I recently have become quite active on Quora. I have come across questions and answers that are ignorant, biased, riddled with fallacies and even those that contradict themselves. One of the most vibrant question was one regarding religion (Christianity, in particular).
I started binge reading the answers when I saw the question. The variety of opinions was interesting. Some were interesting, some were painfully ignorant and some were hilariously so. It is not everyday that you come across something that's simultaneously both painful and hilarious (and I'm not talking about painfully hilarious). So, I took it up as today's topic for research. It was not long before I landed on a video* on youtube. That set off the thoughts that were already brewing since some time.
During my short research I saw that the debate had become quite stagnant. The people representing christianity have been giving arguments that seem like textbook practice questions for spotting logical fallacies (I actually learned about two more types of fallacies); Argumentum ad populum**, ad ignorantiam**, ad lapidem**, ab auctoritate**, ad hominem**, confirmation bias**; you just name it and they will have committed it. To top all of them off, they have been simply repeating the already disqualified arguments, committing the fallacy of proof by assertion** and ad nauseam**. While some try to pass them by rewording them, some directly commit 'proof by assertion'.
It may seem at this point that I am siding with the atheists, but I assure you that I am not. I still remain agnostic and indifferent to God's existence.
During all this, at the back of my mind, I was wondering why were the people getting so worked up.
Then as I moved forward, I noticed the expressions on the faces of the people arguing for christianity. I saw that they were extremely attached to the religion. Their whole way of life, even their moral value system was defined by the Bible (In one video*** a person actually said that if there had not been the fear of Hell, he would already have killed many people).
I always say that each and every problem in the world, related to anything (environment, relationships, society, absolutely any sphere of life) is caused by lack of understanding and even more so by the lack of the want of understanding.
People are too attached to the Bible to realise its consequences. They don't understand that it is producing people like that psychotic dude in the video*** who wanted to kill people. I'm not saying that all christians are psychotic. What I'm saying is that the value system of these people comes from the text which is imperfect (who am I kidding? I've heard that it has some pretty serious flaws. See this video****, for example which says that God can be proved to be evil). Thus their value system is not instinctive and also quite full of loopholes. This is very dangerous when present in a large number of people, especially when combined with the concept of confessions. This whole system gives people easy ways to justify unethical and immoral actions, which is obviously not good.
The people have been simply handed the text on gaining consciousness. This hampers their moral and sometimes intellectual growth if enforced too proactively. They grow up unhealthy individuals since they have been brought up in an environment of fear, not love. They do not indulge in the said bad behaviours for the fear of being reprimanded on being discovered or being reprimanded in the afterlife. Thus people don't really understand why the actions are bad since their minds are clouded with fear, which is like an antidote for understanding. I agree that fear has faster results but understanding has long-lasting results, unlike fear which has to be administered regularly. Basically the difference between fear and understanding is that between taming and petting a beast. A petted beast is habituated and doesn't need constant vigilance, while taming is a constant thing. So, you miss a few taming sessions, and the beast is back, and possibly with a feeling of vengeance.
This might be why the world is so screwed up. Although the church is theoretically the highest and has control over all, the richest people are practically not tamed by it. And these untamed beasts are running the world.
You might say that I am not justified in assuming that all the richest people have been brought up in an environment similar to christianity. I would like to refute that by saying that I certainly am not calling out every rich person and also that most of the current religions have been slowly shaped to have an environment similar to christianity. I can give you an example of Hinduism. Originally, Hinduism was not so much a religion as a way of life. India was invaded multiple times and each invader changed the religion according to their preferences. Hinduism is a very open and accepting religion. Actually, I should use the word Dharma and not religion because religion is a very restrictive idea while dharma is not. The Hindu dharma is not rigid like christianity. It is simply a way of living, a collection of basic values and some social protocols for one to follow. You are accepted as a Hindu irrespective of many of your choices and preferences, even the choice to worship the various Gods. You are free to worship or not to worship any God in Hinduism. Many of the invaders couldn't digest the idea of such an open-minded and accepting religion and tried to convert it into something like their own. The result is the highly unstable religion-thingy we have today.
So, the atheists certainly have an advantage over christians in the aspect that they have a pretty developed moral compass because they have a clear mind. Also, with a clear mind comes understanding and that causes many problems to go away. The more one understands, the less problems there are in life.
Even though my words might suggest it, I don't think we should do away with the text altogether, and I certainly don't think it should be given as much importance as it is given today. I believe It should be treated more like a source for solutions for serious moral doubts and dilemmas. We should have a good enough moral compass of our own. This will make people instinctively moral and over time will result in a more trusting, happier and functional society. Obviously, the moral problems above our capability will be solved by the text. So, it is, comparatively, a better solution than both the stances, I think. It accepts both believers and nonbelievers, and its main focus is not on making people follow the text and worship the God but on keeping greater harmony between people.
I just noticed that in my view there is absolutely no need for a God to even exist. If God is good, it won't matter that we don't believe if we do good. If God is evil, it still won't matter if we believe or not (see video****). If God is indifferent, well, it still doesn't matter. If there is no God, there is no point discussing it. So, believe or don't believe, it doesn't matter.
**The basic meanings of the fallacies mentioned:
I started binge reading the answers when I saw the question. The variety of opinions was interesting. Some were interesting, some were painfully ignorant and some were hilariously so. It is not everyday that you come across something that's simultaneously both painful and hilarious (and I'm not talking about painfully hilarious). So, I took it up as today's topic for research. It was not long before I landed on a video* on youtube. That set off the thoughts that were already brewing since some time.
During my short research I saw that the debate had become quite stagnant. The people representing christianity have been giving arguments that seem like textbook practice questions for spotting logical fallacies (I actually learned about two more types of fallacies); Argumentum ad populum**, ad ignorantiam**, ad lapidem**, ab auctoritate**, ad hominem**, confirmation bias**; you just name it and they will have committed it. To top all of them off, they have been simply repeating the already disqualified arguments, committing the fallacy of proof by assertion** and ad nauseam**. While some try to pass them by rewording them, some directly commit 'proof by assertion'.
It may seem at this point that I am siding with the atheists, but I assure you that I am not. I still remain agnostic and indifferent to God's existence.
During all this, at the back of my mind, I was wondering why were the people getting so worked up.
Then as I moved forward, I noticed the expressions on the faces of the people arguing for christianity. I saw that they were extremely attached to the religion. Their whole way of life, even their moral value system was defined by the Bible (In one video*** a person actually said that if there had not been the fear of Hell, he would already have killed many people).
I always say that each and every problem in the world, related to anything (environment, relationships, society, absolutely any sphere of life) is caused by lack of understanding and even more so by the lack of the want of understanding.
People are too attached to the Bible to realise its consequences. They don't understand that it is producing people like that psychotic dude in the video*** who wanted to kill people. I'm not saying that all christians are psychotic. What I'm saying is that the value system of these people comes from the text which is imperfect (who am I kidding? I've heard that it has some pretty serious flaws. See this video****, for example which says that God can be proved to be evil). Thus their value system is not instinctive and also quite full of loopholes. This is very dangerous when present in a large number of people, especially when combined with the concept of confessions. This whole system gives people easy ways to justify unethical and immoral actions, which is obviously not good.
The people have been simply handed the text on gaining consciousness. This hampers their moral and sometimes intellectual growth if enforced too proactively. They grow up unhealthy individuals since they have been brought up in an environment of fear, not love. They do not indulge in the said bad behaviours for the fear of being reprimanded on being discovered or being reprimanded in the afterlife. Thus people don't really understand why the actions are bad since their minds are clouded with fear, which is like an antidote for understanding. I agree that fear has faster results but understanding has long-lasting results, unlike fear which has to be administered regularly. Basically the difference between fear and understanding is that between taming and petting a beast. A petted beast is habituated and doesn't need constant vigilance, while taming is a constant thing. So, you miss a few taming sessions, and the beast is back, and possibly with a feeling of vengeance.
This might be why the world is so screwed up. Although the church is theoretically the highest and has control over all, the richest people are practically not tamed by it. And these untamed beasts are running the world.
You might say that I am not justified in assuming that all the richest people have been brought up in an environment similar to christianity. I would like to refute that by saying that I certainly am not calling out every rich person and also that most of the current religions have been slowly shaped to have an environment similar to christianity. I can give you an example of Hinduism. Originally, Hinduism was not so much a religion as a way of life. India was invaded multiple times and each invader changed the religion according to their preferences. Hinduism is a very open and accepting religion. Actually, I should use the word Dharma and not religion because religion is a very restrictive idea while dharma is not. The Hindu dharma is not rigid like christianity. It is simply a way of living, a collection of basic values and some social protocols for one to follow. You are accepted as a Hindu irrespective of many of your choices and preferences, even the choice to worship the various Gods. You are free to worship or not to worship any God in Hinduism. Many of the invaders couldn't digest the idea of such an open-minded and accepting religion and tried to convert it into something like their own. The result is the highly unstable religion-thingy we have today.
So, the atheists certainly have an advantage over christians in the aspect that they have a pretty developed moral compass because they have a clear mind. Also, with a clear mind comes understanding and that causes many problems to go away. The more one understands, the less problems there are in life.
Even though my words might suggest it, I don't think we should do away with the text altogether, and I certainly don't think it should be given as much importance as it is given today. I believe It should be treated more like a source for solutions for serious moral doubts and dilemmas. We should have a good enough moral compass of our own. This will make people instinctively moral and over time will result in a more trusting, happier and functional society. Obviously, the moral problems above our capability will be solved by the text. So, it is, comparatively, a better solution than both the stances, I think. It accepts both believers and nonbelievers, and its main focus is not on making people follow the text and worship the God but on keeping greater harmony between people.
I just noticed that in my view there is absolutely no need for a God to even exist. If God is good, it won't matter that we don't believe if we do good. If God is evil, it still won't matter if we believe or not (see video****). If God is indifferent, well, it still doesn't matter. If there is no God, there is no point discussing it. So, believe or don't believe, it doesn't matter.
*******
*The video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSLkQnCurgs**The basic meanings of the fallacies mentioned:
- ad populum- If many or most people believe it, it must be true
- ad ignorantiam- If it not true, it must be false (or vice-versa). Basically, ignoring the possibilities of 'unknown' and 'unknowable'.
- ad lapidem- Dismissing a statement as absurd without giving proof of its absurdity.
- ab auctoritate- Treating some authority (expert) as absolute truth and ignoring the possibility that they can still come to the wrong judgments through error, bias, dishonesty, or falling prey to groupthink.
- ad hominem- claim or argument is dismissed on the basis of some irrelevant fact or supposition about the author or the person being criticized.
- Confirmation bias- tendency to search for, interpret, or prioritize information in a way that confirms one's beliefs or hypotheses.
- proof by assertion- proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction. This may be repeated until challenges dry up, at which point it is asserted as fact due to its not being contradicted (ad nauseam).
- ad nauseam- argument made repeatedly (possibly by different people) until nobody cares to discuss it any more. This may sometimes, but not always, be a form of proof by assertion.
****The video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qR6vMAxIUBM
Comments
Post a Comment