Resolved by Steven Landsburg: Nobody is Actually Religious. Discuss!

Great Debates
1

In his book The Big Questions, Steven Landsburg makes the rather aresting claim that he does not believe any adult person actually believes in God.

Now, to be clear while staying within fair use; Landsburg does not say everyone who is nominally religious is actively lying. He claims, instead, that while some people might just be lying, many people “believe they believe” only in a sort of casual way that they don’t really think about much, and that if really forced to they’d admit they aren’t really sure about the whole God thing.

Landsburg states that in his opinion religion is just so ludicrous that nobody could really believe it, but he doesn’t hinge his argument on that. Instead he presents the following arguments:

  1. Religions that posit an omnipotent God who demands good behaviour should result in believers who are unusually well behaved, since their behaviour will result in either great rewards or awful punishments. A person who honestly believed God would send them to hell for being bad would never be bad. But there is no evidence religious people are better behaved than irreligious people, even though there is a huge amount of evidence that the perception of temporal punishment is strongly correlated with obeying rules.

  2. Religions that promise people eternal life would result in people being less mindful of personal safety, since if they legitimately believe in heaven they have nothing, really, to lose. EVen if one assumes suicide is a sin, they would be more cavalier with their safety in other ways - more likely to engage in dangerous activities and sports, less likely to use safety precautions, etc. But there is no evidence this is the case.

Landsburg, incidentally, notes that you do have suicide bombers, but that in the grand scheme of things willing suicide bombers represent an incredibly tiny fraction of self-professed believers.

  1. If people legitimately believe in their religion being a correct path, the widespread trend towards interfaith dialogue and cooperation simply doesn’t make any sense.

  2. People who legitimately believed that faith was the key to eternal life should all be incessant proseletyzers; no degree of being “tolerant” or “polite” can possibly overwhelm the fact that if your neighbour does not convert he’s going to hell. Eternal suffering is worth doing anything you can to save your neighbour from it.

He goes on with more arguments which I think get progressively weaker. We’ll stick with these.

I have my opinions but I’d like to let the discussion go for a bit before introducing what I think of Landsburg’s theory.

2

Sounds like Landsberg is trying to force the evidence to fit the conclusions he had already formed.

3

Sounds sort of like a “no true scotsman” so very restrictive that there aren’t any scotsmen. :smiley:

4

I thought you were talking about the guy from Barney Miller.

Anyway, I don’t agree with his theory. There are too many devoutly religious people for this to be true. Some may actually be agnostic, but a very great number really do believe: I believe.

I wish he was right, but I don’t think he is.

5

I am sure this fits some people. The trouble is that he goes on to claim -

He’s mistaken there, of course, at least in America. Those who are actually committed to their faith have all kinds of better outcomes than those in the same country who don’t - cite, cite, cite, cite, cite, cite, cite, etc.

Regards,
Shodan

6

Well, people may believe they believe, but are they right?

It seems to me that the first point, that people who really believed that God was watching them, is the strongest. Take, say, Ted Haggard. Here’s a guy who thinks homosexual behavior is a mortal sin. And that God sees all. And who goes to a hotel room with a male prostitute. It just doesn’t add up. If he really believed God was watching, he wouldn’t have done it, in the same way that he didn’t have sex with men in front of his wife or his congregation. He was able to refrain from having gay sex in front of his wfe and congregation because he didn’t want them to know he was having gay sex, because he was afraid of the consequences if they knew. But he was perfectly fine having gay sex in front of God. I mean, I’m sure he felt all conflicted and ashamed, but why didn’t he believe in the consequences of God finding out, in the same way he believed in the consequences of his wife and congregation finding out?

He acted as if he believed in his wife and acted accordingly. So maybe Ted really believed that he believed in God, but he sure didn’t act as if he believed in God.

7

Sure, but that’s just one person.

8

It sounds to me like he has defined “religious” to fit his argument. If everyone fully understood every detail of their chosen religion then he might have a point. In reality, we are all, probably even the Pope, practicing our own version of that chosen religion, as we interpret it. Most people don’t spend all day analyzing what their religious beliefs mean in the context of what they are doing at the moment.

For the record, I do not believe there is a God yet I sometimes act in ways that at not completely logical to every observer.

9

This doesn’t do much to bolster your claim, you know:

Not sure what you think this proves since it’s about charitable giving and volunteering, not “better outcomes”.

This is also about charity work, not better outcomes, as you claimed.

This one is about how religious attendance and the relationships formed through regular meetings can help form networks and bonds that can help a person in times of trouble. I’m sure that’s true of any social organization, tho, and anyway, you’re argument was that religious belief made for better outcomes. This study does not back that assertion up.

Another study on attendance and mortality:

Nothing in there about belief, just attendance and the social network that attendance can engender.

Another paper on religious attendance and health, and another one that doesn’t support your assertion. (bolding mine)

Well this one comes closest to supporting your assertion, but still falls short as it says:

It’s not the belief in a god that matters, it’s how frequently you go out and interact with others that makes a difference, according to the studies you “cited”.

Do you even read these things before you start posting links?

10

I think the point is, if you actually believed there was an all powerful being who set forth rules of behavior, and who would decide on your eternal salvation/damnation, you WOULD put in a bit of effort to understand those rules.

11

All religious people compromise to an extent. If they didn’t, their lives would become impossibly difficult.

12

I’ve long believed a version of this, but never put in into words. I think the final conclusio, however, is not that they believe nothing. It’s more that most people believe a sort of vague, diffuse spirituality. This gets channeled into organized religion and people will express the beliefs of organized religion because they know no other outlet for spirituality, are subject to peer pressure/need to belong, or have professed it so long they develop too many hangups to ever confront their actual beliefs.

13

In defense of Landsburg - and I think a lot of his argument is too simplistic, but here he’s quite consistent - in fact, for a very small number of religious people, their lives ARE amazingly difficult. They lead lives of tremendous effort and self-sacrifice. It’s a tiny minority of the religious - but that is Landsburg’s argument, that only a tiny minority of the religious really buy it. They, Landsburg would doubtless argue, are acting rationally for a person who really believes in God.

I have to admit I find Landsburg’s argument compelling in one way because it’s what I used to think, when I was a kid; I sort of believed in God on the surface but I didn’t really buy it. When asked to defend it I’d do so with gusto, but deep down inside I didn’t really think anyone was watching me when I was alone (it would have been boring to see, albeit gross.) Indeed, Landsburg’s description is remarkably recognizable.

14

One key factor that Landsburg is ignoring is redemption. Most people’s religious beliefs include the possibility of being forgiven for sin. So a person can rationalize doing something they sincerely believe is sinful because they know they can be forgiven later for the spiritual consequences. Granted, most of them don’t explictly think to themselves, “I’ll commit some sins today and get forgiven tomorrow.” But the fact that redemption exists means there is a subconscious sense that their actions are not irreversible.

15

My parents would probably forgive my actions, but i still wouldn’t steal or lie right in front of them. If someone was filming your every move 24/365, how would you behave?
Why don’t those who profess belief in an all-knowing deity behave as if they are under this kind of surveillance?

16

There is no necessary correlation between sincerity of belief and making major sacrifices for one’s faith. Otherwise, one would be forced to conclude that (say) historically, Jews are the greatest believers of all - not only do many of them go through endless trouble to keep kosher, historically they risked all sorts of unpleasantness simply in order to remain Jews - when they could easily have converted.

Certainly, the “no one really believes in god” argument is going to appeal to non-believers - because there is a natural, human tendency to assume others are much like oneself, even if they deny it. Religious people sometimes have the opposite opinion, with statements like “there are no atheists in foxholes”, meaning that when put to the test of stress, everyone “really” believes.

The explaination as to why believers don’t behave as this guy’s theory claims they should is simple: most religions have mechanisms for dealing with people transgressing, and people are in fact expected to transgress, if not too badly. Certainly, the (say) Catholic Christian notion of human life assumes that people are naturally prone to sin, for which they confess to a priest, do penance and are forgiven. Why would it be somehow inconsistent with Catholicism to sin?

17

Everyone wants to go to heaven, but no one wants to die.

18

He’s essentially right, I think. It’s not any sort of lie or misrepresentation. People just aren’t by and large critical thinkers or introspective. They don’t spend a lot of time evaluating their world view and testing it against contradictory notions. They just go with what’s vaguely comfortable and gloss over it.

If you truly contemplated and believed in eternal punishment or reward, it would dominate your every thought, your every waking moment. The very concept is such crazy overkill that it absolutely dwarfs any concern you might have over anything regarding your mortal life. Your mortal life and all of its problems are an infinitesimal non-issue compared to the issue of your eternal reward or punishment.

You would never ever risk pissing God off. You wouldn’t even think about it. Nothing could be worth it. You wouldn’t even entertain the idea of stealing, or commiting adultery, or any of the various rules. How could you, if whatever you were going to do would be punished INFINITELY more than any reward you’d get from it?

Similarly, if you were anything but pure evil, you would spend every waking moment trying to convert people. If you truly believe that most people are going to hell - going to suffer ETERNAL PUNISHMENT - a fate so horrible that human minds cannot even grasp it, you woul be driven insane by the idea that anyone, let alone most of everyone, would be subject to it.

Think about it. All of the suffering mankind has ever gone through - every horrible disease that has made people live a life of agony, every moment spent working 15 hour shifts in a coal mine, every grief from the death of a loved one, every heartbreak, all the way down to every time someone stubbed their toe - all of the combined misery of mankind would not even register as a blip compared to the infinite punishment all non-believers would receive. Billions of individuals would suffer infinitely more than the entire combined suffering of everyone that ever lived a mortal life. This is mind boggling. You can’t even comprehend it. Yet you can live your life comfortably knowing that most of the people you know, even the people you care about, will be subject to this? You would have to be a complete sociopath or even just plain evil to not be driven insane by this and have it take up your every waking thought.

The behavior of all but the most dedicated few religious people is inconsistent with truly accepting this as a world view. People hold whatever vague warm and fuzzy notion they need to make sense out of the universe and alleviate their fear of death, but they keep the thoughts distant and just go with whatever is socially acceptable.

I think on some level they know this, deep down. This is why atheists are so hated and reviled. In some deep, subconcious way they know their beliefs would fall apart under scrutiny, so an atheist encouraging them to be critical of their beliefs could cause the whole house of cards to come falling down. But they need that warm and fuzzy feeling from the glossed over confidence that they’re special and will go to heaven, so they lash out against anyone who they perceive as a threat to take that away.

Really, religious people, you should hope this guy is right. That you’re all just sort of going with the flow and not thinking about it too much. Because if you truly believe in a religion that punishes people eternally, and the thought does not drive you insane, you are a horrible human being.

19

I know I should eat better, procrastinate work less, quit wasting time on the Internet, exercise, etc., etc. I know these things will have consequences, sometimes minor, sometimes major. Yet my willpower is weak and I often fail to act in such a way as I know would lead to better outcomes in the long-run. It’s not that I don’t know my poor decisions will lead to poor outcomes, but all the same, I sometimes choose impulsive convenience over long-term planning. And then I feel guilty about it. But I keep making these poor decisions nonetheless…

I imagine something similar happens with many religious people.

20

There was an NPR story a few months ago or so that had a premise that bothered me a lot. I know I posted about it then, but I only really remember a few of the details.

There was a study that showed that people behaved one way if they were told they weren’t being observed and another way if they either knew or thought they were being observed. (They were told their observer was invisible–one of the major problems I had with the study.) The researchers extrapolated from that study that “being observed” was an important social cue for good behavior and that religion was useful in that it led to the “being observed” cue which thereby leads to good behavior.

Of course, if you think about it for ten seconds you realize that if any of the people in the “not being observed” group were religious, then they had to think they were being observed, too, despite being told they weren’t.

I see two explanations: One, that people really don’t think that God is watching, and two, that the watching is so remote, the punishments so uncertain and distant, that it doesn’t really matter.

Much as I can eat a pint of ice cream despite knowing that it’s not good for my health or my waistline, but feeling that the bad things resulting from my ice cream eating are distant whereas it tastes good and feels good now. I think that’s a pretty common feature of human behavior: Good/fun/pleasurable results up front make up for bad/horrible/painful results in the future. We don’t save, we don’t have insurance, we don’t eat right and exercise, we don’t go to bed on time, we don’t abstain from sex with crazy people, we gamble, we drink, etc. None of these choices is precisely rational when you compare them directly, but our comparisons are indirect.

Now almost always wins over someday.