Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Challenge of Secularism - Coggle Diagram

- - - - So Christians should get rid of capitalism to liberate them
      - The way to do this is to get rid of capitalism to liberate them
      - Weakness as Freud assumes rules help people stay in power unfairly, but he fails to account for the greatest commandment of love, which should be prioritise in any situation where people are in power unfairly
      - Thus, religion is not socially repressive
      - Religion teaches that Christians should prioritise liberating the poor from their suffering from capitalism (preferential option for the poor)
    - - Christians should not prioritise liberating people from suffering
      - Should prioritise evangelism instead
      - Helps them in the afterlife
    - - Freud's argument that religion is socially repressive is circular
      - Assumes conclusion, that atheism is better than religion, in its premises
      - Assumes that unquestioningly following rules is a bad thing
      - If these rules were true, then unquestioningly following them would be a good thing, as it would allow them to get into heaven
      - He assumes these rules are not true, so should not be unquestioningly followed
  - - - If a belief is truly scientific, then it must be falsifiable (clear conditions for when we should give it up)
      - Eg. nothing is faster than light
      - Freud's theory of the psyche is unfalsifiable (unconscious so cannot be tested and proved wrong)
      - So not a truly scientific theory
    - - There are clear conditions to give up his argument
      - Eg. compare a group of people who are religious and a group who aren't religious, and see how many have neurosis
      - If there are clear conditions, then it is falsifiable
      - So it is falsifiable and scientific
  - - - Freud assumes that religion is to be explained in a reductionist manner (explaining human behaviour scientifically)
      - Wish fulfillment is a scientific explanation
      - But it could be explained in an expansionist manner instead (God)
      - Commits the fallacy of affirmation of the consequent, by assuming the cause to be reductionist rather than considering expansionism
    - - Simpler explanations are more likely to be true
      - Reductionism is simpler than expansionism (fewer entities)
      - So reductionism is more likely to be true
- - - - 'Children should be taught not so much what to think as how to think'
      - Religion shouldn't impose beliefs onto children
    - - Dawkins' argument that religion is child abuse is circular
      - An argument that implicitly assumes something it is trying to prove
      - In his premises, he implicitly assumes that religion shouldn't exist due to its harmful nature
      - He argues that it is harmful to impose religious beliefs about hell on children without their choice, which involves the assumption that hell doesn't actually exist and that atheism is right
      - This is because it would only be harmful to teach children about hell if it didn't exist as this would be traumatic
      - If hell did exist, the it would be a loving action as it helps the child to avoid doing bad things
    - - Humans have deep seated desires in their id
      - For protection against the forces of nature, for justice, and to take away the fear of death
      - Religion provides us with a father figure that fulfills these desires
      - So belief in religion is wish fulfillment (childish) and is therefore irrational
      - Right to assume that religion is wrong / atheism is better
      - For example, religion is infantile
  - - - Assumes that all religions teach their children about the suffering in hell, when this is not true (eg. Hinduism)
      - Also, not all children experience psychological harm as a result of religions teaching this
      - Premises in his argument are not always true
      - Misrepresenting someone's views to make it easier to defeat (eg. saying vegetarianism is wrong because vegetarians believe that animals are equal to humans, but they do not actually believe this)
      - Commits the straw man fallacy
  - - - 'Humanity can leave the crybaby phase and finally come of age'
      - Creating answers for what science couldn't explain and still believing them after are both childish
    - - McGrath argues that despite science explaining most things in the world, there are still things unexplained by science
      - For example, the intelligibility of the world (the fact that the world exists in such a way that humans can make sense of it using simple scientific theories (eg. evolution)
      - Science cannot explain the fact that humans are able to rationally understand the complexity of the world, as this concept is too 'big' and 'odd'
    - - Still hasn't shown that the belief in God isn't infantile
      - McGrath is still making up an explanation for things that can't be explained by science, which is childish
      - Commits Hume's fallacy of affirmation of the consequent as he assumes that the human ability of inteliigibility is due to God rather than considering any other cause
      - So doesn't disprove infantility of religion
  - - - 'Taught the superior virtue of faith without question'
      - Religious people unquestioningly follow rules
      - 'If children were taught to question and think through their beliefs, instead of being taught the superior virtue of faith without question, it is a good bet that there would be no suicide bombers'
    - - Commits the straw man fallacy
      - Assumes religion always leads you to do violent actions
      - Most religious people do not do violent actions
      - Misrepresenting someone's views to make it easier to defeat (eg. saying vegetarianism is wrong because vegetarians believe that animals are equal to humans, but they do not actually believe this)
    - - Weakness wrongfully interprets Dawkins' view by saying that he believes religion directly leads to conflict
      - Actually believes that religion creates an environment in which conflict may occur
      - Religion is based on the principles of faith
      - Faith leads to an environment where conflict is accepted by extremist groups
      - Some groups create conflict
      - So religion can lead to conflict
    - - Dawkins' argument that religion is a cause of conflict is circular
      - Assumes conclusion, that atheism is better than religion, in its premises
      - Assumes that having unquestioning faith is a bad thing
      - If religious beliefs were true, then unquestioning faith would be a good thing, as it would allow them to get into heaven
      - He assumes that religious beliefs are not true, so shouldn't have unquestioning faith
- - - - Williams argues that programmatic secularism is contradictory, as it doesn't want expressing of beliefs to be forced on individuals, but forces these views on people
      - He argues that faith is strengthened when you have a deeper understanding
      - Procedural secularism allows different views in public
      - This will lead to debating with other views to justify their own, deepening their own understanding of their own faith
      - So procedural secularism strengthens faith
      - So it is not a threat to Christianity
    - - Freud argues that faith is irrational as it is based in the superego, which involves internalised norms
      - This means that we cannot deepen our understanding as faith is just a result of wish fulfillment
      - So procedural secularism will not help as debating is not useful to deepen understanding as there are no known logical / rational justifications
      - Thus, programmatic secularism is a threat to Christianity
  - - - Taylor argues that faith is strengthened when you have free choice
      - Procedural secularism allows free choice through choosing a religion in society and being taught different views
      - So procedural secularism strengthens faith
      - So it is not a threat to Christianity
    - - Dawkins argues that procedural secularism reinforces child abuse
      - Authority figures share their views and impose them onto children without their rational choice
      - Also leads to confirmation bias if they confirm what was imposed by their parents
      - So, procedural secularism reinforces child abuse
      - So it is a threat to Christianity