Can religion be "debated"?

[OlNate]

Deliberately posting this in the Theology sub forum, as this is not an invitation to discuss whether or not God exists, which god exists, and honestly, given the way the Beliefs / Skepticisms forum is going these days, I thought it might be nice to discuss the subject in a forum with heightened civility rules.

My question is: Can religion be debated?

Given that:

- Religion is faith driven. (Much of what we believe has no available "scientific proof")
- Every religion believes in their heart that they have it more right than anyone else (otherwise, why belong to that religion).
- Debating with atheists is pointless because of a completely different / incompatible universal view of the subject and can be provided no
proof that would make sense in the context of how they see things - if they are willing to be openminded enough to consider what
you're saying.

I would suggest no. Discussed...sure, to a point, if everyone remains respectful...but not debated.

What do you think? If you think no, what would make it worthwhile to do it anyway? If you think yes, tell me what I'm missing.

 

[MrPeanut]

I don't think so for the reasons you stated. To me it seems like most debates are about developing strategies to "win" and because of that they are less useful than honest discussions. I think there is some worth in debate in that the people watching are exposed to different viewpoints.

 

[HonestJoe]

My question is: Can religion be debated?

It can be and often is. People of the same religion can debate the “correct” way to practice their faith, people of different religions can debate the interpretation and understanding of shared or similar beliefs and everybody can debate the practical consequences upon wider society around how religion is practiced and how best to balanced freedom or religion and those consequences.

Religion is faith driven. (Much of what we believe has no available "scientific proof")

Lots of things are debated on the basis of “faith” rather than fact. Often agreeing the facts isn’t the issue (even if the debaters are unwilling to admit that), the key question is what we should do about the facts.

Every religion believes in their heart that they have it more right than anyone else (otherwise, why belong to that religion).

Most individuals believe that, even compared to followers of the same faith. A lot of debate can be based around those differences of opinion or interpretation.

Debating with atheists is pointless because of a completely different / incompatible universal view of the subject

That depends on the point of the discussion. As I said, religion is less about what people believe and more what they choose to do about it and that’s relevant to all of us.

What do you think? If you think no, what would make it worthwhile to do it anyway? If you think yes, tell me what I'm missing.

I’ve never expected this kind of debate to have any great impact, regardless of the topic, but I think it can be worthwhile just as an opening to all the different ideas and viewpoints out there and maybe even insight in to ideas we’ve not previously considered. Even if the conclusion doesn’t take you anywhere new, the journey can still be informative.

 

[OlNate]

It can be and often is. People of the same religion can debate the “correct” way to practice their faith, people of different religions can debate the interpretation and understanding of shared or similar beliefs and everybody can debate the practical consequences upon wider society around how religion is practiced and how best to balanced freedom or religion and those consequences.

Lots of things are debated on the basis of “faith” rather than fact. Often agreeing the facts isn’t the issue (even if the debaters are unwilling to admit that), the key question is what we should do about the facts.

Most individuals believe that, even compared to followers of the same faith. A lot of debate can be based around those differences of opinion or interpretation.

That depends on the point of the discussion. As I said, religion is less about what people believe and more what they choose to do about it and that’s relevant to all of us.

I’ve never expected this kind of debate to have any great impact, regardless of the topic, but I think it can be worthwhile just as an opening to all the different ideas and viewpoints out there and maybe even insight in to ideas we’ve not previously considered. Even if the conclusion doesn’t take you anywhere new, the journey can still be informative.

Thanks for the response.

The thing, though, is that while religion can be discussed, debate demands a higher level of discipline. An atheist will win a debate against a theist every single time arguing whether or not a given deity exists, because what constitutes proof in debate is much different than what constitutes cause for faith.

We can debate what texts say, in the literal sense, but even translations are subjective in many many cases, which is why even differing denominations or sects within the same religion can fight viciously about what the truth is.

It just seems that whenever someone tries to include "I'm right, you're wrong" into a religious discussion, things go to hell (excuse the pun). And "I'm right, you're wrong" is at the heart of debate. The "hard truths" of religion are only shared by those with a like mind...making debate impossible on that front as well. Do you think there's a way to get past that?

 

[Dragonfly]

Can religion be debated?

If you think yes, tell me what I'm missing.

What's your definition of "debate"?

 

[OlNate]

I don't think so for the reasons you stated. To me it seems like most debates are about developing strategies to "win" and because of that they are less useful than honest discussions. I think there is some worth in debate in that the people watching are exposed to different viewpoints.

I think another danger, especially in the rinse and repeat atheist vs. theist scenario we see played out here over and over, when you have a gap between sides on the level of respect expected around the subject material, it's very easy for things to escalate to full tilt mode...and once folks are in full tilt mode, all conversation becomes pointless, other than to vent all the nasty. I sometimes think debating religion outside of your specific church or faith community is like filling your stress ball with nitroglycerin...hehe...

 

[OlNate]

What's your definition of "debate"?

Dictionary definition, with the aim of establishing argument as superior to another.

 

[Omega Man]

My question is: Can religion be debated?

Sure, it can be debated. But it will never be resolved. Same with politics.


OM

 

[HonestJoe]

The thing, though, is that while religion can be discussed, debate demands a higher level of discipline.

Formal debate certainly does but that also doesn’t require any strong emotional feeling or even agreement with the position you’re taking. I suspect what you’re really thinking of is when discussion turns in to argument, which is an entirely different prospect.

An atheist will win a debate against a theist every single time arguing whether or not a given deity exists, because what constitutes proof in debate is much different than what constitutes cause for faith.

That depends on exactly what the proposition they debate is. For example, “A god could exist” is entirely different to “The Christian God definitely doesn’t exist”. Of course, your atheist and theist could also debate “Dogs are better than cats”, “The human race shouldn’t colonise other planets” or “Religion can’t be effectively debated”.

It just seems that whenever someone tries to include "I'm right, you're wrong" into a religious discussion, things go to hell (excuse the pun). And "I'm right, you're wrong" is at the heart of debate. The "hard truths" of religion are only shared by those with a like mind...making debate impossible on that front as well. Do you think there's a way to get past that?

That’s true of most discussions, certainly on any strongly held or emotive topics (guns, abortion, immigration etc.) and I think you inadvertently display the problem by suggesting “I’m right, you’re wrong” is at the heart of debate. What should be the heart is “I’m right because…”. As long as both sides take that approach with mutual respect and reasonableness, a perfectly rational debate is possible, even if you end up with as (or more!) divided opinions as you started.

 

[OlNate]

Sure, it can be debated. But it will never be resolved. Same with politics.


OM

I've seen debate change folks minds with politics. I've had my mind changed through debating politics. I used to be a conservative...hehe... But the way I was convinced had very much to do with proof - statistics, evidence in cases and reports I could comb through. I would argue that only recently has politics truly taken a "religious" tone, and people have been pushed into the same realm of fundamentalism. But it's a different thing to ignore facts and proof due to partisanship than it is to believe in something without facts or proof, as in religion.

Therefore I'm not sure it's debated, as much as it's fought over. Debate, at least in my mind, always implies a higher standard of discipline, not to mention burden of proof.

 

[MrPeanut]

I think another danger, especially in the rinse and repeat atheist vs. theist scenario we see played out here over and over, when you have a gap between sides on the level of respect expected around the subject material, it's very easy for things to escalate to full tilt mode...and once folks are in full tilt mode, all conversation becomes pointless, other than to vent all the nasty. I sometimes think debating religion outside of your specific church or faith community is like filling your stress ball with nitroglycerin...hehe...

I used to be a huge fan of debates, but it feels like it is becoming standard for most of them to immediately devolve into point scoring against the other side. I honestly can't remember the last time I watched an Atheist v Christian debate where they genuinely tried to understand each other.

 

[OlNate]

I used to be a huge fan of debates, but it feels like it is becoming standard for most of them to immediately devolve into point scoring against the other side. I honestly can't remember the last time I watched an Atheist v Christian debate where they genuinely tried to understand each other.

haha...you gotta get out of anonymous debate forums.

It's totally possible to have a civil discussion to drive understanding, even among people who will not leave the conversation with their minds changed. Of course, you need a couple things - one, the people involved have to be ok with the fact that no one will be convinced, and number two, the people involved have to understand that even though they don't agree on the subject, it's a very touchy, personal thing they are discussing to at least one side, if not both, and mutual respect is required.

 

[noonereal]

I used to be a huge fan of debates, but it feels like it is becoming standard for most of them to immediately devolve into point scoring against the other side. I honestly can't remember the last time I watched an Atheist v Christian debate where they genuinely tried to understand each other.

Try to understand the theory of Christian Gods?

LOL, kind of a ridiculous adventure not to mention a waste of valuable time.

 

[noonereal]

haha...you gotta get out of anonymous debate forums.

It's totally possible to have a civil discussion to drive understanding, even among people who will not leave the conversation with their minds changed. Of course, you need a couple things - one, the people involved have to be ok with the fact that no one will be convinced, and number two, the people involved have to understand that even though they don't agree on the subject, it's a very touchy, personal thing they are discussing to at least one side, if not both, and mutual respect is required.

Political debate forums are a healthy release of emotion at the asshole "red hats."

 

[Dragonfly]

Dictionary definition, with the aim of establishing argument as superior to another.

Then yes. Religion, like anything else can be debated.

Whether or not there's a chance to declare a winner or a loser is a different question.

 

[OlNate]

Formal debate certainly does but that also doesn’t require any strong emotional feeling or even agreement with the position you’re taking. I suspect what you’re really thinking of is when discussion turns in to argument, which is an entirely different prospect.

That depends on exactly what the proposition they debate is. For example, “A god could exist” is entirely different to “The Christian God definitely doesn’t exist”. Of course, your atheist and theist could also debate “Dogs are better than cats”, “The human race shouldn’t colonise other planets” or “Religion can’t be effectively debated”.

That’s true of most discussions, certainly on any strongly held or emotive topics (guns, abortion, immigration etc.) and I think you inadvertently display the problem by suggesting “I’m right, you’re wrong” is at the heart of debate. What should be the heart is “I’m right because…”. As long as both sides take that approach with mutual respect and reasonableness, a perfectly rational debate is possible, even if you end up with as (or more!) divided opinions as you started.

Unlike most discussions, though, you have no common foundation of fact to build upon for most religious topics amongst different demographics. A Christian will point to their Bible, and say here is my proof, while a follower of Taoism will point to the Lao-tzu, and say here is my proof, each believing the other's religious text to be a fraud. (Attempting to make this not about atheists, though in honesty it's a lot easier to discuss religion with people of other religions, as anyone belonging to a religion would have at least a basic understanding of how faith works).

When you talk about debating "dogs are better than cats", "the human race shouldn't colonize other planets", or even "religion can't be effectively debated", as subjective as some of those things seem, real data and evidence can be presented in each case. Dogs vs. cats could come down to a tally of benefits, with scientific studies as backup. Whether or not to move to another planet could be debated using our history on this one. DP could be used as a data set to see if good debate can be had around religion by doing an analysis on post and infraction numbers. The same data set could be shared between both debating parties, and only the interpretation, not the validity of the data set itself, could be discussed. However, to an Taoist, or an atheist, "because the Bible tells me so" is not "proof".

So...if even the validity of the only evidence a theist will generally present (their religious text) will be discounted out of hand by those who either don't believe, or believe differently, how can the implications of that evidence ever be debated? We see threads in other parts of the forum never get off the ground because of unacceptable sources. It would be interesting to hear from an atheist which source is the bigger non starter: Breitbart or the Bible...hehe...

Certainly actions can be debated - do Churches do good works in the community, are all Muslims called to be terrorists, etc. I've even seen really good comparative debates - are the teachings of Christ and the Buddha compatible, for example. But debates like "God doesn't exist" or "Which denomination / sect is the true example of {fill in religion here} are doomed to fail, in my opinion, because these tend to always go straight to fight or flight. Either the participants go into soldier mode, or they are sick of people always going into soldier mode, and simply walk away....unless great care is taken.

I think "I'm right, you're wrong" is the same as "I'm right because" - certainly the implications are the same. And since those with faith should understand that they have to have faith specifically because there is no proof, debating it seems a lost cause, unless you're discussing it with people who take for granted, due to having the same faith, the same things you do.

 

[OlNate]

Try to understand the theory of Christian Gods?

LOL, kind of a ridiculous adventure not to mention a waste of valuable time.

Then yes. Religion, like anything else can be debated.

Whether or not there's a chance to declare a winner or a loser is a different question.

So, let's say my only authority is the Bible, and I plan to take all my debate material from that. You don't believe in the Bible at all (speaking hypothetically, so as not to assume out of line), and think it's complete nonsense, and utterly lacking in proof. However I believe it is the ultimate truth.

How do we debate, if that is our starting point? How do we bridge that gap to even start the conversation?

 

[Dragonfly]

So, let's say my only authority is the Bible, and I plan to take all my debate material from that. You don't believe in the Bible at all (speaking hypothetically, so as not to assume out of line), and think it's complete nonsense, and utterly lacking in proof. However I believe it is the ultimate truth.

How do we debate, if that is our starting point? How do we bridge that gap to even start the conversation?

We start with a handshake and a beer. :drink

 

[OlNate]

We start with a handshake and a beer. :drink

Of course, we'd have to be in person, and not on an anonymous debate forum to do that. But must confess, I do love this response. Though I think what happens after that is a conversation, not so much a debate. I generally don't set out to invalidate the sacred beliefs of someone I've shaken hands with and am drinking beer with...hehe...

You, though, just earned yourself a permanent invite during the good weather months to have that conversation around a fire with beer should you ever find yourself in eastern Ontario.

Actually, everyone is being great in this thread for the most part. You can all come up for a beer. hehe...

 

[noonereal]

So, let's say my only authority is the Bible, and I plan to take all my debate material from that. You don't believe in the Bible at all (speaking hypothetically, so as not to assume out of line), and think it's complete nonsense, and utterly lacking in proof. However I believe it is the ultimate truth.

How do we debate, if that is our starting point? How do we bridge that gap to even start the conversation?

You can't.

Anyone that wants to toss reason to the wind in favor of want (what they want to believe) is useless to any conversation.

They are even detrimental to societal advancement.

Just stay away from these types, no good can come of it.

 

[HonestJoe]

Unlike most discussions, though, you have no common foundation of fact to build upon for most religious topics amongst different demographics. A Christian will point to their Bible, and say here is my proof, while a follower of Taoism will point to the Lao-tzu, and say here is my proof, each believing the other's religious text to be a fraud.

That isn’t a valid debate then and the hypothetical people here probably wouldn’t do very well in any debate on a topic they hold strong opinions on. “Religion” isn’t a topic of debate, it’s a vast field and even “My religion is true and yours is false” isn’t a good topic of debate either. A proper debate needs something more specific and concrete; “Is there sufficient historical evidence for the existence of Jesus?”, “Do the Abrahamic faiths worship the same God?”, “Is separation of church and state a good thing?”. There is no reason religious people couldn’t debate on those topics reasonably and rationally. People of different faiths could even reach agreement while people of the same faith disagree.

When you talk about debating "dogs are better than cats", "the human race shouldn't colonize other planets", or even "religion can't be effectively debated", as subjective as some of those things seem, real data and evidence can be presented in each case. Dogs vs. cats could come down to a tally of benefits, with scientific studies as backup.

You can do that with any topic, even theological ones. Belief or faith could be offered on any topic too but it’s no more valid in a religious topic than in a secular one. That doesn’t make religion impossible to debate though, only those who rely on faith alone impossible to debate with.

However, to an Taoist, or an atheist, "because the Bible tells me so" is not "proof".

”The Bible tells me so” isn’t proof for anyone. The Bible could be presented in none religious debates, such as “Could humans live for hundreds of years?” or “Did dragons really exist?” and it wouldn’t be proof in those cases either. The subject of debate isn’t the blocker here, only the manner in which it is debated.

Certainly actions can be debated - do Churches do good works in the community, are all Muslims called to be terrorists, etc. I've even seen really good comparative debates - are the teachings of Christ and the Buddha compatible, for example. But debates like "God doesn't exist" or "Which denomination / sect is the true example of {fill in religion here} are doomed to fail, in my opinion, because these tend to always go straight to fight or flight. Either the participants go into soldier mode, or they are sick of people always going into soldier mode, and simply walk away....unless great care is taken.

The existence of God has been debated by some of the greatest thinkers in history and still is by some. I doubt it’s ever been properly debated by random people on an internet forum. Again, the problems you highlight aren’t a function of the debate topic but of the people “debating”.

I think "I'm right, you're wrong" is the same as "I'm right because" - certainly the implications are the same.

Not at all. The former is the end of a statement while the latter is the start of one. The “because…” leads on to logical argument and evidence which can be challenged and questioned. The debate develops on from that point.

 

[PleasantValley]

Deliberately posting this in the Theology sub forum, as this is not an invitation to discuss whether or not God exists, which god exists, and honestly, given the way the Beliefs / Skepticisms forum is going these days, I thought it might be nice to discuss the subject in a forum with heightened civility rules.

My question is: Can religion be debated?

Given that:

- Religion is faith driven. (Much of what we believe has no available "scientific proof")
- Every religion believes in their heart that they have it more right than anyone else (otherwise, why belong to that religion).
- Debating with atheists is pointless because of a completely different / incompatible universal view of the subject and can be provided no
proof that would make sense in the context of how they see things - if they are willing to be openminded enough to consider what
you're saying.

I would suggest no. Discussed...sure, to a point, if everyone remains respectful...but not debated.

What do you think? If you think no, what would make it worthwhile to do it anyway? If you think yes, tell me what I'm missing.

You are not missing a thing, Ol'Nate.
It is what a person believes.

I believe and know i am not afraid of big hairy spiders.

However my wife does not share this belief.

Do you think for one minute i will catch a big hairy spider and tell her her belief is stupid and throw it on her?

No way in hell. That is why all these pixels are wasted trying to disprove someone else's beliefs. You can't

SIDE NOTE: Atheists have and treat their disbelief as a religion too. They are even more evangelical about it than the worst tambourine shaking Baptist is.

 

[Dragonfly]

SIDE NOTE: Atheists have and treat their disbelief as a religion too. They are even more evangelical about it than the worst tambourine shaking Baptist is.

Coloring outside the lines with that VERY BROAD paint brush aren't ya buddy?

 

[calamity]

Deliberately posting this in the Theology sub forum, as this is not an invitation to discuss whether or not God exists, which god exists, and honestly, given the way the Beliefs / Skepticisms forum is going these days, I thought it might be nice to discuss the subject in a forum with heightened civility rules.

My question is: Can religion be debated?

Given that:

- Religion is faith driven. (Much of what we believe has no available "scientific proof")
- Every religion believes in their heart that they have it more right than anyone else (otherwise, why belong to that religion).
- Debating with atheists is pointless because of a completely different / incompatible universal view of the subject and can be provided no
proof that would make sense in the context of how they see things - if they are willing to be openminded enough to consider what
you're saying.

I would suggest no. Discussed...sure, to a point, if everyone remains respectful...but not debated.

What do you think? If you think no, what would make it worthwhile to do it anyway? If you think yes, tell me what I'm missing.

Can’t be debated but is fun arguing about: religion

 

[Dragonfly]

Though I think what happens after that is a conversation, not so much a debate.

Are you suggesting that a debate must end with a clear and unanimous winner and loser?

In the end the futility or productivity of debating religion or a religious topic comes down to the participants.

What's the reason they are debating?
What do they wish to accomplish?
Can they keep their emotions in check?

I doubt anyone will ever "change their opponents position" in a religious debate, but I'd bet many learn something (although most won't admit it).
It might send both parties away with plenty to think about.

If done the right way it surely could at least allow the opposing people to understand the other a bit more.
Where they're coming from. Why they take the path they take.

While there may be no clear winners and losers, it's possible both people walk away from the debate with more knowledge than they had before they started.
In which case both parties win.

That's assuming the debate doesn't end with both people calling the other a derogatory name.

I like stouts and porters when it's cold out. You have some great dark beers up there? A killer coffee stout could lead to some great discussion. :cheers: