Recently, I’ve been writing about my personal philosophy: naturalism-humanism. I started out innocently enough, writing an accessible introduction into what naturalism-humanism is, and then expanding into why I don’t believe in all supernatural claims. A few months later, I moved to target a specific supernatural claim — belief in God by writing “Where is God?” and “The Great Problem of Evil”.

While I still planned to write more about reasons for atheism in general, I decided to complete the story started by these two essays with a specific look at prayer, writing “The Contradictory Failure of Prayer”. This is where our story here begins, because I met some opposition in the comments section.

For some background, in “The Contradictory Failure of Prayer” I outlined the following logical argument, what I called the “Argument From Prayer”, and used it to disprove Christianity:

1. God, as traditionally conceived by Christianity, listens to and grants prayers.
2. Prayers are not granted any more than we would expect by chance.
3. God, being all-knowing, would not need prayers to know what to do.
4. Prayers cannot be granted if the common defenses to the Problem of Divine Hiddenness and Problem of Evil are true.
5. If God answers some prayers, but not the prayers of the most hurt and deserving, then he is not all-good.
6. Therefore from 2, 3, 4, or 5, a God that grants prayers does not exist.
7. Therefore since 1 and 6 conflict, Christianity is false.

 

In response, I got some feedback that wasn’t so impressed with my arguing against prayer:

Love, just because you’re frustrated by politicians who ask their constituents to pray doesn’t mean that this post will get you anywhere :) is there a point to your rabble rousing, or is it as useless as prayer? Should you not be out saving the world, rather than insulting the validity of people’s opinions? It’s very well to defend your own, but while this clarifies your already clear view, it’s not going to win you friends or favors (I know friends and favors aren’t your goal, but sometimes subtlety is kinder…it’s easier for people to step against something so direct, and be defensive without reconsidering their beliefs, but if you present it in a tactful way, that might make them think about actually doing things in addition to praying). :) I think that the story “San Manuel, bueno martir” would be eye opening for you. It’s about an agnostic catholic priest, who teaches his people salvation and prayer to keep order, provide hope, and give them reason to do good deeds, while he’s really working to better the world, and has no idea what’s out there in terms of religion.
An important lesson to learn is that just because something is true does not mean to one has to say it. I could argue that video games are just as useless as prayer – they make people feel good about doing useless things in a world that doesn’t exist – but I don’t, because it’s really none of my business. And I think that unless you really study why people follow religions that involve prayer, it’s really none of yours, and that your arrogance is astounding.

This comment raises some very good points; points that so deeply need addressing and clarification that I’d like to make a post about them, so everyone can read it and know where I am coming from.

In responding to this comment, I’d like to make this following argument, in order:

1. arguing about religion is important
2. arguing about religion is not useless
3. arguing about religion is often beneficial for those involved
4. arguing about religion is definitely not insulting

 

Is Arguing About Religion Important?

is there a point to your rabble rousing, or is it as useless as prayer? Should you not be out saving the world, rather than insulting the validity of people’s opinions?

I like the witty opening, but there is a point to what you are labeling as “rabble rousing” — they serve to be persuasive and convince people to not hold beliefs that are false. And this is very important to changing the world.

Religion has a very profound grip on society, and this gets dangerous when religion intersects areas we need to be and stay accurate, such as government policy. When the policy of our government is based on religion, or even when our government representatives act on religious views, bad things can happen.

The slam-dunk case-in-point is Illinois Representative John Shimkus, who in 2009 stated that Global Warming is not a threat because “The earth will end only when God declares its time to be over. Man will not destroy this earth. This earth will not be destroyed by a flood”, clarifying further by saying “I believe that is the infallible word of God, and that’s the way it is going to be for his creation.”

John Shimkus is the man who wanted to be chairman of the United States Energy Committee. If he got his way, we would have absolutely no policy addressing Global Warming. If it turns out that Global Warming is real and God can’t stop it due to his inconvenient nonexistence, the world is in tons of trouble. This is why it’s so vital to point out mistaken views, and point them out repeatedly. Doing so might even change the world.

 

But it’s more than that. It’s more than just making sure truth wins out where the fate of the world depends on it, it’s about making sure truth wins… period. And this is important. I am endlessly surprised whenever I encounter people who don’t want to know the world for what it really is, or what we think it most likely is, given the best methods of truth finding we’ve ever known.

Whether or not religion is true should matter to us a lot personally. If things like prayer really work, we need to know this so we can take advantage of it to heal others… If things like prayer don’t, we need to know this so we don’t waste our time.

If a good God exists and is the true path to fulfillment, we need to know this so we can live for Him and live the best life possible. If a good God does not exist, or the true path to fulfillment is not through God, we need to know this so we can figure out how to live the best life possible using nonreligious means.

Religion could mean a lot for us if it is true, and be a wasted life living a life if it is not. This is why it’s very important we don’t mess this one up. Arguing about religion won’t just save the world, but it could also save ourselves.

 

Is Arguing About Religion Useful?

It’s very well to defend your own, but while this clarifies your already clear view, it’s not going to win you friends or favors (I know friends and favors aren’t your goal, but sometimes subtlety is kinder… it’s easier for people to step against something so direct, and be defensive without reconsidering their beliefs, but if you present it in a tactful way, that might make them think about actually doing things in addition to praying). :)

Arguing about religion could be immensely useful to us if we come to a satisfying conclusion, because it will reveal a great amount about how we should live our lives either way. It is a tremendously important conclusion for us to come to. But here’s the complaint: arguing about religion is pointless because no one involved in the argument ever changes their mind.

I agree that there are some people that there are some people who will never listen to an argument for why their religion might be false. These people are of the unmovable persuasion that no honest and well-informed truth-pursuer could ever come to atheism after a thorough investigation of the evidence, and they don’t want to hear anything otherwise.

There is very little that I can do for such people, for it is impossible to dialogue with the person who does not want to dialogue. If someone sees the three words “Christianity is false” and runs for the hills, or brings out the emotional blackmail and gets all offended, I am powerless to argue otherwise, for they are not responding with arguments themselves. No evidence or logic will ever get through to these people, and they will sadly never know if they are mistaken.

 

But these people aren’t everybody — there are many, many people who see the words “Christianity is false” and get immensely interested and curious for all the reasons I said above about why the truth of religion is important. When I post a logical argument, these are the people who say, “No, premise 3 is wrong because prayers can serve as a form of worship”, not the people who say, “Premise 3 insults me and everything I believe in”. This second kind of response gives me nothing to consider, says nothing about whether my argument is sound and valid, and amounts to emotional blackmail.

How do I know these first kinds of people exist, who are willing to engage in these debates? Because I’ve encountered dozens of them, and continue to do so on a daily basis. I’ve held numerous conversations both here and elsewhere, online and offline, about whether or not religion is true, without anyone running or using emotional blackmail.

But how do I know these people can be convinced? Easy. Because I was one of these people who were convinced. I saw these logical arguments made by others; notable atheists such as John Loftus, Richard Carrier, and Greta Christina …and even the less notable such as Luke Muehlhauser and Adam Lee, and it converted me from an apatheist to a full-blown atheist. Two of these people, Luke Muehlhauser and John Loftus, themselves used to be very Christian before also being convinced (see Luke’s story and John’s story).

You will never convince people in one argument or in one day, but with many of each, people do change their minds. And everyone I know of has been happier because of it.

 

Is Arguing About Religion Beneficial?

So arguing about religion is important and people do change their minds, occasionally. But besides knowing how to live your life (which is pretty important), there’s yet more to gain from arguing about religion, and it’s another personal benefit: arguing lets you learn about how to argue, let’s you understand others, and let’s you think more clearly. Put simply, politely arguing makes you a better person.

What do I mean by this? Well, you will learn how to argue because any failed argument you use in a debate with a worthy opponent will be ripped to shreds, and you will now know how it fails, so you can correct it for next time, or move onto a better and different argument (…or, if all else fails, decide that you’re wrong and change your mind). You will quickly learn about the logical fallacies as you see them in others and as others see them in you, and will no longer fall prey to them either way.

Secondly, by arguing with people who hold a viewpoint that is not your own, you get to understand them much better. You get to learn why other people hold different views and think differently, at worst allowing you to avoid the thinking traps they might land in, but at best give you insight into other cultures and how to interact with others. And better than best, you may even come to understand them so well you think they’re right and change your mind yourself, saving yourself from a false view of the world.

Thirdly and lastly, arguing about religion lets you think more clearly, because arguing allows you to clear your head of false views of the world. Remember that people are wrong all the time. I’m wrong about lots of things, I just don’t know what those things are, and need people to point them out to me. Einstein was wrong about some things. Your Dad was wrong about some things. Nobody is perfect, not one person I know of holds all the truth. And if we want to be a little bit less wrong in our daily lives, we need to embrace this, and find the truth by discussing it openly with others.

 

Is Arguing About Religion Insulting?

An important lesson to learn is that just because something is true does not mean to one has to say it. I could argue that video games are just as useless as prayer – they make people feel good about doing useless things in a world that doesn’t exist – but I don’t, because it’s really none of my business. And I think that unless you really study why people follow religions that involve prayer, it’s really none of yours, and that your arrogance is astounding.

Is arguing religion none of my business? Is my arrogance astounding?

Well remember that you chose to come to this blog and read it. I didn’t force my views upon anyone, and I would never dream of doing so. Truth only works if people come to it on their own; you can’t force beliefs on anyone and have them experience the benefits. I’m not going around yelling at religious believers; I’m allowing them to come here and consider their religious ideas critically. I think that’s a great thing, for what good is a religion if it can’t stand up to scrutiny?

I understand that there are many people who will not want the truth, but instead want to hold tight to a comforting delusion, and react by lashing out with offense to something that was not offensive. Remember that my essay isn’t saying anyone is stupid, in fact I think the religious believers who have thought through their religion are often very smart people, even if they still think their religion is true. I just said these people were wrong, and gave them a reason why.

Bertrand Russel put this very nicely in his “An Outline of Intellectual Rubbish”:

If an opinion contrary to your own makes you angry, that is a sign that you are subconsciously aware of having no good reason for thinking as you do. If some one maintains that two and two are five, or that Iceland is on the equator, you feel pity rather than anger, unless you know so little of arithmetic or geography that his opinion shakes your own contrary conviction. The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there is no good evidence either way.

Persecution is used in theology, not in arithmetic, because in arithmetic there is knowledge, but in theology there is only opinion. So whenever you find yourself getting angry about a difference of opinion, be on your guard; you will probably find, on examination, that your belief is going beyond what the evidence warrants.

 

Obviously having a disagreement based on carefully considering and reconsidering facts and their logical implications can be quite valid, because you can learn a lot. If someone came in and rebutted my whole argument, I would be impressed, and leave having actually learned something about how prayer works. If prayer, for instance, actually can be used to heal people, I would want to know so I could pray myself. If prayer was real, why would I not want to?

So when it comes down to it, the irony in your comment is off the charts. For should you not be out saving the world, rather than insulting the validity of my opinion? Clearly you too see something to be gained in exchanging ideas and proving other people wrong. We need a lot more carefully considered evaluation of facts and disagreement, rather than whatever it is John Shimkus does.

 

Not to mention you completely dismiss the many hours I have spent studying religion by saying I haven’t “really studied”. Why do you think I haven’t “really studied”? Is it because, well obviously, anyone who really studies ends up being religious? I’ve read the whole Bible, and multiple books by apologist authors, when I was considering whether or not I wanted to be atheist. (I’ve sadly not read any other religious texts.) I did it again before deciding to write about atheism.

I’ve discussed at length with religious people as to why they believe here and on other websites. At my college, I’m involved in the leadership of two groups dedicated to discussing religion: the Secular Student Alliance, which is self-explanatory, and Denison Religious Understanding, which is an interfaith dialogue group.

Every time before writing a post critiquing religion or theism in general, I make sure to thoroughly research everything that has been said on the topic, both by major philosophers and defenders of religion and in the blogs of everyday people. Undoubtably I’ve missed some things here and there, but, for instance, my discussion of the Problem of Evil devotes over six thousand words to carefully dismissing fourteen theodicies.

 

Conclusion

Hopefully you, and everyone else, sees that while arguments about religion are complicated and filled with emotion, they don’t have to be. If we want an honest discussion of how the world works (especially so we can use this information to accurately save the world instead of accidentally think that saving the world means preventing homosexual marriage), we need to be able to carefully deliberate about the truth of religions. The only way to do this is to argue about religion, and it isn’t arrogant or insulting to do so. And we all benefit from these honest discussions, because they teach us about ourselves and each other.

My arguments against religion still stand until someone explains to me why I’m so mistaken, but I thank you for giving me an opportunity to further clarify why I feel the need to argue against religion.

Followed up in: But Religion is Useful!