From the Atheist Manifesto:
It is perfectly absurd for religious moderates to suggest that a rational human being can believe in God simply because this belief makes him happy, relieves his fear of death or gives his life meaning. The absurdity becomes obvious the moment we swap the notion of God for some other consoling proposition: Imagine, for instance, that a man wants to believe that there is a diamond buried somewhere in his yard that is the size of a refrigerator. No doubt it would feel uncommonly good to believe this. Just imagine what would happen if he then followed the example of religious moderates and maintained this belief along pragmatic lines: When asked why he thinks that there is a diamond in his yard that is thousands of times larger than any yet discovered, he says things like, "“This belief gives my life meaning,"” or "“My family and I enjoy digging for it on Sundays,"” or "I wouldn't want to live in a universe where there wasn't a diamond buried in my backyard that is the size of a refrigerator."” Clearly these responses are inadequate. But they are worse than that. They are the responses of a madman or an idiot.
So the point is that irrational beliefs can make people look like an idiot. If I care about you, I'll probably try to talk you out of things that make you look bad. (Note the fine distinction that in the quote the "madman or idiot" is someone who puts forth comfort as a reasonable basis for belief, not someone who believes in God.)
Reason #1 to try to talk someone out of something in spite of the discomfort it might cause:
You care about them and believe that your suggestion will help them.
The excerpt below from an interview with Richard Dawkins makes a great point about when an anti-religion argument is and isn't appropriate, in regards to the comfort factor.
You've criticized the idea of the afterlife. What do you see as the problem with a terminally ill cancer patient believing in an afterlife?
Oh, no problem at all. I would never wish to disabuse or disillusion somebody who believed that. I care about what'’s true for myself, but I don'’t want to go around telling people who are afraid of dying that their hopes are unreal.
If I could have a word with a would-be suicide bomber or plane hijacker who thinks he'’s going to paradise, I would like to disabuse him. I wouldn'’t say to him, "Don't you see what you're doing is wrong?" I would say, "Don'’t imagine for one second you'’re going to paradise. You'’re not. You'’re going to rot in the ground."
Yeah, I'd rather see the dying person take comfort in something real - fond memories, hope for a bright future for loved ones, an end to the pain. But I wouldn't want to try to take away a misplaced source of comfort because nobody gains from it, and the patient loses. When I would want to make the argument is when someone still will do things that matter to other people.
Reason #2 to try to talk someone out of something in spite of the discomfort it might cause:
If successful, your persuasion of that person will have a positive effect on the lives of other people that is more significant than the negative effect on the person.
Obviously reasons 1 and 2 are both subjective, and it can get pretty nasty when you start telling other people what is best for them. Whether it is worth it depends on your judgement of how strong the positives and negatives are.
Aside from death-bed cases, the negatives shouldn't be very severe if you talk to someone with an open mind. Alas, almost everyone thinks they have an open mind, but many do not, since anyone who isn't open to the falsification of their beliefs is therefore close-minded. They tend to call such close-mindedness "faith" and take pride in it as a virtue.
No comments:
Post a Comment