The 3 legs of taking theism seriously

[luckyme]

Theists express outrage/frustration about not being taken seriously, in a philosophical sense. There seems to be three legs to consider.

1) theism as a cause of action in the world. All effects, health, education, civil liberties, justice, political/military, social, whatever, good or bad.

2) theism as a philosophical position.

3) the theist, as a person, the guy next door.

The effects of theism (1) IS treated very seriously and is the issue raised by all the books, articles, documentaries we're seeing. For the most part it's the only interesting aspect of theism that non-theists ( or other-theists) would normally be concerned about.

Theism as a philosophy (2) is often not treated seriously. Nor are other strange beliefs such as in the FSM or pyramid power, astrology or flat earth. Even though there are a lot of weird philosophies around, ones that start with "first you take this leap of faith ..." or even more clearly "your only entry to this philosophy is by a leap of faith..." can be analyzed rationally just as any premised position "if frogs had fur" or "yes, if Bush were a genius then ....." but it's more as a brain-teaser than anything else.

Dealing with the theist (3) would be a non-issue if theists had the effect on the world that the idealized tibetan monks would. ( but not the real ones). 2 flows into 3 since understanding your neighbor starts with "Given that he believes 2 ...".

For non-theists ( or even other-theists) the need to combat/control #1 usually includes not granting #2 ( else why would #1 be a problem if it were true) which raises the question of how to handle #3.

I'm not sure that the pressing need to contain the damage #1 causes can be achieved without some offense to #3, at the least. Some may argue that ridicule may be a main way to keep the non-committed from slipping into theism because it seems universally accepted. People that believe in pyramid power must at least start the morning off with, " I know people think I'm crazy, but.."

It seems a tricky balance to me, but I'm interested in what other atheists think about the the issue of 'feigned acceptance' or 'open rejection' or anything in between. I suspect opinion will swing depending on a persons view of #1. ( a lot of theists would start with 'whats the problem').

luckyme

[kurto]

I have to admit I read the post twice and I'm still not certain what the question is. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

If the question is what to do about the harm of theism... I think our only hope is to outbreed theists and raise our children to think rationally. And to do our best to provide clear and articulate answers to those on the fence.

I do believe there is hope... people are much less superstitious then they once were. If you get sick, one doesn't assume you are possessed or cursed as people once thought. An eclipse is no longer thought of as a supernatural event. We just have to hope that reason will one day overcome the people clinging to the superstitions of their ancestors.

[tame_deuces]

I state my views when I have them. I don't have a problem doing so with respect, and nor do I have a problem with sometimes trying to shift perspective to the theist. I have huge problems with #1 because it is leading us down a road on false premises.

Just look how material is almost an ugly word. Like there isn't beauty in the material, or mysteries and answers (yes this bugs me to no end). So you have large amounts of the human population thinking there can't be believable answers if the questions are answerable. Or something like that.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I have to admit I read the post twice and I'm still not certain what the question is.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's meant to be vague but maybe I'm an overachiever.

I'm hoping to hear some views on weighing, say, various levels of disdain, ridicule, praise, acceptance given that there are 3 aspects of theism ( as I broke them apart).

I didn't want to ask specific .. "is it ok to Xyz" but rather just hear how others see the need for "discrediting" theism or the spinoffs from various approaches to dealing with it. whatever. loose approach.
I didn't want to get specific, just hear opinions on " (not) taking theism seriously". I guess it depends if I've assumed the 3 legs are a decent way to split the issue up.

For example, Dawkins, and others seem to understand you can't help but offend some theists if you're going to call them out on it.

luckyme

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I have huge problems with #1 because it is leading us down a road on false premises.

[/ QUOTE ]

I tried to set #1 up as "theism has concrete effects on the world we live in". IF you think the effects are bad enough, what approach to theism is there that takes into account 2 and 3.

The premise was "theism has effects", so I'm assuming you mean that the effects are individually debatable. Certainly the import of various ones would differ depending on the observer.

Or are you saying that people would take the same position/action on matters if they weren't theists? ( their theism is just a front for innate basic views they have).

luckyme

[kurto]

I don't think you ever rid the world of theism. you can only minimize it.

I think definitely some theists will have to be insulted at times when you have to attack LEG 2 to stop something about LEG 1.

If the religious just worshipped their Gods at home then there would be no problem. I have no problem with Wiccans or feel the need to challenge their beliefs. I've met Wiccans and they didn't see any need to preach or attempt to change public policy based on their beliefs. They don't require politicians to accept and promote their views. They don't lead holy wars. They don't try to change the educational system to reflect their beliefs. etc.

So much as the religious try to shape the world to fit their superstitions, then they should be challenged vigorously.

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have huge problems with #1 because it is leading us down a road on false premises.

[/ QUOTE ]

I tried to set #1 up as "theism has concrete effects on the world we live in". IF you think the effects are bad enough, what approach to theism is there that takes into account 2 and 3.

The premise was "theism has effects", so I'm assuming you mean that the effects are individually debatable. Certainly the import of various ones would differ depending on the observer.

Or are you saying that people would take the same position/action on matters if they weren't theists? ( their theism is just a front for innate basic views they have).

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I might have misinterpreted it a little. I took it to mean theism as grounds for choosing an action. For instance setting a legal system to be christian, an education system to be islamic etc.

[Drag]

I think I can point to a usefull analogy.

IMO we can make some good comparison between theism and communism. There are a lot of similarities, and as communism disappeared, the same way theism will disapear. They are not the most effective ways of thinking about the world, hence they have an evolutionary disadvantage for the bearers of these ideas.

[mbillie1]

[Sephus]

is that like your new signature? [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]