Agnostic.com

29 3

There are scientists doing research on religion (anthropologists, cognitive and social psychologists, sociologists...) - and there are scientists who think that religion is distasteful, harmful, even dangerous.

The intersection between these two groups is - zero.

What is the reason for this curious fact that those who understand religion (or try to understand it) don't hate it, and those who are opposed to it, even hate it, don't understand it (or don't try to understand it by scientific means) ?

Matias 8 June 11
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

29 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

6

You may be making a broad assumption...I once believed certain things, that now I would consider stupid or ignorant! Just by living we do take in more information that alters previous ideas! Me... I worked at it, on purpose! But, I do remember being exposed to more rational ideas and feeling that I was getting myself exposed to ‘strange’ ways and ideas (and I felt out of place)! Some people never push past this ‘being exposed’ to very different ideas place, they just keep reinforcing their same ideas...with altered ways of presentation! These people need to feel safe, instead of expanding their concepts on anything! And, truth be known...all ‘concepts’ can be expanded! Bottom line...everyone is not at the same place in their development process, some will change and others will ‘dig-in’ deeper! The ‘dig-in’ people may never ‘evolve’ their concepts...as their brain development may not support it! It makes no difference their area of expertise!

6

I just think religion is a bad seed that grew well beyond its tree of "knowledge" and has rotted. You can't even entertain the thought of a "what if" theory without the more faithful/fanatical telling you "because, God!" And then they try to shut you up with that because they expect you to believe, accept, and never question that they are correct. Its divisive, more than anything else.

5

I'm not at ALL sure I agree with that last paragraph. I think I understand it, am opposed to it, don't hate it, just try to live with it.

5

Please cite sources rather than using generalities unless you are merely stating your opinion. If you are stating opinion, it is good to say that is what you are doing.

5

Are you sure of this or is this just your assumption?

@Matias In your statement you mention "those who are opposed to it, even hate it". It is this part where I would like to see any scientific evidence. You do not seriously believe that serious scientists would make such statements officially, do you?

5

Yours statement is completely wrong. Many atheists, who don't like religion, hate it precisely because they know it well. There are clergy, with formal training in religion, who are now atheists. There are people who study religion, all religions, academically, who are atheist. Just because you make a statement, doesn't make it true.

@Matias
He actually got your point.

His point is that you have provided no evidence to back your assertion that all scientist who study religion don’t hate religion. Where are you getting that impression? If there are clergy who became atheist and don’t like religion you can certainly assume that there are religious scientists who are atheist and don’t like religion.

You initial assertion is flawed. Probably backed by your ancedotal experience. However your experience is not everyone’s experience. I say that just because you don’t know these people doesn’t mean they don’t exists

@Matias "No scientist (!) who tries to understand religion ever said that religions are detrimental or harmful or even dangerous."

Prove it. Where is your evidence? Just because you say it, doesn't make it so.

4

False dichotomy.

I (try to) understand religion, in fact I used to be religious -- to the point of some formal education on the topic -- and I am still opposed to it.

I know people who don't understand religion, and in fact didn't used to be religious, who are not opposed to it.

And all the other combinations and shades of the above.

I see no reason to state that 100% of people who hate religion, don't understand it. That would imply that to understand religion is to love it; and trust me, that's not the case at all.

@Matias Then you are pushing the notion that the only way to validly conclude that religion is harmful is not to be a scholar of religion (and, inversely, that the only way to conclude that it's not harmful is to be such a scholar). Which has nothing to do with the [in]validity of the conclusion. Quite the opposite, in fact.

A scholar of religion, by nature, is generally open to religious presuppositionalism a priori, has an income that is paid by religion, usually in an academic setting with religious requirements, and exists pretty much as a creature of religion, so in fact, that would make such a person less likely to be objective about it, and therefore less credible, in the general case.

If a deep knowledge of the faux discipline of theology is needed to understand why religion isn't harmful, then perhaps that is just dismissive hand-waving and not an actual argument.

I can see value in a deep knowledge of the history / sociology of religion, which would not require a person to subscribe to religion to be a credible expert. However, as in many things, it doesn't take a lifetime of study, but simply critical thinking, to mount arguments for or against a thing. I don't need to be a nuclear physicist to know that it's not desirable to detonate nukes in wars. I don't need to be a rocket scientist to have a supportable view about space exploration priorities. I don't need to be a paleontologist to have supportable view about the theory of evolution.

In short .. this is an argument from authority, thinly disguised.

@Matias Read up on what an argument from authority its. It's not merely citing an authority, it's citing it inappropriately. The misuse of science to suggest that no one can have a valid observation on a topic unless they have a high level of scientific expertise is an expression of overdetermined scientISM. I gave several clear examples.

I don't know what other atheists do about science but my attitude toward it is that it's a wonderful thing but not always applied holistically. Science provides us with medicine for example, but doesn't do much for a doctor who is a lousy diagnostician and thinks everything can be treated without addressing root causes and by focusing on understanding disease processes without understanding health itself. Science builds nuclear weapons but provides minimal insight into whether one SHOULD. For things like that you need ... religion? No, philosophy based on a systematic observation of human affairs as they actually are, not on rigid presuppositionalist dogma. That's another false dichotomy; it's not a question of science and religion, but of science and philosophy, of which religion is, generally, one of several failed pretenders -- lacking, as it does, a working epistemology. Thankfully some precincts of religion are drifting away from religious faith and toward a working epistemology, but then it becomes a question of whether that actually IS religion anymore.

4

In the US, where undercurrents of religion still run amok, people in the "mental" fields are often steered around the subject of religion when they propose scientific studies. Is it possible you're comparing the US to more enlightened countries?

@Matias if you were in a certain group of study, wouldn’t you be expected to report on that ‘specific’ thing...not a broader (new) discovery on that matter? I am thinking about odd discoveries that are made during the research of something else, and never allow to be reported? Only later...they are revealed and were important discoveries!

3

I suggest you watch a documentary in which African anthropologists visit Australia and explain the mysterious chicken cult which culminates in a frenetic chicken dance by entranced (pissed) dancers perform this bizarre ritual to honour the chicken god.

3

I find it hard to believe that "The intersection between these two groups is - zero."

scurry Level 9 June 11, 2018

@Matias I can't give you a name, but that doesn't lessen the fact that I find it hard to believe.

@Matias the absence of evidence is not necessarily the evidence of absence. It's a pretty big jump from 'none of them have spoken out' to 'none of them have an opinion'.

@Matias What do you mean by "research?"

@Matias And when I'm at work I avoid talking about Nazis. But when I'm at home, fuck Nazis. People who have a job to keep are usually a bit less direct. Again, that doesn't mean they don't have such an opinion, it just means that most don't express it outright, probably over concerns about keeping their job. But you still haven't explained how you have come to the conclusion that no religious researchers disapprove of religion. The best you can say is that you have yet to see one.

@TheMiddleWay, @Matias
Maybe I'm way off, but I see the situation as though "religion" is a giant forest or a network of forests. A nice walk in the forest may do no harm at all, in fact, it might be beneficial; relaxing, clearing the mind, take in some fresh air, enjoy the sounds and sights of nature... However, there are parts of the forest, or aspects of it, that may be dangerous; poison ivy, predatory animals, poisonous spiders or snakes, tangled roots you might trip over and crack your head on a rock, a cliff you might fall off... you may even just get lost in the forest.
I don't think any of these points can be said to be an accurate assessment of every forest everywhere, or even every part of the same forest.
I think it's the same with religion... or almost anything else in the world.
Some aspects of some religions are fairly benign, other very toxic. I don't think it would be fair to paint all aspects of all religions using the same brush.
What would be wise to do, is to be aware of the hazards, learn and be cautious.
Maybe I've over simplified...

3

How have you arrived at the conclusion that there are zero religious researchers who view religion as a negative?

the Dalai Lama considers religion positive and important despite being secular himself

@kauva that really doesn't answer the question

3

There is much in so-called religious behaviour that is reprehensible, and far less in agnosticism or atheism. Though that is not to say that there arent idiots everywhere. But if you want to find the reasons for how people feel, read the histories...

StJohn Level 6 June 11, 2018
3

I suspect that any past research that has found any even slightly negative implications re: religion was immediately driven underground by chest beating from the religious folks. Thus there is little if any existing research on which to develop testable hypotheses. Plus, many religious folks would also find it disrespectful that anyone could presume religion could have any negative effects. But these are my hypotheses, and I have no data to confirm or refute them.

2

"Understanding religion." What does that mean?

I do not have to know anything about the tenets or writings of something to observe its influence on humans' behavior.

Pence is an example of religion made observable. I do not need to know what he thinks to be sure he is evil for the rest of us.

I do not need to know anything else about poison ivy than how to identify it and how to kill it if possible.

JacarC Level 8 June 11, 2018
2

The fact is religions are false and all religions require suspending belief in reality... that’s the bottom line, this post attempts to make it more... I don’t need to take anymore time to understand falsehood than it took to realize they are falsehoods.

2

I wonder whether a Japanese anthropologist in Borneo comes to the same conclusions as his Kenyan counterpart or his colleague from Iceland.

@Matias No I don't. But I don't know any anthropologist who would state the contrary either. Actually if any anthropologist made such a blanket statement, I would suggest s/he should get a job in marketing or politics. I would expect anthropologists to identify religious elements. Religions come in a variety of packages. I would not classify anthropology amongst thepureest of sciences.

@Matias You make a very ample claim regarding "such a simplistic view of religion". What about atheist anthropologists versus those who come from a religion infused background? Some anthropologists are merely glorified travel writers.

2

understand it, and hate it (what it does, especially).
Is this a troll post...i do not understand it at all....

I agree this post is rather obscure.

2

Blind hagtred is equally limiting and destructive as religious "true belief."

1

Sometimes “facts” appear curious because they reflect your personal opinion, otherwise they’re neither facts nor curious.

1

But what do you mean by "research?" Origins of? Reasons for? how conveyed? Lots of this has been researched, by all kinds of people, including scholars.

Science is a process. Don't need to be a bonafide "scientist" to use the process and come to reasonable hypotheses and conclusions.

Most observations conclude that religions do more harm than good. And hence the general consensus from those who have observed.

JacarC Level 8 June 12, 2018
1

I dispute that "The intersection between these two groups is - zero." is a fact.

It does not follow that knowing that something is stupid interferes with exploration.

It seems clear that humans have a genetic need to "reasonable" explanations. God is such an idea.

I believe that religious adherence results in people being treated wrongly. But that does not mean that i am not open to understanding where it comes from. And therefore to learn how to counteract the faith-based tendrils of repression.

JacarC Level 8 June 11, 2018
1

Look, I'm sorry, but your premise is not correct. Anthropologists often come to different conclusions about religion than lay people or people in the hard sciences because.... We did the research and have to be intellectually accountable for our conclusions. The claim that there is no overlap between social scientists and skeptics can only be borne from total ignorance about what the social sciences are.

@Matias Anthropologists aren't in the business of making value judgements on religion because that simply isn't our job. It doesn't mean we don't see the problematic aspects of religion. Anyone in the social sciences who wants to describe anything as a maladaptive trait has to defend their position to a slightly higher standard than someone who writes pop books and argue on talk shows.

@Matias are you trying to claim that religion is not, in fact, harmful?

1

Anthropologists love religions because of all the different beliefs they are taught from it. Who with a brain can believe all that crap!

1

I don't hate religion per say. I don't like to argue with them though. As far as I am concerned, they are free to use their time as they see fit. As long as I don't get any sales speech then I am ok with it

0

Although the OP has solicited some good writing, I think matias is a troll. The OP is beyond reasonable.

Prove to me i'm wrong.

JacarC Level 8 June 12, 2018
Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:104390
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.