# Are many dopers against religion? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 25, 2003, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-many-dopers-against-religion/197511 "2003-08-25T13:57:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![sqweels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f19dbf/32.png) [@sqweels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sqweels)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2003, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-many-dopers-against-religion/197511/41 "2003-08-25T22:18:14Z")
> [@](#): > > It is somewhat rare to find full-fledged, hold no bars attacks on religious beliefs, but much more likely to see these kinds of subtle insults to theists. Well what on Earth do you expect? You cannot gain credibility simply by complaining about “subtle insults”, you have to earn it. And besides, it’s the ideas being attacked, not the people. ---
**Author:** ![fessie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c37758/32.png) [@fessie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fessie)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2003, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-many-dopers-against-religion/197511/42 "2003-08-25T22:39:37Z")
$.02 chiming in. Organized religions give me the willies. Of course there’s a lot of good content in their verbage, and some people are well served by their missions. But so much evil has been achieved along the way that I could never really trust an institution or just be a follower - even the Unitarian Universalists were a bit much for me. Then again, I don’t like corporations either. Anything that comes down to “Go Team!” has to compromise truth in order to achieve victory (and pay the rent). Plus I don’t agree with the literal model of God used by churches; I believe God simply IS. By that definition we all have to find it ourselves anyway. I get rather weary of the Christian thing myself. Re: faith and gullibility, it’s my experience that belief is far more important than knowledge. When I rely overmuch on “knowing”, it’s generally motivated by fear; usually I’m better off acting on belief than holding out for proof. Of course, I’m not flying jets or performing brain surgery :). ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2003, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-many-dopers-against-religion/197511/43 "2003-08-25T23:08:20Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by panache45 \* > **Would you prefer that we atheists insult you more blatantly, that we show more than a mere “modicum of hostility” to theism?** I’d prefer if you respect the firmly held religious beliefs of others without resorting to subtle insults. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by panache45 \* > **In other words, would you like us to treat you the way theists often treat us?** I want you to love your neighbor as you love yourself. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by panache45 \* > **Most theistic people in the U.S., especially Christians, are overwhelmingly smug in the superiority of their religious beliefs. The proof of this is the fact that religion, especially Christianity, has an ironclad stranglehold on virtually every aspect of our society. Everything from the Ten Commandments to religious holidays to religious statements on our money - we might as well be living in a theocracy.** Nothing like a huge stereotype to fit your argument. A vast majority of theists that I know and have dealt with on this board and in life are nothing but respectful for other beliefs, including atheism. There are, of course, certain people who hold theists beliefs, **lekatt** included, who don’t, but don’t let that stop you from painting with that broad brush of yours. And, in case you didn’t notice, Roy Moore lost his case. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by panache45 \* > \*\*It’s assumed that everyone believes in \*some \*kind of supreme being: "I can’t believe you don’t believe in \*anything! \*I mean, everyone believes in _something, I mean, where do you think everything came from, and where do we go when we die?"_ I’m sorry you’ve had to deal with religious intolerance. Reciprocating in kind isn’t going to solve it though. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by panache45 \* > \*\*It’s assumed that everyone believes in Christian ethics. "Well, you can’t just do whatever you feel like doing, your morality has to be based on _something, and are you seriously saying that you don’t believe in the Ten Commandments? How can you question what people have believed all these centuries?" And if you stand your ground, they come back with a condescending “I’ll pray for you.”_ As I said before, there are certainly people like that, even on this board. And, as I said before, I’m sorry you’ve felt disparged in your beliefs. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by panache45 \* > **And then there are the smug, mindless statements like: “I can prove you’re not an atheist: if you don’t believe in God, then who do you pray to?” Yes, someone actually said that to me.** I’ll be repetitive, but I’m sorry again you feel pressured by a certain minority of theists. Does it excuse subtle insults though? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by panache45 \* > \*\*How would it feel if you told someone you were a Christian, and they said, "Well you just \*think \*you’re a Christian, I don’t believe anyone’s _really a Christian, I mean there are no Christians in fox holes."_ I’m not necessarily a Christian. But I also wouldn’t come back with “you believe in a fairy tale, you ignorant jerk.” > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by panache45 \* > **And then there’s a constant daily barrage, on the 5:00 news, of sightings of angels and miracles and Jesus-shaped rust stains and phenomena that "can’t be explained by science so it must be the work of God."** Or the daily barrage of UFO stories or cats who can talk. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by panache45 \* > \*\*It’s really the SMUGNESS that gets to me more than anything else, the assumption that you’ve got the numbers, so of course you must be right. So if you detect a little hostility in the SDMB toward theism, just consider it payback. \*\* Gotcha. This tells me all I need to know about your point of view. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2003, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-many-dopers-against-religion/197511/44 "2003-08-25T23:11:24Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by sqweels \* > \*\*Well what on Earth do you expect? You cannot gain credibility simply by complaining about “subtle insults”, you have to earn it. > > And besides, it’s the ideas being attacked, not the people. \*\* Earn it? I have to earn the right not have my beliefs insulted? Gotcha. ---
**Author:** ![Rashak\_Mani](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ea666f/32.png) [@Rashak\_Mani](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rashak_Mani)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2003, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-many-dopers-against-religion/197511/45 "2003-08-25T23:51:45Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by panache45 \* > \*\* And then there are the smug, mindless statements like: “I can prove you’re not an atheist: if you don’t believe in God, then who do you pray to?” Yes, someone actually said that to me. > \*\* ROFL !! Wow… now that is a good “logic”. I Pray = Everyone Prays too. I would have been severly tempted to say Belzebu or Satan just for shock value… I did tell a kid telling me about exorcism in his church that since I dont beleive in God that I dont beleive in the Devil and therefore was not subject to “possession”… which reversing means he beleived in the Devil and was a “devil magnet” of sorts. That scared him… ---
**Author:** ![Ptahlis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a8b319/32.png) [@Ptahlis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ptahlis)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2003, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-many-dopers-against-religion/197511/46 "2003-08-26T02:04:43Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by capacitor \* > \*\*Scientific method is relatively new exhaustive procedural method coming from devices invented during the Renaissance, combined with good ol’ observation. > > Some people think that once the Method was established, there is no need for subjective truth in our lives; that there is no room for faith in our lives. > > But then situations such as the Tuskeegee experiments occured. Some skeptics want to discount these, but these came about on purely scientific principles. And such situations led to a massive distrust in science solving all of our problems, and indeed, may create worse ones. Sadly, that is especially true in the Black community. \*\* Back up a minute here. Are you criticizing science because it is inherently amoral? I mean come on! The evils foisted on humanity in the name of religions through the ages certainly show that religion is easily as capable of being used to fulfill evil intent as science could ever be. In fact, I would venture to say that it is even more apt a tool for those purposes, since you can whip followers up into a murderous frenzy over religious principles alone, without needing any ulterior motive. It’s hard to get a crowd to stone someone over the existance of the aether or the cosmological constant, but religious intolerance is always in plentiful supply. ---
**Author:** ![Kyla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/eada6e/32.png) [@Kyla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kyla)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2003, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-many-dopers-against-religion/197511/47 "2003-08-26T02:07:03Z")
My goodness. Science and religion are not mutually incompatible, you know. I personally find nothing more spiritually inspiring than when I spot something _really cool_ in my telescope. The universe is such a beautiful place! Similarly, I find natural selection to be an elegant and lovely process. How wonderful it is that humans are just one of billions of creatures that have walked the earth; we are not better than the rest of the planet, we’re part of it. It’s so amazing, I personally find it to be spiritually uplifting. FTR, I am a Reform Jew. ---
**Author:** ![Paco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a6a055/32.png) [@Paco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paco)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2003, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-many-dopers-against-religion/197511/48 "2003-08-26T02:23:01Z")
I don’t have a problem with organized religion as long as I am left out of it. I get tired of people trying to convert me. I am tired of people who are fake. They are only religious when it’s convenient to them. For instance, at the college I go to a person was running for president of the student council or something like that. He sent an email out to the engineering students in hopes of garnering votes that started off “I am a christian.” Like woopdy friggin’ doo! You just got my vote! NOT! ---
**Author:** ![scr4](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/59ef9b/32.png) [@scr4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scr4)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2003, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-many-dopers-against-religion/197511/49 "2003-08-26T03:02:03Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Kyla \* > **Science and religion are not mutually incompatible** I still don’t understand this view. Religion makes many unproven assumptions about the universe. When people say they believe in both science and religion, there seem to be two implications: [ul] [li]Our current understanding of science is not incompatible with their religious beliefes, so they can keep the faith and still accept and use the currently known laws and theories of science.[/li][li]Science is a way to bring us closer to god, i.e. to give physical evidence to their beliefs.[/li][/ul] In the first case, they are merely accepting the results of the scientific method but not the method itself. The second case means doing science to prove a pre-conceived conclusion. Both cases are contradictory to the scientific method. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2003, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-many-dopers-against-religion/197511/50 "2003-08-26T03:17:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by scr4 \* > \*\*I still don’t understand this view. Religion makes many unproven assumptions about the universe. When people say they believe in both science and religion, there seem to be two implications: > [ul] > [li]Our current understanding of science is not incompatible with their religious beliefes, so they can keep the faith and still accept and use the currently known laws and theories of science.[/li][li]Science is a way to bring us closer to god, i.e. to give physical evidence to their beliefs.[/li][/ul] > In the first case, they are merely accepting the results of the scientific method but not the method itself. The second case means doing science to prove a pre-conceived conclusion. Both cases are contradictory to the scientific method. \*\* You’re assuming that the scientific method applies in all matters of inquiry – that it is the only way to know the truth. Theists – and many non-theists – believe otherwise. They recognize that science applies in some circumstances, but not all of them. Hence, there is no inherent contradiction between believing in science and religious faith. You’re also confusing evidence with proof. Science may provide evidence for one’s beliefs, but it does not necessarily provide absolute proof, and so there is still room for faith. Now, let me repeat the question which I posed to **blowero** earlier. Do you truly believe that science is the only way to discern truth? If so, then what scientific methodology did you use to determine this to be true? ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2003, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-many-dopers-against-religion/197511/51 "2003-08-26T03:37:02Z")
> [@](#): > > Do you truly believe that science is the only way to discern truth? Perhaps there are others: but in what way do your suggested alternatives relate to discerning truth from falsity? Faith does not appear to be such a method. ---
**Author:** ![scr4](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/59ef9b/32.png) [@scr4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scr4)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2003, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-many-dopers-against-religion/197511/52 "2003-08-26T03:44:06Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by JThunder \* > **You’re assuming that the scientific method applies in all matters of inquiry – that it is the only way to know the truth. Theists – and many non-theists – believe otherwise. They recognize that science applies in some circumstances, but not all of them. Hence, there is no inherent contradiction between believing in science and religious faith.** But the scientific method means believing in only what we can observe. Once you say there are some things in the universe that cannot be observed but should be believed in, you’ve thrown the scientific method out the window. > [@](#): > > \*\*Do you truly believe that science is the only way to discern truth? If so, then what scientific methodology did you use to determine this to be true? \*\* I truly feel that there is no point in believing what we cannot observe. My only justification is that I cannot find any advantage in doing otherwise. Belief without observational proof will only make it difficult for us to see the truth. It’s happened numerous times in history that observational data pushed us towards a certain conclusion, and established beliefs made it difficult to accept this inevitable conclusion. ---
**Author:** ![Ramanujan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/51bf81/32.png) [@Ramanujan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ramanujan)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2003, 3:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-many-dopers-against-religion/197511/53 "2003-08-26T03:59:31Z")
**JThunder** , you are mistaken about science. by its nature, it is an all-encompassing epistemology. like any epistemology, the reasons for its acceptance do not lie within it. that would be cheating. that is, one who claims scientific method as his tool for gaining true knowledge should not claim that the knowledge he gains is absolutely true. only within the realm of science, can that knowledge be considered true. and knowledge of epistemologies is not within the realm of science. so having said that, once you accept science, it is your only tool for gaining knowledge. positing things that are outside the realm of science is contradictory with the tenets of science. at the same time, you are free to grab the parts of science that you like, and leave the ones you don’t. at that point though, you are not using science as your method for gaining knowledge. you are using something else. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2003, 6:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-many-dopers-against-religion/197511/54 "2003-08-26T06:07:47Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by g8rguy \* > But that’s not what you suggested in the first place; what you’ve said is that Joe Believer has no right to try to change society in accordance with his religious beliefs. And _ **that** _ is utter nonsense. He has no right to _succeed_; that’s up to the members of the society. But he has every right to _try_, IMO, and I sincerely hope that, words to the contrary notwithstanding, you didn’t mean otherwise. I’ll have to review my earlier message, but it appears I may have mistyped. I agree with you that Joe Believer may try to effect whatever changes he wants, but – to ensure harmony between folks of different belief systems – he should not be allowed to succeed in making changes based on religious reasons _alone._ Which is a roundabout way of saying we’re on the same page. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2003, 6:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-many-dopers-against-religion/197511/55 "2003-08-26T06:11:11Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Apos \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > Do you truly believe that science is the only way to discern truth? > > Perhaps there are others: but in what way do your suggested alternatives relate to discerning truth from falsity? Faith does not appear to be such a method. \*\* Answer the question. If science is _the only way_ to discern the truth, then what scientific methodology did you use to establish this fact? Answer the question. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2003, 6:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-many-dopers-against-religion/197511/56 "2003-08-26T06:23:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Ramanujan \* > \*\ ***JThunder** , you are mistaken about science. by its nature, it is an all-encompassing epistemology. \*\* Prove it, then. Rigorously prove to us all that science encompasses _everything_. Don’t merely assert it. PROVE IT. > [@](#): > > \*\* like any epistemology, the reasons for its acceptance do not lie within it. that would be cheating. that is, one who claims scientific method as his tool for gaining true knowledge should not claim that the knowledge he gains is absolutely true.\*\* In that case, one shouldn’t reject religious belief on the grounds that it’s not “scientific.” > [@](#): > > **so having said that, once you accept science, it is your only tool for gaining knowledge.** Is that a known fact? Is that part of your knowledge? If so, then please describe how you applied the scientific method to determine this fact. > [@](#): > > \*\* positing things that are outside the realm of science is contradictory with the tenets of science.\*\* Again, is that part of your knowledge? What scientific methodology did you use to gain this knowledge? If science is truly “your only tool for gaining knowledge,” then you should be able to describe how you determined these things to be true. So please, answer these questions directly. Since you specificaly claim that science is the only tool for gaining knowledge, I will accept nothing less than a rigorous description of the scientific methodology which you used to determine these things. ---
**Author:** ![scr4](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/59ef9b/32.png) [@scr4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scr4)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2003, 6:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-many-dopers-against-religion/197511/57 "2003-08-26T06:28:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by JThunder \* > **Answer the question. If science is _the only way_ to discern the truth, then what scientific methodology did you use to establish this fact?** It’s a meaningless question because you are asking for a circular argument. It’s the same as using the Bible to prove that Christianity is valid. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2003, 6:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-many-dopers-against-religion/197511/58 "2003-08-26T06:38:00Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by scr4 \* > \*\*But the scientific method means believing in only what we can observe. Once you say there are some things in the universe that cannot be observed but should be believed in, you’ve thrown the scientific method out the window. \*\* The scientific method says no such thing. Here is [a detailed description of the scientific method](http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html), courtesy of Rochester University. While this method requires making observations, owhere does it say that we must only believe in things which we can observe. > [@](#): > > **I truly feel that there is no point in believing what we cannot observe.** Do you really believe that? How did you observe it to be true? (Note that I’m asking for _observations_, not ruminations or conjecture.) > [@](#): > > \*\* My only justification is that I cannot find any advantage in doing otherwise. Belief without observational proof will only make it difficult for us to see the truth. \*\* Is that true? If so, then I shall level the same challenge that I gave to **Ramunajan** , **Apos** and company. If your statement is true, and if science is the only way to the truth, _then what **scientific methodology** did you use to establish this fact_??? Again, I’m not asking for mere ruminations, conjecture or reflections. I’m asking for _the scientific process_ which you used. If science is the only means for learning the truth, then please describe this process. In fact, people who truly know science should be acutely aware of[its limitations](http://www.a180.net/sciencelimit.html). Anyone who claims that science is the font of all true knowledge, and who cannot prove this scientifically, has just refuted his own position. ---
**Author:** ![scr4](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/59ef9b/32.png) [@scr4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scr4)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2003, 6:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-many-dopers-against-religion/197511/59 "2003-08-26T06:45:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by JThunder \* > **Prove it, then. Rigorously prove to us all that science encompasses _everything_. Don’t merely assert it. PROVE IT.** The scientific method is a method for _trying_ to understand the universe. It starts from the premise that the universe is something that is logical and comprehensible. It requires that you only believe what you can observe. Hypotheses are tested against observations and thrown out when they fail to agree. “Science” is this method itself, not the current set of laws and theories. I can’t prove this approach is “correct” but if we give up this method, the only alternative is to construct an arbitrary model of the universe without worrying about whether it fits the facts. You will have no reason to favor one model over the other. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2003, 6:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-many-dopers-against-religion/197511/60 "2003-08-26T06:47:56Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by scr4 \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > It’s a meaningless question because you are asking for a circular argument. It’s the same as using the Bible to prove that Christianity is valid. > > It’s a meaningless question because you are asking for a circular argument. It’s the same as using the Bible to prove that Christianity is valid. \*\* It’s not a meaningless question. You said that science is the only way to the truth. If so, then you can surely demonstrate how you determined this, scientifically. The question isn’t meaningless. Rather, your claim is a [self-refuting argument](http://www.str.org/free/solid_ground/SG0107.htm) – an argument which violates its own premise. Such arguments are, unfortunately, all too common url=“[http://www.geocities.com/jxmccain/Science.html](http://www.geocities.com/jxmccain/Science.html)”]when people fail to recognize the limitations of science. It’s like saying “All statements are false.” Such a statement implicitly disprove themselves, for if all statements are false, then so is that one. Or it’s like saying “I always lie.” If so, then that statement can not possibly be true. Questioning these statements is not meaningless; rather, it’s the statements themselves which are. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-many-dopers-against-religion/197511.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-many-dopers-against-religion/197511.md?page=4)