Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I live in upstate NY in a small liberal college town but am currently indentured to a client near Nashville since February. They are starting to talk about bringing me down in person late next year and a part of me dreads it because I don't have a good "fix" on how religiously rabid any of them are and whether they will back me into a corner and figure out that I'm, at the very least, non-religious ... and how that will effect the business relationship.
I seem to have this pattern of working for religious and political conservatives who sort of suspect but choose to overlook my areligious and liberal leanings because I am not aggressive about them and I bring tremendous technical expertise to them that they need. And I know the company was founded in California and moved years ago to TN for tax reasons anyway, so the CEO is just a transplant.
So I'm probably fine ... even the religious are pragmatists when it comes to money ... but it can be socially awkward, let's just say. Fortunately as a former fundagelical I at least know the basics of how to not inadvertently offend them. It's just that with the current polarization in this country, they are more tetchy than they ever were in my youth.
The prior client was trad Catholic and the location was the Pacific Northwest ... adding in an even more knuckle-dragging region for the physical location and an even more rabid dominant religion in the area will add a little different color to things I suppose.
Fortunately I'm at a place in my career where I can just shrug and retire if they wanted to mistreat me over ideology for some reason.
Just before I retired, the company I worked for helped working adults to get their college degree online from any number of colleges and universities across the country. Many a Catholic college or university our company represented among the choices. I was often faced with the challenge of working with many of these people who were devoutly Christian. To the point that getting their degree from a Christian college instead of a non-Christian college was required far as they were concerned. It wasn't always so easy to work with these people when it seemed they wanted to share their religion with me. They assumed that since I represented the Christian college that I must be a Christian too. Wasn't always so easy, but I tried to keep the conversation "neutral" in a way that might be considered professional. In fact, I felt that avoiding the religious aspects was the professional thing to do, as I focused on my job of helping them to enroll, be accepted and succeed toward getting their degree.
I would never doubt the benefits of some aspect of religion, commonity, meditation (I use it myself) confidence. But the point was,wasn't it? That many benefits,practical and ethical are mundane and religion takes the credit for it.
The point of fear of death being a biggie is evidenced by an obsession of it in history, rather than a paper on people not worrying about it in everyday life. The history of obsession about death, and how to overcome it is as much science as a paper on one specific aspect.
Now this fear is natural, for sure, and evolutionary. It is a survival instinct, so it isn't surprising that it concerns atheists as much as the religious. But this atheist at least accepts it for what it is, and I have never heard any atheists trying to invent fantasies to convince themselves that there was a life after death.
More often than not it seems that O'Darby doesn't really register explanations like yours...
Explanations that in part address the straw man argument and then elaborate about the rest. In this case how and why religion can be such a support and/or benefit for religious people. Goes "in one ear and out the other" it always seems. As if these lessons about religion aren't fairly well understood by most people interested in these dynamics. Religious or atheist.
According, I've lost my interest, hope and/or faith that any efforts like yours here are any less waste of time than average in this forum. Just glad to see there are others who seem to have a better grasp about all this sort of thing generally speaking.
Indeed it is interesting to watch how America "ebbs and flows" in these respects, and no doubt there are all sorts of reasons that cause the changes over time, but I think at least in part the fight between pro-lifers and pro-choicers and the overturning of Roe V Wade has contributed toward far greater advocacy on both sides.
It's becoming harder and harder for lots of Americans to remain passive these days, over many an issue. More than a few significant ones mostly having to do with religion.
Good post, even though I prefer to keep off the political aspect. But religion and politics has always been two sides of the same coin - control of the people.
Now I know that Rights (and notably the overturning of Roe vs, Wade) have come under pressure and it appears that people have to choose sides. But in fact I am surprised how many of what are politically on the other side seem on the same page with basic rights, and their beef is with extremism, though they seem to scream and rant about the extremists on the other side and excuse or ignore the ones infesting their wing.
The take away is - people don't have to choose one extremist legion or another and die on the hill under the banner of Woke or Maga. They can think what should be supported, and valid points may be made by both sides and they can vote (which is what - even religion now - this is all about) and they do not to sign up for either battle front.
But you cite that as validation that "death anxiety is at the root of virtually all human activity" and then carve out a special pleading for religion.
Without special pleading for religion, this would have been a very short thread.
More often than not it seems that O'Darby doesn't really register explanations like yours...
Explanations that in part address the straw man argument and then elaborate about the rest. In this case how and why religion can be such a support and/or benefit for religious people. Goes "in one ear and out the other" it always seems. As if these lessons about religion aren't fairly well understood by most people interested in these dynamics. Religious or atheist.
According, I've lost my interest, hope and/or faith that any efforts like yours here are any less waste of time than average in this forum. Just glad to see there are others who seem to have a better grasp about all this sort of thing generally speaking.
"Explanations" like ... what?
TRANSPONDER said he "had not seen discussed" how religion "works in society and what people get from it." I pointed out, with examples, that there is a VAST body of scientific and sociological literature.
He then suggested that fear of death is "a biggie" in terms of an explanation for religious belief. I pointed out that the scientific and sociological literature does not bear this out - that death anxiety is universal and that religious believers and atheists both derive "anxiety relief" from their respective convictions.
It seems to me that my post was directly responsive to his claims.
TRANSPONDER then responded with the post to which you were responding, which was almost unintelligible to me. I gather his central point was that "many benefits, practical and ethical are mundane and religion takes the credit for it."
You apparently found this spectacularly worthwhile. You suggest that TRANSPONDER's explanations "address the straw man argument and then elaborate the rest." What is the "straw man argument" and what is "the rest"?
OK, as you say, "religion can be such a support and/or benefit for religious people." In TRANSPONDER's terms, some of its benefits are "mundane" and can be achieved elsewhere, in secular practices like meditation. And so? The issue is ultimate ontological truth, not "support and/or benefit." How often do atheists emphasize the personal and social benefits they derive from being freed from the nonsense of religion? Doubtless many religious believers and atheists alike adopt their beliefs for reasons wholly unrelated to ultimate truth, but again so what? The bottom-line issue is ultimate ontological truth.
Is it supposed to somehow be evidence against theism that the vast majority of humans who have ever lived have derived comfort and benefit from it? What a weird notion. It sounds a great deal like some music snob saying the mere fact millions and millions of people bought The Beatles' albums is proof they're garbage and the true cognoscenti know Nick Cave & The Bad Seeds were the real geniuses. Ya think?
TRANSPONDER then agreed - he could scarcely disagree - with my (and Ernest Becker's) observation that death anxiety is universal and at the root of much if not all human activity. In both the very religious and the very atheistic, this anxiety is less. And again, so what? The issue is truth. If some species of theism are true, the relief atheists experience will have been false relief - and vice-versa.
TRANSPONDER concluded by saying "But this atheist at least accepts it for what it is, and I have never heard any atheists trying to invent fantasies to convince themselves that there was a life after death." He is merely expressing his atheistic convictions, not saying anything substantive whatsoever. He has no way of knowing theists are "inventing fantasies" to "convince themselves" there is life after death - that's just his atheistic conviction. Is he aware that study after study has shown that a small but significant percentage of atheists hold afterlife beliefs?
I could just as easily say atheists are inventing fantasies to indulge their lifestyle preferences and mentally escape from the judgment "we all know" is coming - and I would be saying absolutely nothing substantive, merely expressing my theistic convictions.
Again and again, I must say, the atheists here seem to congratulate themselves and each other on their deep and critical thinking, when it certainly seems to me the thinking is neither deep nor critical, certainly no deeper or more critical than one encounters on the Christianity subforum.
Good post, even though I prefer to keep off the political aspect. But religion and politics has always been two sides of the same coin - control of the people.
Now I know that Rights (and notably the overturning of Roe vs, Wade) have come under pressure and it appears that people have to choose sides. But in fact I am surprised how many of what are politically on the other side seem on the same page with basic rights, and their beef is with extremism, though they seem to scream and rant about the extremists on the other side and excuse or ignore the ones infesting their wing.
The take away is - people don't have to choose one extremist legion or another and die on the hill under the banner of Woke or Maga. They can think what should be supported, and valid points may be made by both sides and they can vote (which is what - even religion now - this is all about) and they do not to sign up for either battle front.
I think woke is just another word for empathy. It's the golden rule to some and to others it looks like a bunch of suckers caring about people instead of using them. I can't tell you how many times I have been called a sucker for helping someone or handling my responsibilities. It was even implied when I used my one day off a week to go sit in a chair and let the Red Cross platelets out.
I mostly agree that Denial of Death is a brilliant book -- I've read it twice.
But you cite that as validation that "death anxiety is at the root of virtually all human activity" and then carve out a special pleading for religion.
Which is it?
And how exactly would death anxiety motivate an atheist? It seems to me that to be an unbeliever you have to inherently have no death anxiety for religion to sell you a cure for.
Given that significant parts of Christianity expend great effort on hellthreat and the need for salvation, I would say that Christianity (or really Christianity and Islam) are death anxiety GENERATORS.
Let's look at what TRANSPONDER actually said (in relevant part):
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
Mind, don't confuse that with the marketing of religion through entertainment. That's not an evolutionary thing, but human propaganda methods.
Fear of death. That is a biggie.
His suggestion was, I believe, that "fear of death" is a "biggie" in terms of the "marketing of religion" through "human propaganda methods."
I pointed out that fear of death, or at least anxiety about it, is universal. I further cited research indicating that fear of death and religiosity seem to be weakly linked.
Was this not directly responsive to TRANSPONDER's unsupported, erroneous statement?
You then say I "carved out a special pleading for religion." No, I most certainly didn't. Because death anxiety is universal, religious believers share it with everyone else. The point is, research suggests this is not a major motivating factor for religiosity - as TRANSPONDER incorrectly suggested.
Where, pray tell, is the "special pleading?"
I also mentioned an Oxford University study suggesting the very religious and the very atheistic seem to have the least death anxiety, with those in between being all over the map. This is what we would expect. The very religious expect an afterlife consistent with their beliefs, while (most but not all) atheists expect no afterlife at all.
Again, where is the "special pleading" for religion? Isn't the reality simply that TRANSPONDER was exposed for not knowing what he was talking about?
How would death anxiety motivate someone to become an atheist, you ask? Isn't the answer obvious? An individual has the anxiety about death common to all people and perhaps a preferred lifestyle that religious morality condemns. Voila, atheism says there is no afterlife or judgment and lifestyle is a matter of personal choice. I have no idea how often this is actually a motivating factor - whether it's a "biggie," to borrow TRANSPONDER's term - but it's not implausible (and TRANSPONDER's biggie is in fact not a biggie for religiosity).
Certainly, in their message to nonbelievers Christianity and Islam are indeed death anxiety generators. But again, the real issue is ultimate ontological truth. If Christianity is true, its message of judgment and condemnation and the anxiety this message generates is a loving service to nonbelievers. If someone is a serious, committed atheist, presumably this message would generate no more anxiety than the atheist message generates in me.
Let's look at what TRANSPONDER actually said (in relevant part):
His suggestion was, I believe, that "fear of death" is a "biggie" in terms of the "marketing of religion" through "human propaganda methods."
I pointed out that fear of death, or at least anxiety about it, is universal. I further cited research indicating that fear of death and religiosity seem to be weakly linked.
Was this not directly responsive to TRANSPONDER's unsupported, erroneous statement?
You then say I "carved out a special pleading for religion." No, I most certainly didn't. Because death anxiety is universal, religious believers share it with everyone else. The point is, research suggests this is not a major motivating factor for religiosity - as TRANSPONDER incorrectly suggested.
Where, pray tell, is the "special pleading?"
I also mentioned an Oxford University study suggesting the very religious and the very atheistic seem to have the least death anxiety, with those in between being all over the map. This is what we would expect. The very religious expect an afterlife consistent with their beliefs, while (most but not all) atheists expect no afterlife at all.
Again, where is the "special pleading" for religion? Isn't the reality simply that TRANSPONDER was exposed for not knowing what he was talking about?
How would death anxiety motivate someone to become an atheist, you ask? Isn't the answer obvious? An individual has the anxiety about death common to all people and perhaps a preferred lifestyle that religious morality condemns. Voila, atheism says there is no afterlife or judgment and lifestyle is a matter of personal choice. I have no idea how often this is actually a motivating factor - whether it's a "biggie," to borrow TRANSPONDER's term - but it's not implausible (and TRANSPONDER's biggie is in fact not a biggie for religiosity).
Certainly, in their message to nonbelievers Christianity and Islam are indeed death anxiety generators. But again, the real issue is ultimate ontological truth. If Christianity is true, its message of judgment and condemnation and the anxiety this message generates is a loving service to nonbelievers. If someone is a serious, committed atheist, presumably this message would generate no more anxiety than the atheist message generates in me.
If death anxiety is at the ROOT of ALL human activity, then this statement cannot also be true:
Quote:
However, the evidence for any relationship - whether correlational or causal - between death anxiety and religious belief is weak.
Both Becker and the cited paper cannot be right.
If you want to say that Christians have death angst but yet it doesn't motivate them in any way to embrace a belief-system, a major premise of which is they are promised eternal life in paradise, as well as forgiveness from spending eternity in torment ... well ... okay.
TRANSPONDER said he "had not seen discussed" how religion "works in society and what people get from it." I pointed out, with examples, that there is a VAST body of scientific and sociological literature.
He then suggested that fear of death is "a biggie" in terms of an explanation for religious belief. I pointed out that the scientific and sociological literature does not bear this out - that death anxiety is universal and that religious believers and atheists both derive "anxiety relief" from their respective convictions.
It seems to me that my post was directly responsive to his claims.
TRANSPONDER then responded with the post to which you were responding, which was almost unintelligible to me. I gather his central point was that "many benefits, practical and ethical are mundane and religion takes the credit for it."
You apparently found this spectacularly worthwhile. You suggest that TRANSPONDER's explanations "address the straw man argument and then elaborate the rest." What is the "straw man argument" and what is "the rest"?
OK, as you say, "religion can be such a support and/or benefit for religious people." In TRANSPONDER's terms, some of its benefits are "mundane" and can be achieved elsewhere, in secular practices like meditation. And so? The issue is ultimate ontological truth, not "support and/or benefit." How often do atheists emphasize the personal and social benefits they derive from being freed from the nonsense of religion? Doubtless many religious believers and atheists alike adopt their beliefs for reasons wholly unrelated to ultimate truth, but again so what? The bottom-line issue is ultimate ontological truth.
Is it supposed to somehow be evidence against theism that the vast majority of humans who have ever lived have derived comfort and benefit from it? What a weird notion. It sounds a great deal like some music snob saying the mere fact millions and millions of people bought The Beatles' albums is proof they're garbage and the true cognoscenti know Nick Cave & The Bad Seeds were the real geniuses. Ya think?
TRANSPONDER then agreed - he could scarcely disagree - with my (and Ernest Becker's) observation that death anxiety is universal and at the root of much if not all human activity. In both the very religious and the very atheistic, this anxiety is less. And again, so what? The issue is truth. If some species of theism are true, the relief atheists experience will have been false relief - and vice-versa.
TRANSPONDER concluded by saying "But this atheist at least accepts it for what it is, and I have never heard any atheists trying to invent fantasies to convince themselves that there was a life after death." He is merely expressing his atheistic convictions, not saying anything substantive whatsoever. He has no way of knowing theists are "inventing fantasies" to "convince themselves" there is life after death - that's just his atheistic conviction. Is he aware that study after study has shown that a small but significant percentage of atheists hold afterlife beliefs?
I could just as easily say atheists are inventing fantasies to indulge their lifestyle preferences and mentally escape from the judgment "we all know" is coming - and I would be saying absolutely nothing substantive, merely expressing my theistic convictions.
Again and again, I must say, the atheists here seem to congratulate themselves and each other on their deep and critical thinking, when it certainly seems to me the thinking is neither deep nor critical, certainly no deeper or more critical than one encounters on the Christianity subforum.
Though I would not have used the term 'strawman' myself, there are familiar misconceptions here. I don't blame you, they are not often discussed.
There is the kind of atheists who does not believe but takes no interest in the debate. They are indeed going with their feelings and are the kind open to conversion by the well - crafted conversion packages. The 'Thinking' atheist however knows the arguments and does it on evidence and reason, not beliefs and fantasies as you seem to think. It's a standard mistake that theist apologists or at least anti - atheists make: they ignore the body of science data that shows how things work without a god.
What more did you have? Oh dear 'lifestyle' (1) and vapid hellfire threats. You then turn my remark on obsession with death which you countered with some selected papers on hardly relevant 'not bothering about it daily', to claim my agreeing with you that fear of death is universal, which I thought I said, and you argued against. You try to somehow equate the atheist disbelief as a way of 'losing some fear of death with theists losing it through Faith (though I have seen a lot of deconverts say how they were terrified they were not saved). There's some confused stuff about how atheists are happy to be free of religion (I am) but 'see the benefits'. I won't go into trying to have the benefits (community, art, self confidence) without the fairy tales, but the good is tempered by the bad, which is often very bad.
There's this weird twister "Is it supposed to somehow be evidence against theism that the vast majority of humans who have ever lived have derived comfort and benefit from it? What a weird notion". No wonder you find my argument unintelligible if that's what you think I was saying. Anything else? Oh yes. Pointing to a lot of papers - as we have seen so far, not really relevant. Theist apologists often appeal to authority and use 'science' (often wrongly) to support their claims. As you have done here by misunderstanding and misrepresenting what I said.
I said I have not seen it discussed, and i haven't. I have not studied papers on sociology and the effect of religion on culture. If you have a point to make, make it here; do not send us searching out your evidence or appeal to authority, since what you have said so far was misapplied.
Anything more? 'Small but significant' number of atheist hold afterlife beliefs. One could say a small but significant number of scientists are Christians. Fact is (see project Steve), many more are not. One can say a number of Christians doubt Hellthreat and YE creation.The tail should not wag the dog. There is a discussion on how atheism does not guarantee atheists won't believe in some other 'supernatural'claim, like reincarnation, and, as I said, the disbelievers who don't get into the argument may pick up other beliefs that aren't rationally supported. It seems, whether you don't really know about atheism or don't want to, but you did a lot of fiddling evidence and quotes to try to make a case, but it doesn't.
(1) someone has been leaking the secret orgies. We must eliminate that person.
I live in upstate NY in a small liberal college town but am currently indentured to a client near Nashville since February. They are starting to talk about bringing me down in person late next year and a part of me dreads it because I don't have a good "fix" on how religiously rabid any of them are and whether they will back me into a corner and figure out that I'm, at the very least, non-religious ... and how that will effect the business relationship.
I seem to have this pattern of working for religious and political conservatives who sort of suspect but choose to overlook my areligious and liberal leanings because I am not aggressive about them and I bring tremendous technical expertise to them that they need. And I know the company was founded in California and moved years ago to TN for tax reasons anyway, so the CEO is just a transplant.
So I'm probably fine ... even the religious are pragmatists when it comes to money ... but it can be socially awkward, let's just say. Fortunately as a former fundagelical I at least know the basics of how to not inadvertently offend them. It's just that with the current polarization in this country, they are more tetchy than they ever were in my youth.
The prior client was trad Catholic and the location was the Pacific Northwest ... adding in an even more knuckle-dragging region for the physical location and an even more rabid dominant religion in the area will add a little different color to things I suppose.
Fortunately I'm at a place in my career where I can just shrug and retire if they wanted to mistreat me over ideology for some reason.
Keep in mind that the city of Nashville and most of Davidson County are solidly blue. The suburbs are red, but are still different culturally than where I am from in small town extreme northeastern TN. It's far more live and let live. The people are generally affluent, and religion isn't pushed to the extent that it is here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
Indeed it is interesting to watch how America "ebbs and flows" in these respects, and no doubt there are all sorts of reasons that cause the changes over time, but I think at least in part the fight between pro-lifers and pro-choicers and the overturning of Roe V Wade has contributed toward far greater advocacy on both sides.
It's becoming harder and harder for lots of Americans to remain passive these days, over many an issue. More than a few significant ones mostly having to do with religion.
And this is where I think the New Atheists were ahead of their time.
Back then, they seemed very combative, but society as a whole was more polite back then. I had Christian friends, and we never brought up religion. You could think differently than someone and still be their friend.
Today, it seems like the religious community is more aggressive than it has been at any time in my life. If you don't think in lockstep with them, you're going to hell. Many of the former religious moderates have either lost their faith or just keep it private. The ones that are left in a kind of public position are the zealots.
The combativeness of the New Atheists is sorely needed today as we march toward Christofascism.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
