Why Arguing Religion is Pointless | INFJ Forum

Why Arguing Religion is Pointless

jimtaylor

On Holiday
May 19, 2010
1,801
447
636
MBTI
No Need
Enneagram
Yup
Even though I fall into it at times, arguing religion is seemingly pointless… Why? Because religion is fundamentally founded on faith, faith which is a:

· Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
· Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

Pay attention to that second definition, “spiritual apprehension rather than proof.” Proof and factual evidence can be used in the support of faith but not to the detriment of it because faith isn’t bound by it. The principle of faith is not bound by the laws of nature or man. I can provide as much scientific or historical evidence that completely disproves the premise of certain religions but it’s irrelevant because faith will always win out.

I am not going to speculate on the virtue of this because that is not the point. The point of this is understanding and acceptance. I have been in numerous discussions and debates in my life with people of all different faiths which in my immaturity has left me frustrated because they couldn’t see the reason of my logic. Logic that was so plain and simple to my perspective and understanding. In these arguments, their conviction, their certainty of the truth and validity of what they have faith in couldn’t and can’t be dissuaded by my evidence. Our faith doesn’t know the limits of reality which is what makes it both so powerful and so dangerous.

Most of humanity has faith in some form or another. It is not an absence of logic or reason. It is not the result of the addled mind or the weak willed. It can be these things depending on our individual perspectives but I think at its core, it’s a; sometimes desperate or inspiring, hope for something. It is pointless to argue it because how can you disprove or prove something that is fundamentally supported by believing in the truth of it regardless the absence of proof?
 
  • Like
Reactions: dogman6126
I am not a militant atheist or anything, and prefer to remain open-minded, but I do have one pretty strong case against blind faith like what you speak of. Which is: there's a TON of faith systems out there, all often contradictory. Now to a reason-based thinker that's a red flag, because we seek convergent logical agreement. But even to a non-reason-based thinker, I'd think given the religion is supposed to be really fundamental, it should be at least somewhat bothersome that whoever the stated God is doesn't make this truth plain and self-evident to everyone. That to me should raise at least to some of faith a red flag that these might be more human constructs than "divine."

Beyond that, if someone believes in some narrow God who sets some narrow rules that some small subset of the population understand and follow, then perhaps the question is -- how significant is this for the rest of humanity? what makes that elite group special that they are privy to the truth?
 
Even though I fall into it at times, arguing religion is seemingly pointless… Why? Because religion is fundamentally founded on faith, faith which is a:

· Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
· Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

Pay attention to that second definition, “spiritual apprehension rather than proof.” Proof and factual evidence can be used in the support of faith but not to the detriment of it because faith isn’t bound by it. The principle of faith is not bound by the laws of nature or man. I can provide as much scientific or historical evidence that completely disproves the premise of certain religions but it’s irrelevant because faith will always win out.

I am not going to speculate on the virtue of this because that is not the point. The point of this is understanding and acceptance. I have been in numerous discussions and debates in my life with people of all different faiths which in my immaturity has left me frustrated because they couldn’t see the reason of my logic. Logic that was so plain and simple to my perspective and understanding. In these arguments, their conviction, their certainty of the truth and validity of what they have faith in couldn’t and can’t be dissuaded by my evidence. Our faith doesn’t know the limits of reality which is what makes it both so powerful and so dangerous.

Most of humanity has faith in some form or another. It is not an absence of logic or reason. It is not the result of the addled mind or the weak willed. It can be these things depending on our individual perspectives but I think at its core, it’s a; sometimes desperate or inspiring, hope for something. It is pointless to argue it because how can you disprove or prove something that is fundamentally supported by believing in the truth of it regardless the absence of proof?

I used to argue with people a lot about it, but then later I read an 18th century novel about a religious woman and reading the novel really changed my mind. I got to understand that her religion was her path on her quest to goodness and that all that she wanted was to be allowed to be free to pursue that path. The character was a lot more intelligent than me, and I guess the character was convincing, and it got me to realise that religious people can be good and intelligent, and that I can respect them on their path. (I guess that is shameful to admit... but there it is.)

I read an interesting story of personal experience by a religious man who began to question the Bible as the foundation of his faith. I wish I could remember where I read the story... he was questioning whether or not the Bible can be determined to be an accurate representation of Truth. He went on a long quest to find out how he could know whether the Bible was Truthful or not, questioning his friends, and his other companions in studying the Bible. Finally - He found a priest who told him that there is really no way of knowing for sure whether or not the Bible is Truthful or not... but Faith is to deliberately choose to accept the Bible as Truth, while at the same time simultaneously recognising that it could be Not Truth, and that there is really no way of knowing... but "True Faith" is not the blind and unquestioning acceptance of articles of belief as reality, but the choice to deliberately believe while recognising that the articles of belief may in fact not be True.

I agreed with that and I thought it was good, and the best thing that I've read about Faith. (Not saying that I have read a lot about faith... just that the story made incredible sense to me.) In some ways I think that is the valiant effort in life, that you choose to believe that things can work out OK, even if deep down you think that maybe they can't. I have sometimes thought that this act, of choosing to believe, of continually renewing that decision even on the hard days, and living a life of active and deliberate decision to maintain faith, is a worthy life act on its own terms. I guess I would say that I find it admirable.

I find myself wanting to become argumentative with people who insist that their faith is undisputably the truth and expect others to also accept it as the truth. But I don't know whether it is worthwhile to argue about that with them or not. I think that usually they will just insist that the articles of their faith represent The Truth and I don't know whether they will listen or not. So I think that maybe it's just a waste of time and energy to attempt to discuss it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dogman6126
I definitely think religious people can be intelligent; the main problem I have is when someone wants it both ways--they are willing to follow reason to make money, and for all sorts of such things, but essentially unwilling to adopt a rational ethics.

Maybe this even relates to Jungian psychology--I think like Jung often said, the kernel of many religions (esp eastern) belongs more to the realm of the irrational functions. Whereas things like ethical value judgment involve rational judgment, even if some of it is feeling judgment rather than wholly logical judgment (which I confess few things are apart from pure logic, math, etc).
And Jung's idea fits well with the idea of religions being faith-based -- because irrational knowledge wasn't arrived at necessarily through means replicable through logical argumentation, and was a sort of a priori thing you couldn't explain away...and he viewed many eastern concepts of enlightenment/God-consciousness in this light.

So I say to this -- sure. But when one is willing to follow reason where it applies, e.g. in what house to buy/to calculate one's funds, I think one should also be reasonable in other aspects of life amenable to rational inquiry.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dogman6126
I think at its most basic it boils down to a choice:
1. Either the universe (including possible parallel universes, etc.) is un-caused in terms of its EXISTENCE and, hence, eternal.
2. Or the universe (including possible parallel universes, etc.) is caused in terms of its EXISTENCE and, hence, caused by a fundamentally different existing "eternal".

There is no conclusive evidence for either and so both atheism and theism are beliefs/faiths.
 
I agree that it is accurate to describe atheism as belief. I don't know that it can be called a faith though, actually I think it would be more accurate to call it "faithless" lol, but maybe I'm just splitting hairs. I think agnosticism is maybe the most rational approach to the question.
 
I agree that it is accurate to describe atheism as belief. I don't know that it can be called a faith though, actually I think it would be more accurate to call it "faithless" lol, but maybe I'm just splitting hairs. I think agnosticism is maybe the most rational approach to the question.

Non belief is different from disbelief so it depends. That's what allows an agnostic to even exist in the first place. Agnostics don't believe or disbelieve and the first half of that, "don't believe" is the important part here, because they don't believe. They're agnostic after all, if they believed they wouldn't be agnostic. Some atheists also "don't believe" in the same way. It's simply a thing that they aren't doing, which is different from disbelief. It has to be different if agnostics don't disbelieve.

Some atheists do disbelieve but not all of them.
 
Non belief is different from disbelief so it depends. That's what allows an agnostic to even exist in the first place. Agnostics don't believe or disbelieve and the first half of that, "don't believe" is the important part here, because they don't believe. They're agnostic after all, if they believed they wouldn't be agnostic. Some atheists also "don't believe" in the same way. It's simply a thing that they aren't doing, which is different from disbelief. It has to be different if agnostics don't disbelieve.

Some atheists do disbelieve but not all of them.

OK. I had previously thought that agnosticism is an approach of non belief. I had also previously thought that atheism is an approach that is more specifically oriented to a belief that there is no God or Gods. Maybe some atheists would suggest that their approach to God/s is not a matter of belief, but it seems like a matter of belief to me because I can't figure out how they can conclusively establish that there is no God, apart from their own conviction - or belief. But I do recognise that it is a lot more complicated than what I think of others, and that they identify with their approaches in different ways that are useful to them, and that others should not presume to define those identifications for them.
 
OK. I had previously thought that agnosticism is an approach of non belief. I had also previously thought that atheism is an approach that is more specifically oriented to a belief that there is no God or Gods. Maybe some atheists would suggest that their approach to God/s is not a matter of belief, but it seems like a matter of belief to me because I can't figure out how they can conclusively establish that there is no God, apart from their own conviction - or belief. But I do recognise that it is a lot more complicated than what I think of others, and that they identify with their approaches in different ways that are useful to them, and that others should not presume to define those identifications for them.

Some people just don't care. Also there's a category of people who presumably have never heard of any gods, have not been taught about them or are unable to understand, which makes them not believers and also not agnostics.
 
[MENTION=1814]invisible[/MENTION]

Also I can't really say I believe something if I never really think about it unless reminded, but maybe that's just me.
 
Agree - Arguing religion/faith is pointless. Arguments or the presentation/discussion of evidence rarely ever leads to someone to know, recognise and understand faith. IMO, if people are sincerely genuine in seeking after truth and faith then truth/faith will seek them out.
 
I think religion is about what one needs. If one needs faith, belief or an answer they may find it in religion. It's often not more complicated than this. A common example would be the man who turns to God in a moment of genuine desperation, but there are many other equally valid examples.

So I agree that it's pointless to argue against a believer. It's also destructive. Your aim is to dismantle something they need. If anything, argue that an alternative to religion is superior, but don't dismantle their belief. I think that will lead only to internal conflicts that must be resolved in favor of the belief, so it will only reinforce the belief. After all, one believes what they do for a reason and they'll do what they must to preserve their belief.

Personally, I think Christianity is a positive force in the West. Aside from logical and theoretical shortcomings, it encourages stable, peaceful and traditional living. Precisely what the West so desperately needs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Siimplicity