Many atheists, Dawkins for example, hold the view that religion does more harm than good for the rest of society and ought to be abandoned.
I disagree.
My wish in this discussion was to address pros and cons of a particular religion, Christianity, in order to determine whether the cultural relevance and value to society that I believe Christianity has could be accepted by people who do not share the core beliefs of that religion.
I don’t feel the conversation was very successful. A key factor in this was my inability to identify values that could be agreed upon by atheists. Part of this was perhaps my presentation. I still think that some of the pros could be universal, but was unable to convey them in a way that was agreeable.
The limitations of our medium for discussion are frustrating as well. In a face to face discussion I could make a statement and then clarify any misunderstandings before we had to have a five page discussion about something I wasn’t trying to say. Also, it would have been easier, I think, not to get lost on rabbit trails or at least to deal with them more quickly in a conversation than here.
Another difficulty I found was that it seemed that most of you had your own crusade you wished to wage in the midst of a vaguely related point. This was frustrating in that I felt unable to make the point I set out to.
Perhaps that was another flaw in my method. I have been considering that it might have been better to let everyone bring forth their separate ideas about the pros and cons of Christianity as a group within a greater culture and to discuss those first.
Either way, I’ve become frustrated and don’t feel too motivated to continue that discussion for the time being.
As for conclusions, Ben, I don’t know how much I can offer. I can conclude that I need to develop a better way of pitching an idea so that it won’t be rejected on the basis of my form rather than the merit of the idea.
I can conclude that most of you already feel that there are good things being done in religion and Christianity, but as Ben said,
“In my opinion, if one is doing something good for society, this is good. However, if I had to choose between doing something good, and doing something good which is rooted in a mystical, fictional understanding of existence...I would much rather the first.”
That is fine, but many people would say,
If I had to choose between doing something good, and doing something good because I believe that there is a greater purpose in existence then I would find it easier to do the latter.
I still hold that religion, and therefore Christianity, can bring about a change in a person’s life that can cause them to live a better life and therefore be of more value to someone who does not share their views.
However, the atheist now has to listen to the religious person talk about the religion that changed this person’s and is drawn to wonder whether this person could not simply do the good without having to have a mystical, fictional understanding of existence. In many cases, they could not. Or they could not do it as well.
So… conclusions? Leif said,
“I don't want to be in a debate with someone who is only interested in changing the other side, and refuses to be changed themselves. (And before you start in, Jon, I've BEEN changed, so don't you dare claim some shit about me not willing to be changed in this debate.)”
I have been changed. I can see that I assumed some things incorrectly and need to express myself better.
I have not been changed to see that good things can be found outside of Christianity. The reason for that is because I already knew that.
I have been changed by what Matt said:
“For some folks Christianity helps them be better people. I don't dispute this. For others it's another religion, or a political cause, or something. For me it was stepping out of belief. Not that I'm a saint or anything.”
This helped me to clarify my thoughts.
Matt is right, not everyone seems to need religion to become better people, and for some it is even a hindrance. However, I hold that some people do need it, myself included. I am a more valuable member of society because of Christianity.
So, then, does it not have some merit if it can make just one person a better member of society?
I am curious to know, has anyone else been challenged or changed by what we have discussed here?
2 comments:
Donkey,
thank you for the closure. I hope to see this discussion brought up again in the future.
For the record, I do not believe the form of your discussion was rejected. Yes at certain points the form of your argument was questioned/rejected/criticized. HOWEVER, the content was also rejected. I don't think you need to rework your idea "pitch" necessarily, but rather that you need to spend some time finding out whether or not you can actually refute the arguments (concerning argument form or otherwise) that have been placed before you.
It sounds to me as though you had this idea in your head - both of what the discussion would look like and of the content itself. Once you placed the discussion before us, you got responses that you didn't expect. Fair enough.
From my perspective, the responses that you didn't expect are valid, and should be refuted - if they can be. Your focus on the attacks against your discussion's form is not a good excuse here. Either your discussion did not work out because A) the form wasn't up to par, B) the argument itself was unsound, or C) both A and B. You cannot, in my opinion, say that it didn't work out because people disagreed with you, or the way you wrote things. If it were merely a matter of Form, you could reword the content, and then it would acceptable. This wasn't the case here. Why? Because it was mainly the content that was being called into question.
You mentioned that a lot of the conflict could have been avoided if the discussion were to have taken place face to face. This is one way to look at it. I tend to see it this way: Because this discussion was not face to face, more fundamental problems and/or issues have been brought to your attention. Although these issues/problems may seem peripheral to you - the very fact that they have been brought up with such vibrance should move them from periphery to focus. If you do not accept this, then you are simply avoiding the topics at hand.
You also mentioned that personal crusades were being waged (founded on vagueness) in the midst of your discussion, and This made it hard for you to convey your point. If they were personal crusades, founded on vague points, how exactly does that make your Main Point unclear? Whether or not someone is stating an (off topic) argument, this should not hinder the presentation of your argument - unless the off topic arguments aren't really off topic, and Actually impact your main points.
[Forgive me if I am being too rash, or am missing what you are writing.]
In conclusion, I would like to say congratulations to you, because I do not see this discussion as being unsuccessful. On the contrary, we have made progress in many ways. I have been changed (in little ways) and so have you. Just because some of us don't view religion as beneficial for the world, this doesn't mean that you cannot be, or are not a religious person who does great things. I look forward to having this discussion continued....
-Benjamin
I thought that you were doing a great job. I think it was fair for premises to be challenged and for us to get on rabbit trails, but I'd have liked to have stuck to your main point each time a little better. Nonetheless, while it lasted I found it stimulating.
Was I changed? Changed is a big word, but I was certainly challenged, and came to understand our points of difference (and of confluence) better, and became more specific in my mind about what I personally think and don't think . . . so I appreciated it.
Post a Comment