When the topic of religion and rationality comes up, I think the classification atheist / theist might be a very flawed one in this topic. I propose a different classification:
Let’s consider group A to be people who are curious about whether there is much more to our world than what we can perceive with our organs and our instruments. They ask themselves whether there might be some higher meaning in this world, whether we are really just looking at shadows cast onto the wall in a cave, thinking that that’s our entire universe, while there might be something much more out there, something we can’t even imagine. And these people search for ways to experience this feeling, they seek to understand the concept most people call “God”. Some of them find it, and become theists. Some people don’t find it, or assign a different concept to it, or find other goals which they perceive to be more fulfilling, and become atheists/nontheists. But both of these know what they were searching for and don’t condemn those who reached a different conclusion.
Let’s consider group B to be people who wish to feel that they are better than other people, or at least that there are plenty of people who are worse then them. They want to belong to a group, to a community, where they are respected because they have similar opinions as others in the group. Another major motivation for joining that group is that they can now feel themselves to be superior to people outside of this group. To this group belong those atheists, whose main motivation for being an atheist is that they can feel themselves superior to people who they consider stupid, and also to this group belong those religious, whose main motivation for being religious is that they can feel themselves superior to people who they consider immoral.
I think the difference between the groups A and B are much bigger than the difference between atheists in A and theists in A, or between atheists in B and theists in B.
I admit that I’m basing these observations on my personal experiences, but as I’m eager to explore different communities with very varying value systems, I had the opportunity of meeting many people from all 4 groups of the above classification.
I would add group C: people who do not make a personal choice, but rather just become whatever the social circle around them (which can be defined more narrowly or more widely) expects them to be. They just say whatevs… and take the default offering.
For many people, the Truth is what is socially useful.
And though I find it revolting, I have a hard time saying they’re wrong. Well being for a member of a social species is largely determined by social status and allegiances.
I agree, but my point was not a comprehensive segmentation of the whole population, but the existence of the groups I mentioned. Also, the border between B and C might be blurry.
I agree with this assessment. I often think of it using the language of fundamentalism. Fundamentalism is at its core the belief that I arrived at the only/best/real answer and that anyone who didn’t is either dumb or bad. It leads to disrespect of other groups and an unwillingness to see any sort of common ground. In my opinion both theist and atheist groups can produce that sort of fundamentalists. Though religion produces many more. Let’s hope more people will join group A.
Fundamentalism is at its core the belief that I arrived at the only/best/real answer and that anyone who didn’t is either dumb or bad.
Doesn’t this pretty well summarize traditional Christianity?
Jesus is The Way, The Truth, The Life; the only way to the Father/salvation. Those who deny this are considered “lost”, “unsaved”, “evil” by their nature, and literally condemned for all of eternity.
There is a noticeable recent softening of the fire and brimstone bits of Christianity. But it seems to me this is mostly just a PR move.
When the topic of religion and rationality comes up, I think the classification atheist / theist might be a very flawed one in this topic. I propose a different classification:
Let’s consider group A to be people who are curious about whether there is much more to our world than what we can perceive with our organs and our instruments. They ask themselves whether there might be some higher meaning in this world, whether we are really just looking at shadows cast onto the wall in a cave, thinking that that’s our entire universe, while there might be something much more out there, something we can’t even imagine. And these people search for ways to experience this feeling, they seek to understand the concept most people call “God”. Some of them find it, and become theists. Some people don’t find it, or assign a different concept to it, or find other goals which they perceive to be more fulfilling, and become atheists/nontheists. But both of these know what they were searching for and don’t condemn those who reached a different conclusion.
Let’s consider group B to be people who wish to feel that they are better than other people, or at least that there are plenty of people who are worse then them. They want to belong to a group, to a community, where they are respected because they have similar opinions as others in the group. Another major motivation for joining that group is that they can now feel themselves to be superior to people outside of this group. To this group belong those atheists, whose main motivation for being an atheist is that they can feel themselves superior to people who they consider stupid, and also to this group belong those religious, whose main motivation for being religious is that they can feel themselves superior to people who they consider immoral.
I think the difference between the groups A and B are much bigger than the difference between atheists in A and theists in A, or between atheists in B and theists in B.
I admit that I’m basing these observations on my personal experiences, but as I’m eager to explore different communities with very varying value systems, I had the opportunity of meeting many people from all 4 groups of the above classification.
I would add group C: people who do not make a personal choice, but rather just become whatever the social circle around them (which can be defined more narrowly or more widely) expects them to be. They just say whatevs… and take the default offering.
For many people, the Truth is what is socially useful.
And though I find it revolting, I have a hard time saying they’re wrong. Well being for a member of a social species is largely determined by social status and allegiances.
Wrongness, of course, depends on what you’re optimizing for.
If you really really want to be a bona fide member of your tribe, well, then you live by your tribe’s fate and you die by your tribe’s fate.
Some people would call you loyal. Other people would call you a sheep.
And some would call you wise in the ways of winning.
I agree, but my point was not a comprehensive segmentation of the whole population, but the existence of the groups I mentioned. Also, the border between B and C might be blurry.
I agree with this assessment. I often think of it using the language of fundamentalism. Fundamentalism is at its core the belief that I arrived at the only/best/real answer and that anyone who didn’t is either dumb or bad. It leads to disrespect of other groups and an unwillingness to see any sort of common ground. In my opinion both theist and atheist groups can produce that sort of fundamentalists. Though religion produces many more. Let’s hope more people will join group A.
Doesn’t this pretty well summarize traditional Christianity?
Jesus is The Way, The Truth, The Life; the only way to the Father/salvation. Those who deny this are considered “lost”, “unsaved”, “evil” by their nature, and literally condemned for all of eternity.
There is a noticeable recent softening of the fire and brimstone bits of Christianity. But it seems to me this is mostly just a PR move.