are taught and imbedded in that teaching is deference.
END QUOTE


Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Religion»Science Vs. Religion: A H...