I think the only place we might disagree is that I do have quite strong views about religious education and would certainly consider that act of banning faith schools as within what I consider reasonable moral grounds for enforcing what religious activity we should 'allow', but imposing on someone's private practices would for example, be an immoral imposition on autonomy. — Pseudonym
I read that quote as if Pseudonym is saying we should not allow religion when it's degrees of consequences have reached a point that is intolerable, like say ISIS for example. It is our duty to not allow that. While we should discourage in other cases. That was my interpretation, but I acknowledge that it was not my quote therefore I may be misrepresenting. — SonJnana
There is a big difference between tolerating ISIS's religion and tolerating their behavior. — T Clark
Some people, myself included, look at this mix and conclude the bad stuff outweighs the good. But instead of our detractors being fine with that and accepting that we're also intelligent people looking a complex, mixed picture, I'm told that I'm actually irrational, that no rational person could possibly reach that conclusion, only a zealot as bad as ISIS could possibly reach such a conclusion. — Pseudonym
how much religion do we think it is our duty to allow/encourage in our society — Pseudonym
I may have worded it strangely, but I mean we should be allowed to criticize the doctrines themselves, criticize people's interpretations of the doctrines, and not allow people to behave in the ways ISIS does. — SonJnana
Thank you for at least attempting to inject some charitable interpretation. No I'm not advocating intolerance, just the ability to express our opinions and try, no matter how futile, to persuade others of things we think are important without being accused of being irrational. — Pseudonym
So what I'm saying is that by failing to act in such a way as to discourage religion, you are expressing your sincere belief that it is at least OK to have religion in the world — Pseudonym
It depends on context. Consider this hypothetical example. If ISIS opens up a school in America, people allow their kids to go from like age 2. The kids are taught ISIS ideals. We end up with thousands of people going around killing people. The teachers of the school itself aren't killing, but the children that go to the school grow up and start killing in this situation. Do we just keep locking up the murderers that grow in population and never end? Or do we also ban the expression of ideals of the school because it is indoctrinating children from a young age to become murderers, which is a huge threat to our safety. — SonJnana
No I'm not advocating intolerance, just the ability to express our opinions and try, no matter how futile, to persuade others of things we think are important without being accused of being irrational. — Pseudonym
My use of the word 'allow' was poorly ambiguous but would require significant prejudice not to interpret charitably, for anyone to suggest I've said anything in my posts to justify a presumption that I probably want to forcibly ban religion is completely unjustified and I appreciate your effort to provide a more balanced interpretation of my clumsy phrasing. — Pseudonym
What I actually meant by it was 'allow' within the moral limits of our actions, which I think is not far from what you suggested. The normal use of the word in fact, as in the way "we don't allow smoking in pubs" doesn't mean we're going to shoot anyone found doing it because that would be immoral. — Pseudonym
Most of the time people don't have to specify that they're going to stick within accepted moral boundaries when enforcing their use of the word 'allow' but apparently I'm an exception. — Pseudonym
I think we have to consider what the faith school is teaching. If it is ISIS preaching then of course we ban it. But does the degree of belief and it's specific consequences matter? It seems as though the case I am talking about is only harmful in that it encourages forming a world view that may not be rational. And we may also have conversations about how far a belief can go before it is banned. But do you think all faith based schools should be banned? — SonJnana
My interpretation of that statement is that you support forbidding religion. Am I correct or have I misunderstood what you are saying? — T Clark
how much religion do we think it is our duty to allow/encourage in our society — Pseudonym
He is clearly proposing that we do not allow, that we forbid, religion in our society. That means significantly more than walking door to door. — T Clark
Except that civilization owes itself in large part to the "religious gene." We'd have probably died out as a species many thousands of years ago had we not developed a mind for religious thinking. — Buxtebuddha
There are laws against conspiracy to promote terrorism or provide support for terrorist organizations. Are the hypothetical schools violating those laws? If not, what business does the government have in putting restrictions on them. That doesn't prevent you from expressing your opposition to the school within the limits of legal restrictions on violence and intimidation. — T Clark
This is nonsense — Pseudonym
you need to make clear what your meaning actually is. — JustSomeGuy
I already said that, did you actually read my post? Why are you repeating that there no current laws when I just said that the issue is not the current state of law, but the desired state of law?There are not currently laws against teaching unpopular religious principles in the US, therefore the government should keep it's hands off. — T Clark
In the US at least, it is unlikely there will be such laws. That's why we have the first amendment to our Constitution - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. — T Clark
Any government that puts restrictions on Muslim schools will also put restrictions on expression of other unpopular ideas. — T Clark
The government tends to put restrictions on unpopular and vulnerable people who go against the status quo. — T Clark
Every statement in this post underlines, highlights, bolds, italicizes my earlier accusations against your position that you characterized as uncharitable. — T Clark
Last I checked the US was a democracy, the government does what it is given a mandate to do by the people. So if the people want to restrict unpopular and vulnerable people (such that they would vote in a government which seeks to do so), then they will do so, law or no law. The power of culture is stronger than any law, so our individual contribution to that culture will determine its course regardless of any restriction put on government. — Pseudonym
5. It is possible to ban all religious activity in public (no-one mentioned anything about private beliefs or private religious worship). It is possible to make religious activity mandatory. — Pseudonym
The decision we each make has no bearing whatsoever on the degree of hubris or humility with which we have made that decision. — Pseudonym
No-one is withholding judgement, everyone has made a decision (at least for the time being) to either act to push society in a different direction, or not act and so leave society as it is, in this regard. — Pseudonym
So can the US government not intervene in the murder of infidels because it is the expression of their religious belief? — Pseudonym
You have been speaking (and continue to here) as though banning all religious activity is a reasonable option. — JustSomeGuy
This isn't accurate. It takes some level of hubris to even believe at all--with any amount of conviction--that you know what is best for all mankind. — JustSomeGuy
that you, as an individual, can singularly affect society in any significant way based on your own personal convictions and actions. — JustSomeGuy
What I'm saying is, failure to act is not necessarily due to an endorsement of the current state of affairs, as you imply. It can also be due to a belief that one's action wouldn't affect the current state of affairs anyway. — JustSomeGuy
what forms of religious expression could you be referring to? Preaching? Praying? Worshipping? Teaching religion? Discussing religious beliefs? — JustSomeGuy
I wasn't being dismissive. I was providing a scientific explanation for religious beliefs. Being dismissive would be to ignore the fact that anyone has an experience that they call religious. I'm not saying that they don't. I'm just saying that they are interpreting their experience wrongly.Rereading what I wrote, I wasn't dismissive of your thoughts at all, I just disagreed with them. When I said you were dismissive, I was referring to the fact that you called theist's beliefs "delusions." — T Clark
And your anger would be part of the symptom of being delusional. Didn't you read the list of symptoms? Questioning your beliefs and providing a better explanation shouldn't make anyone angry if they are really trying to get at the truth. It would only make one angry if they have an emotional investment in their belief, the validity of which is being questioned.This is more of the hubris I mentioned. It is infuriating to me when someone tries to explain my actions or beliefs in terms of their own preconceptions without knowing me. I'm not saying I'm angry at you, I am not a theist so your opinion here doesn't really apply to me, but if I were, I probably would be. — T Clark
So, you disagree with what I have said, you'd get angry at calling your beliefs a delusion, and you don't think science provides good explanations, and you say that you aren't a theist? Mmmkkkkkay. If you really aren't a theist and don't want to explain yourself, and would rather just say, "I disagree.", without really explaining why you disagree, then I guess we are done here. Calling it hubris isn't disagreeing because you'd be calling all the doctors that diagnose people's physical and mental conditions by consulting others with similar conditions, hubris.Science's explanations aren't good enough for me either and, as I said, I am not a theist. I'm an engineer who loves physics. — T Clark
So it is rebellious to think logically and consistently? It does seem that way considering that most people don't seem to think that way.It's egotistical to claim that your singular life experience hasn't shown you an objective representation of billions of people?
I'm sorry, but claiming you know the personal thoughts and beliefs of billions of people because you think you know the personal thoughts and beliefs of a handful you've talked to is ridiculous. I'm surprised you don't see how irrational that is. In fact it's much more irrational than the belief in a deity.
You seem to be one of many people who have a bias against religion because you were raised religious and as a youth rebelled against it. It's very common for people who go through that experience to stay in that "rebellious" mindset for years, and indeed some never get past it. — JustSomeGuy
But we aren't always irrational. Religious people are only irrational when defending and explaining their delusion. That has all been posted before. You aren't paying attention.You made the claim that belief in a deity is mental illness. Now you are implying that what you've been saying is that belief in a deity is irrational. By using these term interchangeably, you imply that they mean the same thing. Are you really saying that "irrational" is the same as "mental illness"? If so, we are all mentally ill. — JustSomeGuy
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.