Whence the atheist superficiality about other people's religiousness?
- Thread starter wynn
- Start date
If you tell me that you believe in anything then I take that as what you believe.
Does the same hold of atheism?
Or is there a standard for a "real" atheist?
Or is there a standard for a "real" atheist?
I noted this elsewhere:
When a person shows up at your door, claiming to be your long lost father - do you just take this person's word for it, and don't claim otherwise?
Or when someone you meet at the supermarket claims to be a doctor and gives you medical advice - do you just believe them, with no concern about their expertise and credentials?
Probably not. Probably, you seek some proof of their expertise first, before taking them seriously.
But why not do the same with those who claim to be religious?
When a person shows up at your door, claiming to be your long lost father - do you just take this person's word for it, and don't claim otherwise?
Or when someone you meet at the supermarket claims to be a doctor and gives you medical advice - do you just believe them, with no concern about their expertise and credentials?
Probably not. Probably, you seek some proof of their expertise first, before taking them seriously.
But why not do the same with those who claim to be religious?
I'd think that what I stated holds true for anyone I meet but that doesn't mean it holds true for everyone because everyones different and will change their minds as well.
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
You're apparently suggesting that there's some significance to the phrase "is religious" that eludes many/all atheists. Something that goes beyond mere assertions of one's own religiosity.
Maybe some atheists don't acknowledge this thing because they don't share the idea that religion should be something more. (Whatever that something is.)
I guess that I'd say that religion is kind of like a rope, composed of numerous semi-distinct strands --
There's belief in propositional doctrines of a world-viewish sort and often about super-mundane realities. There's personal practice, both inward and outward. There's often some ideal of personal transformation. There may be ideas of salvation, of transcendental escapes from life's suffering and from the certainty of ultimate death. There will probably be a social practice dimension, probably including groups performing ritual actions. There may be an assumption that religious practice influences individual and community flourishing here in this life. There's likely an aesthetic dimension. There's almost certainly going to be a difficult-to-describe emotional aspect, all the sometimes overwhelming feelings that accompany religiosity. And obviously there's a critically important ethical dimension in most cases.
Religion probably isn't so much an essence as it's a family-resemblance deal. Perhaps few individual instances of religiosity display all of these aspects, certainly not equally. But individual examples display enough of them that they resemble religion and are identified as such.
So, who is really religious and who isn't? It's a question that atheists should probably take some interest in, for sociological reasons at least.
Maybe I'd say that a person becomes more religious the more of these aspects that they display. (Adjusted for their particular tradition, which may emphasize some and deemphasize others.) And maybe more important, a person becomes more religious as these aspects become more central in their lives and the focus of their daily activities.
Last edited:
Because it's a strange thing to lie about? I don't know. Do you think many atheists claim they are religious? Well i guess certain jobs requires you to be religious, so there's an incentive. Jobs like... say... being the President of the United States.
Can you define what it is to be "religious"? Are there specific documents that one must hold, as in the case of your example (e.g. for being a medical doctor)?
As it usually is if one wishes to take the "religious" person seriously, in my experience.
Unfortunately there is little in the way of specific qualifications or documents one needs to demonstrate their "religious" nature, and thus greater importance is placed on what they say rather than their claim of being religious.
But if you can suggest a means of identifying a religious person beyond them merely claiming, and also give an approved/trustworthy authority that can certify their "religious" claim such that others know a minimum standard of understanding in the matter, then please feel free to detail it?
Until then we only have their word, which makes it rather meaningless as a title, and thus focus is placed on what they say rather than their self-claimed authority.
Who says they do?
In my view the most vociferous religionists often appear to be the least likely candidates deserving of being given any credence in their self proclaimed religiosity or demostrate any of the behaviours and values that one should expect to see based on scriptural teachings.
when was the last time you saw Pat Robertson behave like a christian? or George W Bush? or Ted Haggard?
It makes me wonder how denominations view eachother and also how religions think about eachother... I mean all religious people believe that theirs is the right faith. So all the other faiths must be wrong. Is it not hard to take people from other faiths seriously, when you know that they are mistaking?
If we should all be skeptical of someone's claims to be religious, should we not all be equally skeptical when someone goes out there claiming to speak on behalf of divinity?
Yes.
Yes.
Yes. They should probably have a better idea of what and whom it is that they are against.
When atheists set out with rebuttals of theism, they not rarely use polls and statistics to support their arguments against theism.
(A favorite atheist argument against theism is that the majority of the prison population is religious, therefore, there is a connection between greater religiosity and crime.)
But how reliable are such polls and statistics? Do they really say anything about a person's actual religiosity?
Like you mentioned elsewhere, in polls, American Italians and Irish will likely answer they are Catholics, even if they haven't been to church or prayed for decades.
So atheists would do themselves and their intellectual integrity a big favor to learn more about religiousness.
Absolutely.
Of course.
Moreover, people get excommunicated or shunned from their churches daily. And from the perspective of the congregation which excommunicated or shunned them, that person is not religious at all.
Yet atheists would sometimes, if not often, count such a person as religious anyway.
Such phenomena complicate statistics on religiosity, and bring up questions on how useful they are.
Do you think that ''being religious'' occurs purely on ones say so?
Or do you think ''being religious'' is a required action?
jan.
Would you believe the person was your long lost father?
Or would you require further proof?
Someone could think they are religious, but not actually be?
jan.
In individual religious traditions, there usually are standards and degrees by which a person's religiosity can be measured.
To impose external standards to measure something specific to a particular group or area of expertise (such as religiosity) is artificial, though.
I think this is a bit simplistic.
It is common for people to operate out of notions of varying degree or hierarchy (e.g. "A and B are both doctors, but A is a more competent doctor than B").
When several people claim or imply to be religious, it wouldn't be fair to lump them all into the same category, as if there would be no differences in their spiritual attainment, competence and whichever other factors may be relevant.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Because it is of personal importance whether or not it is indeed your father.
Not so with someone that claims that his favorite color is blue or that his religion is Christianity. Unless there are suspicious circumstances, what reason would anyone have for not believing that?
Why is this in "Religion"?