Religion is “very inconvenient” in some ways, but there are also benefits in religious people’s minds that they use to justify the costs, otherwise nobody would practice religion. You can’t pretend that people who practice religion are actually acting against their wishes, those who practice really believe that restraint in this life will be awarded infinitely in the next life. Even the missionaries who are supposedly living in dire conditions are enjoying the chemical rewards in their brains of doing what they believe is right, and “knowing” their reward awaits them in heaven.
Neither atheism nor theism is formed in isolation from personal pleasure-seeking(it’s merely pointing out the obvious to say that we form beliefs that we want to). It’s just that one of the two is sane.
Not ULTIMATELY accountable, and therein lies the rub. As I said, people are quick to dismiss theistic belief as mere succor-seeking yet bend over backwards to deny that people can be motivated by the same comfort-seeking desire.
While I agree with you that there is no reason to single out religious belief against atheistic ideas as being particularly clearly wish-fulfillment motivated, I don’t think those examples you give there have to be examples where it clearly isn’t. Some people do seem to want to be martyrs, to attain betterment through or with suffering. For some people, serving as an impoverished missionary may well give them the greatest kind of comfort or solace.
They are in the minority, but that’s ultimately an irrelevant objection. These were mere examples of inconvenient religious belief, after all, not an exhaustive list. It’s tremendously inconvenient to offer 10% or more of your salary to charity each month, as a great many Christians do. It’s also inconvenient to have to attend church, especially when the preacher talks about things that you’d rather hear. (Not a lot of comfort during those services, I tell you!) It’s inconvenient to remain with your spouse when adulterous temptations come your way. And heck, there’s no doubt that a great many folks who would love to walk into a porno shop, and yet they choose to curb their desires despite the temptation.
When skeptics condescend toward the religious on the grounds that these folks are merely seeking comfort, it demonstrates how little they attempt to understand the nature of religion. Religion can be a source of comfort, but it is frequently a source of tremendous DIScomfort as well. That’s precisely why Jesus described the Christian faith as “taking up one’s cross” (Matthew 10:38-39). If you take it seriously, then it’s not meant to be an easy journey, even if you never wind up being martryed or serving in a foreign land.
It’s popular for certain folks here to insist that this on that etymology, but it’s incorrect. It does not mean “a-theism”; rather, it comes from atheos+ism – that is, an “ism” which means an absence of God.
Agreed, which is why I refuse to paint religion in one-dimensional terms. The bottom line is that it is NOT simply a matter of seeking comfort amidst difficult circumstances. They may believe in an ultimate payoff, but that is hardly the same thing as mere wish fulfillment.
This discomfort you describe is a small price to pay for anyone who believes that it’s really a matter of eternal suffering or joy. “Taking up one’s cross” isn’t a serious challenge for the true believer, because they have absolute faith that they will have the last laugh while the nonbelievers rot in hell. Jesus says that the poor will the the first in line to heaven–if you truly believe this, is being last in line on earth really so bad?
No, because they completely demonstrate how somebody can do extremely UNcomfortable things in the name of religious beliefs
That’s a petty objection at best. Extreme cases are often useful because they provide the most clear counterexamples. Moreover, I already cited more mundane examples of how religious belief can be very inconvenient indeed, even when they don’t lead to death or abject suffering.
I think this discussion shows how deeply committed people can be to the view that these poor, stupid theists much somehow be seeking comfort, whereas the superior atheists are supposedly beyond such frailties. Sigh.
The website that you linked to provided no source for its etymology, which suggests that it’s simply parroting the same mistaken origin for the term. Every single dictionary I’ve consulted agrees with my citation, as do various encyclopedias of philosophy. I’d say that those sources are much more authoritative.
That’s the problem with this newly minted “etymology” of atheism. Like an urban legend, it keeps spreading.
Here is a cite from an actual dictionary of etymology. I’d say that this is a more authoritative source than the one you cited.
No, but I would use it as evidence that boxers CAN be rapists.
Therein lies the distinction between your stance and mine. I am not trying to argue that theists are NEVER motivated by a desire for comfort and succor. Quite the contrary; I’m arguing that this is an overly simplistic view of why people believe in God. Some of them surely do seek comfort, but that is only one of many reasons why people may believe.
You’re apparently unable to accept that possibility. More’s the pity.
I partly agree. I agree that atheists are just as ‘motivated’ as theists, but that may as well be a non statement, in that every human action is similarly motivated. Your (and my) very posting in this thread is motivated by petty personal desires. Does that invalidate everything we say? The question here is whether the two motivations are qualitatively different. One is a wish for eternal personal well being, and the other is borne of a wish to understand reality in a sensible way, even if it means the loss of a comforting fantasy of eternal bliss. One I might call wish-fulfillment, and the other would be better described as accepting reality.
And re: the etymology, the Online Etymology Dictionary parses it as a+theos+ism, which is perfectly in line with a belief denying the existence of god. Why are you trying to make “ism” a dirty word? (e: and glossing over the distinction that atheism is very much a response to theism?)
Errm, that gives the same 'from a- “without” + theos “a god”’ definition as Contrapuntal’s cite. Are you objecting because he glossed “theos” as “theism”? Because that’s a picayune nit to pick, IMO. gods & theism go hand in hand.
You might have a point if missionaries complain about it. The ones I’ve met don’t. What your example demonstrates is that religion can warp people’s definitions of what is comfortable, and that in some rare cases can make them masochists (in the eyes of people without those altered preferences and priorities).
Similarly to above, a lot of people I know like going to church and donating. (My mom fully believes that tithing pays for itself - literally, through direct material blessings.) Your argument only has traction by citing cases where people aren’t fully buying into the religion - people who go to church for some other reason, perhaps the wish to avoid being harassed by their wife for skipping church to go fishing. This is no argument that religion is some kind of exception to people’s tendency to do things that have percieved benefits.
A lot of religion is explicitly sold as an increase in quality of life, by some mix of material benefits in life and satisfying the wish for security about your state after death. This isn’t something atheists made up.