Is religion a form of ignorance?

[begbert2]

@RitterSport

OK, one more example and then I’ve probably said my fill.

In our countless (countless!!) threads here about atheism and religion, someone pops in and says, “hey, I’m agnostic.” Then, everyone dutifully explains that agnostic is a statement about knowledge, not a statement about belief. You can be an agnostic atheist (you don’t believe, but you don’t think the real answer is knowable) or an agnostic theist (you do believe, but you don’t think the real answer is knowable)

Less belief –> More belief:
Atheist Theist

(I’m sure that will look terrible)

Less knowledge –> More knowledge:
Ignorant Educated

They are on different axes, just like atheism/theism and agosticism are on different axes.

Agnosticism! Fun stuff. The term agnosticism has two meanings:

1. Atheists who are reluctant to use the term and/or who don’t realize you don’t need certainty of belief to be an atheist.

2. People who are declaring that they noticed that absolute literal certainty is impossible, and don’t realize that the average atheist already knows this.

(Guess which kind I think is more common.)
Agnosticism (type 2) isn’t about knowledge or ignorance, or even belief or disbelief - it’s about a philosophical recognition of lack of absolute provability. You can have absolutely no belief in something whatsoever, and still recognize that it’s still theoretically possible. Or you can absolutely believe in something, but intellectually realize that true certainty is never available (and start citing ‘faith’).

So agnosticism isn’t really about being ignorant, or being between ignorance and certainty. (It’s also not about being between a theism and atheism, regardless of the opinion of type 1s.) Type 2 Agnosticism is about recognizing the lack of possible certainty about things that it’s impossible to be certain about - it’s a smart thing to recognize, actually. I myself am a type 2 agnostic about several theoretical and undefined gods, like good old Asdfoiaj4;iuhe;afeurhva up there.

And Type 1 agnosticism is about being an atheist. Sorry type 1s!

[begbert2]

@RitterSport

begbert2, not all beliefs have to be justified, and I don’t think that unjustified belief means ignorance anyway. If someone makes a claim that there is evidence that horoscopes work, we can easily show them the claim is nonsense. If someone believes that horoscopes work and adjusts his day because of that, it’s not really ignorance. That person may have all kinds of knowledge of the stars, astronomy, etc., but still retain that faith.

If a person believes horoscopes work they’re ignorant about the fact that they don’t. Doesn’t matter how much they know about the stars - or about the obvious-to-all fact there are billions of people in the world and the same set of stars can’t possibly be saying specific things about all of them at once - if they believe in horoscopes on faith then they’re ignorant about the way reality works. And making badly-reasoned decisions because of it!

[igor_frankensteen]

@Thudlow_Boink

I submit that you have a great deal of ignorance about religion. But don’t let that stop you…

Second this observation. Religions are usually FAR from the result of “willful ignorance,” in fact most are all the direct result of intensive searches for more knowledge. It is an act of INTENSE ignorance to fail to recognize this, and an act of intense WILLFUL ignorance, to continue to insist upon it after the many MANY centuries of having this repeatedly explained.

Regardless of what one’s attitude is about the RESULTS of a quest for knowledge may be, declaring that the quest was the OPPOSITE of what it was, because you dislike the results, is the height of hypocrisy.

By that reasoning, all of science itself is “willful ignorance,” because not all attempts to prove or disprove scientific ideas are entirely successful.

[begbert2]

@igor_frankensteen

Second this observation. Religions are usually FAR from the result of “willful ignorance,” in fact most are all the direct result of intensive searches for more knowledge. It is an act of INTENSE ignorance to recognize this, and an act of intense WILLFUL ignorance, to continue to insist upon it after the many MANY centuries of having this repeatedly explained.

Regardless of what one’s attitude is about the RESULTS of a quest for knowledge may be, declaring that the quest was the OPPOSITE of what it was, because you dislike the results, is the height of hypocrisy.

By that reasoning, all of science itself is “willful ignorance,” because not all attempts to prove or disprove scientific ideas are entirely successful.

Some aspects of religion - like rejecting evolution, which has indeed been done due to religion, are acts of wilful ignorance.

Most people’s religions are, well, drilled into them by their parents. After which they engage in a game of very carefully not listening to anything that overly troubles their indoctrination. A little troubling is fine, and over time they can distort their original training to include other ideas (“Hey, maybe being gay isn’t evil after all!”), but when slapped with any facts or evidence or opinions that they really don’t like, most people either ignore it or kick back hard.

And the searches you mention for people who wander between religions are searches for answers - but often you don’t see people be too rigorous about the certainty of the answers they choose to accept. It’s generally about emotion rather than facts - “truth” as opposed to truth. At no point does this searching guarantee they’re avoiding making ignorant assumptions and leaps of faith.

[John_DiFool]

[Notices as usual nobody has mentioned/alluded to Buddhism yet, and if and when it finally is, it will undoubtedly get the No True Scotsman treatment, so off to another thread…]

[RitterSport]

@begbert2

If a person believes horoscopes work they’re ignorant about the fact that they don’t. Doesn’t matter how much they know about the stars - or about the obvious-to-all fact there are billions of people in the world and the same set of stars can’t possibly be saying specific things about all of them at once - if they believe in horoscopes on faith then they’re ignorant about the way reality works. And making badly-reasoned decisions because of it!

I just think ignorance is the wrong word. They may be irrational, illogical, delusional, but ignorant has a meaning, and that’s unaware of some knowledge. A religious person can see all the evidence for evolution and still believe that God still started it all or God guided it or God is testing him. He could be an evolutionary biologist (ignorant about evolution? I don’t think so!) and still keep his faith that God was involved, even if the evidence is lacking.

Look, when religious people make scientific claims, I’m all for refuting those claims with evidence. When religious people want to impose some theocratic morality on the rest of us, I’m all for opposing that. My point here is that religiosity and knowledge are just two different things.

Asking if religion is a form of ignorance is like a syntax error. I don’t buy into the non-overlapping magisteria crap – if the religious make scientific claims, they should be refuted. However, for those non-scientific claims, having faith is not showing ignorance.

I know we’re going around and around, so I’m happy to step away.

Also, something something Buddhism.

[enipla]

First thing to ask is where does religion come from?

It’s from fear of the unknown. A way to explain things that are not understood. If people take comfort in it that’s fine. The problem is when it’s used as a weapon.

[Thudlow_Boink]

@enipla

First thing to ask is where does religion come from?

It’s from fear of the unknown.

How do you know?

[Miller]

It’s threads like these that make me hesitant to identify myself as an atheist.

[Guinastasia]

@Procrustus

Are you kidding me? We’re not talking about “the Divine” in abstract terms. We’re talking Jesus walking on water, true or false? Noah building an Ark and putting all the animals on earth in it, true or false?

You do realize that most denominations of Christianity do NOT take the Bible literally, and that doing so is actually a fairly recent practice? (Late 1800s) :dubious:

[Ambivalid]

@Thudlow_Boink

How do you know?

Because religion is the only answer we currently have to inexplicable questions we have as humans. “Fear of the unknown” is maybe not the most accurate description, maybe “Fear of nothingness” is better. Life must have a rational basis, otherwise why even try? How do you soldier thru the agonies of life if it’s not ultimately rewarded with a paradise?

[zuer-coli]

All,

Now I am wondering if I have anything to add to the discussion.

Religion and Science are two different ways of trying to understand what we see around us, make sense of the World. Religion is about the great mystery: Who am I, what can I know and what can I do or effect. These questions can only be answered for the individual, and in my view, only imperfectly.

I acknowledge many folk seem to believe there are universal or absolute answers. I think much trouble has resulted from trying to impose those perceived universal or absolute answers.

As many above has said, there are many folk who are intelligent, well educated, even deeply learned in their own field, who also believe in things that are not capable of being falsified. May of the same folk are aware that some for their beliefs are not capable of being falsified. I don’t see why this should trouble anyone as long as no one tries to force those beliefs on others.

As for being ignorant, I can’t see how believing in something that can’t be falsified is in anyway ignorant.

As for myself I prefer Agnostic in the sense that certainty can’t be reached, although that is also true of science.
As for myself and with all respect to those who self identify as Atheist, I hold that atheism is as much a belief system as religion. Certainly, I have heard of Atheists who are just as “Evangelical” or as proselytizing as any religious figure I have heard about.

Again, with all respect to those who may self identify as Atheist. If, and I do not accept the Religion = ignorant equation. then Atheism also = ignorant, also manifestly not true.

Respectfully, I think where ever you fall, religious, not religious, Agnostic, Atheist or none of the above, it’s no one else’s businesses. Labeling a belief system as ignorant is, if you will pardon me, just ignorant.

With all humility and at best, very ignorant of many things.

Zuer-coli

[DrDeth]

@Czarcasm

Except for lack of evidence, NOTHING is representative of “all of religion”-there is no “all of religion”.

I Have seen the Pope in Person (from afar), and shook hands with the Patriarch of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, 1 Archbishop, several Bishops, and many reverends, rabbis, etc.

Look, here’s a picture of the Vatican:

Vatican City

Many religious leaders are well documented in history.

So there’s plenty of "evidence. "

[DrDeth]

@Clothahump

It’s also a massive con game. And it is one of the most dangerous things that we humans have ever invented to inflict upon ourselves.

Like, say- Politics? or War?

[Voyager]

@cmkeller

Czarcasm:

It’s evidence that someone saw a dragon, and that someone else saw a unicorn, and that someone else conversed with a hippogriff. It might not be RELIABLE evidence, but that’s for the consumer of said evidence to decide.

There is Beowulf, which is much more recent than the Bible.

Neither. Each believer will believe the evidence that he or she feels is reliable. It’s not a co-mingling, it’s a belief in one (or one non-self-contradictory subset) and a disbelief in the rest. But willingness to believe in at least one is something that all adherents of “religion,” as the OP wishes to address, have in common.

You and I both grew up rejecting the majority belief that Jesus is in any way divine or the Messiah. I trust you know the evidence for this (the lack of fulfillment of the Messianic prophecies, for example) and do not believe it as a matter of faith.
I just went one step further and stopped believing in God also.
And really, it is hard to believe you used the “atheists can’t prove there is no god, so nah nah nah” argument. How many hundreds of times do we have to explain this. In over 40 years of online religion discussion I’ve met maybe one atheist who thinks that gods can be disproven in general - and he was an idiot. So, tsk, tsk.

[Voyager]

@drad_dog

“Even” Jewish people?

Jews have been a huge force in the world towards tolerance, and making it safe to be irreligious, maybe the biggest influence of them all. Usually they live within christian societies.

But remember our tolerance is in some sense propelled by the realization that if we spoke too loudly on why Jesus was not divine, bad things could happen. They did anyway, since our very existence kind of showed this.
Tolerance is good in general, but it is definitely in the self interest of Jews living in non-Jewish countries. I don’t think we are actually naturally more tolerant than anyone else.

[Voyager]

@Czarcasm

Except for lack of evidence, NOTHING is representative of “all of religion”-there is no “all of religion”.

Belief in some sort of supernatural, and usually the belief that this supernatural has given the proponents of the religion special knowledge about the universe. Deists only believe in the first, which is why they are a lot more reasonable than the standard religionist.

[Voyager]

@John_DiFool

[Notices as usual nobody has mentioned/alluded to Buddhism yet, and if and when it finally is, it will undoubtedly get the No True Scotsman treatment, so off to another thread…]

I would have agreed, except for Myanmar.

[Voyager]

@igor_frankensteen

Second this observation. Religions are usually FAR from the result of “willful ignorance,” in fact most are all the direct result of intensive searches for more knowledge. It is an act of INTENSE ignorance to fail to recognize this, and an act of intense WILLFUL ignorance, to continue to insist upon it after the many MANY centuries of having this repeatedly explained.

What search for knowledge is this? Religion well may have started as a way of providing answers to questions which were at the time unanswerable. Nothing wrong with that Goddidit wasn’t really much wronger than solutions provided by Aristotle.
But when people started really looking for more knowledge (sometimes inspired by religion) they ran into the problem that the knowledge they found directly contradicted their faith. Some religions just refused to accept the new knowledge (creationists) some modified what the Bible meant.
For instance, while Catholics were not literalists, they definitely believed that Adam and Eve were real. Original sin kind of falls apart without them. Now I think there is some move to say that they weren’t the first people, and they didn’t live in Eden, but they were somehow the first who could make moral judgements. Probably not accurate - what I have read of this seemed quite evasive, as well it should.

Regardless of what one’s attitude is about the RESULTS of a quest for knowledge may be, declaring that the quest was the OPPOSITE of what it was, because you dislike the results, is the height of hypocrisy.

By that reasoning, all of science itself is “willful ignorance,” because not all attempts to prove or disprove scientific ideas are entirely successful.

And what would you call it when the results for the quest for knowledge contradixt your faith, and you ignore them?
Two examples. I’ve read a collection of scientific papers from Copernicus to 1800. The earlier papers would almost always have a statement about how the results proved the glory of God. The later papers dropped that, as the results spoke from themselves. And then we get to Lagrange’s “I have no need for that hypothesis.” The real quest for knowledge has cut the underpinnings out of the justification for particular religions, and they have responded by greater (Fundamentalists) or lesser (Catholics) denial.

[Voyager]

@Guinastasia

You do realize that most denominations of Christianity do NOT take the Bible literally, and that doing so is actually a fairly recent practice? (Late 1800s) :dubious:

However that they did not take the entire Bible literally did not mean that they didn’t take important parts of it literally. Do you think they doubted the Adam and Eve story? Special creation (even if not in the order of Genesis?) The resurrection?

Whyever do you think Darwin caused such a stink? The objection was not from some extremist religious loons, but from the Christian power structure.