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

[Blaster_Master]

I haven’t read the rest of the thread, but I have to directly address the OP. Frankly, his arguments are based against some gross generalizations, mostly about Abrahamic faiths, and while they may be true for some, they are far from universally true.

@RickJay

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.

First of all, not all religions posit an omnipotent God, so that right there renders it moot. However, I do believe that, so I’ll go further.

I believe that, ultimately, religion doesn’t ask us to behave because of fear of punishment or hope for reward, but it instead tries to teach us why it is good or bad and that we do what is right simply because it is right. Just like there is moral progression for individuals, I think it generalizes to us as a people as well. Fear of punishment and hope for reward is the earliest stage of moral development, and it’s no wonder why it was a major deal in a lot of early religions. However, we can also see that the teachings of Christ, while he does mention heaven and hell often, start to focus on explaining why things are bad.

Moreso, I don’t believe in a heaven and hell as literal places, as such, motivation of eternal reward or punishment can’t possible serve as incentive for my behavior. My incentive at this point is that I believe in objective morality that guides my actions for the greatest good. I’m not sure that it’s objectively knowable, but I think it’s something that we can sample without too much difficult, and then we can establish good models of how to fit it as closely as.

In that sense, I see that that is also God’s motivation, the primary difference being that, because he is omniscient, he can know objective morality, as he knows the greatest good and is also able to know the series of actions that lead to it. I can only hope that he will help guide my choices to align as closely to it as I can.

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.

I don’t follow this at all. Sure, a rich teenager who gets a free car from his parents could drive recklessly because he knows he’ll just get a new one if he wrecks it, but it doesn’t mean that he’s somehow motivated to do that. The most important gift that we are given is free will and as an absolute necessity to that is life, as without existing we cannot make choices and exercise that will. Ending our lives short, by force, by choice, or by recklessness not only defiles our greatest gift, but removes our ability to live, to learn, to grow. If among our ultimate purpose is as much to simply exist, but also to learn and to grow, then our incentive isn’t that it doesn’t matter, but precisely that we should maximize it.

I certainly believe that I will not be disappointed with what awaits me after I die, but my life still has enormous value because it is the only way I can effect change in our consciousness. Hell, how many multi-millionaires have plenty of money to live comfortably the rest of their lives and yet continue to work, and work hard? They’re not motivated in stopping working even though a life in paradise could await them tomorrow if they retired today? How is that so much different from life?

3. 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.

If God is omniscient and omnipotent, it would be foolish to believe that he can be fully comprehended by a single person. We all have lessons we can teach to and learn from others. We can work together to create an environment that is conducive to learning and growing. This would be like saying that, because Republicans and Democrats fundamentally disagree on how a particular major problem should be handled, that because they could (not that they typically do) work together to find a solution, it somehow fundamentally invalidates both of their philosophies.

4. 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.

If I believed in hell, and certainly when I did, I would want to save people, but it does nothing to help convert people to behave that way. I don’t really need to proseletyze because I simply live my life the best that I can. Sure, I’m interested in talking about my beliefs, and I do in a situation like this, but I don’t do this with any expectation of converting anyway.

By living my life as best as I can, that inherently includes improving the lives of others. It also means that sometimes I talk with my friends and share my advice, ideas, or beliefs as relevant and maybe those touch their lives. Or other times, people see how I live, and sometimes even ask about it, and then I can explain my philosophies. That is, I do so indirectly, whereas screaming about it and beating it into people may work for some individuals, it mostly serves just to draw attention to oneself. In fact, Jesus warned against that very sort of thing with people making a public spectical of their prayers and such.
In short, it really sounds like the guy that the OP references is doing a terrible job of making the opposite argument to “all atheists are really just angry at God, so the only way to get back at him is to pretend really hard that he doesn’t exist”. Sure, there’s probably a few religious people who don’t believe in the way they think, just as I’m sure there are a few atheists who fit in that category as well, but painting with such a broad brush is just utterly ridiculous and probably counter-productive.

[kanicbird]

He simply ignores the ‘interactive God’ part of his argument. The partnership between man and God.

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.

God doesn’t demand good behavior, that is the devil, that is the world system, that is the laws we live by today. God knows who we are, and has accounted for our shortcomings. We make mistakes and are suppose to, we are the children, we make big messes, God is the one who cleans up. To get out of the devil’s world system all we have to do is say we are God’s children, we are too young not to make mistakes and we need God to clean us up and it’s done - eternal life.

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.

God also offers protection against harm, but yes there are times where we must trust Daddy with our lives.

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.

This also seems to contradict his argument in a strange way.

3. 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.

The correct path as I understand it is to seek God (or seek Love), any way you do that is your path to God. God promises that you will find Him if you seek.

4. 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.

It is God that has to save, not us, we don’t have that power. If God wants to use us for that purpose He will. But running around stating that God wants to save you is not the way.

[filmore]

You can’t compare risky choices people make like smoking to religious afterlife. One, risky choices often make for a more enjoyable life even though they have a small potential to shorten the person’s lifespan. And two, risky choices do not mean a person will follow a different path for all eternity. We all die. A person who does risky things may just die a little bit sooner. They are making the decision to have more fun in a shorter amount of time.

Religion, on the other hand, usually states that there are different paths you follow for all eternity. I may smoke because I enjoy it even though I may die a little sooner. But I wouldn’t smoke if it meant I would be tortured for all eternity.

It seems most people believe in religion the same way kids believe in Santa Claus. They take it at face value without examining the belief in any depth. If they do notice any inconsistencies, they come up with a quick rationalization and move on. Like, how does Santa deliver all the presents in one day? Timezones! Why does a 3-year-old die a painful death of brain cancer? God put sadness in the world so you’ll know happiness!

[David42]

@Lobohan

No, it isn’t. There aren’t any fulfilled prophecies. There are random, religious bullshit and people bending over backwards to attach the events of modern times to fit them.

It doesn’t show great judgement to be taken in by such things.

it doesn’t show the best of judgment to completely disregard them either.

It is hardly bending over backwards to note that John said Rome would become a quasi-religious power, and it did, that Rome would then say it could change God’s law, which it did. Those facts are plain on their face, that it was said, and then it happened.

Its not random bullshit–it is foreknowledge of the future. You dismiss it out of hand with no just cause.

This does not mean that some modern people aren’t bending over backwards to attach significance to everything as the fulfillment of prophecy–but a few idiots do not make all idiots.

[Lobohan]

@David42

it doesn’t show the best of judgment to completely disregard them either.

It is hardly bending over backwards to note that John said Rome would become a quasi-religious power, and it did, that Rome would then say it could change God’s law, which it did. Those facts are plain on their face, that it was said, and then it happened.

No, they didn’t. It is factual that there has never been a case of prophecy that has ever come to pass in detail. There are vague assertions that can be retroactively applied. But that is more a factor of a lot of people making bullshit vague assertions and a lot of people looking for any that can fit into their current world view.

Its not random bullshit–it is foreknowledge of the future. You dismiss it out of hand with no just cause.

I dismiss it because it doesn’t exist. If there were a case of actual prophecy (that was detailed and unambiguous) it might mean that some people could see the future, but that’s a far cry from assuming that it is evidence that a specific God exists.

In any case, there isn’t any prophecy, there are just needy people who really, really want it to be true.

This does not mean that some modern people aren’t bending over backwards to attach significance to everything as the fulfillment of prophecy–but a few idiots do not make all idiots.

Everyone who believes in prophecy is wrong, but that doesn’t make them idiots. It makes them victims of lies that religious people tell them.

[RickJay]

@Blake

Does Landsburg not understand that suicide is a major sin in Christianity, at the very least?

Once again, he doesn’t seem to have even a rudimentary understanding of the world’s major religion.

I think you make a lot of good points but here I’m sure either you didn’t read my OP very closely or that I phrased it poorly. Landsburg never suggests true believing Christians would be expected to commit suicide.

[David42]

@Lobohan

No, they didn’t. It is factual that there has never been a case of prophecy that has ever come to pass in detail. There are vague assertions that can be retroactively applied. But that is more a factor of a lot of people making bullshit vague assertions and a lot of people looking for any that can fit into their current world view.

I dismiss it because it doesn’t exist. If there were a case of actual prophecy (that was detailed and unambiguous) it might mean that some people could see the future, but that’s a far cry from assuming that it is evidence that a specific God exists.

In any case, there isn’t any prophecy, there are just needy people who really, really want it to be true.

Everyone who believes in prophecy is wrong, but that doesn’t make them idiots. It makes them victims of lies that religious people tell them.

there is nothing vague in the prophecies I speak of. It’s a literal cut and dried “will think to change God’s times and laws.” But I suppose you can pretend that you can’t understand that plain english because its too vague for you. I note you do not suggest any other alternative for what that could mean.

Your blanket assertions and overgeneralizations aren’t very convincing. That’s the whole point of debate–try to convince the other side.

[wonky]

@David42

there is nothing vague in the prophecies I speak of. It’s a literal cut and dried “will think to change God’s times and laws.” But I suppose you can pretend that you can’t understand that plain english because its too vague for you. I note you do not suggest any other alternative for what that could mean.

Your blanket assertions and overgeneralizations aren’t very convincing. That’s the whole point of debate–try to convince the other side.

I’m not familiar with the prophecies you speak of. Would you start a new thread (so we don’t trample all over RickJay’s) and give examples?

[Lobohan]

@David42

there is nothing vague in the prophecies I speak of. It’s a literal cut and dried “will think to change God’s times and laws.” But I suppose you can pretend that you can’t understand that plain english because its too vague for you. I note you do not suggest any other alternative for what that could mean.

Your blanket assertions and overgeneralizations aren’t very convincing. That’s the whole point of debate–try to convince the other side.

You are the one who isn’t citing what you’re asserting. Someone guessing some shit that later happened is coincidence or simply a reasoned prediction based on knowledge.

How about opening a new thread as jsgoddess suggests so you can attempt to prove your bald assertions?

[David42]

@Lobohan

You are the one who isn’t citing what you’re asserting. Someone guessing some shit that later happened is coincidence or simply a reasoned prediction based on knowledge.

How about opening a new thread as jsgoddess suggests so you can attempt to prove your bald assertions?

I already cited Revelation. I suppose I could go find a catholic chatecism if you are in serious doubt they thought to change God’s law. The bald assertions, showing no evidence that you have ever thoroughly contemplated the issue, are yours.

But I will open a thread.

[The_Peyote_Coyote]

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.

Not all religions believe in an omnipotent God. Furthermore, in my very limited understanding of Eastern religions, many people believe in reincarnation. They may be bad in this life and end up transmogrified as a cockroach in the next, but they ain’t goin’ to hell. Also, I believe that in The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Gibbons made the argument that the early Christians were in fact morally superior as a group to the pagans that surrounded them. He said that is because they were a small group surrounded by a hostile majority. Since I think you are a professional historian, RickJay, you would be in a much better position than I to evaluate this statement. If you’re confining Landsberg’s statement to Christianity, then remember: “The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.”

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.

There are other reasons to use safety precautions, such as one doesn’t want to go through life with a severed hand or spend six months in bed trying to recuperate from a bad fall. Also, one would have to explain why all atheists aren’t complete jellyfish, avoiding any activitiy that had a significant risk of death.

3. 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.

Some people, notably fundamentalist Christians like Jack Chick, vehemently condemn this trend, though. I would say this shoots a fatal hole through this part of Landsberg’s argument.

4. 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.

Would this statement apply to religions like Buddhism or Wicca?

Frankly, RickJay, it sounds to me like Landsberg is examining only the Christian religion and possibly the other Abrahamic religions. I also thinks he forgets that people aren’t rational.

[Little_Nemo]

@The_Peyote_Coyote

Would this statement apply to religions like Buddhism or Wicca?

Frankly, RickJay, it sounds to me like Landsberg is examining only the Christian religion and possibly the other Abrahamic religions. I also thinks he forgets that people aren’t rational.

It doesn’t even apply to many branches of Christianity. Some Christians believe that God has already chosen who will be saved and who will be damned. If so, what’s the motivation to proselytize?

[Sailboat]

@Blake

Which is it? Does God condemn people for being bad, or for being non-believers, or for both, or for either?

I think it’s pretty clear that some religions, at least, are all over the map on this. I know that churches I’ve attended were absolutely clear that God condemns people for being bad, or for being non-believers, or for both, or for either.

[Clothahump]

@RickJay

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.

Hmmm…sounds like an interesting book.

<heads off to Amazon>

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@RickJay

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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

He’s probably right but Christians tried the whole inquisition thing and it didn’t turn out so good. Sure if you really truly believed, you would cut off your right arm to save one more soul. What value does your right arm have in comparison to someone’s eternal soul? Just like a really pro-lifer would be bombing an abortion clinic every weekend after all, what is a few years in jail compared to the lives of all those innocent babies that are being murdered?

[mr.jp]

Hey, sorry for being late to this discussion, I missed the thread.

I have read all Landsburg books, and think he has a brilliant and interesting view of the world in many cases, including this one.

And it seems to me that most people in this thread are not fully understanding his argument. (Which is fair, since you have just read a summary of it.)

Many of you argue that people do things that are bad for them, even if they know that they are bad, and thus say that this invalidates (1). However, this is not correct. The point is not that people would completely stop doing things, if they knew there were potential bad consequences, the point is that they would do them somewhat less, than if they didn’t think there were any bad consequences. I think this is clearly true, and is it sufficient to back up his argument.

The same goes for arguments that religions don’t condemn you to hell necessarily for different acts, or that redemption is possible, etc. As long as religious people think that the expected negative value of their actions are larger than non-religious people do, then we would expect to see fewer of them performing these actions on average. And even though the theological tenets don’t ban you to hell necessarily for committing crimes, it is obviously implied that there is some negative effect of it. EG a higher risk of not getting into heaven, or being a target of god’s wrath or something.

He goes on to speculate that if you asked an average christian person whether the claims of his religion were true, and hypothetically fully convince him that the life of his child depended on gettting the answer to this question right, few of them would say yes. The thing is that in everyday life, introspection of these beliefs is not rewarded, and in many societies actually punished. So it makes sense for people not to think to hard about it, or reject them. However, if the stakes were raised, he believes that people will realize that they don’t really believe in the claims of their religion.

[Mangetout]

Blimey. The man’s arguments are those of an SDMB newbie. I was going to address them individually, but I see Blake has said pretty much everything I intended, so I’ll just agree with him - especially on the ‘incessant proseletyzers’ thing - it’s such a dimwitted argument - basically saying that panic is the only rational response to emergency.

[JKellyMap]

@mr.jp

Hey, sorry for being late to this discussion…

…And it seems to me that most people in this thread are not fully understanding his argument. (Which is fair, since you have just read a summary of it.)…

…Many of you argue that people do things that are bad for them, even if they know that they are bad, and thus say that this invalidates (1). However, this is not correct. The point is not that people would completely stop doing things, if they knew there were potential bad consequences, the point is that they would do them somewhat less, than if they didn’t think there were any bad consequences…

Thank you for this post! It makes the book’s premise sound much more reasonable. RickyJay summarized it well, also, but the important subtlelty you point out got lost in this discussion.

Even so, one could call the book’s main points a “strawman/Scotsman” argument, but that’s just pointless fiddling over semantics. If you want to define “religious” as applying to “someone who vaguely believes in God and a set of tenets because that’s what they grew up feeling comfortable thinking they believe, but if they took the time to examine those beliefs critically, and their own behavior in light of those beliefs, they wouldn’t be so sure…IF they could overcome the pressure they feel to keep a core of family/community/religious upbringing intact and unexamined*”, then fine, “religious” it is. The author’s point (I take it) is that there are good, practical reasons why “religious” probably isn’t the best word for this, though.

(*it dismays me how tightly so many people bind together in their minds religious self-identity with other, central parts of their vision of self, like “hometown” or “family”. This tight psychological binding can make them avoid even mild attempts at objective reflection on their “religious” beliefs, and to resent anyone else’s attempts to prod such reflection.)

[Sam_Stone]

@Indistinguishable

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.

I think this is an excellent point. Heart disease is a major killer of people, yet people still eat too much and exercise too little. People get fired from jobs they need to survive because they can’t control their impulses to surf the web, or stay up late and then sleep in, or whatever. People are weak, even in the face of consequences for their behavior that are severe.

Nonetheless, I generally agree with Landsburg, but I think I have a better example: The fact that modern religious organizations pick and choose the things from the bible they choose to treat as law, and ignore the rest. And their choices are generally based more on how they relate to society rather than how they relate to God.

I have a strange respect for fundamentalists, both Islamic and Christian. At least they are trying to follow their faith as written down in their religious documents. I think they’re wrong, and I think they’re dangerous, but at least they are being consistent. Intolerant? Absolutely. The Bible is intolerant. The Koran is intolerant. It’s true that the new Testament moderates that somewhat, but there are still a lot of rules about what people should do or be deemed unworthy of being in God’s presence.

Modern Christian religion is looking more and more like something Deepak Chopra would preach, and no one believes a word that moronic gasbag has to say. They just nod and smile because that’s what the cool kids do.

[GIGObuster]

@Shodan

I think it proves you don’t read very closely. The claim being refuted is that “there is no evidence religious people are better behaved than irreligious people”, which is false. Charitable giving is better behavior. Hence the cite.

Same for the rest. Try reading a little before you post.
Better than you did, apparently.

That reminds me of Dick Cheney and his charitable work, while commendable, I do get the feeling that there is an attempt at compensating for other dirty deeds.

I do think that you can find that many who claim to be religious and go to the motions are not really sincere, even Jesus noticed that.