Is it elitist to think some people need religion?
Offline So, I was reading the latest edition of The Skeptical Inquirer and in it, Richard Dawkins makes the statement that people who think that some people need to believe in God and that it would be cruel to take away their crutch, are elitist. The implication being that we think we are somehow better suited to live lives of reason than others who need faith.
"What patronizing condescension! You, and I, of course, are much too intelligent and well-educated to need religion. But ordinary people, hoi-polloi, the Orwellian proles, the Huxleyian Deltas and Epsilon semi-morons, need religion."
What do you think about that? I happen to be one of those people who think it is okay with leaving some people to their misguided beliefs if it makes them happy and if it appears that they are incapable of functioning without it. Religion is an addiction and as such this would be no different than giving methadone to a heroine addict. I also think that there are some people who are truly incapable of letting go of their beliefs. The brainwashing has just worked too deeply and for too long.
There are some people, like my mother and grandmother for instance, who have used faith as a crutch for so long that the limbs it supported have atrophied to the point of uselessness. Removing the crutch from them at this point won't make the limb any stronger. It will just cause them to fall flat on their faces. There are some people that are terrified of life without their imaginary friend looking out for them. If science proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that there were no God there would be mass-suicides and large groups of people who would still cling to this belief, incapable of renouncing it. That's just my feeling based, of course on purely anecdotal evidence from my own observations and experiences. What do you think?
"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, it takes religion."
- Steven Weinberg, Nobel Prize-winning physicist
- Login to post comments
Coming from a family of strong theists, I'm grappling with this idea myself. I could not possibly imagine my mother not believing in god.
However, she is such a strong person.
I think there would be a period of intense mental disturbance, in which some people would invariably kill themselves. Would this make the idea of removing the false belief in a supernatural god undesirable?
I'm not sure. Though I suspect it should not be a deterrant. I have become very angry at how religious views corrupted my view on reality and feel extremely bitter against religion. I do not feel depressed. So at least in a person of a similar mindset as myself, it should be challenged to try and have it removed. I find this idea to be extremely complicated question to find an answer to in the case of the general population though.
I'll probably ponder on it for at least several more years.
"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci
Nobody needs religion,they are just told and/or taught to think so.
I didn't need religion. In fact, I had no idea that people actually believed in God untill I was 16. I had always thought the idea of Gods were strictly part of games.
You could view religion as an addicting drug, and as such it would be very hard for some people to free themselves from it.
"What right have you to condemn a murderer if you assume him necessary to "God's plan"? What logic can command the return of stolen property, or the branding of a thief, if the Almighty decreed it?"
-- The Economic Tendency of Freethought
I suspect (but this is pure speculation) the idea that "some people need religion" is something people say when they don't have the heart to deconvert someone they care about. I remember when I had a strong belief in god and when I would get emotional when those beliefs were attacked by people who weren't me.
People who say this would probably just prefer not have the responsibility of debating the person they are saying this about. It's reasonable that they wouldn't want someone they care about to become upset.
For that reason, I'd suggest the socratic method, since it seems to help people analyze their deeply held beliefs without becoming upset about it. It makes them feel like they put it together themselves rather than being attacked.
I don't believe people really NEED religion, but I don't think people who say this are elitist either. They might just be worried about the emotions of theists they are close to.
Pure speculation.
A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.
I think we all obviously agree with that. That sort of misses the point. The point is that after someone has been taught and thoroughly convinced that they need religion, detoxing from it is often quite painful and depressing and for some even impossible. Is it elitist to think that some people do not have the intellectual and/or emotional courage and strength for such a traumatic experience?
Like all addictive behaviors, there is an emotional dependency linked to a strong psychological need. The euphoria believers experience in church has been llikened to a cocaine high. The emotional comfort that some xtians feel believing that the creator of the universe listens to their prayers is one many would kill or die before giving up.
We have all had the experience of arguing a xtian into a corner only to have them ignore every argument and staunchly refuse to disbelieve. It is not uncommon for a Xtian to become combative, violent, tearful, and desperately confused when they run out of arguments and cease to make sense even to themselves, fighting desperately to hold onto their beliefs. Many come out of it okay. Most dif their heels in and refuse to believe a word of hwat you are saying even though they have no strong counter arguments simply because they cannot imagine living without their beliefs.
I'm sure many on this board have gone through this on their own roads to intellectual freedom. I'm sure we know many others who abandoned the journey unable to handle the stress of a world without the dream of God and heaven. Tolstoy is probably the most famous example of this and nutcases like Kirk Cameron, the most recent. Should we have dragged Tolstoy screaming into the light when he admittedly found the conclusions reason brought him to "Too horrible to contemplate"? Should I drag my mother and grandmother screaming into the light no matter how painful they might find teh experience? Or should I leave them in peace and concentrate on those who are perhaps not quite as brainwashed? Who have not been deluded for quite so long? Does suggesting that some people are unable to change make me an elitist?
"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, it takes religion."
- Steven Weinberg, Nobel Prize-winning physicist
Well, like I said before, I don't think it necessarily makes you an elitist; I think it just means that there are god-believers you care about. It's perfectly acceptable that you don't want people you care about to feel distress.
I'm sure there are Xians out there who will refuse to convert in the face of the most solid evidence, but we should try reasoning with the ones who seem reasonable.
For me, I think the most important thing is preventing the spread of religion and trying to keep it from passing on to new generations rather than trying to transform old believers into atheists.
I think atheists should focus on containing the virus before they focus on curing the virus. This involves promoting atheism as acceptable to the general public. It involves explaining that atheism is not a negative philosophy and is the most rational view (though theists seem to hate it when say so).
Unfortunately, this will involve some debate and some theists will get pissed off on the way. Changing minds was never easy. But in the meantime, if you don't want your grandmother to lose sleep over the idea that she might be wrong about something she's believed her entire life, then I'd say that's okay.
But in short, no, I don't think it necessarily means a person is being elitist.
A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.
I think there is a social framework that religion provides to many, and they see no secular alternative. Currently I'm still looking for an appropriate alternative we can offer theists, and even if I simply rejected any spiritual component, I see many who need one.
Is this elitist? Probably, but then again, we are different, we all have different needs to attend to.
A mystic is someone who wants to understand the universe, but is too lazy to study physics.
I think there might be a small minority of people who can't function without that crutch, just as there are people who can't function without methadone, to use someone else's analogy. I don't advocate taking the crutch away from people who need it. I don't even advocate taking it away from people who don't need it; as far as I'm concerned, people have a right to cripple themselves.
What I'm opposed to is people convincing their children and other adults that they are crippled and need the crutch.
I was thinking the other day that in order for atheism to gain mass-appeal and one day replace religion as the dominant ideology, it will have to satisfy the human need for a sense of community and provide that social framework. It may have to also appeal to the human need for ritual and adopt some of the trappings of religion. Perhaps with organized rational thought sessions where everyone meditates by logically working out some complex problem or a problem from their own lives or else everyone just learns how to think logically, because it is obvious that not everyone knows how.
I used to have this class in college called "Logic In Practice" where we would disect newspapers for logical fallacies. I thought then that you could turn that into a church service, dissecting political speeches or news releases for logical fallacies. A church where people actually left smarter than when they walked through the door. I'd attend that church.
In lieu of that, the internet and sites like this one, have actually done a respectable job of providing that sense of community.
"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, it takes religion."
- Steven Weinberg, Nobel Prize-winning physicist
Those are some good ideas, I wish we'll get to see them put in practice.
I think to answer this question we need a more honest look at what religion is. Most of us hate fundamentalism and recognise it as the ogre it is. Thing is, most of us here then go on to miss the point in what religion is.
If you want facts about the world then religion isn't helpful.
The thing is, while having accurate facts is important for some things in life there, there are much more things in life where fact is absolutely irrelevent.
Fundamentalists are a pain because they let their religion accept their 'facts', so when they approach practices that need 'fact' they are way off the mark.
Thing is, I think that some of us 'rationalists' think too much in terms of fact and start thinking that we should deal with all issues in terms of 'fact' and that consequently leaves us ill-equipped to deal with certain issues in life.
A book that I've found really interesting lately is The Hero with a Thousand Faces.
It starts by quoting Freud:
"The truths contained in religious doctrines are after all so distorted and so systematically disguised that the mass of humanity cannot recognise them as truth."
The book in general focuses on how the heroes from myths and legends are psychologically important to our lives. How they necessarily result from our attempts to grasp our humanity. Religious figures like Jesus, Buddha and Mohammed are looked at as well as other myths from all around the world.
I've certainly found it enlightening so far (I'm about half way through) in my attempt to understand what religion is.
It seems that many people on here treat religions as a set of 'facts' to compete with scientic fact, and I think that misses the point of religion completely.
Wrath, you've made a ton of good observations. I agree with Dawkins that thinking that some people are just "too weak" in the brain and need religion is pretty elitist. This argument, believe it or not, is actually a case of special pleading. Can you think of any other myth that we let people believe in because we think their brain isn't strong enough to deal with life otherwise? We tell people that cold feet don't cause colds, even though their grandmothers have sworn up and down that they do. We tell people that Columbus didn't actually discover America, and that he was a genocidal bastard, even though people have been celebrating the holiday since our grandmothers were alive.
The point is, if someone is going to claim that we should just let the myth of religion be, they must provide some evidence that it is beneficial to do so. I know of no such evidence. All I've ever heard is the speculation that it would devastate somebody's grandmother. Oddly enough, I have known hundreds of people who used to believe in god, and they seem to be substantially better than "devastated."
Without actual evidence, the argument that we should let religion be in the case of particularly weak minded people is bollocks, and special pleading to boot.
The problem is that atheism isn't an ideology. It's a lack of one. You're absolutely correct that something will have to replace religion for community and social framework. The thing is, it's not that difficult to imagine.
Christmas - celebration of a year of life. Winter solstice. Getting the family together and putting decorations on a tree, but no manger scenes or angels... maybe family photos cleverly put into ornaments.
Easter - who needs it. What would be fun is to get back to the fertility rites from whence it came, but I don't see Americans, at least, ever being ok with their genitals... too much religious nonsense for too long.
Halloween is lots of fun, and we've pretty much already forgotten its religious origins. It's just about dressing up now.
What would people do weekly? How about just making Sunday dinner and having the whole family do that thing... what's that thing that people used to do before reality tv... umm...
Talking! That's it... .talking!
Anyway, you get my point. People don't need to believe in a sky daddy to have rituals. In fact, Joseph Campell, the preeminent expert on myths, used to say that he believed western culture was lacking in ritual. We've got tons of religion, but precious little ritual anymore. Flipping that around would probably be beneficial.
It's as if you already thought of everything I was going to say.
I think some atheists get their panties in a twist at the thought of anything ritualized, but that's just an overreaction to the rituals associated with religion.
Again, I need to stress that atheism itself will not make this happen. Atheism is simply the disbelief in gods. People's need for ritual will create rituals with or without religion. <<<<<<<<<(That's a very important sentence! Re-read it if it didn't seem important the first time.)
I agree. We do our best to use the internet to get people together in real life, too. We organize meetups and such with the hope that atheists can find each other and form the kinds of communities that will help accomplish some of what you've been talking about.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
I really don't see it as any different than saying some people can't act, play piano or write novels or fight in a boxing ring for that matter. I'm not sure how one would gather evidence of people falling apart because of a lack of religious belief since it is typically the other things in their lives that tear them apart, loneliness, feelings of worthlessness, heartache, various failures, a general sort of existential malaise. Things that one must admit religion does address. That's why AA programs and their ilk push belief in a higher power as part of their cure all. It is a desirable fantasy with a definite narcotic effect. I would say that given the inescapable evidence that there is at least a strong psychological need for religious belief, evidenced by the historical anthropological evidence, we must consider the possibility that there may indeed be some who could not function as well without it after having been absorbed in it for a lifetime.
Of course, I would prefer to believe that all drug addicts are better off without the drug, but once the addiction has reached an advanced stage I'm not sure that's always true or even possible. I have observed in drug addicts who started self-medicating at an early age, that their normal coping mechanisms for stress are almost non-existent. They tend to freak out over the slightest thing because drugs had insulated them from having to deal with everyday stress for so long. It is as if their emotional development arrested at the age they started using. I have observed the same thing in faith-addicts. As you said, I think there needs to be more research before anyone could make a realistic determination. And I think erring on the side of caution is probably wisest in the interim.
But there are ideologies that do lead most people to atheism. There are basic beliefs on what constitutes a good life, how wisdom is acheived. There is an acceptance of science which seems automatic but, given that there are others who put greater credibility in faith and magic, has to be counted as part of an overall ideology. There is an almost unanimous acceptance of human beings as the highest intelligence on earth, though there are still some atheists that still believe there may be some sort of higher intelligence. I don't really consider those individuals atheists though. That said, there's a lot of ideology there to build a philosophy around with all the trappings of a religion.
I think that whatever atheism evolves into will have to be more than a few holidays. It would have to give people an excuse to get together every week in some sort of communal activity.
And I agree that atheism itself won't create any sort of rituals. I agree as well that it is not an ideology in itself though it is driven by ideology. I do think that it would go far if atheism, like Budhism, could evolve into a ritualized practice, though I do see the danger of it evolving into a dogmatic belief system much like Budhism has.
Wow. It almost sounds like I'm defending the faithful. Trust me, I am not. I find the human need to believe the impossible and the illogical rather pathetic and I would love to believe that every one of us was capable of renouncing religion. That's generally how I behave. I'm not typically one to cut believers much slack. I don't really believe in respecting erroneus beliefs. This is a bit different. This is just about letting the incurable continue to medicate themselves until they pass peacefully into oblivion. I know the danger of that tactic is that it might cause us to neglect people who might be capable of shedding their fantasies and living better lives as a result. I do believe we could all be faith-free in as little as one generation. All it would take is for this generation to not pass their disease onto the next. Wishful thinking at this point.
"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, it takes religion."
- Steven Weinberg, Nobel Prize-winning physicist
I actually disagree with this.
I think that what we all have to do is take a step back and remember why we value truth and what part it plays in our lives. When we look at how will live our lives, we see that literal truth is sometimes appropiate and has purposes but sometimes it is irrelevent.
An obvious example is a joke.
Someone who says "but that wouldn't really happen" to a joke is clearly missing the point. Religion isn't so obvious as it blurs the lines between fantasy and reality, but if you look between the lines of a religious practice you can see whether someone can handle the blurring. Some practitioners take their religious truth 'literally', i.e. they hold the statement that made sense in the context of religious ceremony/practice to hold at all times, and therefore let it contaminate their 'real world' beliefs. That's the problem of fundamentalism.
However, most people are able to detach their religious practice from contaminating their everyday beliefs. It's often said that many believers are rational people who apply reason to everywhere else in their lives except their religion. That's because part of the purpose of the religious practice is to let go from reason and let the practice transform their experience of life for a little while. These are the majority of modern practitioners who recognise the value in their practice but also recognise that these religious beliefs of these aren't literal absolutes. Religion is about facing the turmoil and mysteries of the first person human perspective and they thereby see religious beliefs justified as how they help us on this journey, they talk of us climbing up the same mountain, just each of us finding a different path up it.
Religion is a problem when it meets politics, but I think to criticise a person's own religious approach to life just because it isn't a 'literalistically true' view on the world, well I just think that's a little square and that it forgets why literal truth is of value to us in the first place!
yes, basic religion is Elitist, always was, always will be. RELIGION is man made.
A high moral caring master of the cosmos? GOD ?
So why war ?
The only law , the only answer is LOVE, only LOVE, if peace is what you seek.
Thing is, the rich rulers don't want peace.
Religion is a crafty scam, ....ever watch the sheep from a hill top?
I worship only The 'Fun God' .....
Hey, just trying to help bro, little me .....
Atheism Books.
Are you high?
I'm not making a judgment, just asking a question.
You seem... um... high.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
I've heard a few theists say that if they were to somehow learn, beyond any doubt, that there is no god, they'd immediately start murdering, raping, and pillaging everything in sight. Because, why the hell not?
Now, I don't think the morality of all theists is that delicate. In fact, I suspect they're probably the exception rather than the rule. But for those unfortunate few whose only motivation for socially acceptable behavior is their religious beliefs... Yeah, for the protection of the rest of us, it's probably better to let them keep their delusions.
We watch "Way of the Master" so you don't have to.
Visit us on MySpace!
This idea puts the onus of deconversion on the next generation. It's got to stop somewhere and quite frankly, I'm pissed off my mother wasn't "strong" enough. I refuse to believe I'm any stronger than she is. It does, however, make a convenient excuse for those who don't want to go through the upheaval.
I was as ingrained in religion as anyone in our society could possibly be: church, school, home. I never got a peek outside the bubble until I was eighteen.
Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
I never believe a Christian when they say this.
They're in "say what an awful person they would be without Jesus" mode. They're not even thinking about what they'd really be like without God, they're just in "Advertise My Religion" mode of mindset where they chuck out abstract arguments.
That said, I think there is something genuine in the effect that religion has on people. It has a psychological effect that can be a real benefit to their personality. While religious belief might have it's downsides, particularly fundamentalist, it can also liberate people from other human flaws.
He's high on life, man...
Hopefully, the experience and not the cereal.
Or he could be a little high on pantheism...
Is that it? Is that what you crazy kids are doing these days?
-Triften
Lots of good points in this thread, but most of them are completely irrelevant to the question of whether or not someone who thinks that certain people can't break free of religion is an elitist.
Everyone has strengths and weaknesses. It's not elitist to observe that you have strengths that others do not, or to observe that others have weaknesses that you do not. It is elitist to think that you are a better person than the people you're comparing yourself to as a result of those strengths and weaknesses and to feel pride or priviledge as a result. What the strengths and weaknesses are, or whether they are real or imagined, makes no difference as to whether or not the elitist label applies.
~sigh~
Ok. Minor rant. We need to live up to the standards we set for theists. I'm pointing the finger at myself, too. OP's original questions:
1. Are we elitists? "[Do] we think we are somehow better suited to live lives of reason than others who need faith[?]"
2. What do we think of this quote?
"What patronizing condescension! You, and I, of course, are much too intelligent and well-educated to need religion. But ordinary people, hoi-polloi, the Orwellian proles, the Huxleyian Deltas and Epsilon semi-morons, need religion."
3. (This question was implicit) Do we believe that religion should be taken away from everyone?
4. (Also implicit) Do we believe there are people who could not function without religion?
5. (Implicit) Do we think there would be mass suicides if there was conclusive proof of no god?
6. Do we think that many people would cling to belief even if there was proof that it was wrong?
First, definitions. Let's be clear about what we're talking about, ok?
Elitism:
1.practice of or belief in rule by an elite.
No. most Atheists are not elitists. Most atheists would like the entire population to be smarter, which flies in the face of elitism, which would rather not have everyone be as smart as the rulers.
2.consciousness of or pride in belonging to a select or favored group.
Yes. Most atheists are conscious of and proud of being in "The Few, The Smart, The Rational." As for favored, I doubt it. Favored by whom? Other atheists? Seems silly. There aren't enough of us to confer any real benefit with our favor.
3. The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources.
I'd guess that most atheists believe that being an atheist confers its own special benefits. Rationality is the best way to acheivement, most of them would probably say. So, this would be a resounding NO. Do atheists believe they are elite because they are better suited to live their lives? Yes. However, this doesn't address whether we believe that others could be as rational (elite) as us, or if they're hopelessly tied to religion.
4. The sense of entitlement enjoyed by such a group or class.
Ruling class my ass. We'd like to not be kicked out of PTA meetings before we talk about political office.
************
Ok. We've got the definition we want, I think. The OP seems to want to know if we believe that there's a concrete difference between atheists and theists, not whether we believe in a political ideology.
[RANT OFF]
Here are my answers to the questions from the OP.
1. Yes. We are elitists. We believe that we are better suited to live our lives than theists. I do not agree with the implicit statement that some people need faith. I addressed this in my first response above.
2. Horse-hockey. Some very intelligent people are religious. It's something beyond intelligence that keeps people in religion. I have opined at length about this. Read one of my essays HERE.
3. Yes. The world would be better off without any religion.
4. Yes. I believe there is a small (very small) number of people, maybe a tenth of a percent or so, who simply cannot function without religion. We call them "Bat Shit Crazy" and that's why we make drugs and institutions. No, I'm not advocating putting theists in the looney bin. I'm saying that psychologically, a very small proportion of theists are insane, and would flip the fuck out without religion.
5. No. 99% of theists would adapt perfectly well to non-theism. The human mind is very adaptable, and we do what we have to for survival -- instinctually. There would be some suicides, but not many. Like I said above, it would weed out the gullible from the truly crazy.
6. There IS proof that the Christian god doesn't exist, and millions cling to it.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism