dougo | Atheism evangelism followup

Atheism evangelism followup

hahathor's post about evangelical atheists, and since I never followed up on my post about it here, I figured I'd repost part of the comment here.

The thing that spurred me into asking [whether atheist evangelism was any better than religious evangelism] was this: I saw a documentary about evangelists where someone explained that, if you truly believe that someone you love will go to Hell because they are not a Christian, then shouldn't you do everything you can to prevent that loved one from going to Hell? It does make logical sense, if you accept the assumptions of Sin and Hell. And it made me think, hypothetically speaking, if I truly believe that someone I love is doing damage to themselves because of their religion, then shouldn't I do everything I can to convince them otherwise? For instance, suppose I knew a Christian Scientist who was suffering from a treatable illness, but who refused medical treatment in favor of prayer. If I cared about this person, shouldn't I try to convince them that medical treatment is far more likely to be effective than just prayer? Maybe this doesn't count as evangelism, since I'm not trying to convert them completely to atheism, just away from a particularly egregious corollary of their religion. But it falls into the category of "disabusing others of their beliefs". This is an extreme example, but I think this is the kind of motivation that spurs people to talk someone out of a religious belief: the stereotype is that religious people do some irrational things based on their religious belief that can sometimes be harmful to themselves or others, and if you think that this might happen, then in theory it's socially responsible to try to change their mind. But, yeah, in practice it's usually just rude.

To be clear, I personally think evangelism of any sort is usually a bad idea, not just because it's rude, but also because in general it's dangerous to assume that you know better than someone else what's good for them. But I think the motivations of atheist evangelists can be as virtuously-intended as religious evangelists who want to save your soul from eternal damnation.

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

that analysis is at the personal level.

however, religions do collective harm - ala inquisitions, crusades, jihad, sectarian wars, etc. religious institutions have provided "justifications" for numerous atrocities. the particular nature of religious "justifications" that they are unassailable through empirical modes of evaluation.

religions do collective harm

All religions?

Potential is different than what was said, though.

It was stated as an objective fact that religions do collective harm.

Thank you. I was afraid for a second I might be thought of as talking out of my ass.

I think, however, it is important to understand that a movement has no actions - only the people who make up the movement.

Organizations are made up of people, and may decide collectively via various processes, to do things which cause harm - but the beliefs of the movement do not cause that harm.

i can't think of one that hasn't.

there are effects that arise from collections of people that are not typically assigned to individuals in those collectives.

Absence of evidence (that you can't think of one) does not mean evidence of absence (that there are religions which have not caused collective harm).

i'm discussing religions as social institutions. not as idealized schools of thought.

the main point i'm making is that religions have the particular problem of falling back on "ultimate" authority when their positions are examined as illogical and irrational.

in math that's a pretty good position to take.

in sociology where a great number of religions have been cataloged, not a really reasonable argument to make.

do try to think of a religion that hasn't cause harm. that catalog is available to you. i've spent a far bit of time looking myself.

What harm has been done (collectively as a religion, not by individual members acting alone) by Quakers? Unitarian Universalists? Baha'i?

You made the argument that all religions do collective harm - extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

Has Soka Gakkai done collective harm?
How about Izumo Taishakyo?
Izunome?
Seicho No Ie?

quakers have contributed to perpetuated the erasure of the native american genocide in particular. i'll have to dig for the citation if you really need it.

unitarian universalists that one relates to the mixed results that have had dealing with the "pagan"/non-western religions - which ranges from considering them lesser to doing culturally appropriative things with those religions.

baha'i are rather homophobic.

* * *

i think the unstated arguments you're trying make here are related to the intention of not doing harm and/or that good people can't do bad things.

intention is not enough to prevent harm. and good people can do bad things.

Actually what looked to be your main point, to me, was that "religions do collective harm".

Your explanation for why they do this, is what you have just claimed your main point was.

intention is not enough to prevent harm.

This is true.

Opinions, however, are not enough to cause harm, either.
Actions cause harm, thought does not.

before i go into detail, do you really know anything about those religions and their or did you pull them out of a google search?

their problem range between controversies wrt cult status to historic problems with the ainu genocide.

their actions are historic record.

and how people think shapes how they act.

the results wrt homophobia are not slight.

and native americans do take harm from cultural appropriation and from the erasure of the native american genocide.

the line you make between thought and action is not as neat as you seem to imply.

Listen - you stated, categorically, that ALL religions do collective harm - that means google search is a great reference to find ANY religion.

I know about them as existing due to work on the VA emblems of religious belief allowed on headstones.

controversies wrt cult status

Let us know which definition of cult you are using, that would be extremely helpful.

OK, so:

Do you have a problem with the actions of people who are religious practitioners in extremely small groups, or solo?

I'm thinking about, say, reconstructionist Pagan circles of 4 people. Or a person who is a theist and performs some Jewish ritual but does not take part in Jewish religious life. Or a person who prays to Jesus and asks their friend to baptize them, but doesn't take part in a church or tithe.

If you have a problem with these people's beliefs, what about people who are theists but not religious? Deists?

I see a lot of neglect for the good that religions do, and for any sort of balancing test.

If we're measuring and judging all the evils done by people inspired by the beliefs of the religion of (say) Christianity, how do we measure all the good done by people inspired by the beliefs of the religion of Christianity?

Plus, as we go forwards in time, the economic power of Western Christian thoughts and beliefs has increased, so they have the power to (for example) rescue at least tens of thousands of lives from the Indonesia tsunami. No other religion has that power on a purely physical level.

This is a reasonable answer, though I might quibble about whether the harm done by UUs is based on UU beliefs or whether it's a general cultural failing. What do you have on the Discordians? (I know that some Discordians are assholes but I'm unaware of any harm done as a group, since they don't tend to form groups.)

I don't think any religion contains only good people or that good people can't do harm. I just doubt that there are _no_ religions that are harmless.

do you know more than they exist?

talking about soka gakkai is really hard without a background in nichiren buddhism, buddhism in japan, buddhism in general, and the way state religion has shaped japanese history.

similarly for inzomo taishakyo but w/ shintoism.

izunome is a new on to me to be honest. but at a quick glance it shares a common problem with many religions (and more secular schools of thought) wrt whether or not morality/virtues/goodness is an objective feature of the universe - in practice. i can discuss this wrt no-mind and/or samsara if you need.

seicho no ei is also new to me, but from their website:

It was founded in Japan in 1930 by Rev. Masaharu Taniguchi, who, through his deep concern over the many contradictions in life, dedicated many years of intensive study to different philosophies and religions, until one day, while in deep meditation, he received the divine inspirations that were to form the basis for the Truth of Life Movement.

but this "divine inspiritation" thing? not new. and it generally has a common set of problems and harms around it.

* * *

re: cult
the controversy is the problem. not what constitutes a cult. as a phenomena, claims of cult status happen when memberships is controlled that such a way that leaving, joining, or being excluded estrange relations between family/friends of members. this is harm.

* * *

if you really want to pick a bone with me, try to determine what harm is.

I think there's a big difference between religious beliefs about factual issues, like the age of the Earth or the efficacy of medicine, versus religious beliefs about morality, like whether one should rescue tsunami victims or allow gay marriage. I am much more likely to want to change one's mind about the former than the latter.

i'm not sure i am willing to call discordianism (or fsm) religions.

* * *

however, while i'm highly critical of religions, i do not think they are w/o merit. and as such, i do have some problem with the ridicule discordianism and fsm heap on people who are religious.

* * *

at a very meta and personal level, i see great harm in anything that causes people to deal with concepts instead of reality (what ever reality really is). religions as institutions tend to mistake how they view the world for the world itself. in young religious institutions these problems tend to undeveloped, in older institutions that problem tend to be very visible.

[replying to this and a later thread comment]

the reason for point out the harm isn't to balance it against the good, but to determine if the harm is avoidable or at least can be mitigated.

and in that determination, it's worth seeing if there are common features wrt religions as institutions.

* * *

i think it's morally/ethically bankrupt to think that a good offsets a harm.

see above comment balancing test.

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

Page 1 of 3

Atheism evangelism followup

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

balancing test

no subject