20 "So why should theists question their beliefs? Don't the same arguments apply?" (An Introduction to Atheism)
Description
This article is from the Atheism FAQ, by mathew meta@pobox.com with numerous contributions by others.
20 "So why should theists question their beliefs? Don't the same arguments apply?" (An Introduction to Atheism)
No, because the beliefs being questioned are not similar. Weak atheism
is the sceptical "default position" to take; it asserts nothing.
Strong atheism is a negative belief. Theism is a very strong positive
belief.
Atheists sometimes also argue that theists should question their
beliefs because of the very real harm they can cause -- not just to
the believers, but to everyone else.
"What sort of harm?"
Religion represents a huge financial and work burden on mankind. It's
not just a matter of religious believers wasting their money on church
buildings; think of all the time and effort spent building churches,
praying, and so on. Imagine how that effort could be better spent.
Many theists believe in miracle healing. There have been plenty of
instances of ill people being "healed" by a priest, ceasing to take
the medicines prescribed to them by doctors, and dying as a result.
Some theists have died because they have refused blood transfusions on
religious grounds.
It is arguable that the Catholic Church's opposition to birth control
-- and condoms in particular -- is increasing the problem of
overpopulation in many third-world countries and contributing to the
spread of AIDS world-wide.
Religious believers have been known to murder their children rather
than allow their children to become atheists or marry someone of a
different religion. Religious leaders have been known to justify
murder on the grounds of blasphemy.
There have been many religious wars. Even if we accept the argument
that religion was not the true cause of those wars, it was still used
as an effective justification for them.
"Those weren't real believers. They just claimed to be believers as
some sort of excuse."
This is rather like the No True Scotsman fallacy.
What makes a real believer? There are so many One True Religions it's
hard to tell. Look at Christianity: there are many competing groups,
all convinced that they are the only true Christians. Sometimes they
even fight and kill each other. How is an atheist supposed to decide
who's a real Christian and who isn't, when even the major Christian
churches like the Catholic Church and the Church of England can't
decide amongst themselves?
In the end, most atheists take a pragmatic view, and decide that
anyone who calls himself a Christian, and uses Christian belief or
dogma to justify his actions, should be considered a Christian. Maybe
some of those Christians are just perverting Christian teaching for
their own ends -- but surely if the Bible can be so readily used to
support un-Christian acts it can't be much of a moral code? If the
Bible is the word of God, why couldn't he have made it less easy to
misinterpret? And how do you know that your beliefs aren't a
perversion of what your God intended?
If there is no single unambiguous interpretation of the Bible, then
why should an atheist take one interpretation over another just on
your say-so? Sorry, but if someone claims that he believes in Jesus
and that he murdered others because Jesus and the Bible told him to do
so, we must call him a Christian.
"Obviously those extreme sorts of beliefs should be questioned. But
since nobody has ever proved that God does not exist, it must be very
unlikely that more basic religious beliefs, shared by all faiths, are
nonsense."
The commonality of many basic religious beliefs is hardly surprising,
if you take the view that religion is a product of society. From that
viewpoint, religions have borrowed ideas which contribute to a stable
society -- such as respect for authority figures, a prohibition
against murder, and so on.
In addition, many common religious themes have been passed on to later
religions. For example, it has been suggested that the Ten
Commandments of the Old Testament actually have their roots in
Hamurabi's code.
The claim that because something hasn't been proved false, it's less
likely to be nonsense, does not hold. As was pointed out earlier in
this dialogue, positive assertions concerning the existence of
entities are inherently much harder to disprove than negative ones.
Nobody has ever proved that unicorns don't exist, and there are many
stories about them, but that doesn't make it unlikely that they are
myths.
It is therefore much more valid to hold a negative assertion by
default than it is to hold a positive assertion by default. Of course,
"weak" atheists may argue that asserting nothing is better still.
Continue to:
My Books
