I don't believe that believers really believe

http://www.timesonline.co...761159.ece

Many atheists behold the persistence of religion in the West - and especially in America and its politics - with something close to incredulity. How can it be, they lament, that despite the absence of any evidence for the central tenets of Christianity, despite the enormous progress of science in explaining the origins of the Earth and its inhabitants, that so many people continue to believe pre-Enlightenment gobbledegook?

That the world was created by an invisible deity, that He later impregnated a virgin who then bore a son who was His own father, that we have immortal souls and will live for ever in Heaven if we are good and love Jesus - how can anyone who has even attended high school believe such things?

And how can agreement with this nonsense be a prerequisite for winning the support of the American electorate? It defies belief.

So it does. And if something defies belief, a good starting position is not to believe it. That is my position. I am not shocked by the persistence of religious belief in the West because I do not believe it exists. It is simply not possible for people who know as much as modern Westerners do to believe in the central tenets of Christianity or the other major religions.

Of course, religious assertion persists. But there are many reasons for saying religious things other than actually believing them. Most often, I suspect, people are expressing their hopes rather than their beliefs - substituting “I believe” for “I wish” in the unconscious endeavour to convince themselves.

The real test for genuine belief is not what people say, but what they do. To believe something is to be disposed to act upon it. The vast majority of Western Christians fail this test. Imagine this. Recognising that many people find their children an unwelcome burden, the Government creates a network of slaughterhouses. Each year, about a million unwanted children are dropped off for extermination.

It is a horrifying idea. Anyone who believed it to be happening would surely rise up against the regime, with violence if necessary, or at the very least passively resist by not paying taxes or refusing to recognise the legitimacy of the State. To do nothing while millions of children are murdered would display despicable moral complacency.

Yet British Roman Catholics allegedly believe that such slaughter is really happening. They claim that humans have immortal souls from conception, and that killing a foetus is no less murder than killing a ten-year-old. From the Catholic point of view, abortion clinics are slaughterhouses for children.

Is the lack of anti-abortion militancy - at least in Britain - not then strange? If they believe what they claim to, they are no better than those who turned a blind eye to Nazi atrocities. But I do not think they are that wicked. It is just that they don't really believe the things they say about foetuses and immortal souls.

I do not mean to pick on Roman Catholics. All Christians fail to act on their avowed beliefs. Suppose you believed that Heaven exists and that only some of us will qualify to live in it for ever, as the vast majority of Christians claim to. How would this affect your behaviour?

It would depend on what you thought were the admission criteria for Heaven. But whatever you took these virtues to be, they would utterly dominate your life. When everlasting bliss is on offer, nothing else matters at all. People who believed in Heaven would surely act quite unlike those who do not.

Yet the expected behavioural difference is not to be observed. The vast majority of Christians display a remarkably blasé attitude toward their approaching day of judgment, leading lives almost indistinguishable from those of us open non-believers. Put simply, they fail the behavioural test for belief.

So do American politicians. All claim to be Christians but they approach policy exactly as non-believers would. Consider John McCain and Barack Obama, to take the most topical examples. Both recommend policies on grounds that weigh only earthly costs and earthly benefits. The afterlife consequences are never mentioned.

By the light of their avowed Christianity, this is perverse. If we have immortal souls, then earthly costs and benefits are an infinitesimal fraction of the total. For true believers, the first question to ask about any policy ought to be: How does it affect people's chances of getting into Heaven? But this is never even the last question asked.

American politicians obviously do not really believe that we have immortal souls. And they know that voters do not believe it either. They know that, contrary to popular mythology, a politician who approached policy from a truly Christian perspective would be considered an unelectable lunatic.

The persistence of religious profession is irritating. It is a sign of something intellectually unserious in the professor and his appreciative audience. But it is not alarming once you realise that it is all just talk.

Jamie Whyte is the author of Bad Thoughts: A Guide to Clear Thinking

Good analogies in there and I fully agree -- I recently saw a similar lecture on this theory by Dan Denett -- I will try and find it ?

We get it: you don't believe. The article has some good points but I hate that it paints with such a broad brush.

Stymie said:

I agree with the article.
I also disagree that the brush is too broad.
If he saw Christian conduct in every day life I'm sure that would have been a qualifer. However absent any evidence of such Christian conduct he may have no proof that such people really exist.
We certainly don't require Christian behavior of elected officials who profess it.

Atheist are funny.

morningsong said:

Atheist are funny.

I'd say it's pretty much a definite that some so-called christians are masking their true beliefs because they wish that heaven was real, others mask their beliefs to prevent being social outcasts.

I'd say other christians truly believe they believe, but subconsciously do it out of fear of their own mortality.

I'd say still, that some, though very few christians believe sincerely.

I think if you took heaven out of any religion there would be a lot less followers. If the bible/torah/Q'ran whatever said that god created us in his images, smiles on us, etc, but we only have one life, the number of believers would drop dramatically, and that is telling in and of itself.
[Edited 9/19/08 2:33am]

morningsong said:

Atheist are funny.

savoirfaire said:

Excellent article. To actually hold truly genuine belief in the supernatural fairytales would make you insane. It's a cultural assimilation tag more than anything. A way of controlling free thought through mob mentality.

Belief implies doubt. You believe something is true, but have no proof to show it is true. It's an acceptance of an idea, rather than a knowledge of fact.

LittleRedCorvette said:

razor said:

Dsoul said:

Stymie said:

savoirfaire said:

morningsong said:

Atheist are funny.

Thank you.

I guess, knowing that this life is all we have, what else can we do but have a sense of humour about it all, right?

morningsong said:

savoirfaire said:

Thank you.

I guess, knowing that this life is all we have, what else can we do but have a sense of humour about it all, right?

You're Welcome.

It's just funny to me that no one seems to be able to get their point across without dictating to others on how they should behave, think and feel. It must be some kind of ingrained human trait.

savoirfaire said:

morningsong said:

Atheist are funny.

Thank you.

I guess, knowing that this life is all we have, what else can we do but have a sense of humour about it all, right?

Stymie said:

Well, I don't believe that atheists don't believe, or is it that believe in not believing? Therefore they actually believe in "something" and that something is ot to believe




















I couldn't help myself

PRINCE IS WATCHING U " When an Artist Creates, whatever they create belongs to society"

U can't polish a turd.. but u can roll it in glitter

chillichocaholic said:

Well, I don't believe that atheists don't believe, or is it that believe in not believing? Therefore they actually believe in "something" and that something is ot to believe




















I couldn't help myself

I'm not convinced the overriding desire is to get to Heaven.
It certainly do not take up much of my brain space or dictate what exactly it is I may or may not be doing to attempt to enact what I think is God's will.

Critical analysis is how we progress?
Progress to what? Can we say critical analysis is the driving tenant of life's improvement. Whose life is better.

What absence of evidence? People claim God is all around them and I do not deny them. Because others require "proof" that can only be accorded or anointed by the systems or beliefs they hold as true is fairly belittling.Most people do not like hearing the belief system or ideal for living is bullshit.

Take me for instance. I can't stand American Politicians being highlighted as Christians because to me, they so clearly are not.I can't think of anyone doing more damage to Christianity than George W. Bush. It'll take generations to recover the damage this particularly nasty piece of work has done.Yet. people already looking for any reason to put the boot into a belief structure they so clearly despise or think worthless continue to write and publish articles such as the one you have offered.

Catholics may have denounced violence, surely? Yes I view Abortion as a slaughter-house but going around firebombing the place is hardly what I consider a Christian response to the situation at hand.Change instituted by violence or force may not really be change at all.

foal30 said:

razor said:

um,

I was attempting to state that the writer has a condition(s) for classifying what or who is a Christian and therefore what is in his opinion the perception of what actions a Christian would take.

I am also saying that a critical analysis of this shows it to be lacking.

Not that I hold critical analysis to be the end all of how we can and should make decisions.To hold American Politicians as the voice of Christianity is as offensive as saying Osama bin Laden is the face of Islam.

As for the target always being Heaven and this being the over-riding concern of Christians (or whoever) no I do not agree and this is from personal experience. It is certainly not something I can ever remember being something brought up in any of the countless community groups I have (not)contributed to. So my logic and real life manifestation of this situation shows the original report to be lacking FROM MY SITUATION IN THE REAL WORLD.

who religion have the same allure or catchment? From a Historical view I think there are good reasons to agree with you. As for now, it's far more sensible to follow the Science dogma, so as to not appear to believe in old fairy-tales (as opposed to new) and ensure security in the market.I don't view this as any less of a coercion or bribe as what you listed. The Heaven Carrot.

Clearly we should not hold subjects to be untalkable. I fail to see how we can make "progress" if we cannot discuss all points. Which is interesting as I'm often wanting to know why Science is so keen to put limits on knowledge normally by preconceived ideas of what can either be tested or accepted.

Again we can use clear analysis to identify some of these issues.

Well, I just think you get more discussion by sticking with ideals as oppose to attacking people. The whole Christians this and Christians that speech is really starting to wear thin as far as I'm concerned, Christians are people, doctrines are not, yet I realize a large percentage of the snide backhanded remarks disguised as intellectual debates are goads to provoke silly arguements.
Despite the fact that a lot of the "intellectualism" is full of bad spell, grammar and horrible sentence structure.
[Edited 9/22/08 15:11pm]

morningsong said:

morningsong said:

Dsoul said: