I got an email today which contained a question I receive in that medium at least a couple times a week. It was from an atheist who has a religious friend who, sadly, is having a rough go of it lately. The email contained this line...
He said he could not deal with this situation if there is no larger purpose behind it.
He concluded this way...
My question for you is if he gets strength from the belief that he has got this guy in the sky who loves and cares about him, what is the harm? He is not protesting gays or teaching creation to kids. He just thinks people need a higher purpose. What do you think?
This is what I wrote back...
What if somebody told you they needed a crutch to stand, and that without it they would just crumple to the floor? What if they told you the reality of gravity is just too much?
Would you not point out to them that lots of people live perfectly happy without the crutch? Not only are they perfectly happy, but that life is so much more full without it? Would you not tell your friend he can be stronger without the crutch?
If you were my friend, I hope you would.
Now what if some people thought their attachment to the crutch gave them the right to hit others with it? Sure, your friend doesn't feel that way, but he likely concedes their need for the crutch since he feels a similar need.
There can be no utility in a belief that isn't true, and false hope is not something we should want to give our friends - particularly when actual hope is available.
Hope it helps.
JT
Even if faith didn't hurt anything, an idea easily disproven by a scant glance around the world, we shouldn't let the people we love (or the society we love) wallow in complacency because they are too afraid to be better. A good friend urges those they love to be stronger; to be smarter; to be better on the whole.
However, we find ourselves in a situation where the crutch is both a hindrance to our collective potential, but also a detriment to our present societal and individual well-being. What we ought to do under these circumstances seems transparently obvious to me.
Comments (18)
There are people who live to be 90 years old that have always believed in God and had good, healthy, and happy lives. And then thee are some atheists who live to be 90 and are unhappy and bitter. So, I don't think you can generalize and say that a person's life will be better or worse whether they're an atheist or theist.
@musterion99 - Not necessarily. What I can argue is that they'll more likely be right and be better able to handle adversity.
That's about as close to happiness as I think most of us can get. ;)
JT
@Zerowing21 - I don't know if there's any reliable studies on how well atheists vs theists handle adversity. For me, I have handled it much better since becoming a Christian. And the Christians I know personally seem to handle adversity pretty well.
@musterion99 - Subjective experience...crummy argument. Did you read the link I gave?
JT
@Zerowing21 - Yes I read the link and it doesn't refute what I've said. The bottom line is whether we are happier and more peaceful being a theist or an atheist, and we don't know. The answer could be different for different people. I know from my own personal experience that I'm much happier as a theist. Your experience is the opposite.
@musterion99 - I think we're more happy being informed and intellectually honest. That's the argument I make. You may be more so now than you were as an atheist before.
Of course, with your intellectual growth, I suspect you'd be happier ditching the god myth now.
JT
You were sick recently and used Nyquil or something like that. Sure, you could have gone without it, you didn't NEED it, but you took it anyway because it made your experience better.
What's the difference? Physical, mental, emotional, we all use things outside of ourselves to cope, and inherently, that is not always a bad thing. Nyquil, God, pot, food, sex, pets - it's all the same. I say we ought to live and let live if people's crutches are relatively harmless.
It's when those crutches begin to cause them to harm others one way or another, that is the real problem. Sort of like the guns argument... guns don't kill people, people kill people. Guns aren't bad, but some of the ways people use them are. It really goes for anything in life, including crutches. Fight misuse of crutches, not crutches.
This is one of those situations where I want to agree with your writer-in more than with you. Not that your argument is holey, but because I'm a laissez faire, libertarian kind of person (Kantian if you must know) who believes that anyone can believe whatever he likes if it doesn't hurt someone else. [That's a bastardization of Kant, to make a point. Obvioiusly I wouldn't want to impute religious belief to everyone in the Kingdom of Ends...]
But seriously, JT -- can't you just say "no harm, no foul" and leave it at that? This is why some peope get called "militant" atheists.
I see where you're coming from, but I agree with some of the others who have commented. Does this "crutch" theory only stop with religious matters? We all try to do things that will make us better people in our minds. There is no harm in having faith, even if there are a few that will misuse the idea of faith to hurt people. That's like saying baseball should not be played because people on the streets hit people with baseball bats to hurt them, or hunters shouldn't be allowed to use firearms because criminals use guns to kill people. I mean, people don't really need to play baseball to enjoy themselves, and not every hunter needs to hunt for food/fun.
This world would be a pretty dull place if we eliminated all of the so-called "crutches".
@RaVnR - @mccanarie - Disagree. :P Click here.
Specifically, baseball doesn't require people to be intellectually irresponsible. Religion does, and it convinces us that bad ideas are ok, which always has detrimental effects on a societal level (which affects me!), and often on an individual level.
JT
@Zerowing21 - Based on this reply and your replies to other comments above, I'm disappointed in you JT. Usually you make good logical arguments, well-structured and loophole-free. This looks like a slipper slope argument to me, and your response to @musterion99 is more of an "I'm right and I'm sticking to it" then an explanation of why you're right. Bad form :[
@RaVnR - Ravenna, I don' typically spend too much time on comments (busy, busy, busy with other stuff). Musterion used a subjective argument, I countered with why genuine happiness fits better with an intellectually honest world view. What more is a well-intentioned atheist to do? :P
Ah well, if not for a few disagreements, life would be boring. Perhaps you and I could do a blog chat sometime on the live and let live mentality. We might be able to bring war_on_error in as well, since I think he takes an approach somewhere in between the two of us. :)
JT
@BohemianLamb - I totally agree. 'nuff said.
@Zerowing21 - I find your response involving the crutch metaphor to be a bit unfair
and more than a little bit disappointing as I expect a better argument
from you. I might also add that just because 'gravity' doesn't affect you as strongly as it does others, for some metaphorical reason or another, doesn't mean that you can accurately appraise their quality of life with or without the crutch. You don't live in their shoes and it's somewhat arrogant to assume that you are the world's doctor and that you are somehow qualified to prescribe to them the one true way to live.
... I find this rather ironic, actually.
@Zerowing21 - give me some examples of required intellectual responsibility. And also give me an example of how my practicing of religion has affected you.
Trust me, it hasn't so just get over it.
@mccanarie - Did you read the link I gave you?
JT
@Zerowing21 - I read it. It sounds pretty typical of a person who places faith in science rather than a god. Science has many unanswered questions, and those unanswered questions are addressed in the exact same way the unanswered questions about God are: "Well, one day we will know for sure". Both are acts of faith. The only difference between us is my religion is Christianity and yours is science.
Now I'm sure that there are many people on your team that can bring out a long list of the atrocities that have been committed in the name of the different religions of this world. Aren't you being a little bit biased when you do this? Really in the grand scheme of things you are picking out random event in history when the religious text was used by manipulative leaders to scare the followers into battle, no? I ask you, what tools did they use in battle? Were they tools invented by instructions from religious texts? No! Science created them. The science of metallurgy created the sword. Chemistry and physics created the gun and the nuclear weapon. Biology created the biological weapons. So your field of science and reason is just as guilty of the bloodshed and the setbacks that this world has seen.
On the other hand, how does the billions of dollars worth of food, clothing, shelter, orphanages, etc that are send out to the poorest countries across the world hurt society? You, along with your team like to point out the disadvantages of religion, what about the advantages? Is a starving, homeless orphan who receives care from a christian missionary at a disadvantage in life because for a brief moment in time they had a run-in with a religious person?
If you're going to play the logic and reason card, you need to look at all sides of every issue, not just the side that makes your personal interest look the best.
@mccanarie - *sighs at cliched arguments*
Science is not a matter of faith. I answer that argument here (and tons of other places).
On atrocities, I answer that here.
On good deeds done on account of religion, I answered that in the link you claim to have read. More on it here.
I do play both sides of the issue, and the arguments you've brought up are so contrived that anybody criticizing religion can very well anticipate them, as you can see.
JT
@Zerowing21 - this whole argument as a whole is a cliched arguement. I just feel like I should join in every once in a while to feel like a part of history. And I apologize that they do sound cliche, but there are only so many answers to the rediculous claim that is Atheism. Maybe someday, you guys will be able to convince the other 98% of the population that you are right.