To debate religion, we must first find out what people believe

[rug]

Does true religion involve belief in mythical beings, or is it really practice not doctrine? To find out we need an empirical approach

Julian Baggini guardian.co.uk, Monday 14 November 2011 06.00 EST

Over the past couple of weeks, I've been arguing that a certain amount of clarity and openness about what we believe is essential if we are to understand each other better. I've argued against two kinds of retreat into comforting unclarity: the excessive embrace of uncertainty and of mystery.

However, although we might not be clear enough about what we ourselves believe, we are frequently all too clear about what others believe. This is partly a problem of over-generalisation: talking about the religious, Christians or atheists as though they were all of one voice. If we never allowed ourselves to talk in such general terms we'd end up burdened by so many qualifications and caveats we'd never say anything at all. At the same time, the absence of sufficient specificity is a more common problem than its excess – and I am no exception to this rule.

A less obvious problem is that people may accept there are lots of views out there, but they are very confident they know what the genuine version of any given belief looks like, which is usually how the speaker wants it to look. For instance, atheists sometimes feel they don't need to address subtler forms of non-literal religious belief because that's not really what religion is. For instance, in an interview, AC Grayling once told me that "your gentle, moderate Sunday Christian" is "confused, or they're cherry-pickers, or they are hypocrites, or they haven't really thought about it, or they don't really know what they believe". True religion involves belief in mythical beings and anyone who says otherwise is no true believer. At the same time, others claim that the proper way to view religion is as practice not doctrine and that it is those who maintain otherwise who are just wrong.

One problem with this is that there are two senses of "true religion" bouncing around here: what we think it ought to be, in its best form, and what it actually, usually is. It is possible that most religion is as the atheists describe it, but that in its best form it is not like this at all.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/nov/14/debate-religion-what-people-believe

[Jim__]

1. It will be interesting to see what his survey turns up.

Of course the survey isn't scientific, so it won't ultimately resolve any issues. But, it should be an interesting as a basis for discussion.

[saras]

2. To talk about religion in general, you have to consider everyone, not just Americans

NOTE: these are crude generalizations...

Hinduism says, basically, believe whatever makes you behave - it's all true, and all exists in the mind of God.

Sikhi says it doesn't really matter what you believe, just behave - and praise God.

Judaism doesn't seem to have a problem with Jews disbelieving in God, in fact it's expected behavior.

Buddhism says all belief, in material phenomena as well as mythical beings, is delusion, and you shouldn't waste your time with it. Tibetan Buddhism tries to prove it by reductio ad absurdum.

It appears to me that one of those senses of "true religion" is trying to a priori claim fundamentalism is the basic religious impulse and posit others as variations on it or failures of it.

re practice vs. doctrine: people who say one side or the other is "right" are either wrong, or are participants in the religion's internal debate about correct practice and doctrine. It's not EITHER this ideal OR that bunch of people and how they act, it's that bunch of people behaving this way in relation to that ideal. Catholic confession makes this obvious - it's a ritual about the way Catholic people relate to Catholic ideals.

Traditionally, religion was a social and cultural phenomenon. Only a postmodernist can have their own private religion, whereas private spiritual practices were and are common.

[dmallind]

6. Depends on if your concern is comparative religion, or religion's impact in the US where most of us

live. The latter is a far more immediate and serious concern for me. When that's under control the beliefs of people who have no political impact here may be of some passing academic interest, but it's not as important right now to me for one.

[MineralMan]

3. To debate religion, first you must care what others believe or do

not believe. My first question is why one would care. I don't care, for example, what the OP of this thread believes. It's irrelevant to my life. I am a disbeliever in all supernatural entities and phenomena. How that can be relevant to anyone else, I do not understand. My disbelief has nothing to do with anyone else. Nor does Rug's beliefs, whatever they may be, have any relevance to anyone but Rug.

It's a silly debate, really. Only when people act in ways that affect me am I interested in their beliefs.

[trotsky]

4. Well, good luck with that.

In another thread at this very moment I am trying to get a believer to tell me what it is they believe, to no avail.

[dmallind]

5. There are already several large surveys of religious belief in the US. DU believers don't like them

that's all. Religious belief in Sweden or the UK have no effect on the society in which I, and most DUers, reside.

[rug]

7. What about religious beliefs in Afghanistan?

[dmallind]

8. They have little to no impact on US sociopolitical concerns

I may find them mildly interesting but completely unimportant here.

[rug]

9. The Taliban are much ado about nothing.

[darkstar3]

10. The Talibornagain are far more capable of affecting my life.

[rug]

11. Good for you. But we were not discussing you.

[dmallind]

12. In the US very much so. Do you live in Afghanistan?

[rug]

13. Considering much of US foreign policy and the bulk of its wars are driven by Afghanistan,

which in turn is driven by the religious beliefs of the Taliban, it unquestionably affects the U.S. Particulary its cemeteries. To deny it is to hold a belief contrary to reality.

[laconicsax]

14. To mean like denying that the RCC abets serial child rapists?

:shrug:

[rug]

15. No, To mean expecting anything but a non sequitur from you.

[laconicsax]

16. I see...

[dmallind]

18. Weren't we talking about debating religion? How many Afghanis are there to debate it with here?

And while I thank you for finally accepting wars can be driven by religion, I think you'll find it's the Taliban's domestic tyraany that is religiously motivated. Their killing of Americans is due to our occupation. They are not killing Russians any more after their occupation ended. They won't be killing Americans after we leave either. Just their own insufficiently pious for religion's sake.

Meanwhile the Taliban have absolutely no impact on asny debate about religion and no impact on laws and norms motivated by religion in the US. As far as religious debate goes, they are utterly meaningless in the society in which we live. They are not a party to it, an influence upon iy, or even of much interest to it other than as an example of what happens when zealots get power.

[jeepnstein]

17. There's no sport in that.

In the rather shrill atmosphere surrounding the debate between the atheists and the religious types who find arguing with them somehow important there's no point in dealing in facts.

For the rest of us, well, some times a bit more listening and a lot less taunting would probably be productive. There's no fun in that for some people.