Non-Believers: What stance should we take towards religion? (beliefs, atheist)

[Fluffy]

This is a same faith debate for atheists, agnostics, secularists and anybody else who would comfortably adopt the term "non-believer". If you wouldn't describe yourself as a non-believer but would like to discuss/debate this issue then please go here.

There appears to be three main stances that non-believers take towards religion:
1) The Richard Dawkins approach
2) The Daniel Dennett approach
3) The UU approach

If you are unclear on the significant differences in position between Dawkins and Dennett or believe there to be none then I suggest you read this article which is a review of the God Delusion by Dennett which was published in the Free Enquiry.

Dawkins' approach can largely be characterised by the idea that the world would be better off without religion. Religion is the cause of many troubles in the world (or the root of evil as he puts it) and we should focus on evangelising theists to raise their consciousnesses to the truth. Indeed he describes this as the main objective of the God Delusion. Respect should only be given where it is earned and because religious claims are ludicrous, it devalues the idea of respect to suggest that they deserve any.

Dennett refers to himself as an agnostic on this issue and appears to be in favour of reforming religion in order to get rid of the aspects which are considered bad and also that religion can be the cause of great beauty. He seems to be especially in favour of non-literal religion such as is advocated by the Sea of Faith movement. He also feels that mutual respect is a key aspect of achieving any progress towards this end.

The UU approach is largely unconditional support of and communion with religion as it exists today. Troubles in the world are caused by extremism and not religion and so it is better to form a united front with theists to confront extremism rather than trying to get rid of or reform religion. Mutual respect is a natural state that should be encouraged and whose only goal is greater understanding, tolerance and unity.

So which stance do you think, barring a few minor details, is the correct one to take? Is there a fourth stance that you think is better than any of these 3? Poll to follow.

[Bouncing Ball]

Like I said in the other thread, I like UU the most I guess. Although I don't need a "stance" in the first place.

[mball1297]

I chose the Daniel Dennett approach. I just bought his book, but haven't gotten to it yet. From what you describe, though, he seems like the way to go. I believe that religion has something to offer, but some things about it need to be toned down. Mutual respect is key for achieving anything in life.

[whereismynotecard]

Not to be mean, but I think the world would be better off without religion. It is just another thing that separates everyone into groups, some of which being discriminated against by others. Of course I know that there are alots of religious people, and non-religious people who respect everyone reguardless of relgion, but I've seen a lot of people, and encountered a lot of people who judge people based on religion. I've had teachers not like me as much when they found out that I don't believe in god. I could tell that they didn't like me as much after I mentioned that. Because of this, I sometimes do not mention my beliefs, just because I know that my grades might suffer for it.

So I think it would be better if there was no religion.

[Nanda]

Being of the "live and let live" sort of mindset, I'm more in favor of the UU approach, though I do fear that many religious types do not and will not offer me the same courtesy and consideration, which I find is the biggest problem with that approach. I would like it very much if some religions would reform themselves in the interest of the greater good, but that's also pretty unrealistic. I guess I just feel that, as long as no one is breaking the law or abusing anyone else (though the definition of what constitutes abuse is a fuzzy one) it's not my place to tell people how to run their lives.

[Sunstone]

I think religion is ultimately a manifestation of human traits that are genetically based and not going to change any time soon. Consequently, we are unlikely to ever be entirely rid of religion, as Dawkins wants, although we might still hope for a society like Norway's in which the vast majority are non-believers.

Dennett's approach in many ways interests me more than the others.

[logician]

The Dawkins approach seems the most valid to me. After reading "The God Delusion", i agreed on so many of his points that really can't fault his approach. I have seen the harm religion can do do individuals first hand when I was involved in it, the best thing I ever did was to come to the realization that religion was basically a copout, an avoidance of reality, sugarcoating the world with an illuison. I free much freer now that I have dropped the veneer of religion, and actually think about what I believe, and the consequences of my beliefs.

[yossarian22]

Dennett's for me

[OutOfTime]

Originally Posted by whereismynotecard

So I think it would be better if there was no religion.

brainwashed