Is there a bias in favor of belief?

[Boojatta]

If, from among all existing systems of religious doctrine, you randomly choose one, then approximately how much time do you need to spend studying it before you can confidently conclude that it is true?

Approximately how much time do you need to spend studying it before you can confidently conclude that it is false?

If you organized a group of people to picket church XYZ with signs that said "Church XYZ is teaching falsehood", then how would people react?

It seems that there is an expectation that adherents of a religion are entitled to try to convert others. If they succeed after a particular amount of time, then the new convert is entitled to claim that the religion is true. However, if they fail after spending the same amount of time, then apparently the non-convert is expected to self-classify as "undecided."

[Warpy]

1. I know a lot of folks who are afraid of NOT believing

instead of being wholeheartedly dedicated to belief.

Not believing would deprive them of a whole social support system, as well as a promise of certainty in this world and the next.

[RethugAssKicker]

2. I think 90% of people are afraid to NOT believe... You;re right !

[evilgenius602]

3. I'm about to mangle a paraphrase

Faith is like the sex organ: Most people claim to have one and seem to derive not-inconsequential pleasure from fooling around with it.

[Goblinmonger]

4. Dawkins says there is

in Chapter 1 of The God Delusion. A paraphrased good example he uses:

You could be the an atheist philosophy major that wrote your doctoral dissertation on the horrors of war and the negative effects on humanity, but if you were drafted and claimed CO status, they would grill you and probably deny it. If you can prove you are a Quaker, you will get CO status regardless your level of understanding of Quaker theology. Certainly there is a bias toward faith.

[RethugAssKicker]

5. Good one. I'll remember that!

[Goblinmonger]

6. You gotta read that book

I am only one chapter in and it is great. Very well written. Good points made. Nothing extremely new (actually a lot of stuff we hash out in here), but a good take on it.

[TheBaldyMan]

8. I'd disagree with Prof. Dawkins on that point for the following reason

If you are a philosophy major and you claimed CO status you would probably be well placed to be recognized as such. If the argument went, you are an anarchist manual worker who refused to take up arms on moral grounds you would be denied that status the argument might be stronger but I would still doubt that the Army would take your determination any less seriously than a Quaker, however devout that Quaker was.

I'd say it would be fairer to say that any bias towards faith would tend to be in the eye of the beholder.

[bloom]

10. I think that someone saying/"proving"

that s/he is a Quaker DOES give credence to his/her claim.

Because the person has the history of the church to back them up - because as a group - the Quakers have opposed war for long and are known for that.

One person by her/himself does not have that history - and s/he cannot claim that influence - so I think it's likely that the military would be more skeptical. Also - a lot of people will just want to oppose one particular war - and NOT war in general - which are 2 different concepts.

I think that recently - there have been more independent COs. So it could be changing from what it used to be.

[TheBaldyMan]

11. I'd disagree, recently there are cases of service members

asking for CO status even after they have served in the theatre they have been ordered to return to. Their consciences have led them to request change in status because of direct experiences serving in the forces.

I would say that history might be taken into consideration but not necessarily. Quakers served in the RAMC in the British Army in WWII as non-combatant stretcher bearers, this wasn't a soft option, it was hazardous in the extreme. I know from my Great-Uncle who served in the Eight Army that they were despised by normal servicemen and were regularly given the dirtiest and most unpopular jobs when not in combat. The 'conshies' performed these duties uncomplainingly for the duration and won grudging respect from some of their compatriots, especially after displays of courage under fire. You have to remember that after 1940 the British had terrible manpower shortages and perfectly fit men claiming CO status were seen as the lowest of the low.

I think some posters have equated CO status as a lack of physical courage, nothing could be further from the truth. It takes moral courage to ask for CO status and as the example mentioned above implies they could have physical courage as well. I dare say there were 'lapsed' Quakers who served in combat arms as well.

The standard used for CO status is moral and ethical justification not the history which may be contradictory to the status applied for.

[bloom]

12. I totally admire the Quakers

and think that they are an inspiration, generally.

That some served in a non-combat position does not seem to contradict what I said - I don't think it diminishes the characterization of them as a group. Sure - some were helping out the war effort to some extent - but carrying stretchers, etc. is not equitable to turning guns on people.

And not everyone in a group is going to all go along with a thing - but I think that the Quakers have a compelling way of influencing each other and others who listen and pay attention to what they do.

They also have a mission to help and encourage non-Quakers who want to go the CO route. I think if someone were interested - they would be the first and best resource.

I've attended quite a few Quaker meetings - though I don't expect I would ever join. But I daresay - that they have influenced me. I think it's easier to stand up against war - when you are not standing alone. And while of course there are anti-war people who are not religious - where I live - most of them are somehow or another. Esp. those who are leaders of the cause.

[TheBaldyMan]

13. I agree with what you say about Quakers but IMO it is their ethical stance rather than

religion that gives them their moral authority.

If you remember a few months back their was a member of the British Army who asked for CO status because of his experience of serving with US special forces.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=191&topic_id=15443"> SAS soldier quits Army in disgust at 'illegal' American tactics in Iraq

The young man in this story struck me as someone with great courage and integrity, similarly his superiors in the military held him in the same high regard. It must have been really tough for him resigning his commission in the Army over this, especially as his comrades were still serving in a dangerous combat zone. Not an easy choice to make but he did what he thought was right.

What I am trying to say is your character coupled with your reasoning is central to CO status being recognised, not your religion.

edited for spelling

[bloom]

15. "your character coupled with your reasoning..."

If that is how it is - then that's a good thing. Without the draft - it's not even an issue for most Quakers - they wouldn't join anyway.

[NMMNG]

7. There is a distinct bias in favor of belief

Those who claim belief are automatically put on a higher plane than those who don't, are eligible for special privileges that non-believers are not, and are not subject to the bigotry and mistreatment non-believers are often subject to.

[rug]

9. I believe so.

[Finder]

14. Rarely do people "choose" their religion...

or study the theology behind their faith. Those that do and go on to study religion in a comparative sense end up deists or atheists. Aside from attending divinity school, the average person would need to spend over a decade to cover all theologies in a meaningful way.

That is changing though since many secular authors are able to share the knowledge they have gained. Freethinkers now have their own apologists to counter and debate theists. Because they have documentation from history, science, anthropology, etc... to counter most theist claims it will be close to impossible for conversion among the educated. This is the reason the sects that depend on a tithing following form their own schools with their own versions of history, science, ect...Fear and guilt are their marketing tools. Encouraging members to have lots of children is to the sect's economic advantage and keeps the membership rolls growing.

Liberal sects that use philosophical rather than theological points or guilt and fear to gain membership will grow as time goes on. Most people like and/or need to be part of a community and for the most part, churches best fill that need.

[TRYPHO]

16. Time required to confirm/deny "faith"

Good questions, but I feel they miss the mark. To redirect the question I would ask:
"time required to become indoctrinated" or "accepting the faith".

As for time required to deny, I would suggest it depends directly on the individual and his/her knowledge base in preparation for the indoctrination. Thus, I would redirect this question to:
"what information base is required before you cannot be indoctrinated".

Now, for me personally, I have been reading books on early Christianity for about 5 years. At no point have I ever wondered if I should convert or be baptised or take a Eucharist. I have (on odd moments) wondered if Joshua/Jesus's words hold some validity over the Yavneh college's modernisation of Judaism post the 2nd Temple destruction; but (BUT), to return to the original question, my "faith" in G-d is irrespective of my practise of religion, and my practise of Judaism is something I enjoy irrespective of my belief or faith in G-d.

So....time to ask the basic but interesting question in a better way:
If, from among all existing systems of religious doctrine, you randomly choose one, then approximately how much time do you need to spend studying it before you can confidently conclude that it is true?
--becomes--
....how much time do YOU need to spend studying before YOU can conclude that it is the one for YOU.

Rant over.

TRYPHO

[bryant69]

17. There's certainly a cultural bias in favor of it.

If we are talking about the larger United States community. Belief is good - non-belief is bad. Obviously there are sub communities that don't see things this way.

I don't know if the need to convert others is a requirement in all religions, although it certainly seems to be so in Christianity - however certainly anytime you convert to a point of view, particularly if you find that point of view makes you happier or improves your life in some way, you want to share that point of view with others. You even see this with atheists from time to time - they feel that atheism has improved their lives and they want to let others reap those benefits - this "missionary" impulse is, at heart, a generous one, although it can certainly be annoying if you don't share in that point of view.

The flip side to the missionary impulse is the inquisitor impulse; wherein you feel the urge to punish those who don't share your point of view.

I don't know about that last statement - I would say that it depends on the community you are taking part in, how cleanly you can say "I know for a fact that my point of view is the right one."

Bryant