How to Talk About Religion

The rule is “don’t talk about Religion, money, or politics at the dinner table.” Why? These discussions become really heated and the atmosphere becomes tense. So I will talk here about how to talk about these issues without the consequences.

You have to know the purpose of your “talk”. You can either “discuss” or “argue”. You should argue only if the person is willing—and wanting—to change his mind. So, for example, you would not argue with a fundamentalist Christian—you would not change their mind. “like giving medicine to the dead”.

The key is finding whether you want to discuss or argue. Discussing means you share your opinions with the goal of learning the other person’s point of view. The goal here is not to have your worldview validated, but to learn something. Here, watch out for the trap of turning it into an argument by countering their opinion with which you disagree. So the only response to the other person’s beliefs should be a question clarifying their view (not a challenge). I will argue that discussion also serves the purpose of persuasion without heightening the tension. To argue means to counteract the other person’s statements, or to attack. This includes playing the devil’s advocate.

It is easy to fall into the trap of turning a discussion into an argument, so you have to always be aware of your purpose and keep it in mind with every statement you make. Being more knowledgeable about religion puts you into the position of power, so it is easy to slip into the trap of gaining control of the discussion and countering every statement the other person makes—which builds tension. It’s like ego masturbation, so you’ve got to cut off the discussion, possibly by bringing awareness to what you are doing (arguing). “Hey, I just realized that this is an argument, but I just wanted to discuss the topic”. This statement can serve as a natural transition to talking about the difficulty of keeping the boundary between the two.

You should never argue, even if your goal is to persuade the person. Arguing with your friends is never a good idea. Argument is an attack on the person (I’m doubting if there is ever a reason to argue with friends), which, even if you win, hurt their self-esteem. And you don’t want o hurt your friend’s self-esteem, so if you win the argument, you both loose. The guiding principle should be love, and you should never attack. People are not computers that respond to evidence. People are emotional beings and do not respond to reason. Persuasion should take the form of simply stating your belief, and not arguing about it. So the most effective method to persuade somebody is to simply state your belief—even if they do agree, they have heard you and it will weight in with the other factors on which their belief depends (such as the benefits that come with believing in it). You’ve got to be humble and accept that most of the time—in fact never (how many times have you won an argument?, none, because of self-serving bias)—you will not immediately change somebody’s belief (because of other factors that the person takes into account). To believe you alone should be enough to change somebody’s belief is presumptuous, arrogant, and naïve. Once each of you took a turn stating your beliefs, you should stop and move on to another topic (such as why it is so hard to talk about religion).

You should discuss

In a discussion, you should never tell the person that they are wrong. Say, “I believe that… because of…” And if you find that they are defending themselves, and you are going back and forth, you are arguing, and so you should stop immediately.

The very existence of atheists is an attack on religion. Religion holds a certain worldview (God exists) as true, and atheists deny it (God does not exist). Saying that there is no god to a religious person is like saying that his wife is ugly.

Teapot in the Sky

This is the origin of the blog title. Russell’s argument in an article titled “Is There a God?” in 1952:

Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

In 1958 Russell elaborated on the analogy as a reason for his own atheism:

I ought to call myself an agnostic; but, for all practical purposes, I am an atheist. I do not think the existence of the Christian God any more probable than the existence of the Gods of Olympus or Valhalla. To take another illustration: nobody can prove that there is not between the Earth and Mars a china teapot revolving in an elliptical orbit, but nobody thinks this sufficiently likely to be taken into account in practice. I think the Christian God just as unlikely. 

Why Do People Choose Religious?

"All thinking men are atheists."

- Ernest Hemingway

Are Religious People Stupid? In short, no. There are religious people who are some of the most intelligent people on the planet, e.g., Francis Collins, author of The Language of God. However, intelligent people don't always use their intelligence, and their belief is often influenced by psychosocial factors. For example, I once was misled into attending a pyramid-scheme business called AmWay (formerly Quixtar). After realizing that this was a scam, to my surprise I saw a UC Berkeley graduate there. She wasn't there because she is not intelligent, but because she is human. She is susceptible to the same needs and wants as every other human. However, simply being intelligent is different from using that intelligence to reach sound conclusions. Therefore, she wasn't thinking with her head, and can you blame her?

Is Atheism a Religion?

To show their contempt for Atheists, who challenge the religious folks’ strong-held beliefs, Christians dismissively call atheism "a mere religion". Let’s think about this for a second... People who identify themselves as religious despise another group of people who, as they claim, are also religious? This seems oxymoronic (on the second thought, maybe not, considering how Christians view Islam, for example). Maybe it satisfies them to think that since they don’t know what they are talking about, those who challenge them also don’t know what they are talking about. Or, more likely, it is that they think that their religion is the only true religion and that all other religions are wrong, and therefore by calling atheism a religion they can dismiss it like they do all other religions. So it is clear that calling atheism a religion categorizes it with all the other religions, but what is so threatening to them to accept atheism as being not a religion? So what does it mean to call atheism a religion, or, in other words, why is it so important for religious people to believe that atheism is a religion? Maybe accepting atheism as not being a religion puts it completely outside of the realm of faith, making it require an explanation, poses a challenge for them to disprove it, since, if it is not a religion, then it must be grounded in reason. Reason is hard to refute, and religious people just can not tolerate with any sound view that challenges their beliefs. Or maybe it’s merely because atheists are a minority, and as is the case with all minorities, they are discriminated against. But whatever the reason is for atheism to be called a religion, it is necessary to refute this fallacious belief. Let me tell you why atheism is not a religion. It is because religion, in its most liberal sense, involves the belief in supernatural power. Atheism, quite simply, lacks this belief. But furthermore, religion also includes a set of beliefs about the creation, nature, purpose, and the end of the universe, as well as beliefs about morality, the meaning of our existence, and what will happen to us when we die. In contrast to these set of beliefs, although some atheists have adopted secular philosophies, such as Secular Humanism or Buddhism, there is no one ideology or set of behaviors to which all, or even most atheists adhere.

It is absurd to call atheism a religion just as it is absurd to call “bald” a hair color and a-unicornism (the lack of a belief in unicorns) a religion. In logic you don’t have to prove the negative, that is, prove the non-existence of something for which there is no evidence, such as god, or even unicorns. Nobody would say, “you can’t prove that unicorns exist, therefore they exist”, much less saying that not believing in unicorns—and, more strongly, even believing that there are no unicorns—makes it a religion. That is absurd in the same way as calling atheism a religion is absurd. But the point here being that the burden of proof is on those who claim that something is true, such as the claim that god exists, and not on those who claim the opposite (god does not exist), because there is simply no evidence to support that claim.

Some claim that not only do atheists simply lack the belief in god, but they also hold the belief that there is no god (there is a difference) so strongly that this (dis)belief makes atheism a religion. Others believe that the belief in god is so obvious, that one needs a religion, or faith, to believe otherwise. This, of course is a delusional viewpoint, since it is the belief in god that requires faith, not the absence of the belief. “They believe in the absence of god just as we believe in the presence of god,” they say (without paying attention to the reason that logic doesn’t require you to prove a negative). However, although it may be the case with some who claim to be atheists, I have yet to meet a self-proclaimed atheist who believes that there is no god with the same fervor and certainty as a self-proclaimed religious person believes that there is god. In other words, the vast majority of atheists do not assert that there is a 100 percent chance that there is no god, maybe 99.99 percent chance, but not 100. Anybody who believes in anything 100 percent is wrong. Atheists do not, and this, you might say, technically makes them agnostics.

In conclusion, Christians think atheism is a religion because atheists are sometimes as steadfast as religious people about holding on to their belief, and sometimes atheists are not open to other opinions. This only proves that religious people are either too stupid to understand atheists’ argument or even reason in general, or they are simply too arrogant to pay attention to it, and so they only focus on the atheists’ unwillingness to see their point of view. So to a Christian anyone who disagrees with them zealously—doesn't matter the reason—is religious. Problem solved. Bam!

So what reasons do people give for calling atheism a religion? They say it is similar to religion. It is clear to see that this is a straw man argument. Instead of actually addressing what religion means, they bend its definition to something much more general and then compare atheism to that general definition, which is far from what the word “religion” actually means. They don’t acknowledge that there is actually no clearly defined philosophy, or set of beliefs, common to all or even most atheists.

A slightly different yet no less important topic: why is religion so widely accepted, despite the lack of empirical evidence? To the question of why so many people seem to need a god, Stephen Hawking, the greatest scientific mind of our time, replied, "People want to think there is something they can relate to and which can make them feel they are not isolated but are part of a larger whole." Religion emerges from the need to belong. It is perpetuated by receiving confirmation from other believers as well as by confirmation bias, a very common error in thinking that occurs when we selectively notice or focus upon evidence which tends to support the things we already believe or want to be true while ignoring that evidence which goes against those beliefs or ideas. It is a defense mechanism wired into us to protect our self esteem. An extreme version of confirmation bias is when someone denies having any flaws. In addition, confirmation bias is especially liberally applied by religious people because religious belief does not require empirical evidence. As Mark Twain put it, "if it is a Miracle, any sort of evidence will answer, but if it is a Fact, proof is necessary." They are not aware that personal revelation is not acceptable evidence to prove a fact. Thus, religious people use selective evidence to confirm their beliefs. For example, using only stories of people who were "saved" because they turned to god after being addicted to drugs as evidence of the existence of god is using a selective sample of all people who ever did drugs, because there are those who turned to god and did not get better and others who quit using drugs and are leading a happy life without turning to god. This is not even to mention the false assumption of a causal relationship between turning to god and being "saved".

As for me, all thinking men are atheists (but not all atheists are thinking men). I view the belief in god as the belief in all other superstitious entities, such as unicorns, Santa Clause, and the flying spaghetti monster—they are very likely to be false, impossible to disprove, and delusional to believe in.

A Letter to My Pastor

Dear Pastor Gary,

When I tell my religious friends about the Tierrasanta Seventh-day Adventist Church, they are, at best, skeptical about my description of your views and approaches to leading service. I told them that my pastor does not believe in Satan or Hell, accepts the Bible as the work of men, does not take the Bible literally, believes in evolution, and his sermons are brief and humorous. Some of them even visited the church to either marvel at or confirm these assertions.

I have been attending Tierrasanta for over four years, and I wish to express my admiration for your open-mindedness that is so rare in religious circles. Your enlightened views are precisely what kept me coming to Tierrasanta. I view your message as being parallel to that of Thomas Paine, who writes in The Age of Reason, "I believe in the equality of man; and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavoring to make our fellow-creatures happy." I agree with much of Jesus' word and what you profess in your sermons; but I also agree with Douglas Adams when he asked, "Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?" Those fairies being the 28 fundamental beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist Church as well as any form of dogmatic faith in general.

You are a follower of Christ—you promote love and kindness towards those around us, read Bible scholars, and accept scientific evidence. You tell us the Lord wants us to use Reason as our guide. "Come now, let us reason together," says the Lord in Isaiah 1:18. But with so many of your views being based on Reason, I frankly can not fathom that you are a pastor or a Christian. I stand by Benjamin Franklin, who said, "The way to see by Faith is to shut the eye of Reason." By professing faith you contradict your message. Remaining a pastor—regardless of the message—is engendering the acceptance of religious dogma worldwide. In addition to going against the advance of the Enlightenment, identifying oneself as a Christian—or with any other system of beliefs—ostracizes those identifying with other or no beliefs.

I really think that you retain the position of a pastor so as to have the trust of the congregation to remove in them the sense of guilt and fear that their religion instills in them. You tell us, “Don’t worry if you are saved for it is the Father's great pleasure to let you into the Kingdom,” and in the words of St. Paul in Romans 13:8, "He who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law." As you said, the Bible is summarized in the aforementioned verses. You remind me of somebody claiming to be a psychic, who knows that he does not possess supernatural powers but justifies his deception to himself by believing that he does good through satisfying certain human desires, such as interacting with a deceased loved one or knowing the future, etc. Whereas in fact, he is promoting a distorted view of the world—as a place where miracles that defy the laws of nature are possible—leading them further from reality. By remaining a pastor you promote delusions, even if you yourself don’t accept all of the 28 Fundamental Beliefs, etc.

The Bible was written and rewritten by men to the people of their time, hundreds of years ago. Why then don't you seize using the Bible as a guide to deny things that promote fear and guilt and simply admit that the Bible is not a reliable source of knowledge? People are capable of leading secular lives while adhering to "the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man" (Thomas Jefferson, on the moral teachings of Jesus) without being caged by fear, believing in miracles, and inadvertently stifling social and scientific progresses while imposing on the rights of fellow human beings. Wasn't this the reason why Thomas Jefferson wrote The Jefferson Bible?

I honestly do not see what is holding you back from renouncing Christianity, if you are indeed a Christian, as you claim. Does retaining your career as a pastor and your public image really worth the price of misleading the credulous masses? As Carl Sagan, the great American astronomer, wrote, "It goes with a courageous intent to greet the universe as it really is, not to foist our emotional predispositions on it [as religion does] but to courageously accept what our explorations tell us." I understand the pressures that could prevent you from leaving the Church: the embarrassment of admitting the falsehood of a long-held belief, the feelings of betrayal from family and the congregation, among others. But this act of renunciation of faith would be of even greater courage in the face of these adversities—courage that our world so desperately needs in promoting Reason—and not superstition—as our guide.

Sincerely,

Daniel

Is Religion Compatible With Science?

"Science investigates; religion interprets. Science gives man knowledge, which is power; religion gives man wisdom, which is control. Science deals mainly with facts; religion deals mainly with values. The two are not rivals."
-- Martin Luther King, Jr.

"Science can only determine what is, but not what shall be, and beyond its realm, value judgments remain indispensable. Religion, on the other hand, is concerned only with evaluating human thought and actions; it is not qualified to speak of real facts and the relationships between them."
-- Albert Einstein

As the two quotes point out, science and religion have two different non-overlapping functions. This is a normative view, explaining what the case is ought to be rather than what it is. Religion is compatible with science only as long as it does not make claims regarding the value judgments of the physical nature of the Universe.

Does religion even have the ability to answer questions regarding the nature of the Universe? The Bible was written over a period of 1400 to 1800 years, between around 1400 BCE and 100 AD. The scientific revolution occurred in the period between 1543 and late 1600. There is a gap of over 1500 years between when the Bible was completed and the beginning of the scientific revolution. There is no way that the people who wrote the Bible could base their writing on valid scientific evidence, and any valid explanations must be coincidences. So the answer to the question of whether religion has the ability to answer scientific questions is... "No".

Religion is a constantly evolving institution, and, as we have seen throughout history with cases such as Galileo and Creationism, it is possible for religion to be incompatible with science. So the answer to the question of whether religion is compatible with science is... "It depends." The compatibility issue only arises when religion is used to explain natural phenomena, like the origin of life, which is exclusively the concern of science.

The Question of the Existence of God - Irrelevant

Note: Herein, god refers to the Judeo-Christian god.

Some time ago I wrote in my journal that "I believe the question of the existence of God is irrelevant, just like the question of the existence of any supernatural being is irrelevant." But then I asked myself "Irrelevant to what?" Now I finally elucidated to myself what I meant by that statement.

ARGUMENT:

The question of the empirical existence of God is irrelevant to the validity of religion. In other words, the proof of god's existence (if it is possible to obtain) would not serve as a reasonable support for theological dogma, because even if god exists it does not logically follow that the Bible is the word of god, i.e., that god authored the Bible.

• Objection: The validity of theological dogma does depend on the existence of god because god has to exist in order for the Bible to be the word of god, i.e., if god does not exist, then the Bible can not be the word of god.
• Counterargument: Yes, and this also means that if god does exist, it still does not follow that the Bible is the word of god. In other words, god is a prerequisite for the Bible to be the word of god, but the existence of god does not make the Bible the word of god.
• If the Bible is the word of god, then god exists. It does not follow that if god exists, then the Bible is the word of god.
• So if god exists, it does not mean that religion is true. But if god does not exist, it means that religion is false.

IMPLICATIONS:

Christian apologetics should seize trying to prove the existence of god through rational means, as the Lee Strobel's book, The Case for a Creator: A Journalist Investigates Scientific Evidence That Points Toward God--it is inconsequential to Christianity's validity, or any other creed for that matter.

P.S. It is amusing that Christians dismiss arguments against their religion as irreverent rant. But I will save this topic for a separate occasion.