Potential moral paradox!

Is it as potentially unethical for a non-theist to try and challenge a person of faith to question themselves as it is annoying for a non-theist to be preached to. Isn't trying to disprove someone's religion that they hold dear just because it does not fall in line with your world view as bad as someone trying to force their religion on you? It smells like hypocrisy to me!

There will be arguments on how religion has caused the world so much pain and suffering by being the cause of so much war but in this there will be no accounting for the scientific innovations of weapon systems that facilitate a growing efficiency in killing and in the waging of wars.

By trying to root ourselves comfortably in time we try and add greater legitimacy for our actions moving forward by rehashing the mistakes of our past and trying to place the blame on one another. At some point it would be nice if people could just learn to coexist but it seems that our esteem demands that we try and impose our will upon the world in some way. It seems to me Nietzsche was right about "The Will to Power" . Now it seems we are on a clock. Will the world humble itself(which would be a significant social evolutionary leap forward) so that it can to come together quick enough to shrug off our cultural biases and learn and coexist or will we continue on our path of endless cycles of violence driven by irrational attempts at trying to impose our wills upon one another until we spend so much time and effort and remain so distracted that we deplete the planets resources without creating workable contingencies for future societies to be able to thrive.

Is it as potentially unethical for a non-theist to try and challenge a person of faith to question themselves as it is annoying for a non-theist to be preached to. Isn't trying to disprove someone's religion that they hold dear just because it does not fall in line with your world view as bad as someone trying to force their religion on you? It smells like hypocrisy to me!

There will be arguments on how religion has caused the world so much pain and suffering by being the cause of so much war but in this there will be no accounting for the scientific innovations of weapon systems that facilitate a growing efficiency in killing and in the waging of wars.

By trying to root ourselves comfortably in time we try and add greater legitimacy for our actions moving forward by rehashing the mistakes of our past and trying to place the blame on one another. At some point it would be nice if people could just learn to coexist but it seems that our esteem demands that we try and impose our will upon the world in some way. It seems to me Nietzsche was right about "The Will to Power" . Now it seems we are on a clock. Will the world humble itself(which would be a significant social evolutionary leap forward) so that it can to come together quick enough to shrug off our cultural biases and learn to coexist or will we continue on our path of endless cycles of violence driven by irrational attempts at trying to impose our wills upon one another.

To your first paragraph I agree that trying to talk someone out of religion and into your own view is hypocritical, but only if they were not trying to push their views on you. You certainly have a right to defend your position if someone pushes their posing viewpoint on you regardless of religious or otherwise.

To the second paragraph I could comfortably argue that religion has not caused more suffering than it has alleviated. we tend to look at the bad things and forget the good of which religions have done a lot. That is not to say I am going to run out and join a church right now, just that focus on the evils of religion are often very one sided and inaccurate. And just like you said we can point at just as much evil coming from science and nationalism (if not more).

As for the third I can not venture a guess as to if we will learn to co exist more peacefully but it seems as though we have been moving in that direction. Just a few hundred years ago all the major powers were frequently at war with each other. Now the superpowers do the equivalent of boxing with gloves, fighting by proxy. We are still fighting however. The age of imperialism is over, I view that as a step in the right direction. However the most modern battlefield is economic, and we have little history to look to that will tell us if in the long run that will be better or worse then the bloodshed.

Is it as potentially unethical for a non-theist to try and challenge a person of faith to question themselves as it is annoying for a non-theist to be preached to. Isn't trying to disprove someone's religion that they hold dear just because it does not fall in line with your world view as bad as someone trying to force their religion on you? It smells like hypocrisy to me!

It's only when the religious seek to intrude on my state of mind to condemn my spirituality as inferior, assert their own beliefs as absolute truth, and while having no evidence to back their claims, using only their faith as their supporting argument, and if the argument is brought forth into the public arena then it's fair game to shoot their faith down with counter-arguments.

Logic doesn't prevail in those circumstances. Emotions run high and things invariably get heated. The problem is that the religious always seem to be recruiting for their own survival. You won't find atheists or agnostics advertising, making phone calls or going door to door to promote their ideas. This is the key difference. Atheist and agnostic assertions are usually a defense against religious attacks. That's how I see it.

The truth is that I accept all potential possibilities. I freely admit that I could be mistaken in what I believe, that there may very well be a God as proclaimed by the religious. All I ask is that they admit that they too may be mistaken and accept the fact that there very well may not be a God. Of course, the nature of religion will not allow for this and so the battle continues.

Is it as potentially unethical for a non-theist to try and challenge a person of faith to question themselves as it is annoying for a non-theist to be preached to. Isn't trying to disprove someone's religion that they hold dear just because it does not fall in line with your world view as bad as someone trying to force their religion on you? It smells like hypocrisy to me!

Criticism should be an essential component to any institution be it religion, science or politics – especially in a democracy. For much of the past and still today, such criticisms of religion have been considered a taboo. Religious claims are said to be “sacred” and us heathens should quietly tiptoe around them. This would be fine by me except for the fact that religion is a powerful force which seeks to influence the sociopolitical climate of society and hides behind its unwarranted privileges impose its will in this world, not the next. As long as religion wants to compete in the marketplace of applied ideologies, this taboo needs to be broken down and religion must open itself to criticism, scrutiny, satire and even blunt insults. Imagine if a political ideology was never criticized- would it not disproportionally grow in power and influence? Unless you want this to happen with religion, the secular world should challenge its beliefs at every opportunity.

Secondly, atheists don’t exactly preach any ideology in the same way a religion does. In order for atheism to even exist, theology must first come along and make claims about the nature of reality and the universe. Atheism is merely a critical and much needed reaction to those claims. In a world without theology, the very concept of atheism would be incoherent. Also, think about all the people who have been brought up in strict fundamentalist households – people for whom religion constitutes the only way of seeing the world. If such individuals live in a society which never challenges their beliefs then what are the chances that they’ll ever explore other ways of thinking? If in some magical utopia religion withdrew ALL influence on society, including the indoctrination of children, then I would agree with you that criticizing it would be of purely pugnacious motives. But until that happens I think any non-theist who cares about the liberties afforded by a secular society should continue to wage the ideological battle against religious beliefs.

Is it as potentially unethical for a non-theist to try and challenge a person of faith to question themselves as it is annoying for a non-theist to be preached to. Isn't trying to disprove someone's religion that they hold dear just because it does not fall in line with your world view as bad as someone trying to force their religion on you? It smells like hypocrisy to me!

There will be arguments on how religion has caused the world so much pain and suffering by being the cause of so much war but in this there will be no accounting for the scientific innovations of weapon systems that facilitate a growing efficiency in killing and in the waging of wars.

By trying to root ourselves comfortably in time we try and add greater legitimacy for our actions moving forward by rehashing the mistakes of our past and trying to place the blame on one another. At some point it would be nice if people could just learn to coexist but it seems that our esteem demands that we try and impose our will upon the world in some way. It seems to me Nietzsche was right about "The Will to Power" . Now it seems we are on a clock. Will the world humble itself(which would be a significant social evolutionary leap forward) so that it can to come together quick enough to shrug off our cultural biases and learn and coexist or will we continue on our path of endless cycles of violence driven by irrational attempts at trying to impose our wills upon one another until we spend so much time and effort and remain so distracted that we deplete the planets resources without creating workable contingencies for future societies to be able to thrive.

Unethical? Well, it just doesn't work. A defence mechanism, which is what theism essentially is, requires offenders in it's midst in order to support the theist's reasons to maintain a defensive position. Anti-theists help fulfill this role FOR the theist. An anti-theist helps sustain, and keep in generation, the whole defensive attitude. The anti-theist has, in fact, the same defensive attitude as the theist. However, to me the idea of a role which is defined as one being a non-theist suggests that this one does not need to look for theists to challenge. It's just that a non-theist would more likely only challenge in a reasoned fashion and when invited to by a theist, either within a forum agreed upon for such a debate, or on a more one-to-one personal level of conversation. Without an obvious invitation I think it is merely the unreasoned or unreasonable stance of anti-theism. To me Hitchens accepted invitations and so was more like a good example of non-theist action. A reasoned action as apposed to a childish reaction.

There certainly are atheists who aggressively seek out to pester theists who are minding their own business. I did it when I was young and angry but I got over it but I see people do it now. It bothers me! I am hoping that it is just a phase for everyone who does it. Someone has to take the high road. More and more people are taking up the mantle each generation and the dynamic is an emotional powder keg.


Check this video out of ***** Riot a punk rock protest in a cathedral in Russia. they were protesting Vladimir Putin's ties and dealings with the Russian orthodox church. The girls where arrested for hooliganism and sentenced to two years in prison. I could see this type of thing sparking a big movement that could sweep across the globe.

Is it as potentially unethical for a non-theist to try and challenge a person of faith to question themselves as it is annoying for a non-theist to be preached to. Isn't trying to disprove someone's religion that they hold dear just because it does not fall in line with your world view as bad as someone trying to force their religion on you? It smells like hypocrisy to me!

Evangelizing (in a sense that is not necessarily religious -- can I use the word that way?) is not something bad per se. It really depends what you're trying to convince people of. The UN or organizations like Amnestry International are evangelizing about human rights, for instance. They're trying to shove their views about human rights down the throats of Assad or Ghaddafi, or of other governments that don't respect human rights. Is this bad? Of course not, it's great!

The problem with religious people who try to convince others of their religion being true isn't that they're badgering people about this topic. (Imagine you truly believed that non believers go to hell, wouldn't you be a selfish a-hole if you didn't try to prevent people from eternal suffering?) It's that they're wrong and unwilling to admit it when faced with good arguments. If you're going to badger people about your views like a missionary, first make sure you're right about it, or else the odds are high that you're just annoying others for no good reason.

Having said that, I don't think trying to argue strong believers out of their faith is an effective cause for doing good. I don't think it's a bad thing, I'm just saying one could spend one's time more wisely. I'm pretty sure atheists often argue with religious people because it's fun. I wouldn't quite call this wrong or hypocritical, but I think one should make sure to treat people one disagrees with respectively, especially when one is the one starting the discussion.

Regarding the question of whether religion has done more good or more harm, I'd like to add that most people don't consider some very serious negative consequences that are indirect: E.g. resistance to stem cell research or PGD; distrust of science in general; resistance to combatting global warming; resistance to transhumanism; all the wasted productiveness of well-intentioned motivated people doing missionary work or going into monasteries instead of focusing on problems like world poverty. I'm not saying all religions imply these or that all religious people have these attributes. But I think (and have actually seen studies about some of these) there is a strong correlation between religiosity and the above, and I also think that this isn't just due to confounding variables.

The main problem is that religion is accompagnied by memes that systematically lead to bad thinking. See: http://lesswrong.com/lw/uy/dark_side_epistemology/

Combatting that is surely a very important issue, but I think starting arguments with religious people is not a good way of doing that.

Edit: This isn't something limited to religion of course, it's a problem with all kinds of esoteric beliefs or movements.

Wowbagger very well put. I do wonder what you meant though about the minister waiting until he is sure of what he preaches. I suspect many of them "know" they are right. Just as well as we "know" amnesty international is doing good works. I do see your point about lack of evidence, however our "knowledge" of A.I.'s good works is only based on consensus not on facts. We "know" it is good to resist oppression because we "feel" it and others agree with us on this feeling but in earnest we have no proof. I would suggest that the minister also "feels" it and he too is surrounded by others who also do while in his environment.

I do think ministers should back off from promoting their faith on those who do not wish to hear it. But I am aware that they can not resist. Just as A.I. will continue to battle oppression, regardless of who tells them to back off. What we can hope for (and seems to be happening) is that as we become more reasonable that which we come to believe in also becomes more reasonable.

Forgive my stupid question, but what is moral paradox?

Moral-of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.


Paradox-a person or thing exhibiting apparently contradictory characteristics.



Put together these ideas and I think that is what we have when well meaning secularists and well meaning theists start out with good intentions to share their convictions because it will help enlighten others only to then become combative and end up feeling disillusioned and alienated. Once the alienation subsides both parties regroup and then go back at it. Everyone thinks the are wright and everyone, everyone is trying to help thinks they are wrong. This is what I mean when I say this is a moral paradox.

Is it as potentially unethical for a non-theist to try and challenge a person of faith to question themselves as it is annoying for a non-theist to be preached to. Isn't trying to disprove someone's religion that they hold dear just because it does not fall in line with your world view as bad as someone trying to force their religion on you? It smells like hypocrisy to me!

There will be arguments on how religion has caused the world so much pain and suffering by being the cause of so much war but in this there will be no accounting for the scientific innovations of weapon systems that facilitate a growing efficiency in killing and in the waging of wars.

By trying to root ourselves comfortably in time we try and add greater legitimacy for our actions moving forward by rehashing the mistakes of our past and trying to place the blame on one another. At some point it would be nice if people could just learn to coexist but it seems that our esteem demands that we try and impose our will upon the world in some way. It seems to me Nietzsche was right about "The Will to Power" . Now it seems we are on a clock. Will the world humble itself(which would be a significant social evolutionary leap forward) so that it can to come together quick enough to shrug off our cultural biases and learn and coexist or will we continue on our path of endless cycles of violence driven by irrational attempts at trying to impose our wills upon one another until we spend so much time and effort and remain so distracted that we deplete the planets resources without creating workable contingencies for future societies to be able to thrive.

Hi Grecorivera5150,

It seems to me what you're saying devolves to, "I don't like bigots." Where's the paradox?

Also, could you please explain how "The Will to Power" fits into your rant (I don't mean that derogatorily). For starters, do you mean the idea, the book published by his sister, or both?

DeeElf

Hi Grecorivera5150,

It seems to me what you're saying devolves to, "I don't like bigots." Where's the paradox? I have already explained this if you don't get it I can't help you. Its in my post directly above this one. You can disagree that it is a moral paradox but I think you would be wrong.




Also, could you please explain how "The Will to Power" fits into your rant (I don't mean that derogatorily). For starters, do you mean the idea, the book published by his sister, or both. The idea---This is the sentence leading up to it which implies the general idea. - but it seems that our esteem demands that we try and impose our will upon the world in some way. It seems to me Nietzsche was right about "The Will to Power" .