Religion has emotional, as well as intelectual aspects to it. In fact, I would suspect that many atheists consider the emotional aspects the prime motivator for such belief.
My question is: in which aspect do atheists feel is the major difference between themselves and the religious people? Do you feel that you don’t have the same emotional pull (or feel it to a lesser extent) and thus can think more rationally? Or do you have the same inherent feelings as a religious person, and would appreciate the emotions that they feel, but simply cannot because your intellect tells you otherwise?
Religious people are not smarter or dumber than atheists, on the whole. They do, however, allow an irrational faith to influence their spiritual, and in some cases even everyday life. For some, this irrationality goes too far for my taste: think fundies. But on the whole, it is to be respected, even if I don’t understand why they believe.
In summation:
Are atheists intellectually superior to religious people? Other things being equal: no.
Are atheists more rational than religious people? To a certain extend (only in relation to the faith issue): yes.
I’m agnostic, not atheist, and I hope you don’t mind my horning in.
The major difference between me and religious people is simply that, i I am honest with myself, I don’t believe in the religion. I have no illusions of intellectual or moral superiority. I simply don’t like saying words to the effect that “I believe (such and such)” during a religious service when I do not actually believe it. It’s absurd and dishonest, an I don’t care if there’s a higher being to hear it or not. It seems a pointless and false action and I do not want to perform it. I am glad that I live in an era when I do not have to.
I think a lot of people, religious and irreligious, feel moments of what you would call “religious devotion”. Some people take this as an emotional proof of the existence of God. Others explain it as some leftover psychological conditioning, or a neotonous awe of Mommy and Daddy, or something. Clearly it doesn’t prove anything, since it is possible to overlook it. George Bernard Shaw loved singing hymns in Church. I suspect it was his upbringing. It annoyed him that people thought his singing in church indicated that he had been “redeemed”.
This seems to beg the question. What would account for a person being more rational with regards to only one issue? Could it be that the absense of a strong emotional pull makes it easier to be more rational? In that case, your answer should be the first choice.
Sorry about that. I keep missing letters as I type. Too lazy to preview.
An “f” got left out, turning “if” into “i”. I was saying that “if I am honest with myself”. I’m not putting down religious folk, or saying they’re not honest, etc. All I’m sayng is that I do not believe. That’s the essence of agnosticism (to me anyway). I don’t look down upon believers, but I know I am not one.
Izzy, are you referring to the OP to a strong emotional pull/sense in general, or specifically in regards to the question of a higher power? I think I’m as capable in general of strong emotion as anyone else, but as regards a higher power, I don’t feel any such pull at all.
(As it happens, the idea of emotional attachment to god/experience of god is a frequent topic in GD. I recommended a book called Phantoms in the Brain to Libertarian, which includes as part of its subject matter the fact that emotional religious experience can be induced in the brain by stimulating certain regions, and that certain schizophrenic people experience heightened reaction to religious words presented to their field of vision. We, of course, drew opposing conclusions from these facts.)
I sometimes envy religious people—I wish I could believe in all that comforting, “do this, don’t do that” stuff, but I just CAN’T. It must be nice to have everything laid out for you, with rules and consolations and “you’ll see grandma in heaven.” Some of my religious friends have been very comforted about death and the “meaning of life” from their various beliefs.
But again, I could no more make myself believe in religion than . . . Well, I don’t want to get insulting, so I’ll just say I don’t see any way I could ever become religious. If it works for you, great—though I will add, “if it tortures or you makes you unhappy, drop it!”
The major difference I see between me and religious people is that I do not believe there is a god-type. I don’t see any reason to think such a being must exist and I don’t see any sign that such a being does exist.
So yeah, I guess it comes down to a rational difference (though, when the scientific method was being developed it was correctly viewed as an irrational belief).
I don’t think there is any superiority involved (though I do think I am right and they are wrong, obviously). They have looked at the same world I have and decided that a god-type must exist to explain it all. I have looked at that same world and decided that one is not necessary, and further, than one has never manifested itself to my satisfaction.
Is it a hijack for me to suggest that some major things many religious folk get out of church include a sense of community. Also, attending church causes you to set time apart to ostensibly examine your morality, ethics, and spirituality. I suspect that the desire for community and the investigation of spirituality are common to both religious and nonreligious people. The advantage religion has is that it offers both at a location near you.
The problem for me is simply that I cannot believe in a supernatural being. And it confuses me to some extent that otherwise rational people can and do. So I attend a UU church to accomplish the above functions.
Eve, I used to think as you write that religious folk have it easy, having a ready source of all the answers. But I find that the people who have the easiest time with their beliefs are the ones who tend to spend the least time thinking about them. I know many religious folk who have a hard time reconciling their religious faith with the rational manner the approach all other aspects of their lives. And not that many religions offer a simple black and white checklist to guide your daily actions.
One final thing, I think it is pretty common for people to want to have a power higher than them. A parent figure, if you will. Someone who will love them unconditionally, and forgive them no matter their transgression. Once your folks die, it can seem pretty lonely and daunting being the grownup in charge, no matter how old you are when it happens. I can imagine there being considerable comfort in the idea of a superior being. (And the idea of eternal life doesn’t exactly suck, even if you have a pretty good life going already!)
I should add that I am not in any way anti-religion. I respect people’s wishes and wouldn’t mind belonging to a church except for that whole belief-in-god hurdle.
Unfortunately, if you take god out of church you have a Moose lodge (and those people are all old!).
I would love to find a religion (that is, a systematic approach to spirituality) that doesn’t require me to give up my intellectual integrity.
It’s not simply a question of intelligence. Religious people are often very intelligent, sometimes more intelligent than I am. Unfortunately, greater intelligence can often include a greater capacity for rationalization, and this seems particularly true when the emotional comforts of religion are on the line. I think the main difference between the devout and myself is the WILLINGNESS they have to rationalize their way around the various problems that their religious concepts present.
These rationalizations are sometimes illogical, but often they are not formally illogical, just acrobatic or tortured. I’m not willing to engage in this practice for the “rewards” of a comforting belief, or even a challenging one.
I give you two people. A jesuit priest, and an atheist Limp Bizkit fan. Which one do you believe thinks more rationally?
I rest my case.
I feel that there is a block that prevents religous people from being completely rational, that is a belief in god. This is a definete block, and it can have repercussions on the way you think. Why is there poverty? Because god made it that way.
However religous people can be pretty rational to a point. To become completely so they must abandon a belief in God.
But still, I’d rather keep company with Jesuits than a lot of atheists I know.
Another agnostic chiming in (hope that’s okay): Do I feel that I am more rational than someone with a specific religious belief? Not at all. There are several aspects of my personal belief system that defy rational explanation. For instance, though I believe our criminal justice system is seriously flawed, I also believe we have a better deal than the majority of people on this planet. And since I choose to live in this country, I may strive to improve that system, but I must live by its rules while doing so, or face the consequences. On the other hand, if someone were to rape my daughter, I would, given the chance, damn the courts and nut him with my teeth. And I would feel entirely justified in doing so. I realize that these two thoughts are entirely incompatible, yet they occupy my mind simultaneously.
I have, at times, wished that I could have the security a true belief might give me. But I simply don’t trust in myself to understand the workings of the world, nor can I put that trust in another human being.
Dinsdale wrote: …some major things many religious folk get out of church include a sense of community. The problem for me is simply that I cannot believe in a supernatural being. And it confuses me to some extent that otherwise rational people can and do. So I attend a UU church to accomplish the above functions.
I was raised in a UU church. I have not been in many years (since I left home, actually) but I find myself looking for a greater sense of community than I currently feel. Now that my children are older, I have thought about attending services again. I’m sure that I will be very comfortable there, and feel welcomed. It will, I think, satisfy some of that emotional need.
IzzyR wrote: a strong emotional pull…in regards to the question of a higher power
I have a strong emotional pull towards understanding the world, but it does not presuppose a higher power. It does presuppose that there is something going on that I cannot comprehend (which is why I am not an atheist), but I do not assume that that power is directed. (I hope this makes sense?)
Regarding the OP, I would definitely say the latter.
My girlfriend even made me the topic of her Sunday school class yesterday. If it was a talk show, I guess it would have been called “My Boyfriend, the Atheist.” She’s been recently confirmed into the Episcopalian church, her good friend’s a priest, so she’s been thinking about her spirituality a lot more, lately. So after the class, she started talking to me about how she wants to marry someone who’s on the same spiritual path as she is, and someone she can share her faith with, etc, etc… I asked her if this was leading to something (like me getting dumped) and she said no… So I replied, “Well, if you really feel that way, then you’ll eventually have to make a choice, once you’re ready to get married.”
She agreed, but said she wasn’t ready to choose between her man and God, yet.
Ah, the joys of the impending breakup… I guess getting dumped for the big guy isn’t all bad, but still…
First I would guess what many religious people would say is the difference: that atheism is so distastful because must lead to nihilism.
Not so. For me, the only emotions involved were the bewilderment, frustration and anger that accompanied my apostasy from the Catholic Church. If I had stuck around, that would have led to nihilism.
I had questions that religion could not and cannot answer to my satisfaction: Who am I, how did I get here, where I am going and why do people do the things they do. Please note: yeah, they had “answers” aplenty, but none I could swallow.
I found the solution not with faith, but with knowledge. The study of all branches of science, with emphasis on natural history, has answered all my questions.
To huddle in the dark night, knowing you’ll die someday and that bad things can and will happen before that…we all need to comfort ourselves in the face of that awful truth. Many people light themselves a candle of faith and take pride and comfort in being made in God’s image.
I look at the huge picture of the universe and take pride and comfort in being able to see the infinitesimal sign, “You Are Here”.
Why am I here? It’s an awfully long answer, beginning with the fusion of hydrogen atoms; but for me, it does the trick.
So the answer to the OP is: the difference is what we find comfort in. Religious people don’t understand how it can be done this way, that’s all.
I will say the latter option in the OP also. I have attended church, read the Bible, and gone to Bible study, and knowing what I know of human nature, it all just falls apart for me.
Believe me, I’d like to think that I’m going to a big happy place when I die, and that everyone I love is going there too, and that I’m going to get to see my mom and my grandfather again, and meet Thomas Jefferson and Gandhi and… you get the picture (Hey, what about people like Thomas Jefferson? Brilliant man; owned slaves. What does God do with people like that, huh?); and I want to believe that the good, ordinary, honest folk get rewarded and the selfish, evil, violent bastards get theirs; and I’m sure most everybody else feels the same way. But I don’t buy it.
It all justs reeks of fairy tales we tell little kids to answer the hard questions we don’t have answers for anyway. We want to believe; we NEED to believe: it’s a big, cold universe out there. But so what?
We have more scientific ways of explaining certain things, but they don’t speak to our fear of eternal death; “eternal life” sells better: yes, I’ll have some of that, please! And human nature tends to be irrational, and there will always be more fear and ignorance in human society than the alternatives.
