Religious debates often seem to be like a football match, or
any other competitive sport.
Broadly speaking there are usually two groups of 'die-hard
supporters' that attend either event.
In sports it is usually the home team supporters versus the
away team supporters. While in a debate about religion it is usually religious people
versus atheists (or sometimes a different religious/spiritual group).
Much like supporters at a sporting event, the supporters in
these debates - atheists and religious people - go to see their team/group win
(or more accurately: to whoop the butt of the other team).
There is of course a big difference between these two
events. In sport, whether the result is a win, loss or draw, the final result
is obvious for all to see. Barring a draw, one team has more points or goals
scored than the other team, therefore the winner is clearly defined.
Sure there will be people claiming that the awful umpiring
won the other side the match, or that one team played unfairly, or some other
excuse, but the final result will still stand.
In a typical religious/atheist debate there is no (at least
not a very accurate or agreed upon) way of 'keeping score', or knowing who won.
The result will be subjective. Usually the religious supporters will see all
the points that their team 'scored' and ignore the points of the atheists, and
vice versa.
Atheists will think that they have won the debate, and
religious people will think that they have won the debate. Neither side is
likely to think that the other side is actually a better 'team' and switch
allegiances.
Does this mean that debates between
atheists and religious people are a waste of time?
Like most sporting events there will be a few people that
attend these debates that may not have an allegiance to either side. The
question for these people would be: are these debates actually a good way of
ascertaining whether a particular religion is right or positive, or if atheism
is the way to go?
The debates are hardly an exhaustive examination of either
side, and rarely do they consider ideas that lie in between established
religious/spiritual ideas and atheism. It really feels as though it is a PR
exercise to make both supporters feel good about their own 'side'.
But if there is a chance that just one good argument out
there can change the thinking of a handful of individuals that are somewhat on
or near the fence in regards: to religion, atheism or spiritualism in general,
then you cannot literally say that they are a complete waste of time; even if
such debates are unlikely to change our own way of thinking.
No comments:
Post a Comment