The op is well thought out, and I accept the premise in the context described....but I think as a purely general question, arguing whether religion is pointless or not depends on these factors-
why are you arguing?
what do you hope to achieve?
who is your audience
your personal beliefs and worldview
how attached and identified you are with your beliefs and worldview
how you perceive people and how you treat them
how you perceive Self and how you treat Self.
communication skills
patience
time
necessity for practical purposes in relationships and communities
necessity for political purposes
I acknowledge that arguments can seem futile when the faith card is brought forth and it leads to circular reasoning, however...i think faith in itself is complex and not static...much like humans in general. I don't really understand what faith is, and what drives it....but I personally think that faith is always based on something...whether it is intuition, memory, perception, experience, learning, rationalising, attachment, identity, escape from fear, genuine trust etc....i think its complex. I don't think faith comes from nothing. Faith is held and sustained for a reason, and that reason is important in understanding the nature of faith, how it manifests, and how it evolves. I don't think that faith is blind and I think that faith can be questioned....although that process may or may not be difficult and painful.
Although faith is one reason people may choose to hold religious beliefs....i think that other factors can be and sometimes are far more important such as- identity, attachment, familiarity/comfort zone, surrounding environment, family, traditions, culture, level of curiosity and openness, exposure to diverse viewpoints and arguments and how those viewpoints were delivered and received, access to diverse schools of thought and information, personal experience, community, social support, social status, social approval and disapproval, legal structures, authority, social mobility, economic conditions, political conditions, quality of life, environmental dangers, government etc. And then other abstract concepts and attitudes come into it such as how one perceives Self, life, people, the environment, the earth...and death. And lastly....fear...fear of life, fear of uncertainty, fear of death, fear of the world can draw and addict people to a belief system that appears to provide a clause out of it. And all these things may or may not be related to 'the faith', and these may or may not be the real reasons that the faith is held in the first place. It's not possible to pull a thread from a human being, isolate it, and say this is the part that that represents faith or religion or belief or worldview. It doesn't work that way, faith cannot be isolated and viewed in a vacuum. It's a bloody tangled mess, all intertwined together in a living breathing teeming mass of association, perception, and experience.
I have spent a lot of time in the past arguing religion....and I don't think it was in vain...at least not for me. I like knowing why people think what they do and why, how it shapes their perception and effects their life and why. I have not however, argued religion with anyone to convince them to change their mind, or to have my mind changed. But i have argued religion in the past out of anger, frustration, bitterness and said things that were disrespectful, unnecessary and uncalled for, even on this forum. Discussions about religion and politics can bring out the worst in us, but these topics are important and still bear discussing. There is no right answer....and we all have our answer. All people have something interesting to share, and each person's experience is wholly valid...but
I see my personal experience and personal reasoning as the ultimate authority that guides and shapes my perception and beliefs. I trust, or shall I say, I have faith in my Self, my own experience above all else. There is a reason for that. I expect many people feel the same.
My dad is strongly religious and according to him I have argued since the cradle. He has spent many years tying to save me from going to hell. Given what his beliefs are...i understand why he tries so hard...imagine if you honestly believed that your child was going to burn in eternal fires...you'd be pretty afraid and do your best to explain sin and the plan for salvation. And I guess I have spent many years trying to save my dad from creating a living hell on earth...to show him that I see 'sin' and 'hell' as man made. All in all... we have made no progress on the religious or nonreligious front, but we have learned a lot about each other, and we both remain secure in our unconditional love for each other, mutual respect, and our enduring friendship and faith in each other...despite the incompatibilities of perception and the painful past. I have learned a lot about him, his beliefs, why those beliefs are held, and he has learned a lot about me, my beliefs, and why I hold them, and how these beliefs intersect and contradict, and how we can make it work anyway.
While arguing religion may seem redundant due to the nature of human perception and experience, I don't believe that it is a pointless exercise. Over the course of history, many religions have been created and many have become defunct. Religions, like everything else on this planet that is inherent to humans, evolve continuously. For a religion to survive and flourish, it needs to be relevant to people and our shifting knowledge and understanding of the world. This is particularly true right now, given that we live in a largely globalised community and we have access to information at our fingertips and communication is instantaneous. Never has there been such a sharing, merging and clashing of information and belief systems. Never has the nature of our subjective experience and our objective shared experience been so clear. Never has our interconnection with each other and the planet been so clear. Never has our arbitrary categorising of people based on gender, sexuality, nationality, ethnicity, and class been so meaningless and so clear. More and more people are able to communicate now through both shared language, and the ease of translating language. The internet has opened doors to people everywhere....books are cheaply mass produced, education is available to more people at this moment than it has at any time in the past. Masses of people are drip fed programming and entertainment through globalised media sources and people all over the world are able to create, upload and share their own media. Globalisation is a strong force of homogenisation, and an equally strong force of heterogenization, connection and individualism. Cultures have met cultures, evolved and transformed, adapted and died. We, as a planet, are becoming increasingly humane and increasingly aware that quality of life is possible and achievable. Science has been allowed to flourish and it has exploded with new knowledge and paradigms and inventions...which are rewriting and rewiring and reprogramming our understanding of what it means to be human and what we can do and the infinite possibilities of life. Humans will be in space soon, mars is a promise that comes closer to reality each day. Political systems around the world are increasingly secular and democratic. We place more and more value on humane practices, sustainability, innovation, opensource, quality of life and even enlightenment, self actualisation. As we shift into this age of technology, potential and connection...this will surely effect all cultures including religions. If everyone on this planet wants to enjoy a decent quality of life....if the developing nations want to have the same quality of life as developed nations....well something will have to change, and cultures and religions will need to adapt.
And this is why talking about religion is so important. Because religion can and does inform politics, even in secular nations. When we live in a democracy what people believes matters, because that is the basis of policy and legislation. If an increasing number of the population choose to believe something, that not only matters, it has the potential to effect all people living in that nation. People create culture, culture creates laws, and those laws sanction, legitimise and validate culture, which is basically how we perceive and treat each other. Given that our world is getting smaller and more connected.....what people believe in each and every nations has become more relevant to each and every nation. The religious beliefs of a country on the other side of the world become relevant when that country is torn apart through war and conflict, and refugees of that country start entering nations all over the world and belief systems literally spill all over the world.
But given that religion and culture are such difficult things to discuss and debate....as people of all beliefs systems can be very much attached and identified with their belief, and the inherent subjective, elusive nature of these concepts are near impossible to qualify on an even playing field, or even in the same literal or metaphorical language.....i think that religion need only be discussed in the necessary context of how we effect each other, for the express purpose of creating a democratic, humane, and free society (my proposed agenda).
People can believe what they want, that is their right. What someone believes is their business until they make it someone else's business by seeking advocacy and political representation, or by breaking laws and harming people. Then their belief can no longer be considered 'sacred' or 'on faith' because they seek to effect other people in their community, and it becomes about tangible behaviour and practical actions. At this stage, it is not only reasonable to scrutinise beliefs, it is imperative. This has been the case throughout history, and this process reflects the shifting face of our cultures, and politics around the world.
What is also apparent through history, is that attacking a belief system does not necessarily weaken it, but it becomes correspondingly more defensive and seemingly justified to those that feel that their identity is threatened and therefore needs protecting. Martyrdom is appealing to those that feel powerless as it seems a way to reclaim power. Attack is appealing to those that feel powerless as it seems a reasonable way to reclaim power, through taking it away from others. Having a hostile and resentful group of people that feel disenfranchised and powerless in any community or next door is a recipe for disaster.
In the past these things were normally resolved through suppression, bloodshed, war and mass murder....with the more powerfully armed, greater resourced, more strategic, more cunning winning the day. Generally there was not any true or sustained attempt to debate ideas and philosophy, although there have always been intellectuals, scholars and philosophers that did, even within major religions and among those that held power. It is likely that these periods of 'religious' bloodshed were motivated by economic gain, political power and monopoly. And perhaps on a more morbid and realistic note, simply periods of time when people en masse let out their general frustration and rejection of the quality of their lives, and their sense of powerlessness by fighting a group of people that come to represent and embody the apparent source of their discontent. Sure there may have been some genuine religious crusaders and warriors with some sort of genuine fervour that believed that they were doing this in the name of 'God'.... but i dare say that fervour and violence stems from that same sense of frustration and powerlessness, and wanting to make things feel better by killing some people and stealing some things...and of course putting the 'fear of god' into 'those others' by showing them how vilely humans can act when they are desperate.
The cultures of the past were very different from ours today (ours as in mine-Australia, and other secular western style democracies), and lived in a very different world of highly stratified societies, limited social mobility, ignorance, and generally barbaric customs and ideals compared to how we understand life today. The major religions of that past mirrored the authority structure and stratification of the societies, and vice versa. Some people would argue that our world and even western culture is still rife with the same cultural problems and not much has changed, but I disagree....the progress we made is immeasurable in my opinion, nothing short of revolutionary. Many incredible and brilliant philosophies were born and sustained throughout history, and contrary viewpoints still grew and evolved despite the hold of authority such as major religions, emperors, monarchy and cultural pressure. There have always been thinkers and philosophers within major religions that question the status quo and drive change within the religion. Cultures have evolved and transformed, entire new schools of thought flourished right next to and within religions and decaying power structures to lead to the dynamic secular society we enjoy today, where religions still have a place...and non religion has a place, and we are able to live in conditions where people have the right and ability to choose what works best for them. The right to choose can only happen in a democratic and secular society, and it is the right to choose that allows choices to be authentic and informed, rather than contrived or coerced. Our history is amazing....humans are amazing...all these people and their adventures and struggles and pain and development are the basis of where we are now...and if anything...it proves that humans are capable of great and brilliant things. Given that we now live in a completely different world, where words such as 'humane', 'democracy', 'liberty', 'freedom' do mean something to a large amount of people (perhaps still the minority however)....means that the action we take must reflect and uphold our own values and ideals.
People believe what they do for a reason. All belief systems, cultures, languages, and ideologies are kind of like psychological viruses in that they are contagious (spread from person to person, people in close quarters, same environment, contracted through prolonged contact), infectious (effect, shape, program, direct thoughts and behaviours)... they mutate and evolve from host to host, and within populations. Belief systems can be both harmful and/or beneficial to the host. It is possible to inoculate and immunise against certain belief systems, perhaps with the same success and risk as biological immunisation and inoculation Just to make it clear- I am not asserting through my analogy that people are 'sick', or that people do not have free will and the ability to choose belief systems and thoughts. I believe that people do have free will and can think critically, regardless what people around them may or not believe. What I am asserting is that belief systems and cultures are not something that is inherent to a human, but something that is created, programmed, developed, and chosen through factors in the environment, much like perception in general, and much like how the biological brain and body develop in interconnection with the environment.
To delve into the nature of belief systems, ideologies, worldviews, and 'faith' is to delve into the world of memes, archetypes, dialectics, perception, learning and memory, psychology, biology, emotions, identity, attachment, relationships, programming, political and cultural agendas, public relations, cultural engineering, collective consciousness and all that heavy messy stuff that happens on the psychic, mental and emotional level....which ultimately defines what we do on the physical and behavioural level. Basically, I’ve gone in an annoying loop and we are back to the reason why belief systems are held and sustained in the first place, why they are complicated to discuss, and why it is still incredibly important to discuss them anyway.
The only way I can imagine resolving these necessary conflicts in an effective way is to shift the focus of the debate on the clear practical and tangible implications of religious beliefs on the greater community as opposed to the perceived validity or lack thereof of abstract religious and philosophical beliefs. Take it back to the level of the individual and relationships, whether that relationship is between two people or 2 billion...it still comes down to attempting to create and sustain a healthy relationship, and our actions effect each others. I suppose it can be likened to discussing ethics as opposed to morality. Morality may inform ethics, but treading into and discussing morality is murky shifting waters. Discussing philosophy and abstract theory is fun, but discussing the practical implications of the philosophies and religions is the only tangible part we can focus on together as communities. The first step to do this is the hardest- we decide that we want to....and then we democratically decide what we collectively value and what we want in our society. Of course that is easier said than done, but humans are capable and often reach consensus which still allows a lot of room for movement, and cater for diverse belief systems. Just look at constitutions of nations, most of the western secular political systems, private clubs, organisations, groups, and intentional communities all over the world. Maybe we can just stick to those estranged UN declaration of human rights as a basis, while maintaining the sovereignty and autonomy of regions and nations. We all do better together when we have a clear consensus, a shared value to work towards, and lots of room to breathe and move. I firmly believe that knowing what you want and what you value and working towards that end is far more helpful than knowing what you don't want and working to prevent the worst from happening.
Once we know what we want, we have to make it clear by ensuring it is transparent, communicating clearly, and living the example. Behaviour that violates these values and infringes on the human rights protected within the democracy needs to examined and isolated....what we do now anyway. Solidarity at the basic level is important here. Regardless of what belief systems people hold, the things we agree on democratically must be upheld if people want to live together as a group, and we want to maintain the secular democracy that we enjoy (I do). That is the purpose of democracy - to serve the interests of the people, and for a democracy to work, people have to be informed and participate, and ensure that the basic constitution and values of that democracy is not violated. If a belief system contradicts or violates the values of the democracy, than those belief systems either have to adapt, which happens all the time....sometimes quickly, sometimes generationally.....or those belief systems need to find a more suitable environment in which to exist, a society that reflects what that belief system values. Or the values and constitution of the democracy might change to adapt to the changing belief systems, but this can only be done ethically and with due process, with voluntary consensus from the population. I see a place for debate, discussion and exploring new ideas... personal freedoms are sacred, but not at the expense of the conditions of the democracy.
Arguing about faith is complicated and may or may not be pointless on the micro and macro levels. Understanding the nature of belief is important, as beliefs inform action. Religious beliefs have a tangible presence and effect, and these effects need to be discussed, irrespective of faith, the reason why the faith is held, and the perceived validity of that faith by other people. And I believe that this can 'theoretically' and 'abstractly' be done with the intention of being respectful of people's faith and belief systems. However in actual practice and experience...it seems likely that the subject will be sensitive,, emotional, volatile, painful. Beliefs can be so closely associated with concepts of identity that the only time this communication would be easy....is when you are discussing it with someone that pretty much shares your beliefs and values, or you have become detached from beliefs, you are Spock, or you really love and care about that person, and that person is far more important to you than the beliefs they and that you hold.
Beliefs are hard to challenge (being beliefs)...perhaps the best position for anyone to start is to be clear in one's motivation for challenging said belief, and to respect other people's experience as valid, regardless of your personal belief. Too often (and understandably), the tone of arguments can reflect an attitude of superiority over other beliefs. Whether this sense of superiority is or isn’t justified is besides the point....no one wants to be judged as inferior or stupid, and just because someone doesn’t agree with your belief doesn’t mean that they have not spent a lot of time thinking or researching or analysing and simply come to a different conclusion to yours....or not. Keep in mind that trying to belittle someone is more about you then the other person, and may or may not be conducive to your purpose, whatever that may be. And most importantly, the best way to understand the nature of belief is to become self aware....hack your mind....break into all that code....question , challenge, play, dismantle, destroy and create anew....its far more important and beneficial to know the contents of your mind and why you believe what you do before challenging anyone else’s.
You can't really talk about religion/nonreligion without talking politics....both are closely bound in the human psyche and human experience, annoying and fun to talk about, get people riled up, and are important to discuss....particularly if we want to keep living in a secular democracy.
If anyone has read through this long long post thank you for your time.
