The God FAQ

[Nettles]

I think secular people can be insensitive to the effect that disrespect for religion can have on religious people (as I've said in another thread).

[Phil McKerracher]

I think secular people can be insensitive to the effect that disrespect for religion can have on religious people (as I've said in another thread).

I quite agree, but it's so hard to keep a straight face sometimes!

For example, I inadvertently offended a colleague when chatting at lunch the other day. We were discussing animal welfare, and I asked rhetorically what difference there was between a chimpanzee and a child, that justified experimentation on the former without consent but not the latter. She answered that the child had a soul, and I laughed, not realising she was religious and therefore serious. She was visibly shocked. It was then quite difficult to continue the discussion without causing further offence, so we changed the subject.

Obviously, it is best to avoid treading on cultural and religious sensibilities, but taken to extremes it gets silly. I've been taken to task (seriously) for mentioning "MacBeth" in a theatre, for example. Where does it end? Should ALL women in Britain cover their faces and men their heads to avoid offending Muslims, Jews etc?

[Killer Blob]

I think secular people can be insensitive to the effect that disrespect for religion can have on religious people (as I've said in another thread).

I think that religionists are far more insensitive to the offence that their loony beliefs can have on other people, both secularist and of other religions.

[Tessa K]

I think it depends what you mean by 'being offended'. It is part of freedom of speech that you may be offended by what other people say.

I'd much rather someone was 'insensitive' to my atheism than live in a country where no one could criticise anyone else's beliefs.

While deliberately attacking or mocking someone's beliefs (or lack of them) can be a bit childish, there are times when you need to speak out for what you think matters in the knowledge that you will not be punished for doing so (with the obvious caveats about inciting violence etc).

[Terry]

I agree with Killer Bob. In a town not far from me there is a rash of Christian posters at prominent points promising hell and damnation and other such offensive material. These posters are in-your-face and frankly are evangelist tripe.

If I were a non-fundamentalist believer I'd be embarrassed by them. So really my feelings as a non-believer are being offended. Having said that, my instinct is to poke fun at religion rather than fulminate against it. Evangelists and other loonies do not seem to possess a sense of humour.

Is there any place in the Bible that says: "Jesus laughed"?

Terry

[rufusruff]

I agree with Killer Bob. In a town not far from me there is a rash of Christian posters at prominent points promising hell and damnation and other such offensive material. These posters are in-your-face and frankly are evangelist tripe.

If I were a non-fundamentalist believer I'd be embarrassed by them. So really my feelings as a non-believer are being offended. Having said that, my instinct is to poke fun at religion rather than fulminate against it. Evangelists and other loonies do not seem to possess a sense of humour.

Is there any place in the Bible that says: "Jesus laughed"?

Terry

There are quite a few records of parties He attended, so it seems pretty likely :-) I don't see that the only alternative to 'fulminating' is 'poking fun'. How about polite, constructive argument? It can still be full of strong feeling. You should hear me and the other half!

[Terry]

Hello Ruffusruff, I quite agree with you about the need for polite, constructive argument.

May I say, without meaning to be offensive, that as an atheist, the believer's concept of Jesus as the Son of God is incomprehensible, as is the 'existence' of God From this starting point the idea of whether Jesus went to parties and had a good laugh is really inconsequential. My point about the New Testament possibly not stating that He (and I'll use the capital letter out of respect to your belief) laughed was in the wider context of Christians with little or no sense of humour. To illustrate by analogy, it's as if I, as a 'Trekky' would be mortally offended if you made fun of my 'belief' in Vulcans and The Borg, and you suggested that Captain Kirk never existed. Your average Trekky would laugh along with you but there are some who would 'assimilate' you pronto. So don't mess with them!

But here, I'm poking fun again and forgot my intention of being polite and constructive. In the general frame of this particular thread I would address you as a sceptic who sees science having a better claim to 'truth' than religion. Whatever religion is left with it certainly isn't truth, or at least not factual truth as understood by scientists...all religion can describe is our subjective response to those facts. I rather favour the image of science as the arbiter of reality, in which science deals with facts and religion with fancy (or as a concession to you, values). Facts can be established scientifically whereas values are the outcome of subjective choice and preferences. No room is left for metaphysical claims or for reference to the transcendent.

At the heart of scepticism is doubt. I doubt that your Christ ever existed in the way that you would have him be. He may have been a faith healer and miracle worker but then so was Pythagoras, and I'd sooner 'believe' in his 'divinity' as Jesus'.

Terry

[Nettles]

Obviously, it is best to avoid treading on cultural and religious sensibilities, but taken to extremes it gets silly. I've been taken to task (seriously) for mentioning "MacBeth" in a theatre, for example. Where does it end? Should ALL women in Britain cover their faces and men their heads to avoid offending Muslims, Jews etc?

This is to suggest that tolerance leads to intolerance: that being sensitive is the thin edge of the wedge of religious extremism.

This is a weak use of reductio ad absurdam. Jews certainly don't demand that Gentile women cover their faces, and nor do any but a vanishing minority of Muslims demand that non-Muslims do.

The question "where will it end?" is an easy way to dismiss the requirement for sensitivity. There is, however, no process which leads from not mocking people who practise religion to forcible wearing of the burka and yashmak in the street. Indeed, I might hypothesise the opposite: that intolerance leads to intolerance.

I shall refrain from taking up Killerbbob's point that there is more intolerance from religious people than from secular people. Even if it is true (which it may well be), and even if it were not a broad sweeping generalisation which fails to distinguish, for instance, among religious people (do Quakers go around being snotty to secular humanists a lot?), it misses the point.

Intolerance from some religious people doesn't justify intolerance of religious people.

[rufusruff]

Hello Ruffusruff, I quite agree with you about the need for polite, constructive argument.

May I say, without meaning to be offensive, that as an atheist, the believer's concept of Jesus as the Son of God is incomprehensible as is the 'existence' of God

I can well see that it would be, given your basic starting point. Why should I be offended? Had you said "I don't see it, and anyone who does is just stupid", that would be a slightly different matter. Although, since I know that I am not stupid and neither are most of my friends, a wry smile would be more likely.

From this starting point the idea of whether Jesus went to parties and had a good laugh is really inconsequential

.

Perhaps. But you did ask :-) I did actually recognise the not entirely serious context in which you asked it, hence the smilie.

My point about the New Testament possibly not stating that He (and I'll use the capital letter out of respect to your belief) laughed was in the wider context of Christians with little or no sense of humour

.

As I say, yes, got that. All I can say is most of the Christians I know have a perfectly good sense of humour. Failing to laugh when people make (frequently ignorant) fun of things one finds very important does not seem to me to be evidence of a *lack* of humour, merely a likely reponse many people would have. People have tried to excuse many undesirable things under the guise of 'humour' (e.g. racism, sexual harrassment) so I think one has to be a little careful there. Mockery is cheap and easy - even if short-term fun; thoughful engagement is not.


R

[rufusruff]

The question "where will it end?" is an easy way to dismiss the requirement for sensitivity. There is, however, no process which leads from not mocking people who practise religion to forcible wearing of the burka and yashmak in the street. Indeed, I might hypothesise the opposite: that intolerance leads to intolerance.


Intolerance from some religious people doesn't justify intolerance of religious people.

Hear, hear. Good manners (which is really all it takes) don't cost too much.

[Terry]

So, Nettles and Ruffstuff, if good manners and thoughtful engagement are the order of the day, which are liberal virtues most of us approve of, then what happens when even these cause offence? Consider a discussion on abortion at this level: I argue, good manneredly and politely in defence of abortion. I argue for its moral permissibility as I consider that a fetus is not a person. I defend a woman's choice to abort. Does this cause offence to a Catholic? Probably.
I argue that Jesus was a person without any supernatural or transcendent nature. Politely I persist. Does this not cause offence to the believer?
Probably.
When the content offends and not the manner of its delivery, what's left of the 'considerate' approach for other people's feelings?
If so-called 'good form' is allowed to determine the nature of the content of an argument ( and I'm not allowing obscene and criminal content in this, so there are obvious exceptions) then where does this take us?
Both you guys sound fair-minded, decent; I'm sceptical about those qualities being sufficient as well as necessary.

Terry

[Nettles]

Are people trying to think of reasons to be insensitive?

When the content offends and not the manner of its delivery, what's left of the 'considerate' approach for other people's feelings?

The emerging approach seems to be that there's no reasoning with these people so one might as well be insensitive.

If the question is

What happens when [good manners and thoughtful engagement] cause offence?

then perhaps the best reply is that we can deal with that issue when good manners and thoughtful engagement fail. Unless you suggest that ill manners and knee-jerk rejection would be better?

(hopes not)

[Tessa K]

My default position is to be polite to people about their beliefs at first. However, there are believers who, on hearing I'm an atheist, deliberately bring up what they know will be contentious subjects. If they start it, then I will pitch in.

Also, if someone starts a discussion from the point of view (for example) that 'abortion is wrong', then I will state my views. These will probably offend them, however polite I am. If they want the right to say what they think, then they have to allow me the same right. It gets worryng when this believer has enough power to influence my life, freedom and choices. In that case, I think it is necessary to stand and be counted.

The problem is that, while I may be trying to debate impersonally, the other person may be emotionally invested in their beliefs and therefore take offence. So while I am not intending to cause offense, that is the result. There is no simple solution.

Finally, if someone comes to a skeptical or scientific forum, they should not expect their beliefs to go (politely, I hope) unchallenged.

[Nettles]

Robust debate is robust debate, and not even the European Convention on Human Rights claims to protect us from being offended (though I understand certain police forces do their best).



(... and tweaking C of E vicars to the edge of sense-of-humour-failure can be
so much fun!)



I do notice, however, that the most recent issue of skepchick.org uses child sacrifice to the goddess Kali to tar religion in general. (Do Quakerism and Kali worship differ only in degree?) This is not only poor logic, it genuinely obscures the issue in aid of spitting on religion.

[Tessa K]

Hi Nettles.

I signed up to Skepchick but the damn thing kept freezing my laptop, so I haven't been back.

I do notice, however, that the most recent issue of skepchick.org uses child sacrifice to the goddess Kali to tar religion in general. (Do Quakerism and Kali worship differ only in degree?) This is not only poor logic, it genuinely obscures the issue in aid of spitting on religion

Obviously, I haven't seen this debate, for the above reason, but I agree that comparing extremes of religion with calmer versions is bad logic. 'Spitting on religion' also ignores that fact that people believe what they believe for a reason, either social or psychological. That's something that needs examining rather than lumping all believers together. The psychology of belief is a complex thing. If religion were wholly and solely detrimental, the chances are it would have died out by now.

While I am absolutely NOT a Post Modernist who believes that all cultures are equally valid, I do think that cultural elements have to be taken into consideration, at least historically, when talking about a particular religion. No religion exists in a vacuum.

Poeple who have the freedom to choose what they believe in are in a different category from people who have no choice (because of their society, for example), for a start.

There is also confusion between what is truly a part of a religion and what is social. For example, there are elements of Islam that are cultural, originating pre-Islam, that many people think are Islamic.


Anyway, that's my tuppence worth.