Accomodationist or Antitheist?

[xSilverPhinx]

I wondering where you all stand with this, and the ultimate strategic value of accomodationism for the liberal and more educated variations of theism versus pure and aggressive antitheism.

Which is better in the long run?

I see myself as paradoxically both an accomodationist and antitheist and given that people can be both educated and hold irrational and strange beliefs and though I do think that those beliefs (of all theistic religions are silly and absurd) don't see how simply wiping religion off the face of the world will change anything for the better. I believe that people are naturally prone to be religious, among which the least educated are more likely to be theistic (speaking of correlation, not causality).

So...what are your thoughts? Given the choice, would it be better to have more educated and smarter people who are atheists, deists, theists (of any religion) and every other philosophy or just educated and smarter people who atheists (not all atheists are necessarily smarter or more educated)?

[Davin]

I think people should be able to be whatever they want, they want to be a theist, then they can be a theist. I'm an accomodationist in that regard. I become "anti" when it enters public domain, especially in laws and schools. They want to present something in the public domain, then they should expect many members of the public to voice their opinions on that soemthing. Schools should not teach religion as fact, but I have no problem with a reigious studies class being taught.

[Whitney]

I don't think a simple belief in god causes any harm so that would put me in the accomodationist camp....it's specific religions (and specific secular philosophies, for that matter) that cause harm.  It's nearly impossible for any person to hold no illogical views and I see no reason to categorically say that god belief in itself is always a harmful illogical view.  On a personal level I also don't have any actual distaste towards generic theism; I just don't think it's a valid position.

[xSilverPhinx]

On a personal level I also don't have any actual distaste towards generic theism; I just don't think it's a valid position.

I used to not have any distaste for it but surprisingly even to me, now I do. I guess I see it as manifestations of small worldviews, where people go about sampling and using that to confirm their beliefs. Anything analogous to people saying that one person among thousands survived so god must exist...I feel sort of embarrassed for those types of people, even if they can't be quickly dismissed as stupid.

For example, one guy that's into maths and logical reasoning etc, sees religion more as a comfort blanket and for its aesthetic value, still falls into "who made the sun" type arguments, which really make me wince... Clearly not thinking about it all.

Also, the slight danger (maybe I'm over reacting) with consequences of religious thinking is that people blind themselves. On morality, this guy also believes that society nowadays is morally decadent, even though he never thought to compare it with other periods in history (um...we're actually better off). even though it is their personal beliefs, they influence other people with false information and non answers on a subject they know little about other than what their intuition says is from their god, who just so happens to think just like them, glorifying the ten commandments. 'Nuff said.

It's in these sorts of situations where I really ask myself if I'm more of an antitheist or accomodationist...

[Whitney]

I think the issues you mention above are the direct result of Christianity and not just of general theism.  A true deist or non-religious theist wouldn't have all that dogmatic baggage.

[xSilverPhinx]

I have no qualms with deists, but it's when those who say that their gods interfere in their lives and how they interfere that I think is outright silly.

Anyways, going back to that example (because for some reason it really bothered me), I don't think that guy is exactly a dogmatic Christian. Though religious, or "spiritual" or whatever, it's more like he was recognising simple moral truths (for lack of a better word) but was attributing them to the 10 commandments. My main problem with all of this is that I really don't think that a classroom is the appropriate place to spew false information to people who are not exactly good critical thinkers. Not that people are going to take this guys up as a role model for thought, but still...

(just for the background context: I have too much experience with the local population here and their religious feelings and thinking to not be extremely bothered by this scenario)

Am I over reacting with this one? ??? I don't see him as a dangerous dogmatic and narrow-minded fool.