You need to be very careful not to trade one God (God) for another (science). Many former theists do just that, and fail to see the irony and hypocrisy.
Accepting science without question is just as irrational as accepting the Bible without question. — JustSomeGuy
So the question is, what does someone do when their deeply held conviction is not the neat status quo theory you espouse, what if they believe that religion has, in fact, harmed society and continues to do so, but they (like any good philosopher) recognise that they very much might be wrong about that. — Pseudonym
This is typical theist nonsense. — Harry Hindu
But each of our actions affects others, so each person's beliefs will affect you in some way, and your beliefs will affect others, because we act on our beliefs. — Pseudonym
I was a theist, and my family are theists, so I know I'm not misrepresenting them because I've asked them and many others. — Harry Hindu
Now that we have technologies to discover the facts rather than stories from constantly edited books, I would say theism is more a type of denial verging on Luddism than a mental illness. — Joel Bingham
The issue is this. Somehow we've ended up with a society in which millions are starving whilst others live in ridiculous excess and the majority of the population are fine with that. — Pseudonym
I'm not saying I blame religion entirely for the extent to which we have become so cold-hearted, but I think that the sense, imparted by religion, that some external authority figure provides you with the answers to moral dilemmas allows people to 'switch off' that sense that Sitting Bull had which made it simply impossible for him to ignore these people. — Pseudonym
Of course as soon as ISIS are brought up everyone rallies round agreeing with whatever measures are necessary, but something about modern society (capitalism, greed, culture, religion?) causes ten times as many deaths daily as ISIS have killed in their entire tenure. The question is, are we going to throw our hands up and say "I don't know what that's all about" and just let it carry on or are we going to have a serious about what the root cause might be and try to change it? — Pseudonym
You seem to be unwilling to take responsibility for the implications of your beliefs. — T Clark
. I explained what your statements imply and why, and you essentially just responded with "No, they don't." It seems we can't take this discussion any further. — JustSomeGuy
And how do you know that people are "fine with that"? — WISDOMfromPO-MO
If somebody shows that science, democracy, free markets, etc. have given us that same aggregate net loss, we should, and will, discourage them with the same tenacity? — WISDOMfromPO-MO
Where is the scientific evidence for such a claim?! — WISDOMfromPO-MO
What does any of that have to do with theism being--or not being--a mental illness?! — WISDOMfromPO-MO
You've suggested that the cons of religion outweigh the pros, but I can't recall you ever parsing such a list. — Buxtebuddha
I was a theist, and my family are theists, so I know I'm not misrepresenting them because I've asked them and many others. — Harry Hindu
Sheesh! Don't you read before posting nonsense like this? The evidence is the religious people's answers and reactions (angrily, hostile, scared) to questioning their beliefs. All you have to do is ASK theists why they believe what they believe. I have done that - more times than I can count, of so many people that I forget how many. Have you?Anecdotal evidence.
Where is the scientific evidence? Anti-theists always make claims like, "Religious people believe in God because it makes them feel good", but they never provide scientific evidence in support of such claims. Then they beat their chests and say that they are champions of science and its superior reliability. — WISDOMfromPO-MO
And as I said, twice but you are ignoring it that I didn't change my mind because I'm being rebellious. I did it because there were questions that just couldn't be answered in a consistent way. So I found a better way. Is every scientist that challenges the status quo being rebellious or simply trying to have an open-mind in order to get at the truth?I'm not a theist, I've just moved beyond the anti-theism which resulted from my initial rebellion against my former beliefs. As I said, it's clear you have not, and it's still clouding your judgement. — JustSomeGuy
I can't believe how many times I'm having to repeat this. Where have I said that the cons of religion outweigh the pros? — Pseudonym
This is insane. Religions have, at best, had a mixed consequence on the world, even the pope does not disagree with that as he has condemned past activities of the church.
Some people look at this mixed consequence and conclude that the good stuff outweighs the bad. I'm fine with that. I disagree but I can see these are mostly intelligent people and the data is, as I say, mixed.
Some people, myself included, look at this mix and conclude the bad stuff outweighs the good. — Pseudonym
Where have I said that the cons of religion outweigh the pros? — Pseudonym
Religions have, at best, had a mixed consequence on the world — Pseudonym
Some people, myself included, look at this mix and conclude the bad stuff outweighs the good. — Pseudonym
I'm sorry, as JSG has pointed out above I have mentioned the my personal view once, please accept my apologies for not noticing. The whole thrust of my argument really has nothing to do with my personal life answer and in all the long posts I had forgotten that I had mentioned it. — Pseudonym
What is your argument, then? — Buxtebuddha
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. You're not withholding judgement, nor being agnostic on the subject. Whatever effect religion has on your society you are deciding with conviction that you are happy to allow that effect to continue, by your failure to act against it.
To put it another way, we each have the same choice to make - how much religion do we think it is our duty to allow/encourage in our society, based on its consequences? How is "none" any less valid an answer to that question than "some" or "loads"? No answer can claim to be more agnostic than any other, each person answering can do so with great hubris or with great humility, what they think the answer is has no bearing on the extent to which they consider themselves to be right. — Pseudonym
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
What does one do if one's belief leads to a conclusion where the uncertainty is very high (my theory is shaky at best), but the consequences of being right and not doing anything about is are really severe? — Pseudonym
1. It is possible that religion is harmful to society.
2. Someone could theoretically believe this with great hubris, convinced they are right, or with great humility, accepting they could well be wrong, but nonetheless concluding so on the balance of evidence. The nature of their conclusion does not in any way necessitate the degree to which they believe it.
3. Inaction has no less consequence on the world than action, it is no less a response to one's beliefs and can be carried out (if that's the right word) either with great conviction, or with great doubt.
4. It follows from 1-3 that any moral agent must make a decision about how to act (or refrain from taking action) in the face of their belief about the degree of harm/benefit religion causes society.
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.
6. People, by the collected effect of their individual actions, are responsible for the laws and customs of their society.
7. It follows from 6 that the decision one must make about one's actions in response to one's belief about the harms/benefit religion causes society will involve a decision about how much religious practice society should tolerate (by which I mean the individual exercising the small part they play in the adjusting the direction of societal laws and customs). It follows from 5 that the range of options any moral agent has to choose from with regards to the direction they wish to exercise their small influence in ranges from "none" (no public religious practices at all) to "loads" (mandatory religious practices) — Pseudonym
1. 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.
2. The decision we each make has no bearing whatsoever on the degree of hubris or humility with which we have made that decision. — Pseudonym
My entire point I will repeat, is that;
1. it is possible for someone to hold the belief that religion needs to be restricted for the good of society yet to hold this view without any more hubris or certainty than someone who holds the belief that religion is currently restricted to exactly the right extent.
2. If someone were to believe such a thing their moral obligation to act on that belief would be no different to the moral obligation to not act of someone who holds the belief that things are fine as they are. — Pseudonym
If you have any serious logical counters to any of the positions I've actually written (rather than the ones from your imagination) then I'd be interested to hear them, otherwise please refrain from making vague generalisation about my character. — Pseudonym
intellectually unjustified, morally unprincipled, and cowardly. — T Clark
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. You're not withholding judgement, nor being agnostic on the subject. Whatever effect religion has on your society you are deciding with conviction that you are happy to allow that effect to continue, by your failure to act against it. — Pseudonym
To put it another way, we each have the same choice to make - how much religion do we think it is our duty to allow/encourage in our society, based on its consequences? — Pseudonym
How is "none" any less valid an answer to that question than "some" or "loads"? No answer can claim to be more agnostic than any other, each person answering can do so with great hubris or with great humility, what they think the answer is has no bearing on the extent to which they consider themselves to be right. — Pseudonym
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
What does one do if one's belief leads to a conclusion where the uncertainty is very high (my theory is shaky at best), but the consequences of being right and not doing anything about is are really severe? — Pseudonym
It is possible that religion is harmful to society. — Pseudonym
Someone could theoretically believe this with great hubris, convinced they are right, or with great humility, accepting they could well be wrong, but nonetheless concluding so on the balance of evidence. The nature of their conclusion does not in any way necessitate the degree to which they believe it. — Pseudonym
Inaction has no less consequence on the world than action, it is no less a response to one's beliefs and can be carried out (if that's the right word) either with great conviction, or with great doubt. — Pseudonym
It follows from 1-3 that any moral agent must make a decision about how to act (or refrain from taking action) in the face of their belief about the degree of harm/benefit religion causes society. — Pseudonym
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
People, by the collected effect of their individual actions, are responsible for the laws and customs of their society. — Pseudonym
It follows from 6 that the decision one must make about one's actions in response to one's belief about the harms/benefit religion causes society will involve a decision about how much religious practice society should tolerate (by which I mean the individual exercising the small part they play in the adjusting the direction of societal laws and customs). It follows from 5 that the range of options any moral agent has to choose from with regards to the direction they wish to exercise their small influence in ranges from "none" (no public religious practices at all) to "loads" (mandatory religious practices) — Pseudonym
1. 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
The decision we each make has no bearing whatsoever on the degree of hubris or humility with which we have made that decision. — Pseudonym
You're gonna have to explain your understanding of deontology with regard to the discouraging of religion before this makes any coherent sense. — Buxtebuddha
Who is we? If you're an American, there's something called the First Amendment - do you know it? — Buxtebuddha
. A simple, utilitarian list of pros and cons will do. — Buxtebuddha
fascist-like loons like yourself. — Buxtebuddha
Personally, I think we should limit faith schools and discourage religious attitudes by rational debate, if that makes me a fascist, irrational zealot then there's clearly no place for contrary opinions here. — Pseudonym
It is possible that my dick fell off in the shower this morning, too. — Buxtebuddha
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.