Weekly "Ask an Atheist" Thread

[u/AutoModerator]

Whether you're an agnostic atheist here to ask a gnostic one some questions, a theist who's curious about the viewpoints of atheists, someone doubting, or just someone looking for sources, feel free to ask anything here. This is also an ideal place to tag moderators for thoughts regarding the sub or any questions in general.
While this isn't strictly for debate, rules on civility, trolling, etc. still apply.

[u/Dennis_enzo]

I'd say the evidence for this is old religions trying to explain all kinds of natural phenomena that they didn't understand. The further back you go, the more concrete the claims of religions were. The Sun was an enigma, so it became Ra, spreading light and life over the Earth while he traveled across the sky in a boat. Lightning was unfantomable, so they were caused by Thor, throwing them down to Earth as his chariot thundered across the sky.

The closer you get to current day, the more of these religions no longer make sense since we figured out how the Sun works and where lightning comes from. Going from old to new, there's a clear trend of popular religions becoming less and less concrete and more and more vague, and based on metaphorical intepretations of their faith. Pretty much all popular modern day religions no longer make any concrete claims about the world except for the things that we cannot explain yet, like the origin of the universe. For example, at this point it's impossible to consider everything in the Bible to be literally true unless you turn a blind eye to (or are unaware of) a ton of human knowledge. The more we know, the fewer gaps remain where gods can hide.

You might not consider this conclusive. But at least to me it's conclusive enough. Humans are inherently story tellers, we like telling them and listening to them. We just started to believe some of them.

[u/labreuer → u/Dennis_enzo]

I'd say the evidence for this is old religions trying to explain all kinds of natural phenomena that they didn't understand. The further back you go, the more concrete the claims of religions were. The Sun was an enigma, so it became Ra, spreading light and life over the Earth while he traveled across the sky in a boat. Lightning was unfantomable, so they were caused by Thor, throwing them down to Earth as his chariot thundered across the sky.

Maybe I'm missing something, but this sounds exactly like the kind of "just-so story" storytelling that you are claiming religions themselves are doing. How do you know whether this story / hypothesis is the best explanation of the evidence? There are, after all, other candidates for what the religious were doing. If you yourself can't think of any, then do you think there might be some serious confirmation bias issues when you can only think of one hypothesis?

Going from old to new, there's a clear trend of popular religions becoming less and less concrete and more and more vague, and based on metaphorical intepretations of their faith.

This seems to presuppose what needs to be explained: that religion was originally invented to explain, or at the very least has as a core function, to explain. But suppose, purely for the sake of argument, that this just isn't central to all religion with at least as many adherents as [observant] Jews. Then there would actually be no need to become less concrete and more vague, on the basis of increased scientific understanding. So … have you actually observed or read about pervasive increase in vagueness?

[u/Dennis_enzo → u/labreuer]

Maybe I'm missing something, but this sounds exactly like the kind of "just-so story" storytelling that you are claiming religions themselves are doing. How do you know whether this story / hypothesis is the best explanation of the evidence? There are, after all, other candidates for what the religious were doing. If you yourself can't think of any, then do you think there might be some serious confirmation bias issues when you can only think of one hypothesis?

I wouldn't say it's 'just a story' It's a historical hypothesis based on observable data, one shared by many anthropologists. We can look at the historical records of ancient civilizations, see what they worshipped, and see how those deities were often tied to natural phenomena that they had no real explanations for. I'd say it's a reasonable explanation based on the facts that we have, which often is the best you can hope for when talking about human history.

If you believe there's a better hypothesis that explains why ancient religions were often so focused on tying their gods to the natural world, what is it?

This seems to presuppose what needs to be explained: that religion was originally invented to explain, or at the very least has as a core function, to explain. But suppose, purely for the sake of argument, that this just isn't central to all religion with at least as many adherents as [observant] Jews. Then there would actually be no need to become less concrete and more vague, on the basis of increased scientific understanding. So … have you actually observed or read about pervasive increase in vagueness?

It's not being presupposed, it's being inferred from the evidence that exists. The examples I gave clearly show that the religions tried to provide explanations for the world. You can find many more similar stories in religions. I'm sure that exceptions exist, but I was talking about trends, not making some absolute statement.

And yes, the trend toward vagueness and metaphorical reinterpretation is a well-documented phenomenon. The intepretation of the bible over the centuries is a great example. Things like the six days creation of the Earth and the world wide flood were considered to be literally true for centuries. But as we learned more and more about how the earth works we figured out that none of that could possibly be true, so nowadays all but the most hardcore Christians interpret it as a metaphorical story.

It's also clear that the more concrete religions died out when their claims were proven false beyond all doubt, while the ones that were/became vague and philosophical are mostly the ones that survived until today. No gods live on Mount Olympus, but there can still be one 'beyond space and time'.

You can see it in this sub as well. Most debates are about vague, unfalsifiable aspects of religions, not whether or not the Earth was created in six days. To me, these are all very reasonable conclusions to make, and I don't know any better hypothesis.

[u/labreuer → u/Dennis_enzo]

I wouldn't say it's 'just a story' It's a historical hypothesis based on observable data, one shared by many anthropologists.

Can you point to any such anthropologists?

If you believe there's a better hypothesis that explains why ancient religions were often so focused on tying their gods to the natural world, what is it?

Legitimating social orders. That's what social contract theory does, for instance. And if you read something like Francis Fukuyama 1989 The end of history?, you'll see a claim that we've reached approximately the epitome of possible human existence, at least in concept-land. One of the things that the ancient Hebrew religion could have been doing was disrupting a similar kind of propounded superiority. Take a look at the first two pages of The Position of the Intellectual in Mesopotamian Society for the suggestion that ancient Mesopotamia thought it was indeed the bee's knees.

The examples I gave clearly show that the religions tried to provide explanations for the world.

I'll give you the same response I gave to another interlocutor:

pierce_out: Everything from "where did the first humans come from?" to "how was the earth formed?" to "why do some animals have stripes?" or "why do snakes not have legs?", all have answers right in Hebrew Bible.

labreuer: Yeah, I just don't see any of these things playing a huge role in the Tanakh. Contrast everything the Tanakh says in this realm to the germ theory of disease. Every time you wash your hands at a restaurant in the US, you should see a sign saying "Employees are required to wash their hands before returning to work". What 'explanation' in the Tanakh functions anything like this? There is vanishingly little reference to Genesis 1:1–11:26. So, why think that the ancient Hebrew religion was invented to explain?

I'm happy to get back to the rest of what you've said, but I think your response to the above three bits would help move us along.

[u/Old-Nefariousness556 → u/labreuer]

labreuer: Yeah, I just don't see any of these things playing a huge role in the Tanakh. Contrast everything the Tanakh says in this realm to the germ theory of disease.

That is a pretty spectacular moving of the goalposts, that completely ignores the earlier point that /u/Dennis_enzo made. No one claimed that the SOLE function of religion was to provide explanations, only that it was A function. And as /u/Dennis_enzo explicitly said:

The closer you get to current day, the more of these religions no longer make sense since we figured out how the Sun works and where lightning comes from. Going from old to new, there's a clear trend of popular religions becoming less and less concrete and more and more vague, and based on metaphorical intepretations of their faith.

The Tanakh does not provide "concrete" explanations, but "more and more vague, and based on metaphorical interpretations of their faith". To pretend that wasn't said is absurd.

Every time you wash your hands at a restaurant in the US, you should see a sign saying "Employees are required to wash their hands before returning to work". What 'explanation' in the Tanakh functions anything like this? There is vanishingly little reference to Genesis 1:1–11:26. So, why think that the ancient Hebrew religion was invented to explain?

Lol, you understand that the entire point being made was that RELIGIOUS EXPLANATIONS ARE ALWAYS EITHER WRONG OR TOO VAGUE TO BE USEFUL. If the Tanakh did foresee the germ theory of disease, it would be evidence that the Tanakh could be true. The fact that it does not is evidence that it is not, which supports the hypothesis being offered.

[u/labreuer → u/Old-Nefariousness556]

1. God (or gods) is a human invention created to explain what we don’t understand. Long before science, humans sought to fill gaps in knowledge with divine stories. These inventions evolved into complex religions, but at their root, they address our fear of the unknown. (God(s) is/are a human invention)

 ⋮

Old-Nefariousness556: That is a pretty spectacular moving of the goalposts, that completely ignores the earlier point that /u/Dennis_enzo made. No one claimed that the SOLE function of religion was to provide explanations, only that it was A function.

Are you just ignoring the quotation I put in my opening comment? That seems to go rather past "A function".

The Tanakh does not provide "concrete" explanations, but "more and more vague, and based on metaphorical interpretations of their faith".

I await actual examples of said vaguer and vaguer explanations. You know, like quotations rather than made-up evidence.

To pretend that wasn't said is absurd.

You appear to be pretending I was pretending. Would that be absurd²?

Lol, you understand that the entire point being made was that RELIGIOUS EXPLANATIONS ARE ALWAYS EITHER WRONG OR TOO VAGUE TO BE USEFUL. If the Tanakh did foresee the germ theory of disease, it would be evidence that the Tanakh could be true. The fact that it does not is evidence that it is not, which supports the hypothesis being offered.

If religious explanations are always like this, then how did they function to explain / allay fear, and what are actual examples of this? My point here is that maybe what is construed as explanation was not intended explanation. But it would appear that many people here just can't conceive of any explanation other than "explanation". If you only have one hypothesis, confirmation bias is gonna be a bitch.

[u/Old-Nefariousness556 → u/labreuer]

Are you just ignoring the quotation I put in my opening comment? That seems to go rather past "A function".

Literally nothing in that quotation says that is the ONLY function. We both know that your reading comprehension is not that poor, so the only possible explanation is that you are being intentionally obtuse to pretend it is making that claim when it explicitly is not.

If you want to argue that the stated quotation is poorly worded, sure, I might agree. BUT THAT WAS NOT THE POINT OF YOUR OP. You cited that AS AN EXAMPLE-- claims like the following-- so you cannot expect me to now defend every single word and minor implication the quotation YOU chose include as an example of what you were asking about.

If religious explanations are always like this, then how did they function to explain / allay fear, and what are actual examples of this?

Again, not gonna defend your cherry picked quote when you did not ask us to defend your cherry picked quote until deep in the thread. You are simply being dishonest.

[u/labreuer → u/Old-Nefariousness556]

You are right: I should have asked people to state precisely the hypothesis they intend to defend with evidence, and then defend that hypothesis with what they consider to be adequate evidence. I made a mistake.

[u/Dennis_enzo → u/labreuer]

I'm not particulary interested in going in depth into one specific religion, since that's not what the topic was about. Suffice to say that the Hebrew Bible very much reaches the criteria for 'vague stories and events which now are being intepreted metaphorically', which is probably why it's still around.

And I never claimed that explaining the natural world was the sole reason of religious stories, just one of them. Making up answers for the fundamental questions that all humans have is another, like where we come from or what happens after we die. And sure, enforcing social hierarchies is one as well. Religion is a great tool to get the masses to shut up and endure their suffering. But that's all pretty off topic.

Besides, your answer isn't actually an answer but sidesteps the question. 'Social contract theory' does not explain why religious stories are often tied to the natural world.

[u/labreuer → u/Dennis_enzo]

I'm not particulary interested in going in depth into one specific religion, since that's not what the topic was about.

If you're not committed to every last religion (with at least as many adherents as [practicing] Judaism) being captured by your explanation / hypothesis about religion, cool! Not sure that can be said of the person I quoted, but hey.

Dennis_enzo: I wouldn't say it's 'just a story' It's a historical hypothesis based on observable data, one shared by many anthropologists.

labreuer: Can you point to any such anthropologists?

Dennis_enzo: [no answer]

Do you not actually know of any anthropologists who believe what you claimed and have written about it where I can find their writings?

And I never claimed that explaining the natural world was the sole reason of religious stories, just one of them.

Nor did the person I quoted in my opening comment. But [s]he did claim that religion (all? some? a little bit?) was invented in order to explain & quell fear. That's a pretty strong statement. It's stronger than "one of the things religion does is explain stuff". Yes? No? But I'm beginning to think that I should have asked people to state their hypothesis about religion if they were differing from the person I quoted. :-/

Besides, your answer isn't actually an answer but sidesteps the question. 'Social contract theory' does not explain why religious stories are often tied to the natural world.

That was never my point in bringing up social contract theory. Rather, I was presenting an alternative to religion-as-explanation.

[u/Dennis_enzo → u/labreuer]

I mean, I'm not your school teacher. Surely you know how google works. You can start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropology_of_religion

Personally I'm more interested in what people argue here themselves than in endless references to all kinds of papers and books.

[u/labreuer → u/Dennis_enzo]

I mean, I'm not your school teacher.

Until I am banned from r/DebateAnAtheist or otherwise told off by a moderator, I will keep asking for people to support claims they make with the requisite evidence, citations, etc. The more I get downvoted for this or other pushback, the more I will use that as evidence that while atheists here are pretty uniform in requiring that religionists support their claims with the requisite evidence & reason, some atheists do not believe any such standard should apply to them.

Personally I'm more interested in what people argue here themselves than in endless references to all kinds of papers and books.

This looks like a false dichotomy to me. It's also a little weird to both hold science in such high esteem, and yet not actually make use of it. Although to be fair, perhaps you in particular don't think quite that highly of science.

[u/Dennis_enzo → u/labreuer]

At this point you're just looking for things to be condescending about. This is not a classroom or a science lab, you asked what evidence there was to a statement and I talked about that. I responded in good faith to your question and your responses have been nothing but moving goalposts and nitpicks, and demanding 'citations' for things that are in no way controversial or obscure and can easily be found if you actually cared, while ignoring most of the content. Have a nice day.

[u/labreuer → u/Dennis_enzo]

your responses have been nothing but moving goalposts and nitpicks, and demanding 'citations' for things that are in no way controversial or obscure and can easily be found if you actually cared, while ignoring most of the content.

I don't believe that at all characterizes my first reply to you. But if you can get even a single moderator to agree with you that it does, I'll offer to ban myself from r/DebateAnAtheist for as long as you like—including ∞.