debate-points, logicIs misbehaviour by religious leaders (such as the pornocracy in the Roman Catholic Church in the first half of the 10th century) a logical reason to become atheist, or is it just something that people comment on after becoming an atheist for other reasons?
At the very least, disgust with the leadership of your church is little more than a reason to leave that particular church – even be angry at it – but it is not a reason to become an atheist.
What this question really hits on isn’t the difference between a theist and an atheist, bur rather the reasons to be an anti-theist. The anti-theist would argue that religions themselves do more harm than good, and there is ample evidence to support this thesis. Being anti-theist, in and of itself, does not speak to the question of whether or not god exists. It is therefore possible for the anti-theist to argue that god could exist, but that religions do him a disservice.
I should think that the anti-theist wouldn’t need a whole lot of convincing to accept that there is no god, but they’re still not the same.
It’s not logical. It would be an ad hominem fallacy. While the leader in question may be horrible, it does not mean that what he or she believes and represents is wrong.
It’s different for Catholicism, though, since you mentioned it: the Pope is supposed to be infallible. Thus, questioning him is rejecting Catholicism. However, even then, that does not lead to atheism. The logic would rather be:
As you can see, the conclusion here is not that the Christian god does not exist, or that the evidence for the existence of any god are unpersuasive, but rather that Catholicism is wrong. That still leaves a large number of other Christian denominations to pick from.
The believer has no reason to reject theism. In fact, the believer has no reason to reject his current religion as he can easily move to another denomination of the same religion.
No. Is it logical to conclude that global climate change is not an issue if you find one scientist falsifying data? Is it logical to conclude that you live in a police state if you meet one overly aggressive cop? Is it logical to conclude that MIT is a bad institution of learning if you have a bad prof?
This idea reminds me of the problem of charisma. For too many people religion is tied to a person or people not a reading of the literature and thinking. The same thing could be said of other issues, like climate change - too many people voting with their ‘gut’ on it because they like or hate Al Gore, and not based on the facts or data.
People are attracted to a charismatic figure, and tie that to the idea, or are repulsed by a villain and tie that to the idea as well. You see this with Lenin and/or Stalin and communism.
score: 1
In a strict logic sense, the answer is no! And I don’t think any commenters have an issue with this conclusion. If one sees a pattern, i.e. it looks like a disportionate number of religious leaders are corrupt (I’m not saying this is the case), then a different conclusion may be logically made, i.e. that religion as presently constituted is unhelpful. Even then in a strict logic sense, that has nothing to do with the existence of god question, but it undermines accepting religious beliefs based upon authority.
No, it’s a reason to leave a particular religious group. Truth, critical thinking, and reality are logical reasons to become an atheist.
It may be a "brick" in the foundation of one's eventual atheism, but by itself is not necessary or sufficient to decide to stop believing in God.
If you are a devoted believer and member of an organization, and it systematically undercuts the very principles it teaches, then quite possibly you will not only question the organization, but also question OTHER principles and ideas it has taught as absolute truth.
Beside the obvious example of the systematic coverup of priestly pedophilia, I like to use the example of "Limbo". For centuries the Catholic Church tormented families with the concept that if their babies died unbaptized, they would reside forever in Limbo, unable to bathe in God's grace and be with their families in heaven.
Then, in 2007, Ratzinger says, in effect... "uh, nevermind. We were just kidding."
When an organization that you treat as the foundational support/backstop for your beliefs suddenly becomes mushy, questioning is not far behind. Sufficient, persistent questioning will lead to atheism.
If persistent questioning doesn't do it, that picture of Ratzinger would. :-)
No. What do they say? “one bad apple”? However, it would take a period of adjustment.
It would not be rational to reject science because of mad scientists. The same applies here. At the same time, it would rational to try to protect yourself from such misbehavior.
Kinda surprised at so many “no’s”. First the question is leaders, plural. One bad priest would not constitute much of an argument, but many, with support for their behavior all the way to the top has to make you think. Comparisons to scientists being mad or falsifying data are meaningless, because we are not talking about individuals working within a structure that attempts to weed out that sort of behavior. The structure is exactly the opposite, it tries to cover up that behavior, or incorporate it (i.e. speaking in tongues). Science does not make one specific claim either, or attempt to support that claim regardless of the evidence against it. Nor does it claim moral high ground, so immoral behavior by a scientist is not a comment on science, but if an organization claims that following its structure leads to a moral life, then its highest practitioners act immorally, that speaks against the claim.
Finally, it would be one thing if the recent scandals were isolated, but such behavior has been going on for as long as there have been religions. When caught, they either lose their followers, or reinvent themselves with something that the next generation will accept. The idea that there is somehow a possibility that there is a god, and religions are somehow just not quite getting it right is not logical.
All content is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.