The Center vs. The Fringe: A Debate

[Obii]

This is one debate I found extremely interesting. First, two points before I go on:

1) I honestly haven't read the forum rules, so if I'm posting a thread that I shouldn't be, feel free to remove it.
2) This is probably in the wrong section, but it's the best section that I saw pertaining to this topic. If this thread stays and is not in the right place, feel free to move wherever it belongs.

Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NX_LM7WZc9A

This is a debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath about, basically, if religion improves society or not, and the individuals in it. I'm still split on this issue. Being only 21 years old, I know that I still have a lot to learn and experience in order to make an informed opinion on whether or not religion can (overall) benefit a society like today. The typical atheist response in me says "Of course religion should be banned!". However, I digress to this. I'm a firm believer that humanity is still at a point where the grand majority of humans are superstitious, and along with this, eager to THINK they know 100% how the Universe works in its entirety. Without making a super-long post, I don't think it would overall benefit society AT THIS POINT to do away with religion, simply because humans, at the point we have evolved to, are still in need of some kind of crutch in life, something to give them a "higher" purpose that keeps them moving forward and, in most cases, doing good things for people. Like I said, I'm only 21 and my perceptions can still be changed with good reasoning, so have at it.

[deekayfry]

Being only 21 years old, I know thatI still have a lot to learn and experience in order to make an informed opinion on whether or not religion can (overall) benefit a society like today.

That is a good attitude to start with.

However, do not assume that all atheist want to ban religion.

It is tough to call whether religion is a benefit to society.  What we lack is a society that is totally free of religion as a model to compare to.  What I mean is that there is a society that isn't simply just atheistic but rather non-theistic.  In other words, the idea of believing in anything is a foreign concept, and more succinctly the notion of having to believe is foreign, too.  

Historically, religion has been used as a means to govern and manipulate, and unfortunately terrorize a population.  So in that sense, without religion, things like the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades, and the Salem Witch Trials would not have occurred.  (This is a glaring fallacy, btw).

Here is where Religion has been of great benefit to humanity.  Education, research, philosophy, art, culture, and pure sciences have roots in religion.  Health care and social welfare have roots in religion and in many parts of the world religion is the only means of obtaining these types of protections.

Now, having said all of that, we can argue that a secular state can accomplish this just as easily as a theocracy can.  We can easily and reasonable argue that genocides and atrocities have been committed outside the name of religion.  (Look at my fallacy of saying that SI, the Crusades, and Salem Witch trials would not have occured.)

Finally, I support the freedom of religion because the human population is entrenched in it.  Banning religion runs completely counter to this principle.  In societies with a central religion or a state sanctioned religion and other societies where religion was banned, there is evidence of extreme violence, hatred, and blood shed.

The heart of all this is actually the human, though.  It is up to the man or woman to make what is good or bad of anything whether it is religious or not.

[Will]

As detrimental as religion can be, the freedom to believe is the one and only key to the freedom to be skeptical. Any fight to get rid of religion, to ban it, could very easily lead to a movement to ban our ability to live as atheists and agnostics.

[Thumpalumpacus]

It is not typical of atheists to advocate for the banning of religion; we tend to favor defending the freedom of conscience, if only (for no other reason) because we get the short end of the stick often enough where such matters are involved.  I know I'd fight for a Christian's right to believe.

[Tank]

It is not typical of atheists to advocate for the banning of religion; we tend to favor defending the freedom of conscience, if only (for no other reason) because we get the short end of the stick often enough where such matters are involved.  I know I'd fight for a Christian's right to believe.

All I seem to be doing is agreeing with Thump today! But he's said exactly what I think too. I'll only push back at theism is it tries to push me around as freedom of thought is paramount if we are to grope our way out from under the blanket of institutioanlised superstition known as religion. If I deny freedom of thought to others how long before it is denied to me? It used to be and still is in places like Saudi Arabia. Freedom of expression and thought is a pre-requisite for civilisation, it has it's cost as one has to put up with ideas that differ from one's own but that is a small price to pay to be able to state one's own views without fear of sanctions.

[Obii]

As detrimental as religion can be, the freedom to believe is the one and only key to the freedom to be skeptical. Any fight to get rid of religion, to ban it, could very easily lead to a movement to ban our ability to live as atheists and agnostics.

You make a good point. I'm a relatively new atheist, and I'm still shocked sometimes at how people react to it. I was at a get-together this Saturday, and a good number of people including myself were outside having a deep discussion on philosophy and spirituality. I was the only atheist there. Some of the people there were creationists (yikes) and one of the men claimed he could see people's "spirits" and "auras", and that they were around me as we spoke. This, he deemed, was absolute proof for God and I was wrong (even though he was nice about it). How do I respond to that? Events like that only prove more to me that a movement to ban religion at this point would anger people to the core, enough people that, eventually, a counter-movement would most likely be created, with many more followers than the atheist movement.

Could you expand on "the freedom to believe is the one and only key to the freedom to be skeptical"?

Great posts guys, I'm glad I found this place.

[deekayfry]

Could you expand on "the freedom to believe is the one and only key to the freedom to be skeptical"?

In theocratic societies when belief is dictated and absolute adherence is required any form of skepticism or questioning of those belief is suppressed.  Unfortunately, the suppression is doled out violently.  Apostasy, that is renouncing one's religion, often leads to actual physical and sexual abuse, ostracizing the apostate from the family and community, and in other cases legally sanctioned execution.

I want to add that this occurs even in a free society right here in America.  A member of this forum can bear witness to this.

The violent treatment of an apostate is by no means exclusive to any one religion, either.

So to follow the phrase you presented, the freedom of belief in anything, in theory, opens the door to anyone who wants to question those beliefs.  In other words, in a free society, to publicly speak against belief should not lead to legally sanctioned violence or suppression.

Great posts guys, I'm glad I found this place.

I am glad you found this place, too.  I enjoy these types of discussion.  Your topic discussion and questions are a fresh perspective on popular belief.