« Biblioteca Vasconcelos | Main | High bank profits »
*Your Religion is False*
The author is Joel Grus and the link to the book is here. I am a pro-religion non-believer, but if you wish to hear from an anti-religion non-believer, this is the place to go. He will tell you that your religion is false.
In addition to its humor, I prefer the content of this book to the better-known "new atheist" tracts. Grus yields many of the strongest arguments. For instance the biographical and sociological correlates with belief (most people choose the religion they grew up with, or encountered through a friend, etc.) suggest that, in this area, intuitions which feel "certain" simply cannot be trusted.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on July 19, 2009 at 04:31 AM in Books, Religion | Permalink
Comments
I was formerly anti/non, but I like your easy-going style, Cowen. I switch to pro/non.
Posted by: C at Jul 19, 2009 5:10:01 AM
I'll switch to pro/non too. So that I won't have to gag myself when I hear religious folks make references to God.
Posted by: kate at Jul 19, 2009 6:01:34 AM
The funky Gibbon wrote:
The various modes of worship which prevailed in the Roman world were all considered by the people as equally true; by the philosophers as equally false; and by the magistrates as equally useful.
Posted by: dearieme at Jul 19, 2009 6:32:58 AM
I'm definitely an atheist but I'm neither pro nor anti religion; I only desire that nobody tries to force me to change my behaviour to be consistent with their belief system.
Posted by: Robert Scarth at Jul 19, 2009 7:03:54 AM
I too could be loosely considered someone who does not believe in any religion, or anything supernatural at all, but looks favorably upon religion. I adopted the stance partly in response to how obnoxious and uncharitable the New Atheists were. I was more like them in High School, which makes me tend to regard New Atheism as puerile.
Posted by: Paludicola at Jul 19, 2009 7:27:14 AM
But is HIS religion false? :eek:
Posted by: Vernunft at Jul 19, 2009 7:42:00 AM
A brief comment on the pro/non, anti/non discussion. Niclas Berggren (Ratio Institute, Stockholm, Sweden) and I (Aarhus University, Denmark) are working on sorting out the association between religiosity and social trust - a rather desirable characteristic of societies: That you can trust people not to cheat you. For those of you who are pro-religion, whether you believe or not, the evidence very clearly points to a strongly negative association. Religiosity destroys trust. So it's not surprising that certain American states display almost African trust levels - people in those states are so religious that it's almost impossible to fathom for an average Scandinavian.
Posted by: Christian Bjørnskov at Jul 19, 2009 8:02:25 AM
Christian Bjørnskov,
The lack of trust in African countries is generally given as one of the main causes of poor economic development; do you suspect then that this lack of trust is only a proximate cause, a consequence of their very high levels of religiosity? Is this autocatalytic?
Posted by: William at Jul 19, 2009 8:12:59 AM
As St. Paul wrote, if the story of Jesus is not true, then Christians are fools who are wasting their time. In other words, religion is only worthwhile if it is true. I don't much care what the effects of religiosity on society are. The only question that matters is if the story is true -- and for the record, I believe that the story of Jesus is true, and that there is significant evidence to support that.
Posted by: Jamin at Jul 19, 2009 8:33:17 AM
"religion is only worthwhile if it is true"
I'm anti/anti but I can not agree with this. As Ed Glaeser writes in his paper
"Education and Religion",
"Religion provides spiritual returns and more earthly social returns.". Thus, even in a false religion one can still benefit simply from these social contacts. And this is by no means the only benefit a false religion may have.
Posted by: William at Jul 19, 2009 8:49:23 AM
May I suggest "How Dawkins Got Pwned" by Mencius Moldbug (not necessarily what you think it is).
Posted by: josh at Jul 19, 2009 9:59:33 AM
I'm sure my religion is "false", meaning not exactly correct. In fact, even my "best guesses" are often a set of mutually incompatible partial equilibrium models. I still think the actions I take in my daily life are reasonably well served by them at a practical level.
On Facebook, I have two "religion"s listed: Protestant and Bayesian.
Posted by: dWj at Jul 19, 2009 10:11:04 AM
Certain American states? African trust levels? Substitute "low IQ" for "religious" and that comment might have come from Steve Sailer :)
On a more serious note, I do hope Niclas and Christian are able to separate "religiosity" from "religion" as it relates to trust. A good place to start might be religious orders which explicitly base membership on trust. In the USA, examples would include Mennonites, Brethren, Hassidic Jews, etc. I don't know whether such exist in Scandinavia, which I hear is religiouly monotonic.
Granted one can always find Bernie Madoffs preying on Orthodox Jews and Amish smuggling pot in from Canada, but I think these exceptions only reinforce the argument that religion can in fact increase trust.
Posted by: Bob Knaus at Jul 19, 2009 10:53:00 AM
Thanks for the kind words. I'm glad you liked it!
Posted by: Joel Grus at Jul 19, 2009 11:14:52 AM
The only sure thing is that there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in our philosophy
Posted by: athelas at Jul 19, 2009 11:30:36 AM
Thomas Huxley came up with "agnostic" to describe the neutral/non view. There should be a clever name for pro/non... prologotheistic?
Posted by: Michael F. Martin at Jul 19, 2009 11:58:19 AM
"for the record, I believe that the story of Jesus is true, and that there is significant evidence to support that."
Care to share with us the "significant" evidence, Jamin?
Posted by: Thomas at Jul 19, 2009 12:03:03 PM
"people in those states are so religious that it's almost impossible to fathom for an average Scandinavian."
Some people in those states are. In my time in Asia and Europe I've found "religion" (or belief in the mystical) to play far more of a role in many people's lives than in most of the United States. I've never understood the focus on American religious belief by Europeans and others, as though it is somehow standing head and shoulders above the pack in this regard. There is no denying that there are a lot of very religious people in America, and with such a large population there are large numbers of these people, but has the average Scandinavian not been to religious countries in Europe? Has the average Scandinavian ever been to the middle east? Has he or she never visited Japan? China? Or do "cultural practices" that are more pervasive but which don't revolve around singulars Jesus or God harder to be scared of?
Posted by: MPO at Jul 19, 2009 12:18:27 PM
Is atheism a form of secular fundamentalism? Religious fanatic affirms with absolute certainty that their is the only true one. Atheist affirms with absolute certainty that eveyone religion is a false one.
Posted by: Home.and.Altar at Jul 19, 2009 1:38:39 PM
The average atheist is just as dogmatic as the average religious believer. Most atheists cling to materialism and reductionism and refuse to investigate evidence that contradicts their beliefs, preferring to ridicule it instead.
I write this as someone who is not a theist.
Posted by: Matthew C. at Jul 19, 2009 2:19:56 PM
These comments suck. Atheism dogmatic? Please. At least try to acquaint yourself with the arguments that beat you.
Posted by: a person at Jul 19, 2009 4:17:58 PM
Granted one can always find Bernie Madoffs preying on Orthodox Jews and Amish smuggling pot in from Canada, but I think these exceptions only reinforce the argument that religion can in fact increase trust.
Yes, religion can increase trust *within* the group -- but at the expense of decreased trust in dealings with people outside. A society of religious groups each featuring in-group trust and out-group distrust is not attractive vision. It happens that Amish and Orthodox Jews are small enough minorities in the U.S. that the effect on those outside the groups is generally low, but I imagine being non-Mormon in parts of Utah could be a pretty serious disadvantage. And, of course, where minority ethnic or religious groups are both relatively closed in their trust relationships and business dealings and are also successful, there is an potential for conflict, occasionally rising to the point of genocide (see Amy Chua on 'market-dominant minorities').
Surely the tendency of religions to exacerbate in-group/out-group thinking is one of the worst features, not one of the best.
Posted by: Slocum at Jul 19, 2009 4:28:35 PM
Also generally pro/non - but leaving open the idea that one should believe in the most compelling religious/moral/pragmatic argument that inspires you to try to be a better person every day.
Posted by: CB at Jul 19, 2009 4:43:12 PM
"arguments that beat [me]"? You clearly did not read the part of my comment where I pointed mention that I am NOT a theist.
This is exactly my point -- some atheists are so smug and self-assured that they are right and others wrong that they can't even be bothered to read a three sentence comment before whipping off an irrelevant reply. . .
Posted by: Matthew C. at Jul 19, 2009 5:00:40 PM
The false equivalency between secular fundamentalism and religious fundamentalism is laughable. If I hold up a red pen, saying that I'm certain it's red, while you claim to be certain it's blue, then who's the bigger fool?
That sounds like the rationalization of a relativist. People disagree-->everyone is equally wrong?
Really?
Posted by: another person at Jul 19, 2009 5:02:12 PM
