|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
 Posted - 03/26/2008 : 20:06:27 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Dave wrote: | when some (such as me) have said around here that religious belief is dangerous, and you've objected that we're treating even progressive theist as if they have literal supernatural beliefs, that is in fact not what I (at least, won't speak for others) have been thinking. In other words, "nebulous concepts of the divine" can be just as dangerous (from a socio-political perspective) as beliefs in a literally risen Christ because they're just as much an embracing of the irrational. |
Holy shit; I think we finally pinpointed what we've been disagreeing about for the longest time!  Because I totally disagree that those kind of beliefs are "just as much an embracing of the irrational."
|
But, Marf, we theists do embrace the irrational with these beliefs. While I disagree with the equivocation of nebulous concept of divine with a religious whackjob who will kill for his interpretation of his religion, my religion is a coping mechanism that I use to deal with certian psychological needs that I have.
I accept that my religion is deeply personal to me and that I derive a percieved benefit from it. (your milage may vary) It is my path and my path alone. I don't expect others to find my path valid or right for them, so I don't try to inflict it on others.
I think that the danger lies in the perpensity for the extremists and some of the not so extremists to try to push the boundaries from free exercise to inflicting their brand of religion on others. It is something I am always on the look out for. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
 |
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/26/2008 : 21:13:06 [Permalink]
|
Dave wrote: | Well, there's part of the problem between us. If someone says "I believe..." then I take them at their word and assume that they think that whatever follows "I believe" is a part of reality - that it is true - at least as far as they're concerned. |
I don't think those people mean to deceive you. This is a semantics issue. When I was listening to Salman Rushdie the novelist speak at the New Humanist conference last year, he mentioned how novelists get at a different kind of "truth". I've come to believe that when many people talk about their concepts of faith and religious belief, they are talking about emotional and psychological truths that are subjective to their personal experience.
| This perception is, perhaps, why Dude and H. think that you're willing to give vague and inspecific claims about reality a pass as not being irrational. |
I don't have a problem with them or anyone disagreeing with my assertions. Both of them have more than once implied that my arguments don't come from a desire to find truth, but rather come from a desire to not hurt people like my mother's feelings. I resent those assumptions, especially when I have made so many repeated attempts - failed as most of them might be - at clarifying my position. I also resent them because I play devil's advocate with everyone and have had some very heated conversations with people in my family. I am NOT motivated by a desire to coddle religious believers. You and most on this forum have never treated me so crappily, no matter how long and drawn out our conversations get, or how confusing I think I can be, so I don't think I can accept this as an excuse for them. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/26/2008 : 21:14:47 [Permalink]
|
| To follow up on how different people think differently, I wonder if some people have difficulty distinguishing between subjective and objective reality with regards to how they are able to abstractly conceive of these things. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/26/2008 : 21:18:01 [Permalink]
|
Val wrote: | But, Marf, we theists do embrace the irrational with these beliefs. |
I'm not denying that religious beliefs, which actually qualify as beliefs (i.e. assertions about reality) are irrational. I denied that the nebulous ones were "just as much an embracing of the irrational" as more specific claims, and especially than supernatural claims which have scientific evidence against them. There are levels of irrationality that made a huge difference! |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 03/26/2008 21:19:38 |
|
|
|
the_ignored
SFN Addict
2562 Posts |
Posted - 03/27/2008 : 06:15:48 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by the_ignored
Speaking of arrogance, guess what Ray Comfort is up to. Yep. That's the same guy who's instituted rules forcing non-believers to respect their beliefs (for our own good, he says), but he doesn't see any need to respect non-believers beliefs.
I'd love to comment on that particular post but I've been commenting over there for a while now, and if I say what I want to say, I'll get banned for sure.
|
Well, I went ahead and said what I wanted to say...needless to say, my comment won't make it past moderation this time, and I doubt I'll be posting there anymore. |
>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.
What brought that on? this. Original posting here.
Another example of this guy's lunacy here. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/27/2008 : 06:47:31 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Dave wrote: | Well, there's part of the problem between us. If someone says "I believe..." then I take them at their word and assume that they think that whatever follows "I believe" is a part of reality - that it is true - at least as far as they're concerned. |
I don't think those people mean to deceive you. This is a semantics issue. When I was listening to Salman Rushdie the novelist speak at the New Humanist conference last year, he mentioned how novelists get at a different kind of "truth". I've come to believe that when many people talk about their concepts of faith and religious belief, they are talking about emotional and psychological truths that are subjective to their personal experience. |
Which is what I was talking about (I have no idea how deception crept into this). If someone tells me something that they believe, then I'll accept that they believe whatever-it-is to be true, regardless of whether it's something specific about reality or something emotional or psychological. I see no need to limit an examination of whether a belief is rational to only "literal beliefs about reality."
And going back to your previous response to me, yes, yes, yes there is a whole spectrum of beliefs, from rational to irrational and everything in between, and yes, yes, yes everyone has irrational thoughts every once-in-a-while. All of which is why I'm not pointing simply to irrational thoughts or beliefs as being dangerous. It is the embracing of the irrational which I find dangerous.
There are some wild rabbits which roam my neighborhood. The other night, as I was taking out the trash, out of the corner of my eye I thought I saw one of the rabbits just a few feet from me, lunging towards me with an angry look and bared teeth. I spooked - a fun little fight-or-flight reaction - and as I turned to face the mad bunny, it vanished. The very first coherent thought I had was "ohshit, the rabbits can go invisible!" The next thought I had was "where did that crazy idea come from?" I refused to embrace the irrational.
(The attack rabbit may have been a few nearby leaves, plus some wind, the darkness and maybe some reflected light on my glasses, but I couldn't re-create the imagery.)| Slippery slope argument! Every person engages in irrational thinking from time to time, and if someone has a clean track record when it comes to action and speech so far, it can never be predicted it, when, and how anyone's irrationality will surface in a new and damaging way, especially if they are put in a position they've never been in before. |
If someone embraces the irrational, then as far as I'm concerned they do not have "a clean track record" to begin with.
Oh, and:| ...I don't think I can accept this as an excuse for them. |
Okay, understood. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
the_ignored
SFN Addict
2562 Posts |
Posted - 03/27/2008 : 06:48:54 [Permalink]
|
Holy shit! He published it!
Gee Ray, maybe little things like that bumpersticker? How christ-fucking stupid can you be?
I've saved that page, and commented that I'd be doing so!
Maybe he's trying to use me as an example? Who cares? My next comment was Cool! I didn't think that would get through! I'm saving this page so I can keep this before it's removed!
It was in response to what Ray said--
Kat...could you be specific about my "bashing" atheists "all the time"? I'm not sure what you mean. Thanks, Ray
I've deleted my comment though...I've saved it on my computer. Yeah, I guess I wussed out. |
>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.
What brought that on? this. Original posting here.
Another example of this guy's lunacy here. |
| Edited by - the_ignored on 03/27/2008 07:07:56 |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 03/27/2008 : 19:44:03 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Val wrote: | But, Marf, we theists do embrace the irrational with these beliefs. |
I'm not denying that religious beliefs, which actually qualify as beliefs (i.e. assertions about reality) are irrational. I denied that the nebulous ones were "just as much an embracing of the irrational" as more specific claims, and especially than supernatural claims which have scientific evidence against them. There are levels of irrationality that made a huge difference!
|
Marf,
The simple act of asserting the existance of a nebulous cosmic extradimentional being without any empirical evidence is inherently an irrational belief. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/27/2008 : 20:07:35 [Permalink]
|
Val wrote: Marf,
The simple act of asserting the existance of a nebulous cosmic extradimentional being without any empirical evidence is inherently an irrational belief. |
Around and around in circles we go. Again, I didn't say it wasn't an irrational belief. The dispute was over whether it was as irrational as other beliefs. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/27/2008 : 20:16:40 [Permalink]
|
Dave wrote: | It is the embracing of the irrational which I find dangerous. |
I start to address this in the other thread I started on this topic, "Skepticism in harmony with religious tolerance"
http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=9767
There I wrote: | However, some skeptics seem to equate the level that something is irrational with the level that that same thing is dangerous. The mistake I think many skeptics make is thinking that a Christian Dominionist or Isalmic terrorist is so dangerous solely because of their irrational beliefs. This seems silly to me since there are so many religious fundamentalists with beliefs just as irrational, but who are no danger to themselves or others. |
So it's not that I don't think embracing the irrational can be dangerous. I do think it can. But it is very often benign. I tend to think of irrational beliefs in the same way I think of recreational drug use: most people use them pretty responsibly and manage to get something personally gratifying out of them, even though they always have certain drawbacks. When used in moderation, the drawbacks are negligible. I wouldn't hold it against a potential employee, my kids' teachers, or politicians if they happen to drink from time to time, and likewise I don't hold it against them if they have a few seemingly benign irrational beliefs.
| If someone embraces the irrational, then as far as I'm concerned they do not have "a clean track record" to begin with. |
Well certainly they don't have a clean track record for being perfectly rational, but I don't think anyone does. The track records I care about are the ones that are relevant in any given situation. I don't think someone's religious beliefs are relevant when choosing politicians, hiring scientists, teachers, etc., unless they have said or done something which is in direct conflict with the job's duties. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 03/28/2008 : 19:48:26 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Val wrote: | But, Marf, we theists do embrace the irrational with these beliefs. |
I'm not denying that religious beliefs, which actually qualify as beliefs (i.e. assertions about reality) are irrational. I denied that the nebulous ones were "just as much an embracing of the irrational" as more specific claims, and especially than supernatural claims which have scientific evidence against them. There are levels of irrationality that made a huge difference! |
I'm not quite sure what you mean by a belief that doesn't qualify as a belief. Are you saying that there are positions people hold which we or they describe as beliefs, but which shouldn't be considered so?
Any chance of an example to help me grasp what you mean here?
Maybe you're trying to separate beliefs which aren't assertions about reality, but I'm having trouble figuring out what they would generally be, and whether or not this is entirely what you meant.
I'm off to read the thread you started now, so my apologies if you've already adressed that there. |
John's just this guy, you know. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/28/2008 : 21:38:30 [Permalink]
|
John wrote: I'm not quite sure what you mean by a belief that doesn't qualify as a belief. Are you saying that there are positions people hold which we or they describe as beliefs, but which shouldn't be considered so?
Any chance of an example to help me grasp what you mean here?
Maybe you're trying to separate beliefs which aren't assertions about reality, but I'm having trouble figuring out what they would generally be, and whether or not this is entirely what you meant. |
It was sort of already addressed, but probably not clearly.
I'm making a distinction between specific claims about something in the natural world and belief in abstract concepts and personal, emotional truths.
The NPR show "This I Believe" has featured many essays which are good examples. One was a guy who titled his essay "I Believe in Barbecue." What he really meant was that barbecuing was this really important thing for him personally that enriched his own life. The problem with religious themes is that when people say they believe in something, it isn't always clear whether they are asserting that it literally exists, or rather, that the concept plays a significant role in enriching their personal experience of life. For example, two people might say "I believe in the power of prayer." and mean two different things; the first meaning that they believe the act of praying can alter the conditions of reality and the second meaning that they personally get a sense of deep solace out of the act of praying.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 03/28/2008 21:40:10 |
|
|
|
Pelayo
Skeptic Friend
USA
70 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2008 : 05:54:17 [Permalink]
|
"Why religious people are so arrogant"
Considering some of the replies to my postings on the Jihad threat and some comments on other topics, arrogance is not a charactisteric exclusive to religious people. |
I have a habit of posting without reading all previous comments, if I am repeating someone, well, excuse me, please.
"No tendency is quite so strong in human nature as the desire to lay down rules of conduct for other people." - William Howard Taft
"God ran out of new souls a long time ago and has been recycling jackasses." - Anon |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2008 : 19:28:12 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Val wrote: Marf,
The simple act of asserting the existance of a nebulous cosmic extradimentional being without any empirical evidence is inherently an irrational belief. |
Around and around in circles we go. Again, I didn't say it wasn't an irrational belief. The dispute was over whether it was as irrational as other beliefs.
|
OK, now I'm lost here.
As I have clearly indicated, I did not agree with the equivocation of the danger of belief in a nebulous diety with religious extremism.
It is, however, at it's root, an embracing of the irrational.
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2008 : 22:50:07 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
I'm making a distinction between specific claims about something in the natural world and belief in abstract concepts and personal, emotional truths.
The NPR show "This I Believe" has featured many essays which are good examples. One was a guy who titled his essay "I Believe in Barbecue." What he really meant was that barbecuing was this really important thing for him personally that enriched his own life. The problem with religious themes is that when people say they believe in something, it isn't always clear whether they are asserting that it literally exists, or rather, that the concept plays a significant role in enriching their personal experience of life. For example, two people might say "I believe in the power of prayer." and mean two different things; the first meaning that they believe the act of praying can alter the conditions of reality and the second meaning that they personally get a sense of deep solace out of the act of praying. |
But whether a belief is stated in ambiguous terms or is easily understood is independent of whether that belief is rational or irrational.
And whether a belief is about the natural world or is about an abstract personal or emotional truth is independent of whether it is rational or irrational. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Why religious people are so arrogant
