Mailbag: Why Bother?
Subject: I don't understand...
hello i respect your views and your beiliefs , but what i dont understand is if there is not a GOD why even bother with the subject. if he does not exsist then oh well. what could lead someone to telling thousands of people that there is no GOD. and why.
This sort of question comes up often enough - and it is, perhaps, legitimate to wonder why anyone who doesn't believe in gods would have a site that deals with the subject. After all, how many nonbelievers in unicorns have sites which discuss the nonexistence of unicorns?
The crucial difference here is that there aren't a lot of believers in unicorns going around tell people that they should believe in unicorns, that belief in unicorns is necessary for morality and happiness, that nonbelievers in unicorns can't be good citizens, or that belief in unicorns is fundamental to the nation's identity. There is, then, no real need to discuss the merits of belief and nonbelief in unicorns, is there?
On the other hand, we do see such claims made about belief in gods - and much more than that, too. This site isn't so much "about gods" as it is about belief in gods. It is about religious philosophy, skepticism, and critical thinking - applied to theism, of course, but also applied to a wide range of issues as well. Belief in gods does exist and it does have an impact upon society - that means that it is not only worth discussing, but in fact needs to be discussed.
if someone told me that there lifes have been dramaticaly changed because of there view of GOD (a change for the better of course) why would i discourage him or her not to belive in GOD. it seems to me that you are fearfull of you dont know and do not understand. and again i respect your views. but if GOD does not exsit then why bother. all i know is that i belive because i have had a life changing expiriance with GOD.
The mere fact that a person feels better about their life after becoming a theist does not mean that theism is therefore reasonable and should be removed form the list of topics that can be legitimately critiqued. No one can say such a thing unless they adopt the principle that it doesn't matter whether a belief is true or not, all that matters is whether it changes a person's life. Is that what Gumbie advocates? It certainly seems that way - but it isn't what I advocate.
I don't deny that many people have felt better about themselves and their lives after adopting a particular religion and/or perspective on gods - but that doesn't mean that such a religion or belief is true and/or reasonable. I don't deny that some people have experienced profound changes in their lives after adopting certain religions and beliefs - but once again, that doesn't make such religions or beliefs true and/or reasonable.
Similar changes and improvements might have been possible in the context of beliefs that are true and/or reasonable. We can't limit ourselves by assuming that change and improvement can only take place through religion, much less through particular religious perspectives like evangelical Christianity. There is a lot more to life than just a few ancient religious traditions - people should be willing to explore alternatives and consider the possibility that religion and theism are not the way to go.
More selections from the Agnosticism / Atheism Mailbag...
Comments
And, I might add, believers in unicorns are not trying to get their beliefs added to school curricula, printed on our coinage, and made law for believers and non-believers alike.
The key comparison missing in this article is that of medical placebos. Religion is a placebo. We all know that placebos can work, as long as people don’t know they are actually useless. The problem is that the religious placebo, while sometimes helpful to the adherent, is always harmful to others who don’t share the exact same dogma. So unlike medical placebos, which are only positive, religious placebos can be harmful as well as helpful - as the endless litany of suicide bombers, holy wars, stem cell research prevention campaigns, anti-evolution school boards, closet-pervert televangelists, and anti-atheist, anti-woman and anti-homosexual bigots all clearly demonstrate.
A delusion unshared would be harmless. The only problem with “God” is that he is usually a skygod who is constantly used to excuse every conceivable idiocy and injustice.
The only problem with “God” is that he is usually a skygod who is constantly used to excuse every conceivable idiocy and injustice. — John Hanks on October 21, 2008 at 4:41 pm
Not only to excuse them, John, but to shut down discussion entirely.
To me, that’s the most harmful effect of religious belief — once a person says anything is part of their religion, then it’s considered bad manners to suggest there’s anything wrong with it.
This is the essential reason why church and state have to remain separate if government is going to work effectivey — politics is the art of compromise, and fairh views compromise as corruption.
Still, wouldn’t it be cool to add “filled with unicorns” to the pledge of allegiance in place of “under God”?