I think I disagree with the fundamental premise of this post—that “evidence” is a basis for survival of memes. I think that memes survive because they are useful, fun or interesting. Religion may not have a strong basis in hard direct evidence, but it does seem to explain a lot of things that science fails at—Why does the universe exist? Why am I here? What should I do? How can I get along with people? How can I make the world a better place? To non-specialists these might be thought of as more important questions than what tiny pieces of matter are made of. It also seems true that there is a bias even within science towards the useful, over the evidential (see the Oil drop experiment and cargo cult science.
I accuse Atheists in general (and more specifically this argument) of selectively quoting religious thought and choosing only to attack the easy, and largely irrelevant parts of religion. Typical talking points among atheists are abortion, masturbation, the miracles, contraception, hell, exactly what god is, intelligent design. Typical talking points (sermon topics) among Christians seem to be self improvement, finding strength, belief in others, giving to others, love, etc. If you are eager to learn, why not ask about the areas of Christian belief which are likely to challenge your ideas, and less easy to attack, rather than picking easy and less relevant targets?
If you want evidence of whether religion exists, why not ask a representative sample of Christians whether Jesus has changed their lives? Why not ask them how? And can you explain what is so contemptible about Religion, but not the concept of “romantic love” (to take one of millions of hard to justify human pursuits)? How many millions of dollars, suicides, hours are wasted by teenagers and other people who are “in love”? How much fighting and misery is caused by this concept—and what evidence is there that it has any more meaning than religion?
Just to put this on a more positive footing—I’d ask not “how can people believe this tosh” but instead “why do people believe this seeming tosh”. Just to give you an idea, I agree that god probably doesn’t exist, but I also believe that a way of life that focuses on what you don’t have (e.g. what shoes to buy, how hot some female stranger looks = avarice and lust) or a way of life that focuses on how you have what others don’t (e.g. my porsche, my house, my wife, my tan = pride and vanity) lead to a state of constant dissatisfaction (i.e. hell, or pergatory). I think that people are also happier believing that there is something far more rational, wise and right than themselves—I think this blog agrees that people are very often wrong and irrational.
The concept of constant rebirth in buddhism is also a very useful metaphor to bear in mind—almost all relationships, possessions, projects have a birth, a life and a death. When I am dealing with an exciting new project or idea it’s a rush—but it’s helpful to know that will end, and I think a partial divorce from this constant beginning and ending (i.e. transition from samsara to nirvana) is a good thing.
I accuse Atheists in general (and more specifically this argument) of selectively quoting religious thought and choosing only to attack the easy, and largely irrelevant parts of religion. Typical talking points among atheists are abortion, masturbation, the miracles, contraception, hell, exactly what god is, intelligent design. Typical talking points (sermon topics) among Christians seem to be [...]
Ooh, a challenge? Bring it on!
self improvement
Is better performed from a basis of rationality (what does the evidence suggest will work?). Very little evidence that religious people are more self-improved than secularists.
finding strength
Even granting the premise that religion grants better strength than secular substitutes (which is not proven), religion introduces possible attack vector in form of refutation of underlying beliefs.
belief in others
Have that anyway. More to the point, religions discourage belief in others when those others are acting contrary to the memeplex.
giving to others
In practice, this might be true—in theory, a secularist can allocate resources more efficiently on the basis of need rather than ideology.
love
You’re joking, right?
Look, this list reads like a Dark-Side cached thought about antitheists: “You’re attacking irrelevancies! Look at all the great things you’re ignoring!” As such, it is boring, and I don’t want to read it.
I think I disagree with the fundamental premise of this post—that “evidence” is a basis for survival of memes. I think that memes survive because they are useful, fun or interesting. Religion may not have a strong basis in hard direct evidence, but it does seem to explain a lot of things that science fails at—Why does the universe exist? Why am I here? What should I do? How can I get along with people? How can I make the world a better place? To non-specialists these might be thought of as more important questions than what tiny pieces of matter are made of. It also seems true that there is a bias even within science towards the useful, over the evidential (see the Oil drop experiment and cargo cult science.
I accuse Atheists in general (and more specifically this argument) of selectively quoting religious thought and choosing only to attack the easy, and largely irrelevant parts of religion. Typical talking points among atheists are abortion, masturbation, the miracles, contraception, hell, exactly what god is, intelligent design. Typical talking points (sermon topics) among Christians seem to be self improvement, finding strength, belief in others, giving to others, love, etc. If you are eager to learn, why not ask about the areas of Christian belief which are likely to challenge your ideas, and less easy to attack, rather than picking easy and less relevant targets?
If you want evidence of whether religion exists, why not ask a representative sample of Christians whether Jesus has changed their lives? Why not ask them how? And can you explain what is so contemptible about Religion, but not the concept of “romantic love” (to take one of millions of hard to justify human pursuits)? How many millions of dollars, suicides, hours are wasted by teenagers and other people who are “in love”? How much fighting and misery is caused by this concept—and what evidence is there that it has any more meaning than religion?
Just to put this on a more positive footing—I’d ask not “how can people believe this tosh” but instead “why do people believe this seeming tosh”. Just to give you an idea, I agree that god probably doesn’t exist, but I also believe that a way of life that focuses on what you don’t have (e.g. what shoes to buy, how hot some female stranger looks = avarice and lust) or a way of life that focuses on how you have what others don’t (e.g. my porsche, my house, my wife, my tan = pride and vanity) lead to a state of constant dissatisfaction (i.e. hell, or pergatory). I think that people are also happier believing that there is something far more rational, wise and right than themselves—I think this blog agrees that people are very often wrong and irrational.
The concept of constant rebirth in buddhism is also a very useful metaphor to bear in mind—almost all relationships, possessions, projects have a birth, a life and a death. When I am dealing with an exciting new project or idea it’s a rush—but it’s helpful to know that will end, and I think a partial divorce from this constant beginning and ending (i.e. transition from samsara to nirvana) is a good thing.
Ooh, a challenge? Bring it on!
Is better performed from a basis of rationality (what does the evidence suggest will work?). Very little evidence that religious people are more self-improved than secularists.
Even granting the premise that religion grants better strength than secular substitutes (which is not proven), religion introduces possible attack vector in form of refutation of underlying beliefs.
Have that anyway. More to the point, religions discourage belief in others when those others are acting contrary to the memeplex.
In practice, this might be true—in theory, a secularist can allocate resources more efficiently on the basis of need rather than ideology.
You’re joking, right?
Look, this list reads like a Dark-Side cached thought about antitheists: “You’re attacking irrelevancies! Look at all the great things you’re ignoring!” As such, it is boring, and I don’t want to read it.
At least one of these categories brings “evidence” back in.