This and other similar questions (e.g. the “chemical imbalance” question) have touched on something that has concerned me a little recently. I have to resist the temptation to be patronising about “people with religion”, and one thing I find helpful is to treat religion as a peculiar kind of disability. It’s something that the person in question may have no blame for, and has to manage as best he or she can, since it impairs his or her ability to deal with the world as it is.

Even the phrasing is important: it’s “people first”, so you refer to “a person with a disability”, not “a disabled person”. If I see “a person with religion”, I try to see the person first, and help them as best I can to overcome the perceptual handicap they bear. I usually don’t know what happened to them to put them in the state they are in, so I try to reserve judgement.

If the “person with religion” really needs that crutch, I am not the one to take it away from them, but one crucial difference (compared to a physical disability) is that it is possible to overcome it, with work, and perhaps some help, which I am happy to provide. However, some people with disabilities refuse to recognise their condition as a disability at all, and (again) I am in no position to tell them they are wrong – though I am happy to answer questions on the topic.

Posted: March 16th 2009

See all questions answered by brian thomson

It’s pretty clear if you look at the European example that the widespread loss of religious belief there over the past 40 years has led to to a great increase in lawlessness and despair for the population.

Or not. Actually, the Europeans are, if anything, better adjusted and more peaceful now than they were before the shift.

Posted: March 11th 2009

See all questions answered by Eric_PK

In general we’re interested in truth. We tend to treat it as valuable in and of itself. As we try to persuade someone in a disagreement, I think we assume that our interlocutor shares the feeling that truth is important, even when it’s uncomfortable.

The main problem with the suggestion that we shouldn’t destroy comforting illusions, is that this is not a respectful way of dealing with people. It seems to say 'I can deal with the fact of a godless universe, but you need to be protected from the truth’. This is a patronising assumption to make.

On the other hand it does seem plausible that some people genuinely need religious belief to get them through the night.

So when dealing with individuals, I would not try to persuade them out of their god belief if I thought their health or survival depended on it. But when we censor our atheistic thoughts as a general policy, I think we do an injustice to the majority of believers. Just like us, they don’t want to be protected from uncomfortable truths, they can handle it.

Posted: March 10th 2009

See all questions answered by bitbutter

There’s no question many people derive comfort from their religious beliefs. If religious opinions were privately held by individuals so they might find solace in times of stress, the “comfort” argument would perhaps have some merit.

However, there are lots of religious opinions out there and some of them are odious. I don’t doubt that it’s comforting to some of the males of our species to keep women subjugated and to use the patriarchal aspects of their religions to do so. It used to be comforting to racists, and still is to some, to appeal to their Bibles and claim that their “God” ordained that some races should be subservient to others. Those are two examples of many religious opinions that may bring comfort to some but deserve our condemnation nonetheless.

Now, I realize that’s not the sort of “comfort” you are talking about, but it illustrates the problem of granting a blanket exemption from criticism for religions because some people may get comfort from holding religious opinions.

Frankly, I don’t know what I would say about Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy if I were standing in front of a large group of four-year-olds. However, I do know that when my own children asked me (they were six and four as I recall) whether Santa existed, I told them “no.” I’ve always thought that once children are old enough to ask questions, they deserve honest answers.

What would I say to a widow who had just lost her husband. Again, that would depend on my relationship with her and the nature of her question. I certainly wouldn’t go out of my way to remind her that her beloved was dead and gone. I would most likely say nothing and would simply try to be comforting as best I could.

As an atheist, I don’t go out of my way to antagonize anyone, and I have never launched a personal attack on anyone because of their beliefs. However, I do answer inquiries with candor, and I am not at all bashful about declaring my atheism if someone asks me about it. When it comes to general discussions about religions and religious opinions, I grant them no special privileges. Religions deserve no exemptions. In a free society that values free speech, they may be analyzed, lampooned, parodied, satirized and treated in the same manner as all other ideas.

We are all human beings and no one of us has a lock on the truth. I think believers and non believers alike should treat one another with mutual respect. So I don’t believe in being confrontational with individual believers. On the other hand, I don’t accept that we cannot have honest discussions about our respective positions.

In my view, the comfort people gain from religions cannot justify making them immune from criticism. Respecting the rights of believers to their beliefs is not the same thing as respecting the beliefs themselves.

Posted: March 10th 2009

See all questions answered by George Ricker

All topics are subjected to criticism in a vigorous democracy, including religion (how can a topic be discussed if the holder of the stance refuses to be identified?). How one goes about presenting that criticism depends on the individual and the circumstance. Be flexible for goodness sakes. Use your judgment. This approach holds for all kinds of criticism, not just for religious beliefs.

As for the comfort that religion bestows, that aspect will be eventually studied more (since confronting religious claims directly is no longer taboo) so we can find out more about it. First of all, does it really comfort in a healthy, sustaining way like the best of therapeutic interventions? Secondly, if it does, how does it and can such comfort be given without the unproven, non-evidential aspects of religion? For example, we don’t condone the securing of comfort by drowning sorrows in alcohol to the point that one becomes dependent on it and becomes an alcoholic. Unlike the embracing of religious beliefs, many other kinds of comforting have been studied and some have been found wanting.

I, too, have refrained from saying point blankly to theists that I have no god belief. Those days are truly behind me. If I can take their ridiculous, brain-dead nonsense, they can take my honest, courageous appraisal of reality. In other words, I am done treating them like mental and emotional cripples.

Anecdotally, what I have found when I do come out as an atheist (I never try to deconvert anyone as they are welcome to their religious beliefs, but I will state clearly and succinctly why I have no god belief), is that my admission has no effect whatsoever on their theism. In other words, they are well insulated and will not crumple when you say the big bad word, atheism. Why do a sizable minority have to walk on eggshells? It’s absurd. Frankly, I am more interested in encouraging shy atheists to come out then to challenge or upset theists. It seems not to be impossible to 'herd cats’ after all.

Posted: March 10th 2009

See all questions answered by logicel