A powerful argument against any specific religion

Post Reply New Topic

Yes, and I can say that is why that argument does not undermine Christianity rather it can be seen to demonstrate the need for them to spread the gospel to the world, as commanded in the gospels, and as Ancalagon says, that argument can be used against any belief, including atheism, I could argue that if few atheists and agnostics were born in a different time and culture they would likely believe in a deity or whatever mystic or spiritual belief are held in that culture, and that technological and scientific advances as well as the easy way of life today, especially in developed countries, are influential in some people's views regarding metaphysics, that lead them to their position, and given that believing in a deity or the sort, which is something that creates hope, is said to be a psychological necessity, depending on the social circumstances people live in a certain culture and time.

The core of the argument, which only AwesomelyGlorious seems to have touched on, is not so much that it is an argument directly against Christianity or Islam, so much as it emphasises how much of what we believe as individuals is picked up from our society, culture, parents, peers and teachers.

Thus the argument is more about social conditioning and the fact that it has such a profound influence on most people. Yes, the argument can also be used in regard to other social norms not just religion, for example the inclination towards free market capitalism or communism, the attitude towards and treatment of women in society, attitudes towards homosexuality, attitudes towards science etc etc.

I'm Zen Buddhist / Atheist but if I had been born in a Muslim culture or strongly Christian culture then I would likely have picked up Islam or Christianity and a whole heap of other cultural attitudes and beliefs.

Don't underestimate the power of social conditioning on belief systems.

Sure, there are going to be people who buck the trends, this is not a black and white thing. In fact if it were possible to quantify the uptake of social norms by individuals in their society you could probably draw a graph (Bell graph perhaps) with fundamentalists tapering off in one direction, the general population being compliant in the middle and the other end of the graph tapering off with the dissenters and free thinkers.

So to me the bottom line of the initial argument is to question all beliefs (not just religious ones), where did they come from? Did we truly arrive at our current mindsets by choice or is it largely social conditioning? This applies to atheists too, not just those with religious inclinations.

You're forgetting that capitalism, socialism and atheism are far, far, FAR more likely to rise in any world where there are sentient beings than, say, christianity.

Another aspect to consider regarding social norms is the availability of one "brand" of religion and how socially unacceptable it is to go outside of the local religious norm.

If someone feels there is more to life than the daily mechanics of living followed by permanent death, or someone wonders if there really is some all powerful God, then where does such a person look? By default it will to the religion native to their culture. Each culture has a plentiful supply of churches / temples / mosques religious preachers and their own holy book(s). Maybe family, friends and associates are already believers in the local religion. So where is the person going to look? What religious beliefs are they likely to adopt?

Very few people have the inclination or are brave enough to step outside of their local religion and investigate other religions and use their own judgement as to which religion seems to be the "one true religion". Maybe the person would end up dismissing all religions as superstition and end up despondent. Maybe they would turn to science as the only true description of the universe. Maybe the person would end up thinking all religions had aspects of truth in them and then follow their own spiritual path based on a cocktail of different beliefs.

So again, I propose that the beliefs of the majority of the people are dictated by their culture and social norms. Very few people step outside of this boundary and look further.

Last edited by TallyMan on 06 Apr 2009, 5:06 am, edited 1 time in total.

Well, you have to keep in mind the difference between nihilism and sentience - they're not the same thing.

I'm confused. What do you mean?

I think history shows that nations and cultures are not static but always changing. Today's culture will be tomorrow's reject. And I believe that even though each existing culture influences, or forces, its belief system on its citizens, a handful of these citizens within that culture will have a different point that may eventually be adopted by that culture in the future.

I believe that God deals with us as individuals and not as a group or class. A nation of atheists, agnostics, or tree worshippers may turn to God just as easily as one nation of believers may turn their back on God. And so, yes, I believe that a culture or nation does influence its people, but only for a season.

Which god?

Although religion probably began as an attempt to explain how and why phenomena like disasters and beneficial events occurred, as understanding of natural causes and effects brought not only understanding but actual control, the intellectual basis of much of religion has foundered. As superstition dwindles, so religion retreats. Africa today is a center of ignorance and superstition and this is where the Catholic Church is expanding. Beliefs are not random occurrences, there are reasons.

Yeah Sand I think its quite wrong that they seem to try spread god along with the help they give, can't they be giving help as people rather than help as god? After all, you can give a poor man faith in jesus and he'll die thinking he'll go to heaven, while you could give the same man food and grant him faith in mankind, the second I think is far greater than the former

That assumes that the theist understands belief in God as intellectual assent only, and that there are no other factors that go into salvation. For Christians, both of these assumptions are directly contradicted by the parable of the sheep and the goats.

It also assumes a far more mechanical relationship between what is believed by society and what is believed by the individual than actually exists. If your parents are Christians, you are more likely to be a Christian; if society is socialistic, you are more likely to be a socialist -- but there are no guarantees.


It shouldn't. Not if you actually have a clue about what you believe and why you believe it. This is based on a misunderstanding of how luck works -- just because something is unlikely doesn't mean it doesn't happen. People do win the lottery, on a routine basis. People get struck by lightning more than once. It happens, even if it doesn't happen to everyone.

Using arguments that you know to be false because they might have enough emotional force to persuade the weak-minded is intellectually dishonest.

I disagree with your probability assesment. The core ideas of Christianity can fit in a sentence, with some explaination and defining of terms they still fit in a paragraph. It may be slightly more complex in reduced form than capitalism and so forth, but not by very much.

But that's even assuming that Christianity is false in the first place -- if you assume that it's true, then there's no reason to assume that the voice of God wouldn't be speaking to the aliens also.

No it doesn't, it assumes that the theist understands belief in God as intellectual assent as necessary for belief in God. I don't really think you have provided a strong counter with the sheep and the goat parable, as you refer to the point after this as well, about actions, correct? The issue is that this parable does not necessarily refute exclusivism in the Bible(a very popular position among conservative Christians), as seen in the verses below.

John 14:6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

John 20:31 but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

Acts 4:12 And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved."

Now, you can disagree with exclusivism, but that is a very popular position in conservative Christianity, or you could also claim that hell is even *more* exclusive than anyone else believes. The problem with the latter, is that this worsens the problem of hell, something that causes theological problems because God sentencing/allowing people to go to an eternity of hell is hard to stomach, no matter how this is termed, and no, I am not trying to start an argument about hell.

Given that a significant number of theologically oriented Christians believe in an exclusive Christianity and an eternal hell, this kind of criticism hits that group hard.


"Lack of guarantees"? That's basically an intellectual dodge. If a factor can determine what you believe with incredible certitude, such as geographic location seems to do, then claiming that this is a problem for individual moral judgment does not seem unwarranted, as most of the people who are correct, are correct despite a lack of, or perhaps even because of a lack of intellectual virtues. Now, that is a problem without even getting into metaphysical issues. Now, you are right, "no guarantees", but there isn't a guarantee with anything, so retreating to a lack of guarantees is an absurdity.

In any case, some Christians have even recognized the dominance of culture upon individual belief. For instance, Christian philosopher John Hick once stated “It is evident that in some ninety-nine percent of the cases the religion which an individual professes and to which he or she adheres depends upon the accidents of birth.”. Now, the guy is a liberal so he might not defend Christianity as ardently as a more conservative Christian(for honest or dishonest reasons, however, apologetics is a big deal to conservative Christians who even try to reject ideas that the mainstream considers well-established, and some more liberal ones such as John Spong have even rejected the resurrection or even the existence of God in the case of Thomas Altizer), but even if we say that he is off by 20 percent, and the real number is 79%, that is a HUGE predictive power.


I don't see why not. After all, to say what you do means that I must have confidence that I am objective, but everyone else is not objective. Now, the idea that I am more objective than the rest of the world is rather absurd, so even if I have a rationale, I cannot just go along and claim that the rest of the world is afflicted with idiocy such to maintain my confidence. Rather, I have to critically examine my beliefs in the context of all other beliefs and the criticisms of my beliefs, knowing the honesty of my opponents, and *still* claim that my ideas are better. That is something that many people have difficulty doing, and there are psychological reasons for this. There are all number of cognitive biases http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases , most of which to promote a favored position at the cost of an unfavored position, and there is issue that psychological certitude isn't rational. http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=103 Both of which cause even people who think they have thought themselves through to be less honest with their criticisms than they have thought.

This isn't a misunderstanding of luck at all. There is a difference between saying "somebody wins the lotto" and betting your life's fortune upon it, and therein lies the confusion. I don't have to say that nobody gets lucky, but I don't think that most people are confident playing intellectual Russian Roulette.

Umm.... I don't see where anyone used a false argument, although I think that you've been reading me uncharitably with problematic argumentation. You know that some Christians do hold to the importance of intellectual assent and to broad-brush all Christians as disagreeing is thus dishonest as I only appealed to a common theme, your argument on guarantees seems to ignore the point of "the real underlying factor" to say "there are no guarantees" which doesn't undercut my point of "the real underlying factor" at all, your argument on knowledge misses the whole point which was that psychological and sociological factors are involved in our believing process and tries to shunt that to the side even though to a great extent this seems to be the fore-front, and your argument on a "misunderstanding of luck" seems to ignore that most people want to appeal to something greater than luck for their position and so a lack of a universal undercuts the notion of a universal belief. As well, if you are claiming that I am knowingly promoting a false argument, then either you are reading me excessively uncharitably, or directly insulting me, and I don't take very kindly to either position.

In any case, this kind of argument really is an attempt to dislodge pre-existing intellectual dishonesty. As the intellectual case for this argument from culture is that culture causes an incorrect weighting of the validity of claims, and thus showing that culture is a factor undermines the comfort of certainty to promote a better assessment which properly weighs the validity of claims. Yes, it works better on the weak-minded because they have to be particularly dishonest to hold to a belief, and there is nothing wrong with even using it upon them, because even if they do not buy the argument, it forces them to rethink things and become more knowledgeable. Such an argument can also undermine an intelligent but naive person to some extent as well, for the same reason, as it undermines their easy intellectual comfort, which forces them to either accept an idea, dismiss an idea more substantively than they would otherwise, or dismiss an idea at the loss of some intellectual integrity. None of these are wrong a priori.

Last edited by Awesomelyglorious on 06 Apr 2009, 9:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

That's ok, I may have misunderstood your intent.

Were you saying that Christianity is less sentient/observant as compared to atheism or that the oddness of theistic religion (such as Christianity) is pause for thought in and of itself? If its the later I think its a very interesting point, if its the former - I get the impression that a lot of people put intellectual blinders on when it comes to this issue because it hits certain emotional triggers, mainly that they would much rather conclude that they're existence isn't subject to whims of higher beings (especially for the kind of f'd up cesspool of a world and universe that we live in) - which I'd imagine is preferable to many people but many such people see the evidence pointing away from that and realize that they just have to deal with reality for what it honestly seems to be; all wishful thinking aside. Therefor you have both extremely thoughtful and enlightened theists and atheists just as much as you have ape-minded rock throwers on both sides of the argument.

Exclusivism may be popular among conservative Christians, but that is still only one theological interpretation.


Predictive power doesn't prove anything, and it cuts both ways. And it can't *force* anyone to believe anything.

Anyone can look at the statistical stuff and say, "well, I know why I believe what I believe, so that doesn't affect me."


To establish completely objectively that you are completely objective is impossible. You have to assume that you are right -- to have faith in your own opinions. Despite the possibility that you may be wrong -- because you may be right as well.

There is no certainty, but you have to act as if there were despite knowing this, because if you don't, your opinions will simply follow whichever way the breeze is blowing.


I may have misread or misremembered something that you said earlier in the thread. You seemed to me to have acknowledged that the original argument of the thread, by itself (the "salt and pepper without eggs", as you called it in one post) was logically false, but emotionally effective. And you recommended using it.


I didn't say all Christians would disagree with that. I was trying to point out that not all agree with it -- the original point of this thread was to point out an argument that could supposedly debunk all religions, in the context of that, I was showing that your argument applied only to a subset rather than the whole, and so couldn't establish the original point of the thread.


I think this is the source of much of the misunderstanding between us. I do not believe that there is a "real underlying factor" (if that means what I think it means). The societal forces are just influences -- they may hold some reliable predictive power for large groups, but they can't hold reliable predictive power for individuals.


I doubted that you would do that (based on previous posts), but it seemed like you had. My statement was meant to point out the inconsistency so you could resolve it. I probably shouldn't have made such a pointed statement without any context or explaination. Sorry about that.

As is any theological interpretation, few theological interpretations are more than one.


Predictive power shows the source of an idea. I don't argue against cutting *all* ways, and I am fine with an argument that can theoretically cut all ways. Well, the last point depends on how we define "force", if we do not have an ability to believe something independent from deterministic necessity, then how do we understand force? Not only that, but still, the fact that this is the major factor causes an issue for human intellectual virtue in any case.


Anyone can say 1+1=3, it doesn't mean anything. I would not bring myself to respect such a person, who was not willing to think about the large numbers of people who disagree or the problems of cultural conditioning. Nor would I consider a lack of concern to be intellectually honest. We can argue that intellectual honesty doesn't exist at all, but that does not suggest that all behaviors fall into our intuitive notions of intellectual honesty equally.


Well, right, but this undermines the idea of certitude altogether for the sake of fideism, as all that is promoted is faith for the sake of faith. Ultimately, this is possibly the death of all epistemology.

I don't disagree with this point, but it leads to a problem where beliefs are inescapable, which actually seems to support the prior point on cultural conditioning, so I don't see the point in proclaiming inescapable beliefs, but also proclaiming that these beliefs are effectively culture indifferent for purposes of global justice in belief. It seems to me that the idea that beliefs are inescapable and culturally dependent would make more sense, as then from what ether would these inescapable beliefs come from? Why would they all be similar in a certain geographic region? I don't see a good explanation.


Well, I meant that it was not a logical proof of anything, but rather that it undermined emotional certitude for claims. I did not necessarily advocate a flawed form of this argument as the poster promoted, but rather more intelligent versions that would even be somewhat respectable in apologetic/counter-apologetic circles, such as Loftus's outsider test, which is not an argument in and of itself, but rather something he uses as a foundation for his attack upon Christianity.


Well, not all self-proclaimed Christians agreed with *ANYTHING*! There were Christians who believe in persecution and slaughter, there are Christians who deny the resurrection of Christ, there are Christians who claim that God does not exist, there are Christians who believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet sent by God, there are Christians who believe that modern technology is evil, there are Christians who support a strong military government, there are Christians who reject *all* governments, there are Christians who uphold eternal hell and believe that men are to exult at eternal punishment, and there are Christians who think that all will be saved, there are Christians who believe in an infallible Pope, there are Christians who think this Pope is actually the tool of the devil, there are Christians who believe God ordains every detail of the future, and there are Christians who think that God only guesses at the future, there are Christians who think that nothing can be proved without God, and there are Christians who use all things to prove God, there are Christians who believe in a trinity and incarnation, there are Christians who reject one or both of the prior, etc.

I mean, sure you might think that John Spong is not a Christian for denying the Resurrection over the claims of Paul. You might claim that Thomas Altizer is not a Christian for denying the Resurrection by claiming that God died forever in Christ, and thus denying God. You might claim that Mormons are not Christians for their adherence to Joseph Smith. You might claim that the Amish are nonsensical for rejecting society. You might claim that Republicans misinterpret the Gospel. You might also charge Christarchists with the same. You might claim that Edwardsian glorifications of hell are perverted, but you might argue that hell is a real eternal punishment unlike Greg MacDonald. You might claim that the Pope is clearly fallible, but you might also rebut that he is not the anti-Christ like Jack Chick seems to assert. You might say that God does not ordain the future as Calvinists think but only knows it, but that he still knows it unlike what open theists such as Greg Boyd think. You might argue that Newton was wrong to claim that worshiping Christ as God was idolatry and that both a trinity and incarnation existed. You might also argue all of the theological divides I haven't gotten to, but honestly, there are more Christian religions than most people have the sense to be able to debunk at a given point, much less religions in general.

So, you are right, Henriksson overstated his view, but that does not mean that the kind of argument used is utterly invalid against religious claims. If an ability to reach objectivity through some means is possible, and Henriksson thinks that he is there, then his argument makes perfect sense. Not only that, but there are more Christianities than most people know how to reasonably deal with, so most people when they say "religion" really do just mean conservative Christianity. After all, anything else than that just seems slippery to them, because there is so much diversity, all of which is somewhat meaningful in debunking but impossible to address all at once. After all, your own beliefs are a mix of some liberal positions(reject conservative exclusivity) along with what is likely a strong existential streak as you reject cultural control(unlike the postmodernists), you reject objectivity unlike the analytical epistemologists do, and you uphold belief for belief's sake.


Individuals are members of groups. If these are predictive for groups, how could they be completely invalid for individuals, who will have to reflect group tendencies to some extent. Just grab a random person on the street, or a small portion, and if you grab enough then you start seeing the original population distribution. You seem to posit a random will to believe coming in from the ether, from nothingness. Perhaps you are a Sartre fan, but I think that most people aren't. In fact, one could argue that the brain, being made up of deterministic cells(the neuron being too large for quantum effects to generally hold), is ultimately deterministic, thus "influence" is pointless, as sheer physical necessity forces people to believe what they do. You can argue with this about how this denies the validity of belief, argument, etc. But, nobody says that consciousness and the qualities of such cannot be emergent(except for the lack of causality of course) and not only that, but you already seem to claim that belief is arbitrary anyway.


Meh, happens all of the time on the internet. In any case, I've probably revealed that I am slightly annoyed in this post.