A new Turkish TV gameshow is bringing together a Christian priest, a Muslim imam, and 10 non-believers to try and convert them. Converts win a free pilgrimage to a holy site of their chosen religion.
Can we please have a representative of the Flying Spaghetti Monster there? Because
Anyway, it sounds harmless enough. But Islamic leaders, surprise surprise, are offended:
“Doing something like this for the sake of ratings is disrespectful to all religions. Religion should not be a subject for entertainment programs,” High Board of Religious Affairs Chairman Hamza Aktan told state news agency Anatolian after news of the planned program emerged.
The show makers disagree:
“We are giving the biggest prize in the world, the gift of belief in God,” Kanal T chief executive Seyhan Soylu told Reuters.
“We don’t approve of anyone being an atheist. God is great and it doesn’t matter which religion you believe in. The important thing is to believe,” Soylu said.
Wait — they don’t approve of anyone being an atheist? What a bigoted thing to say. If I said, “I don’t approve of anyone being Jewish,” I’d be called anti-Semitic. Yet people can say that about atheists, and no one thinks twice — and most nod their heads in agreement.
Then he claims that “it doesn’t matter which religion you believe in.” Why not? Why is it “important” to just believe in God? If their God is Yahweh, then all the Muslims go to hell. Or if their God is Allah, then all Christians go to hell. Seems like it would be important to get your religion right if their God existed!
But the most amusing part is that they will have “a team of theologians” to “ensure that the atheists are truly non-believers and are not just seeking fame or a free holiday.” How, exactly, would they do such a thing? Lay hands on you and make sure they feel the presence of Satan?
How utterly ridiculous.
Erp: Interesting. Many years ago I helped my aunt sort out some of her late mother-in-law’s... 
Peter Cross: The Age of Reason is sometimes published and sold without Part 3: Examination of the... 
Mark D: Let Ed sell his plane and give the money to the Red Cross 
nomad: You’d love it, Custador. It looks and tastes just like it sounds. Nomnom. 
Matt: I find it very interesting that there are so many people out there with such sad lives as to sit... 
Tyrrlin: Wow… I’d like to buy apostrophes for most of those commenters. Apparently belief in a... 
Mathurine: I’m not so sure that they wouldn’t have. The father in the case is... 
JonJon: I agree. 
87 Comments
wooo first!, and thats just disgusting, i dont think people should ever press their beliefs on other people, even if they are retarded beliefs, unless they are dangerous, like scientologys, which are dangerous AND retarded
Would I get extra points for converting one of the holy men to non-belief?
the show itself will probably do that lol…
what a scam lol it will end up making a joke of the religions that participate, like most reality shows, it will probably have nothing to do with reality at all
I am so thrilled to be living in Turkey right now, I just hope the controversy surrounding the show doesn’t prevent it from being aired. I think this is hilarious.
“All right, after the break we have Dave and Alice in the Torquemada Double Elimination Challenge!”
“Religion should not be a subject for entertainment programs”
Hmmm… so how does that explain 700 Club, Veggie Tales and the broadcast of church services of all kinds. I find them highly entertaining :)
I can see how well this is going to go. Hearing about both Muslim and Christian religions side-by-side and being asked to believe in one or the other is laughable because they’re both pretty crazy sounding, especially for atheists.
“Okay, for this one, you have to believe some guy died for you because you’re automatically a sinner from the day you were born, and that’s bad. You don’t want to be a sinner.”
“Now, for this one, you have to believe that women are inferior in every way, and committing suicide is an automatic way to get into heaven. What’s heaven? The best thing ever ever ever!”
“How utterly ridiculous.” Daniel – why do you sound surprised?
Don’t worry, I’m rarely surprised by anything religious.
I bet most of these “atheists” will be faking the whole thing for free travel.
Daniel,
Yesterday you said,
Historically, both Christianity and Islam have been pretty cruel and evil when they control nations. I’d rather have neither.<b?
And while I think using the word “approve” is certainly different than what you said above, you’re both essentially wishing for the same thing. The religious person is wishing for a world without atheism, and you’re wishing for a world without religion. The “approve” comment certainly seems more malevolent, but in spite of that, I have a hard time concluding that you want anything else than the eradication of religion — which is simply the converse of what the show creators want.
In other words, you try to persuade people that belief in God (especially the Christian God) is unreasonable and undesirable. The people who’ve created this show want to persuade non-believers that belief in God is desirable, and in fact the most desirable thing (according to their comments).
You also said, Wait — they don’t approve of anyone being an atheist? What a bigoted thing to say. If I said, “I don’t approve of anyone being Jewish,” I’d be called anti-Semitic.
Here’s what approve means, from the free dictionary:
1. To consider right or good; think or speak favorably of.
2. To consent to officially or formally; confirm or sanction: The Senate approved the treaty.
To me, it seems like you’re reading more into “approve” than was intended. Because after reading your blog for the past few months, I don’t think you would approve (As defined here) of any religion, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, etc. — right?
In other words, if we substitute the definition of approve into the original sentence, we would get:
We don’t consider [atheism] right or good; [we don't] think or speak favorably of anyone being an atheist.
But if we simply substituted religion for atheism, we would get:
We don’t consider [religion] right or good; [we don't] think or speak favorably of anyone being religious.
Now maybe I’ve misunderstood you and your blog, but I’ve yet to read a post you’ve made that highlights something good, desirable, or right about religion.
Bigoted is too strong a word, Daniel, because in spite of the language they used, it is fundamentally the same thing you are doing here everyday, just with the exact opposite intention.
This: The religious person is wishing for a world without atheism, and you’re wishing for a world without religion
should say “show creator” instead of religious person. I didn’t mean to imply that all religious people are wishing for a world without atheism (although most probably are, I would think).
I was asking myself if I would approve that someone would be religious. My conclusion was “yes, I would”, as far as it is a rational one -yeah, like you.
[Note: I don't approve fundies but I wouldn't forbid his faith]
Anyway, I don’t wish any state guided by religion, I don’t approve that. But it is different not approving a faith-guided state and not approving any personal faith -or lack of it
@brgulker: “… but I’ve yet to read a post you’ve made that highlights something good, desirable, or right about religion.” I can’t really think of anything good, desirable, or right about religion. At least, nothing that other groups, associations, chapters, teams, or whatever don’t do as well.
I can’t really think of anything good, desirable, or right about religion. At least, nothing that other groups, associations, chapters, teams, or whatever don’t do as well
To me, Len, all you have to do is pick up a history book, and you’ll see the obvious evil and obvious good that religion has done. Let’s take the U.S. (my home country) as an example. We Christians endorsed displacing the natives of this country, and it was couched in the religious language of manifest destiny. And some of us even endorsed slavery. However, some of the most active abolitionists in our history were people of faith, as were some of the most active civil rights leaders. And personally, I don’t think the civil rights movement would have been as peaceful as it was (relatively peaceful, anyway) had men like Dr. King not been leading.
To your point about redundancy. In the first place, I don’t think redundancy implies irrelevance, which seems to be what you’re assuming. In other words, I hear you to be saying something like, “If people don’t need religion to be good, then why bother with religion at all?” I can’t speak for people who aren’t religious, because I am religious; I don’t profess to know or understand their motivations for doing what they do. I can speak for religious folks, to some extent, and I do know that for many of us, the motivation for being “good” is our religion. So in my view, I can’t understand why people want to undercut religion — as it is the primary motivating factor for good for a whole lot of people.
So the good that religion does is in correcting the harm that it does. But leaving aside whether it *does* good or bad for the moment, doesn’t the idea that it’s a lie make it intrinsically bad?
I agree.
Changing it to “intrinsically evil” (not the original phrase), and then claiming that that is an absolutist statement, and then verbally flagellating the dead horse into flayed strips, then ignoring nomad’s original statement to leave aside whether it *does* good for the moment, and evading the original rhetorical question of whether religion is intrinsically bad because it’s based on a lie, and going back to repeating that it *does* good, is brgulker’s manipulative tricks, devices, ploys and evasion.
Changing it to “intrinsically evil” (not the original phrase),
Actually, nomad did use intrinsically, and he appears to be using bad and evil interchangeably.
and then claiming that that is an absolutist statement
It is an absolutist statement. Or, at least it is if his original question was rhetorical, which I assumed it to be. “Isn’t substituing myth for reality intrinsically evil?” when phrased as a rhetorical question, which is how I understood it, has an absolute meaning, which is “substituting myth for reality is intrinsically evil.”
then ignoring nomad’s original statement to leave aside whether it *does* good for the moment, and evading the original rhetorical question of whether religion is intrinsically bad because it’s based on a lie, and going back to repeating that it *does* good
I’m not dodging, evading, or merely being redundant. I was trying to be very specific in terms of how we are defining “evil/bad,” especially because the word “intrinsic” was used (first by nomad, not me). If something is intrinsically evil, then it is, by definition, only capable of producing evil. Because that’s not what we observe with respect to intent or outcome, even when “myth replaces reality,” I question the claim that “myth replacing reality is intrinsically bad/evil.”
Yeah. It is an absolutist statement. The intrinsicness refers however not to religion itself, which has good aspects and bad aspects. The intrinsicness refers to the lying. Lying is, with rare exceptions, intrinsically bad/evil. Especially lies that are institutional.
@ claidheamh mor:
Yeah. It is an absolutist statement
I just wanted to make sure you saw that. I’m not being manipulative. I’m tired of you accusing me of being so (this is hardly the first time).
=============================
@ nomad:
I don’t understand religious myth to be a lie. In my view, the power of myth is that it happens, not that it happened.
A quote from Karen Armstrong, who says it better than I could,
Religious truth does not stand or fall by the historicity of its scriptural narratives. It will survive only if it enables people to find meaning and value when they are overwhelmed by the despair that is an inescapable part of the human condition. When we are discussing the meaning of life and the death of meaning, the historicity of the flood becomes an irrelevant distraction from the main issue. We are dealing not with history or science but with myth.
…
Today in popular parlance, a myth is something that did not happen, so to claim that a biblical story is mythical is to deny its truth. But before the advent of our scientific modernity, myth recounted an event that had – in some sense – happened once, but which also happened all the time. It was never possible to interpret a myth in terms of objective reason.
Take, for example, the early narratives of Genesis, such as the story of Cain and Abel. In that myth, one brother murders his other over a difference of religious opinion. In my view, there is much meaning and value to be derived from that story — especially in today’s day and age. Does the fact that the narrative can’t be validated historically make it any less true? Or, can we Christians still derive meaning from it as we see that story re-lived before our very eyes?
But still, that’s just allowing semantics to muddy the water. Not the political definition of absolutism. Websters 3. an absolute standard or principle
such as lying is bad/evil
re this:
Yeah. It is an absolutist statement
I just wanted to make sure you saw that. I’m not being manipulative. I’m tired of you accusing me of being so (this is hardly the first time).
But still, that’s just allowing semantics to muddy the water. Not the political definition of absolutism. Websters 3. an absolute standard or principle
Yes, that’s what I meant. claid’s comments accused me of misrepresenting you by manipulating your words. I don’t think I was. You meant your statement to be an absolute statement, that is, “lying is evil.”
Yes, of course you’re right about that. I apologize.
The question does then become what constitutes a lie. I am not a fan of myth, in spite of Karen Armstrong. A myth is a kind of a lie. It’s something that’s not empirically true but embodies a deeper metaphorical truth. John Hick called it mythological truth. It seems a little bit disingenuous.
The question does then become what constitutes a lie.
Yep, that seems to be the heart of the disagreement, as you mentioned above, along with what constitutes myth.
I’ve said what I think myth is. Myth is something that happens (present tense) and is usually repeated by people and cultures throughout history. Naturally then, I tend to like Armstrong.
I think we’d probably agree about what constitutes a lie; a lie is something contrary to truth (would you agree?). If myth is read on a purely literal basis and taken at face value as historical fact, then I can see how it can become a lie from your perspective. However, if myth is a narrative/story that was written down in the past but is primarily about the present (or perhaps more specifically, human existence in all presents), then I don’t see how it is a lie. So obviously from my perspective, it’s not evil either (it’s not a lie, so it’s not evil).
Does that make any sense?
Yes indeed. Heres my definition: Myths are the lies that give life meaning.
I don’t mean to be confusing. Myths aren’t really lies, in the strict sense. They are fabricated stories designed to explain various things about life. They become lies when they are substituted for empirical truth.
“….if myth is a narrative/story that was written down in the past but is primarily about the present(or perhaps more specifically, human existence in all presents), then I don’t see how it is a lie”
When you say “myth”, it can mean, yes, a deliberate lie, or it can simply mean a tall tale(tradition). To my understanding, in order for a (non-fiction) “story” that was “written down in the past” to be about the “present”, omniscience must be involved. If omniscience is involved, then free agency comes into question. Specifically, if the future is known in an absolute sense, then said future is fixed/immovable, in which case, free will is an illusion. Thus, if an ancient “story” claims to know facts about the present, it is reasonable to conclude that said story is a myth, lie, legend, or perhaps a tall tale. Take your pick.
Of course, if you’re talking fiction, then it would seem rather odd to debate whether said story is a “lie”, or not.
Something a bit shorter than your tiresome walls of post and proof of God by exhaustion, #73:
He did say “bad” not “evil”.
DUH!
This is a bit shorter than your tiresome walls o’ post, #73:
Nomad originally said “bad” not “evil”.
DUH!
Lol, this is actually pretty funny to me, claid, because you’re doing exactly what others do: prejudging. If you read my comments in the context of my conversation with nomad, your claims fall to the ground, unsupported.
You have accused me being manipulative, specifically changing the terms that people are using to make my argument look better.
In fact, just the opposite is the case. nomad DID in fact use the word “evil,” and just like the use of the word “intrinsic,” nomad introduced the word into the conversation. I didn’t introduce any new terms, and I most certainly did not change any of nomad’s words.
You’re dead wrong, and here’s proof:
Here’s where the phrase “intrinsically bad” first entered the conversation: http://unreasonablefaith.com/2009/07/04/tv-gameshow-looks-to-convert-atheists/#comment-52042
nomad is using the words “bad” and “evil” interchangeably (and he introduced them both into the conversation). I’m using the same words for simplicity and for the sake of conversation and attempting to clarify what the word means in the context of the specific conversation.
Here, nomad seems to be fine with using bad/evil interchangeably: http://unreasonablefaith.com/2009/07/04/tv-gameshow-looks-to-convert-atheists/#comment-52116
And you’ve also accused me of putting words in nomad’s mouth, that is, I’m accusing him of making absolute claims when he’s not. Yet, here he is acknowledging that he meant his claim to be an absolute claim.
Check it out for yourself: http://unreasonablefaith.com/2009/07/04/tv-gameshow-looks-to-convert-atheists/#comment-52116
It’s even more ironic to me, because nomad and I are getting along in our conversation just fine. He doesn’t think I’m putting words in his mouth or manipulating the him or the conversation. You, an outside observer to the conversation who’s yet to offer one argument relevant to the conversation, paint me as a stereotype who argues from exhaustion.
This was your best attempt at an argument,
then ignoring nomad’s original statement to leave aside whether it *does* good for the moment, and evading the original rhetorical question of whether religion is intrinsically bad because it’s based on a lie, and going back to repeating that it *does* good, is brgulker’s manipulative tricks, devices, ploys and evasion
but it’s really not an argument; it’s just an attack.
I’ve cleary demonstrated that there are no “tricks, devices, ploys, or evasions,” in my and I’ve provided links to make it crystal clear.
So the good that religion does is in correcting the harm that it does
Christianity did not cause slavery. Slavery was caused by greed and ignorance. Christianity was used to justify slavery.
doesn’t the idea that it’s a lie make it intrinsically bad?
Let’s go with this (even though I don’t buy the assumption that it’s a lie). Are fairy tales intrinsically bad because they are “lies”? Are all works of literary fiction intrinsically bad because they do not coincide with historical fact?
Or, could they still be motivating and inspiring as poetry and metaphor?
My guess, nomad, is that you’ve been inspired by a work of fiction at some point, be it a film, a novel, a poem. So, even if religion is nothing more than a work of fiction, your claim that it is intrinsically bad isn’t a supportable one.
The evil comes in mistaking the myth for reality.
Again, let’s work with your assumption that it is myth not reality.
If the scenario you describe is, in fact, “intrinsically evil,” then religion should only be capable of producing evil. If religion is, by its very nature, evil as you’ve claimed, then it should only be capable of producing evil. So why does it produce good?
I wouldn’t say religion is good. I wouldn’t say religion is evil. I would, however, say it’s irrelevant, maybe even obsolete, and potentially dangerous.
I would, however, say it’s irrelevant, maybe even obsolete, and potentially dangerous.
Yes, I understand where you’re coming from. I’ve been arguing that the logical conclusion of such statements is that you (and anyone who espouses those sentiments) does not approve of religion (assuming we use the dictionary definition of approve). Not approving of religion does not make you a bigot.
Doesn’t it, though? Let’s make a test: if I say “I don’t approve of black people marrying white people”, does that come out as a bigoted statement or does it come as a simple matter of observation? In a strictly “dictionary sense”, perhaps it doesn’t come out as bigotry. Maybe you won’t even think so.
Many people would probably see it as bigoted. Why? Hermeneutics, semantics, context – what have you. The statement by itself perhaps is harmless; the statement in context might not.
Many people would probably see it as bigoted. Why? Hermeneutics, semantics, context – what have you. The statement by itself perhaps is harmless; the statement in context might not.
That’s a good point, Siberia. I would agree with you that someone who makes that claim is racially prejudiced in some way (either against black or white).
I do see one flaw in your analogy though, namely, that black/white is a biological determination. Atheism/Theism is an ideology that is chosen. There’s a big difference, I think, between saying, “I don’t approve of what you think.” And, “I don’t approve of what you are.” Would you agree?
I’m curious what your perspective might be on my claim that Daniel and this blog don’t approve of religion, even if that’s not the specific language that gets used. As a religious person, that’s the tone I hear on an almost daily basis, both in the opening posts by Daniel and in the comments. But I don’t understand that tone to be bigoted. What do you think of that?
Quite true. But to some people, being this or that is quite intrinsic (here’s that word again) to what they are. Humans being humans and what not.
Depends. Bigotry as a word has a bad connotation, so I would hesitate in saying anyone is bigoted. Nonetheless, I stand from the principle nobody is absolutely un-bigoted (is that even a word? Eh).
The definition of “bigotry” is the unquestionable belief one’s ideology is right (and contrary views are wicked, wrong). I can say I am bigoted against fascism. I see no way where fascism is good. I am bigoted against misogyny, against so many other things. You see where I’m going?
I can’t say I am bigoted against religion because I am mostly neutral about it. I can say I am bigoted against fundamentalism, because I see that as inherently detrimental to society. I don’t know about Daniel or the rest, because I don’t see them as particularly convinced of their own righteousness. Methinks many of us would change our minds if we had the convincing evidence.
I do, however, see someone who thinks belief is a great gift and that believing anything is better than non-believing is crossing the line into bigotry – in that it makes clear (subjectively, of course) that atheism is wicked, wrong. Maybe not crossed, but close.
Quite true. But to some people, being this or that is quite intrinsic (here’s that word again) to what they are. Humans being humans and what not.
Yes, hence a statement like, “I am a Christian.” Or, “I am an atheist.” Statements like that reveal that ideologies can and do become part of identity. Which is at least partly why conversations on blogs like this one get personal so quickly.
Nonetheless, I stand from the principle nobody is absolutely un-bigoted (is that even a word? Eh).
Let’s make it a word. I think I mostly agree with that, although I might substitute the word biased for bigoted. At the very least, we are all inevitably biased.
I do, however, see someone who thinks belief is a great gift and that believing anything is better than non-believing is crossing the line into bigotry – in that it makes clear (subjectively, of course) that atheism is wicked, wrong. Maybe not crossed, but close.
Do you think a statement like this crosses the line? “Not believing is more desirable than believing in an invisible sky daddy, the flying spaghetti monster, and pink unicorns.”
To me, the latter statement is just the other side of the same coin as the former statement. And in my view, if the former comes close to or crosses the line, so does the other.
(I’m not saying that is in fact what you think, you’ve stated your neutrality to moderate religious belief, but I think it does accurately reflect a lot of the comments here).
By itself? Not really, no, much like the example before, by itself, would not (though the word ‘approve’ also has a connotation of condescendence, methinks. Or maybe it’s just me envisioning snobbish rich people saying “I don’t approve of you… way too many old movies and sitcoms). Desire does not imply need, after all. It would depend on the context and the implied motivation of the person in question.
In the case in hand, imagine:
“We offer the greatest gift, the gift of atheism. We don’t think belief is desirable. It’s important for one to not-believe.”
Would that statement (as a whole) jive of bigotry? To me – in context – it does, even if I agree with the sentiment. Why is it important not to believe? Why is religion undesirable? Who are you to say such a thing? Why a gift? Again, I don’t think it’s quite that common for people to not be bigoted (or biased) about certain things, just as I don’t think anyone is perfectly tolerant.
Which, as long as they don’t try to force their views on other people or cause harm of any kind to the dissenter, is perfectly alright for me: we’re each and all entitled to our opinions, no?
I suppose that, in the end, it devolves to the actual humans being humans and, as we’ve both agreed, how we identify with the ideologies we espouse and are relevant to us – whether communism, Christianity, atheism, fascism, whatever. I can grok where Daniel is coming from in the subject post, even if, analyzing things on a purely semantical level, it does not come off as bigoted. I can see why some religious people – not all – could see our own statements as close to anti-religion bigotry (even my own; I can be quite vocal – or, well… writely? – at times!). We’re each, after all, convinced we’re right – maybe not unshakeably so, maybe we’ve reasons to believe what we believe (or don’t), but we are.
My (admittedly rambly) point is: yes, sometimes I see comments that, to me, jive as bigoted or quite close to it. That isn’t necessarily bad. It isn’t necessarily good, either. More like humans being human…
My (admittedly rambly) point is: yes, sometimes I see comments that, to me, jive as bigoted or quite close to it. That isn’t necessarily bad. It isn’t necessarily good, either. More like humans being human
That makes sense, and I really didn’t intend to throw us into a semantic tango, although in this case, it looks like it produced some fruitful results.
When I hear the word “approve” I really do hear it as it’s defined, at least most of the time. In this context, I would agree with you in that there is some condescension going on.
A bigot is someone who: “A prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own.” When I hear “bigot,” the word denotes hate and intolerance.
The lingering question for me then is, can you disapprove of something without being bigoted against that thing? So, in the context of our conversation, would it be possible that the people creating this show don’t “approve” of atheism, in that they don’t think it’s desirable, right, or good, without being bigots. In other words, could they view atheism as undesirable and still tolerate (not begrudgingly, as in “I have to put up with you,” but in the liberal, democratic sense of the term) atheists.
The opening post seems to assume that isn’t possible, and perhaps it’s not for the people creating the show. I don’t know.
But I would like to think that it’s possible to “disapprove” a particular ideology and still be tolerant of it.
I’m not an atheist. You’re not a Christian. So by definition, each of us doesn’t “approve” of the other’s worldview with respect to religion. But as bast as I can tell, there is mutual respect, which is in my view, the first step toward tolerance.
Ahh, well, I was using this definition of bigoted (without the extended sense):
So, you see, I meant it in the sense of someone who thinks he’s right and everyone else wrong – but not necessarily is utterly intolerant of others.
That’s OK, I love languages and the study thereof.
Aye, I can see that, hence why I try to separate the “weak” sense from the “strong” sense.
Within the context of utter intolerance, sure. It’ll still rankle and get some hackles rising by sheer reason of humanity but intolerance goes beyond that.
Sure.
Possibly. Knowing nothing more about them, I’d say it’s possible they are not bigoted in the sense they are utterly intolerant of atheists. However, it does make me wonder what other measures they might take if they feel it bad enough they have a game show to convert people in mind; possibly it’s all in good faith (hah). Possibly not. Would these people discriminate other people on faith alone? I don’t know. I’d like to think they don’t.
Kind of brings to mind those people who think homosexuals need to be cured and have the gay beat out of them, y’know? I’m sure lots of those people act in good faith, bringing what they think is best for their peers, but it does rankle of intolerance towards the different. Maybe not outright “kill ye filthy worms” intolerance, but a seedling? I don’t know. I’d love to understand what goes on those people’s brains.
Me neither. But I surely can see the hackles rising ;p
Sure. Live and let live and all that jazz.
Quite. I do respect you, mind, and your views. How could I not? It harms no one. Tolerance is indeed a wonderful thing.
If the scenario you describe is, in fact, “intrinsically evil,” then religion should only be capable of producing evil. If religion is, by its very nature, evil as you’ve claimed, then it should only be capable of producing evil. So why does it produce good?
Not necessarily. We have already established that it produces good and bad. The idea that it’s a lie (myth) doesn’t make it bad. The evil comes in substituting the myth for reality. A lie for the truth.
The evil comes in substituting the myth for reality. A lie for the truth.
You said that doing so is “intrinsically bad” (direct quote). If “substituting myth for reality” is “intrinsically bad,” which is what you have claimed, then religion by its very definition as intrinsically bad should only be able to produce something bad/evil. In other words, if _________ is intrinsically evil, then _________ should only produce evil. Yet, that is not the case with respect to religion, because we both admit religion can produce good.
In my view, the fact that religion does in fact produce good (even when “myth is substituted for reality”) demonstrates, at the very least, that religion is not “intrinsically bad.” The claim that religion — even when “myth is substituted for reality” — is intrinsically evil simply can’t be supported.
” You said that doing so is “intrinsically bad” (direct quote).”
Except that you left off the question mark.
“doesn’t the idea that it’s a lie make it intrinsically bad?”
If something is a lie, no matter if it sometimes has good consequences, isn’t it still an intrinsic evil? It’s not a statement. It’s a question.
brgulker’s statement is probably enough of an illogical nonsense statement, that anyone could probably copy and paste the entire quote and substitute any of the words “crime/slavery/pollution/fascism/child abuse/Satanism”, and it would probably be impossible to prove the statement false.
Would you care to address why substituting myth for reality, my affirmative statement, is not evil?
doesn’t the idea that it’s a lie make it intrinsically bad?”
I was assuming it was rhetorical…?
Would you care to address why substituting myth for reality, my affirmative statement, is not evil?
So we’re clear, I’ve been accepting the premise only for the sake or argument. I don’t think that we religious folks are substituting myth for reality. You and I will probably never agree about the historicity of Christianity, so there’s no sense in beating that very dead horse.
But, before I offer a response, what do you mean specifically by “substituting myth for reality?” What concrete situations do you have in mind? The resurrection? Miracles?
Further, what do we mean by “evil”? I’ve been arguing along the lines of outcome, that is, something that is evil will have evil outcomes. I would also say that intent should be included in the definition somehow as well.
I’m willing to try to rebut your claim, but I can’t do that until I know what you mean.
=====================
brgulker’s statement is probably enough of an illogical nonsense statement, that anyone could probably copy and paste the entire quote and substitute any of the words “crime/slavery/pollution/fascism/child abuse/Satanism”, and it would probably be impossible to prove the statement false.
The logic is fine as I see it, claidheamh mor. Something that is intrinsically evil should only have evil effects, by the very definition of the word intrinsic. If accepting religious myth is intrinsically evil, then it should only have negative outcomes, by the definition of intrinsic. Yet, that is not the case.
If you don’t like my reasoning, feel free to correct it. Dismissing it as illogical (without even explaining why, no less) isn’t refutation.
Saying that “_______ is intrinsically evil” is an absolutist statement. I tend to think that morality is usually much more gray than black and white. So, I tend to be skeptical of those types of absolutist claims.
Take crime, for example. Is crime intrinsically evil? Is it simply black and white? Or, is it at times a gray area? A person who is living in poverty and starving as a result might question whether or not stealing food to save one’s life is an intrinsically evil act.
Pollution is another great example of a morally gray area. There’s no question in my mind that we are hurting our environment because of our dependence on fossil fuels, and hurting the environment is something I’m morally opposed to. Yet, at the same time, if we were simply to jettison fossil fuels overnight (or even over the next 5, 10 15 years?), the world’s economy would collapse, leaving literally billions of people jobless and in poverty. So, is pollution intrinsically evil?
If you disagree with the logic, challenge it; show me where it’s flawed. Being dismissive gets us nowhere.
“So we’re clear, I’ve been accepting the premise only for the sake or argument.
(understood)
I don’t think that we religious folks are substituting myth for reality.
(this is the essence of our disagreement)
You and I will probably never agree about the historicity of Christianity, so there’s no sense in beating that very dead horse.
(don’t presume. I think I have already shown you I am willing to change my opinion based upon evidence when it is persuasive)
But, before I offer a response, what do you mean specifically by “substituting myth for reality?”
I meaning presenting a fabricated story as empirical truth.
“What concrete situations do you have in mind? The resurrection? Miracles?
(the resurrection will do for now)
“Further, what do we mean by “evil”? I’ve been arguing along the lines of outcome, that is, something that is evil will have evil outcomes. I would also say that intent should be included in the definition somehow as well.
(evil is something that is deleterious. of course it depends on what a person values. in this case what I value is truth and sanity)
“I’m willing to try to rebut your claim, but I can’t do that until I know what you mean.”
So that’s what I mean.
See above agreement with nomad.
You’re # 53, 58, and 73.
53. ARGUMENT FROM HISTORY
(1) The Bible is true.
(2) Therefore, the Bible is historical fact.
(3) Therefore, God exists.
58. ARGUMENT FROM ARGUMENTATION
(1) God exists.
(2) [Atheist's counterargument]
(3) Yes he does.
(4) [Atheist's counterargument]
(5) Yes he does!
(6) [Atheist's counterargument]
(7) YES HE DOES!!!
(8) [Atheist gives up and goes home.]
(9) Therefore, God exists.
Most most supremely, you and your christian wall o’ posts attempting to convince and convert people who don’t share your particular mythology are the epitome of #73.
73. ARGUMENT FROM EXHAUSTION (abridged)
(1) Do you agree with the utterly trivial proposition X?
(2) Atheist: of course.
(3) How about the slightly modified proposition X’?
(4) Atheist: Um, no, not really.
(5) Good. Since we agree, how about Y? Is that true?
(6) Atheist: No! And I didn’t agree with X’!
(7) With the truths of these clearly established, surely you agree that Z is true as well?
(8) Atheist: No. So far I have only agreed with X! Where is this going, anyway?
(9) I’m glad we all agree…..
….
(37) So now we have used propositions X, X’, Y, Y’, Z, Z’, P, P’, Q and Q’ to arrive at the
obviously valid point R. Agreed?
(38) Atheist: Like I said, so far I’ve only agreed with X. Where is this going?
….
(81) So we now conclude from this that propositions L”, L”’ and J” are true. Agreed?
(82) I HAVEN’T AGREED WITH ANYTHING YOU’VE SAID SINCE X! WHERE IS
THIS GOING?
….
(177) …and it follows that proposition HRV, SHQ” and BTU’ are all obviously valid.
Agreed?
(178) [Atheist either faints from overwork or leaves in disgust.]
(179) Therefore, God exists.
@ nomad:
don’t presume. I think I have already shown you I am willing to change my opinion based upon evidence when it is persuasive
I didn’t mean to imply that, but I certainly did. I re-read my comments, and I see how that came across. My apologies for not being clear.
I’ll try to get to the rest once I’ve finished my work, otherwise, not ’til tomorrow.
@ claid:
I’m not trying to argue that God exists… I’m arguing about whether or not religious myth is (or can be) evil.
And for the record, I’ve never tried to argue that God exists here; I intentionally avoid that conversation.
So again, if you want to criticize my reasoning (about the topic we’re discussing), please do. I’d welcome the chance to have a conversation with you about whether or not religious myth and its relation to reality is necessarily evil. I’d like to hear your thoughts.
“Something that is intrinsically evil should only have evil effects, by the very definition of the word intrinsic.”
According to the Christian philosophy, which is based on Christian doctrine, is not the entire human race intrinsically “sinful”? In other words, isn’t being “sinful” a part of our very nature? Yes, I believe so, but yet, if the above-quoted applies, then how is that we can ever choose to act “morally”, which is presumably 180 degrees from “evil”? This illustrates nicely how the concept of “Orignal Sin” is nonsensical, and how it violates the idea of free agency. Because certainly, if Adam & Co. had chosen to pass on the infamous forbidden fruit, human beings would not be intrinsically “good”, right? Right, because you cannot choose if there are no choices.
Gawd, you’re a tedious bore, #73!
Then just ignore me. And I’ll ignore you, and the blog will be a better place.
Deal?
“Something that is intrinsically evil should only have evil effects, by the very definition of the word intrinsic. ”
I disagree with this. I would like to see your definition of intrinsic.
Here’s mine: belonging to a thing by its very nature.
Just because something belongs to a thing by its nature doesn’t mean it Only has properties of that thing.
I disagree with this. I would like to see your definition of intrinsic.
I actually did define intrinsic, and almost identically do you; in fact, I used the words “by its very nature.”
No, Daniel said he didn’t approve of governments being explicitly sectarian. The article he’s criticising says that they don’t approve of private individuals being atheist.
Daniel has expressed no disapproval of religion in the private sphere (at least not in the post you’re criticising), merely in an authority imposing a specific religion externally.
Daniel has expressed no disapproval of religion in the private sphere
Uh, what?
If we use the dictionary definition of approve, which is:
1. To consider right or good; think or speak favorably of.
2. To consent to officially or formally; confirm or sanction: The Senate approved the treaty.
it becomes very difficult to make your claim. There’s nothing (or very, very little, perhaps) on this site that considers religion to be “right or good.” There is very little that “speaks favorably of” religion. And there is most definitly not a “confirmation or sanctioning of” religion on this site.
At the most, you might be able to argue that the site is indifferent… but even that’s a stretch. Honestly, take any of the “Best of UF” articles and read them honestly. They most definitely are disapproving of religion (and Christianity specifically).
Look, I’m not saying y’all don’t have a right to disapprove of religion; I’m simply saying that doing so doesn’t make one a bigot. Consequently, neither does disapproving of atheism, because approval means little more than saying, “I think _________ is a good thing.”
So why did you cite a specific article that specifically addressed the problems of secular government, if you thought that other posts would better make your point about disapproval of private religion?
First, because it was recent and easy to find.
Second, and more importantly, even though that comment did have a specific reference, anyone who has read this blog for more than a week can see that said comment can easily and fairly be removed from its conext and generalized. In other words, although you’re right that Daniel did have a specific context in mind with that statement, it’s very obvious that Daniel does not approve of religion. All one needs to do is read the blog for a week, and that point is obvious.
When Daniel says, “I’d rather have neither,” I think it’s more than fair to understand that comment as a generalization of Daniel’s opinion on religion (at least if his actually opinion is consistent with what he writes on his blog). And frankly, I’m not sure how that’s even a question at this point. To me, that seems to be an obvious fact.
Your eloquent, powerful oratory, consummate delivery, and compelling message are turning the tide of the human spirit. You have accomplished what you came here to accomplish… you have won a soul for Christ… your infinite walls of post have worked their magic… I’m converting to Christianity… #73 in Hundreds of Proofs of God’s Existence, Argument By Exhaustion,finally did it…. this tirelessly verbose Christian must be a shining beacon of the Lord Jesus Christ’s pure tedium… the exhaustion has won over a soul at last… the combined evasion, constant picking, the endless debating of every point is so persuasive… I’m shaking all over with the power of the spirit (or is it repressed laughter?)… I’m becoming a Christian…
So far, claid, you’ve yet to respond to one of my arguments. Instead, you just poke fun at a straw man and put words in my mouth (namely, I’ve never argued for God’s existence, and I’ve never tried to convert you). Looks like a troll, sounds like a troll, must be a troll.
stop! stop! exhausted… so… tired…..
They should add a Rabbi for the joke to be complete.
A priest, a Rabbi and an Imam walk into a TV studio…
What about a Scientologist? And a Buddhist? What, no Ba’hai? And which sect of Christianity? I’m sure the Baptists might be offended that they’re missing out on a chance to witness to a bunch of heathens!
Yoav, the plan is to have a rabbi. And a Buddhist monk. The summary of the show presented here didn’t mention that, but see this: http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/english/domestic/11952462_p.asp
From your link:
I’d like to make some kind of wisecrack here, but really, all I need to say is that Devrim is apparently serious. That’s joke enough. Face, say hello to your old friend palm.
“Religion is not a science, and it is not open to discussion,” That fairly well sums up what most religious people seem to think. In other words they can (and do) discuss and argue against science, evolution, or anything else that atheists might consider correct, but their own beliefs are not open to discussion. Sadly, the main reason for this is that they know their own beliefs are true and correct.
I’d like to watch this gameshow – it would give Saturday Night Live a run for its money.
This reminds me of a story from a book I read on Genghis Khan and the Mongol Empire.
The Mongol’s believed in religious freedom (and really any other freedom other than that to resist their conquest/rule), and so despite being happy with his own nature/ancestor worship Genghis Khan set up a debate between Muslim, Christian and Buddhist holy men. The twist was that in traditional Mongal (wrestling) style, between rounds the competitors were required to drink fermented mare’s milk. So as the debate went on the holy men got drunker and drunker, the debate being brought to a end when it had degenerated into the Christian singing hymns, while the Muslim recited from the Koran, and the Buddhist sat in silent meditation.
That settles it. Genghis Khan is the coolest person ever. In fact, I’d love to see all debates follow similar rules. It’d certainly make C-SPAN a lot more interesting.
Just nit picking a bit, but Christians, Jews and Muslims believe in the same god and consider the old testament to be scripture. Allah is simply the Arabic for god or “the god”. Same god that is Yaweh. But really, I couldn’t agree more.
Same name, differ guy.
For instance, Jews and Muslims don’t believe God was a man who died 2,000 years ago. Christians do. And the Muslim God is quite different from the Christian/Jewish OT God, other than their both an asshole.
Same guy. Different suit. I like Pat Condell’s characterization: God of Desert.
God of *the* Desert.
Chris C,
The Christian doctrine of the Incarnation separates us Christians from Muslims and Jews. The claim that Jesus is God, in other words, does in fact mean that we are worshiping a different God, because both Jews and Muslims reject Jesus as divine.
Except that Jesus becomes the Lord of Hosts (God of War) at the end of time and is in fact an extension of the OT God of War, Yahweh. Jesus and Yahweh are essentially one and the same. Oh, I mean three and the same.
Christians worship Jesus.
Jews do not.
Muslims do not.
We Christians claim to worship the God of the Jews; the Jews reject that claim because of the claimed divinity of Christ, as do Muslims. I agree with Daniel. We use the same name to describe a different guy.
So what is Jesus’ relationship to Yahweh? Son? Remember, Jesus does not change one jot of the OT.
“We Christians claim to worship the God of the Jews; the Jews reject that claim because of the claimed divinity of Christ, as do Muslims. We use the same name to describe a different guy.”
Don’t all three groups worship the same Abrahamic, “guy”? It was my understanding that they do, in which case, you had it backwards—-you all use different names to describe the *same* “guy”. Making it all the more astonishing that all three groups are currently turning each other into red confetti over differing interpretations of the same “guy”.
Let me try putting it another way.
As an outsider, the differences I’m pointing out seem to be inconsequential. After all, the big three do claim to worship the God of Abraham, right? As a bit of a part-time sociologist/anthropologist, I understand where you’re coming from.
As an inside, however, there are some irreconcilable differences among the three groups, of whic the Christian doctrine of the Incarnation is the most significant (and I don’t say that egotistically, it really is).
Christians worship (from the early creeds), “The God and Father of our Lord, Jesus Christ.” We claim Jesus is divine and worship him as such. Jews and Muslims animately object to this and do not acknowledge or worship Jesus as divine. In other words, in spite of our common heritage (Abrahamic narrative), we ourselves do not agree about God and divinity.
So, when we hear someone from the outside say something like, “You’re just worshiping the same God,” such a statement seems to trivialize our own internal disagreements with each other.
Nomad: “Jesus and Yahweh are essentially one and the same”
Oh…but it depends entirely on the point that’s being argued.(of course!)
For instance, when it’s pointed out that Judaism, Islam, and Christianity are all of the same Abrahamic-based religion, Christians will be quick to point out that “Jesus” now becomes “God”, and since the former groups don’t worship “Jesus”, that they therefore don’t worship the same “God”. However, worshipping the offspring of “Yahweh” does not remove “Yahweh” from being “God”. Additionally, they all three recognize the same “prophets”, too – Noah, Moses, and Abraham.
‘xactly so.
Hi, maybe the most important thing is to make sure you worship someone in the name of God. Seems to me like worshipping Satan, Flying Spaghetti Monster, Richard Feynman or even the author himself would grant me a chance to go to heaven, provided that I pray to him as God.
PS I wonder why God, I meant Google, haven’t told me about your site before. NVM I’m gonna be a fan of this site now ^_^
That’s what gets me about the “perennial philosophy”. It doesn’t matter what you worship -Allah, Buddha, Shiva – so long as you are a (stand up and salute) Person of Faith.
@brgulker
“Something that is intrinsically evil should only have evil effects, by the very definition of the word intrinsic. ”
I’m not too sure about this. And I don’t see anything in the definition of “intrinsic” that’s nearly that specific about the point you are arguing.
For the sake of argument, let’s say that torture does sometimes produce useful information that could be used to stop terrorist attacks. Assuming that this is true, does that mean that torture is not intrinsically evil?
As I understand it, a refrigerator works partly by using heat, and dissipating heat in order to selectively cool the inside of the fridge. And yet, I don’t think that this makes heat any less “intrinsically hot”.
As far as why in the case of religion there would be deception/lying (even if unintentional) involved, I can’t speak for Nomad/others, but…
It seems clear to me that many, if not most, Christians take much/all of the Bible literally, as an empirical truth, and do not interpret it as a “mythical truth”/metaphor/allegory. And that is the way it is usually presented by religious authority figures, as well. If you believe that they should not be doing that, that’s a valid position, but “religion” as it is currently practiced by most people does not subscribe to that position, and so is not excused from the deception criticism. (As a newbie to this forum, I may be misinterpreting how far you want to take the “mythical truth” thing.)
I’m also skeptical about whether the abolitionists really acted the way they did because of religion, any more than the the slavers acted the way they did because of religion–I suspect that they would have felt that slavery was wrong without religion, and religion just gave them arguments that seemed more persuasive in their cultural context, both to others and themselves. But none of us can get inside the abolitionists’ heads, so there’s not much of an argument to be made on either side.
One Trackback
[...] TV Gameshow Looks to Convert Atheists – ** Posted using Viigo: Mobile RSS, Sports, Current Events and more ** A new Turkish TV gameshow is bringing together a Christian priest, a Muslim imam, and 10 non-believers to try and convert them. Co [...]