Atheism and the Third World

ballymary

i am currently volunteering in a poor country that is deeply religious (catholic). i feel that the depth of religion actually holds people in poverty in that they put trust in god to make things better instead of doing it themselves-its an opt out clause. also-so much school time is taken up teaching kids religion, when they cannot read and write or add 2+2...religion denounces capitalism and a lack of capitalist spirit promotes poverty??

ballymary

i am currently working in a poor catholic country and i think religion holds people back. people put their faith in god rather than trying to change their situation. also, illiterate children are taught endless religious nonsense in school when they should be taught to read, write, add and subtract...its a serious problem...also, i think it holds people in a backward way of thinking-eg anti-homosexual, womens rights....i have first hand experience of this over the last few yrs...religion hinders the poor....however i will say that the only positive impact religion can have is in moral teaching-eg marriage gives financial security to women and children in particular and allows children to have a male role model in their lives...and also with the message of being a decent person in your dealings with others...

its true that religion has declined in europe but not in the states-there are religious nuts of all types there and becoming more fundamentalist....even people in their 20s in ireland, who dont attend mass or have any interest in religion still say they will baptise their kids because they "dont want them to feel left out on communion or confirmation day" the level of brainwashing of religion all over the world is mindblowing and i wouldnt ever hold my breath for things to change...

Dades

ballymary wrote: »

people in their 20s in ireland, who dont attend mass or have any interest in religion still say they will baptise their kids because they "dont want them to feel left out on communion or confirmation day"

...or want to get them into a school within 20 miles!

Húrin

I think it's naive to consider religion to be an opiate. Materialism is an opiate too: "if there is no God, then everything is permitted". The atheist feels free to do what he wants without worrying about divine authority or judgement. This may well be true, but it is a comforting thought that can be as much of an opiate as religion can.

18AD wrote: »

Would there belief actually hinder them from doing so? Wouldn't informing them of how to improve their living conditions and making them aware of their rights be more effective?

Some religions, or more accurately, some religious cultures use theology to justify inequality. More often than not it is unfaithful and false to the original scripture, in the case of Christianity and Hinduism.

estebancambias

Watching a show about Burma tonight.

''All we can do is pray, whether or prayers are answered or not, it is the only thing we have''

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

they would do better with rifles instead of prayers.

well, rifles and capable generals.

Zillah

Húrin wrote: »

Some religions, or more accurately, some religious cultures use theology to justify inequality. More often than not it is unfaithful and false to the original scripture, in the case of Christianity and Hinduism.

That doesn't really change the fact that its still being used to justify inequality. Oh sure, they're not supposed to (apparently), but it happens.


I've said it before that I don't think removing the faith of a life long believer is a good thing, its far too important to them and even if it were possible (which its not in most cases), it could be detrimental. I worry about the children. While religious belief might be soothing in a day-to-day sense, ultimately I think its an incredibly powerful influence in terms of uncomplaining acceptance. As an atheist, when something bad happens me or I find myself in bad circumstances, my immediate reaction is "Balls to this! Time to make things better". I find many religious people tend to resort to a "God has a plan" or "What will be will be" sort of attitude.

To borrow a metaphor, faith is giving them a fish, secularism teaches them to fish for themselves. Its hard to demand better from life if you believe your role has been assigned by an all knowing all powerful deity.

robindch

Húrin wrote: »

Materialism is an opiate too: "if there is no God, then everything is permitted".

It's a bleak world in which the only thing that stops a theist from killing somebody is their belief that an invisible deity's going to get upset...

the_syco

Zillah wrote: »

I've said it before that I don't think removing the faith of a life long believer is a good thing, its far too important to them and even if it were possible (which its not in most cases), it could be detrimental. I worry about the children. While religious belief might be soothing in a day-to-day sense, ultimately I think its an incredibly powerful influence in terms of uncomplaining acceptance. As an atheist, when something bad happens me or I find myself in bad circumstances, my immediate reaction is "Balls to this! Time to make things better". I find many religious people tend to resort to a "God has a plan" or "What will be will be" sort of attitude.

Agreed. If you live in hell, working for good, in the hope of getting to a better place when you die is better than sitting on your hole, knowing that when you die, only the worms will be having a field day.

I'm hoping heaven will be fun, but at the same time, I acknowledge that most religons are based on filling the gaps of unknown, so the probability of their being a heaven is small. In saying that, I'd say the chance of a micro-orgasim evolving to produce a nuclear weapon that can wipe out a few million people is also fairly small, so meh.

Dades

Húrin wrote: »

I think it's naive to consider religion to be an opiate.

I'm sorry but imo it patently is. A huge proportion of people believe in religion for the comfort it gives them - not because it has any evidence of being real.

Húrin wrote: »

Materialism is an opiate too: "if there is no God, then everything is permitted".

Permitted by who, exactly? The last I checked we were all subject to some curious concept called "legislation" which, inconveniently, precludes one from eating babies and raping nuns.

Malari

Dades wrote: »

Permitted by who, exactly? The last I checked we were all subject to some curious concept called "legislation" which, inconveniently, precludes one from eating babies and raping nuns.

Most religions have somehow associated their belief in a deity to some sort of ethical code. Therefore an attack on the deity (ie, athiesm) is associated with a lack of morals. A lot of religiously derived ethical codes have historically been guided by the secular morals of the day, and only change when pressured by society.

Húrin

Zillah wrote: »

That doesn't really change the fact that its still being used to justify inequality. Oh sure, they're not supposed to (apparently), but it happens.

Any ideology can justify equality. Even in atheistic communist countries inequality is justified.

I've said it before that I don't think removing the faith of a life long believer is a good thing, its far too important to them and even if it were possible (which its not in most cases), it could be detrimental. I worry about the children. While religious belief might be soothing in a day-to-day sense, ultimately I think its an incredibly powerful influence in terms of uncomplaining acceptance. As an atheist, when something bad happens me or I find myself in bad circumstances, my immediate reaction is "Balls to this! Time to make things better". I find many religious people tend to resort to a "God has a plan" or "What will be will be" sort of attitude.

Well, that kind of religious thinking depends on the belief that everything that happens is God's will - this is not an idea that is shared by all or even most religious people.

While it may appear to be nothing but good to improve (what a vague term) one's position, there are effects on the world, depending on what you do. For instance, the western world's 200-year project to improve our living standards is causing inadvertent ecological collapse.

To borrow a metaphor, faith is giving them a fish, secularism teaches them to fish for themselves. Its hard to demand better from life if you believe your role has been assigned by an all knowing all powerful deity.

I really don't think it's that simple. How about when like one above poster, it leads to violence? "they would do better with rifles instead of prayers."

Húrin

robindch wrote: »

It's a bleak world in which the only thing that stops a theist from killing somebody is their belief that an invisible deity's going to get upset...

That's not what I meant. My conscience is as developed as yours and my morality is as internalised as yours.

Dades wrote: »

I'm sorry but imo it patently is. A huge proportion of people believe in religion for the comfort it gives them - not because it has any evidence of being real.

Neither does atheism but that doesn't stop anyone! The evidence for religious belief is not visible to you but that doesn't mean it is non-existent.
However, I think that the fact that life and absolute laws of physics, logic and morality exist, to be indicative of a creator God. I consider the phenomenon of speaking in tongues to be evidence that it is the Christian God.

Permitted by who, exactly? The last I checked we were all subject to some curious concept called "legislation" which, inconveniently, precludes one from eating babies and raping nuns.

Malari wrote: »

Most religions have somehow associated their belief in a deity to some sort of ethical code. Therefore an attack on the deity (ie, athiesm) is associated with a lack of morals. A lot of religiously derived ethical codes have historically been guided by the secular morals of the day, and only change when pressured by society.

I did not claim that atheists lack morals - that is a blatantly stupid claim. While we can mostly agree on moral standards, what is the justification for those standards? Can we really claim that our feelings, consciences are solid enough to say that these standards are not universal? Does universal morality not demand a universal authority like God?

Malari

Húrin wrote: »

I did not claim that atheists lack morals - that is a blatantly stupid claim.

Maybe you didn't claim it using those words, but it is often assumed that if there is no god then there is no particular reason to be "good".

Húrin wrote: »

While we can mostly agree on moral standards, what is the justification for those standards? Can we really claim that our feelings, consciences are solid enough to say that these standards are not universal? Does universal morality not demand a universal authority like God?

But morals are something that people find hard to explain. Thought experiments and studies are interesting, in that subjects will almost universally advocate one choice in a moral dilemma without really knowing why they do that.

There's no reason for justifying that choice by saying that it's god's authority, rather than trying to explain "universal morality" in another way.

CerebralCortex

Húrin wrote: »

...I consider the phenomenon of speaking in tongues to be evidence that it is the Christian God......

Care to explain that one?

robindch

Húrin wrote: »

My conscience is as developed as yours and my morality is as internalised as yours.

I quite agree, but why do you imply that as an atheist who doesn't believe that I'm going to get clobbered by god, that I feel free to do anything at all? That's quite an assumption on your part, and we haven't even met!

Zombrex

Húrin wrote: »

That's not what I meant. My conscience is as developed as yours and my morality is as internalised as yours.

So you can see why an atheist wouldn't feel he is free to do what ever he wants just because he doesn't believe God exists?

Evolution has provided most people (not all, but most) with a basic internal moral system, based on emotional responses. The idea that materialism gives people the freedom to do what they like is clearly not true.

Húrin wrote: »

The evidence for religious belief is not visible to you but that doesn't mean it is non-existent.

It does mean though that it is entirely untestable and unverifiable.

Basically one cannot determine if it is real or simply all in your head (such as your assertion that life and the laws of physics ... suggest a creator God).

As such it is largely useless. You could just be wrong.

Húrin wrote: »

Does universal morality not demand a universal authority like God?

No, but then I imagine few here believe in universal morality (ie moral standards that exist independently of humans or human evolution)

An Fear Aniar

Wicknight wrote: »

No, but then I imagine few here believe in universal morality (ie moral standards that exist independently of humans or human evolution)

It seems a little unfeeling to talk of about moral standards.

Standards are cold abstract things. It might be more helpful to think about agapay.



.

Dades

Húrin wrote: »

Neither does atheism but that doesn't stop anyone! The evidence for religious belief is not visible to you but that doesn't mean it is non-existent.
However, I think that the fact that life and absolute laws of physics, logic and morality exist, to be indicative of a creator God. I consider the phenomenon of speaking in tongues to be evidence that it is the Christian God.

I'm happy for you to do so - but I still think you're in denying the obvious if you object to the idea that a lot of belief is based on the what it has to offer, rather than evidence.

karen3212

Personally, I think it absolutely cruel to strip people of their religion, faith, spirituality, before you can help them.

People can be persuaded to reinterpret their religion - if need be - to put into action methods that will help them, if there is evidence that these methods will actually help them.

Anyway, I thought this debate on TED was quite good, and backed by some research.

http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/270