I'm trying to figure out what I want to do next with Clayton's essay. When I asked him to write it, my intention wasn't to set him up to be a personal punching bag for me to attack. I simply wanted his take on why he is - and remains - a Christian. I knew he could provide some food for thought. I had a more intimate reason for this request as well: I wanted to gain a better understanding of my friend.
What Clayton submitted was much longer than I expected, which is both good and bad: good in that there's a lot to consider; bad in that it's so long I'm sure a lot of folks said "tl;dr" and skipped over it entirely.
So I'm wondering what to do next. I'm leaning toward posting segments of Clayton's essay along with my observations/critiques. If you have any suggestions, feel free to share them in the comments below.
I asked Clayton to share his perspective because he isn't stupid. I know there are atheists out there who label all religionists as "stupid" or "brainwashed" or "gullible," but I contend that this is an egregious overgeneralization. Yes, there are a lot of stupid, ignorant, misguided religious people out there, and - to be clear - I am convinced that religion encourages ignorance and the repression of knowledge, and it breeds prejudice, hatred and elitism, but idiots can be found in every worldview. Being an atheist doesn't make one immune to mental or attitudinal missteps.
Religion (and I disagree entirely with Clayton's definition, but I'll get into that in a future entry) makes claims which are either wrong or unverifiable; thus, religious people are incorrect or misguided vis-à-vis metaphysics or epistemology. That alone doesn't make them stupid or irrational, just incorrect.
I am defending (certain) religious believers because I think categorizing people into two groups - "rational" and "irrational" - is the wrong approach. Clayton, for example, is a rational person. He isn't the only Christian friend of mine whom I consider rational either. I just think his paradigmatic starting point - or base presupposition upon which his worldview rests - is fundamentally flawed. I hope to elaborate on this in future entries. What I will say here is that everyone bases her beliefs on a starting presupposition: a certain assumption or set of assumptions upon which every other truth claim rests. Christians, for example, start with the base assumption that god exists and can be known/understood. Someone who starts with that presupposition - like my friend Clayton - can develop a complex, coherent, and even rational paradigm (to a degree). But if that base assumption is wrong, then the rest of the worldview - regardless of how rational or coherent it might be - collapses under the weight of scrutiny.
Consider all the scientists who preceded the scientific revolution who adhered to the ptolemic geocentric model. They were wrong, for their starting point was flawed, but they were no less rational than the scientists of today. In fact, their rational process led to the furthering of our knowledge, eventually discarding Ptolemy for Copernicus.
When I was a Christian, I was - more accurately, I became over time - a rational thinker. Naturally, I credit said rationality as the reason I advanced beyond religion to atheism in the same way the scientific community advanced beyond Ptolemy, but when I look back on my previous religious self, I contend that I was a rational thinker even prior to the discarding of my faith. I simply had what I consider now to be an incorrect starting point. One can be rational yet wrong. The attempt to be rational and the process of examining evidence and drawing conclusions that make the most sense - while necessary and intrinsic to the pursuit of knowledge - are no guarantees that true knowledge will be acquired. Likewise, one can be irrational and correct. Plato compared such a phenomenon to walking in the right direction while blindfolded. The fact that one is walking down the correct path has nothing to do with the choice to wear the blindfold.
Religion is pervasive. It saturates every aspect of a believer's life. I know from experience how difficult thinking outside the religious box can be. Religion, it seems, was designed to be that way. When we attack otherwise rational people who find themselves imbued thoroughly with religion, we gain nothing by attacking their intellects. Instead, we should consider their points of view while giving them food for thought as well, promoting honest inquiry and clear communication rather than drawing battle lines. Our goal as freethinkers should be twofold: to seek truth and knowledge, and to promote peace and happiness.
Dead-Logic.com
Are Christians Stupid?
Are Christians Stupid?
Posted by , Published at 11:00 AM and have
