![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
My conversation starter for Atheists
It goes like this.
1) Consider a hypothetical world in which there is a study that conclusively proves that certain aspects of religious practice, or the practice of particular religion, has an immediate benefit to your health. (I'm aware that such studies exist in the real world, but they're flawed. I'm asking you to consider one that, to your eyes, is conclusive.)
a) Okay -> Go to 2.
b) I would never find such studies conclusive, regardless of the methodology or repeated results -> Go to END.
c) I cannot imagine such a world -> Go to END.
2) Now you've imagined this world. Would you take up that religious practice?
a) No, it's a bunch of superstition -> Go to END.
b) No, I barely even eat right anyway -> Go to 3.
c) Yes, of course -> Go to 3.
3) Consider yourself/someone else who purported to be an atheist, but took up this practice. Are they still an atheist?
a) No, duh -> Go to 4
b) Yes, duh -> Go to 4
c) Maybe, it's complicated -> Go to 4
4) Do you consider them more or less rational?
a) Yes, they're helping their health -> Go to End
b) No, they're practicing a superstition -> Go to End
c) Huh. -> Go to End
End) Huh. Isn't that ... interesting?
1) Consider a hypothetical world in which there is a study that conclusively proves that certain aspects of religious practice, or the practice of particular religion, has an immediate benefit to your health. (I'm aware that such studies exist in the real world, but they're flawed. I'm asking you to consider one that, to your eyes, is conclusive.)
a) Okay -> Go to 2.
b) I would never find such studies conclusive, regardless of the methodology or repeated results -> Go to END.
c) I cannot imagine such a world -> Go to END.
2) Now you've imagined this world. Would you take up that religious practice?
a) No, it's a bunch of superstition -> Go to END.
b) No, I barely even eat right anyway -> Go to 3.
c) Yes, of course -> Go to 3.
3) Consider yourself/someone else who purported to be an atheist, but took up this practice. Are they still an atheist?
a) No, duh -> Go to 4
b) Yes, duh -> Go to 4
c) Maybe, it's complicated -> Go to 4
4) Do you consider them more or less rational?
a) Yes, they're helping their health -> Go to End
b) No, they're practicing a superstition -> Go to End
c) Huh. -> Go to End
End) Huh. Isn't that ... interesting?
no subject
I base that on this: for a study to be conclusive, it must conform to the scientific method.
If it conforms to the scientific method it is both knowable and repeatable.
That means it can't be religous, by definition. No element of faith required, no particular mystery, no unseen forces at work.
It's an interesting thought experiment, though.
no subject
Okay. Let's say "practice associated strongly with a particular traditional religion."
How does the rest of the responses go?
yrs--
--Ben
no subject
Let's say the practice is, every morning, clapping your hands together and saying "All Hail Ra!". Let's say that people who do this live, on average, 10 years longer than those who do not when controlled for other factors.
Let's also say that this is better than the control group, those who either did not clap or did not give praise, those who said "All hail Odin!", and those who took little white sugar pills (but weren't told it was a sugar pill). Let us finally assume that this was a very large, thoroughly comprehensive, peer-reviewed multi-discipline study widely accepted as valid by the scientific community that makes sure that what we're seeing is *not* the placebo effect.
I'd say that, at that point, you've got some pretty good evidence that Ra is the One True God, and a bit anal-retentive (and certainly more puissant than that Johnny-come-lately Odin). Why Ra? Why not Bupkiss or Thor? Is Ra a power-word, or is it really a direct benediction from the Sun God to those who praise him? These are all legitimate questions for follow-up studies.
Given all that, sure, I'd praise Ra in the proscribed manner. But I'd also say that it was because the science behind the praise bore out the benefits. Absent Ra himself doing Larry King Live, I don't think it would get much better than that.
I might not do it if the act of worship offended me (say, you had to sacrifice a baby) or was particularly inconvenient (sure, you live 10 years longer, but you have to spend 3 months a year on retreat in Tibet to get the benefit).
But given all that ... we're not dealing with religion, are we? There's no faith involved.
And what if the religious practice was just "eat less red meat, eat plenty of veggies and fruit, and a little fish". The religious aspect of it ('God Said So') is just a byline to the provable nutritional angle.
no subject
You make no mention of whether or not the "religious practice" was moral or not. This is an important issue and would be the first and last question--the ONLY question, in fact--that would influence my decision.
If I had to rape, then murder a baby every day to live forever, the answer is NO NO NO, regardless of any other circumstances.
no subject
Really? I'd say that, scientifically speaking, you have absolutely no evidence for that at all (take your nutrition example below.)
So, would you consider someone who did that practice less of an Atheist? How about someone who refused to, on the grounds that they did not believe in Ra? Who would you consider more rational?
yrs--
--Ben
no subject
It's certainly compelling circumstantial evidence that could be further refined. To your second question, I'd say, no, not necessarily. It could just be the particular invocation that has a beneficial effect; no belief in Sun Gods necessary, which would make the entire process no different from eating your veggies and exercising.
But you're right - the scientific grounds for Ra's existence, given my first experiment above, is pretty shaky. But it could be refined! ;)
no subject
Does that create any rational or irrational response? The real question is - can you call anything rational or irrational, and in fact can you actually know anything - current philosophers believe that we can only believe something with a rough 95% certainty, and have no real knowledge. To be able to tease out what is a rational response vs. something that may prima facia appear rational (I sneeze so I wipe my nose with a kleenex) with the reality (I wiped my nose with a kleenex because I'm afraid of evil spirits inhabiting my body) is nigh impossible.
no subject
‘A farmer lived in the days when fighting was going on between small kingdoms in China. This farmer had a son. His son, with the aid of the horse, was tilling a small field. One day the horse ran away. The neighbors came and said, 'It's a very bad thing. You have such bad luck.’ The farmer said, ‘Maybe.’ So the next day the horse came back with half a dozen other wild horses. The neighbors came again and they said, ‘What tremendous luck.’ So he said, ‘Maybe.’ On the third day the son, while trying to ride one of the wild horses, fell and broke his leg. Again, the neighbors came and said what bad luck it was, and the farmer said, ‘Maybe.’ The next day the king's people came to recruit strong healthy farmers into the army. When they found this farmer's son with a broken leg they left him alone. So, again, the neighbors came and said it wasn't such bad luck after all and that everything had turned out well. The farmer said, again, ‘Maybe.’’
no subject
In which case I think my answer as to whether I would do it would be that it really depends on the followup studies - does it work better if you say "all hail Ra lord of the sun"? or is it some sort of vibrational sound thing and saying "all hale raw" works just fine?
no subject
no subject
exactly.