Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: Roses on February 07, 2021, 11:17:01 AM
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-55966178
A step in the right direction I suppose, but there is a long way to go before there is equality in the RCC.
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-55966178
A step in the right direction I suppose, but there is a long way to go before there is equality in the RCC.
To an extent, when there is equality in the RCC, it will no longer be the RCC.
-
To an extent, when there is equality in the RCC, it will no longer be the RCC.
If that is the case it would be a great benefit, the RCC certainly hasn't covered itself in glory over the centuries. >:(
-
If that is the case it would be a great benefit, the RCC certainly hasn't covered itself in glory over the centuries. >:(
That's the point, the RCC is effectively based on the idea of inequality, and while for much of its history tgat's been in line with the zeitgeist, it's so entwined with the institution, that it's difficult for it to change. If the reforms of the 60s had continued apace then it might be in a better position but they stalled, or rather may have progressed glacially, while the speed of change in society just got faster and faster.
-
That's the point, the RCC is effectively based on the idea of inequality, and while for much of its history tgat's been in line with the zeitgeist, it's so entwined with the institution, that it's difficult for it to change. If the reforms of the 60s had continued apace then it might be in a better position but they stalled, or rather may have progressed glacially, while the speed of change in society just got faster and faster.
They cannot even begin to think of even thinking about the fact that their whole religion has nothing at all objective at its base.
-
They cannot even begin to think of even thinking about the fact that their whole religion has nothing at all objective at its base.
There are lots of RCCs who wouldn't claim that their religion is objective. At the same time there are lots of non religious people who might claim objectivity for things they have no justification for.
The idea of superiority over religious people because 'oh look I base my beliefs on objectivity' is just a simplistic nonsense.
-
There are lots of RCCs who wouldn't claim that their religion is objective. At the same time there are lots of non religious people who might claim objectivity for things they have no justification for.
The idea of superiority over religious people because 'oh look I base my beliefs on objectivity' is just a simplistic nonsense.
You may have read 'superiority' into my post, but it was not there. No person is superior or inferior to any other; our lives have place and time and happen in different environments with different chances of good or bad health, luck, success, failure, etc, but no person can consider him/herself to be superior or inferior, in my firmly held opinion and practice.
-
You may have read 'superiority' into my post, but it was not there. No person is superior or inferior to any other; our lives have place and time and happen in different environments with different chances of good or bad health, luck, success, failure, etc, but no person can consider him/herself to be superior or inferior, in my firmly held opinion and practice.
So you are no better than Fred West?
-
So you are no better than Fred West?
What do you mean by 'better than'? I was lucky enough to be born with a set of genes that made me a naturally cheerful sort of person, into a family where life was working-to-middle -class, and lived in places where I received, enjoyed and benefited from a good education. That does not make me 'better' or 'worse' than Fred west, since we both have an evolved physical body very similar in most respects. I await your answer.
-
What do you mean by 'better than'? I was lucky enough to be born with a set of genes that made me a naturally cheerful sort of person, into a family where life was working-to-middle -class, and lived in places where I received, enjoyed and benefited from a good education. That does not make me 'better' or 'worse' than Fred west, since we both have an evolved physical body very similar in most respects. I await your answer.
More useful to yourself and others as a base description.
I'm struggling to see how you can comment on others' inability to 'think about the fact that their whole religion has nothing at all objective at its base' and not be suggesting that it is something that they should do. Your latest post seems to take the position that they have no choice but to think that, and your thoughts are just as fixed. Now philosophically, I can agree that that may well be true but it seems impossible to me to function on a day to day basis like that. To go back to one of my favourite quotes 'Of course I believe in free will, I have no choice'
-
More useful to yourself and others as a base description.
Thank you for reply. Yes, 'more useful' sounds like an apt phrase to use.
I'm struggling to see how you can comment on others' inability to 'think about the fact that their whole religion has nothing at all objective at its base' and not be suggesting that it is something that they should do.
Okay, I've had another look at my post. I should have said, 'Some RCs are so indoctrinated and possibly terrified of some dire consequences if they challenge that faith that they are no longer able to think of doing so' or similar wording.
Your latest post seems to take the position that they have no choice but to think that, and your thoughts are just as fixed.
I think the choice has probably been taken away from them by their indoctrination, but no, my thoughts are most decidedly not as fixed. I have always challenged, with the 'Is this true?' question, but when I was a child the time was not right and I was prevented from finding a rational answer for sucha question. I have always enjoyed all discussion on the subject and of course if someone ever comes up with an objective, independently, verifiable, etc etc fact, I will change my mind and such a fact would change the world's knowledge base too.
Now philosophically, I can agree that that may well be true but it seems impossible to me to function on a day to day basis like that. To go back to one of my favourite quotes 'Of course I believe in free will, I have no choice'
It's something of a pity I think that it is only really on message boards that such topics can be broached. The only person with whom it comes up in conversation and with total agreement is my next-door neighbour. Her mother, well into her 90s, has just died (nothing to do with Covid 19 fortunately) and that reduces the number of people she can agree with on such matters.
-
Thank you for reply. Yes, 'more useful' sounds like an apt phrase to use.
I think I am influenced by the idea that subjectively the idea of wellbeing is a good base axiom for morality and evaluation here. Fred West was obviously a bad person on that position. I think we have evolved to be judgement machines. It could be argued that judging is the characteristic that makes us homo sapiens.
Okay, I've had another look at my post. I should have said, 'Some RCs are so indoctrinated and possibly terrified of some dire consequences if they challenge that faith that they are no longer able to think of doing so' or similar wording.
I think for many RCs and other religions, it's not really that big a part of their life. It's important in many ways but on a day to day level belief vs lack of belief doesn't really seem to me to make that much difference to a person. I don't go out for a drink (at all at the moment obviously) with my friends who have relugious beliefs and think of them as any different from me purely because of those beliefs. The fear part seems to kick in much more when people doubt. It's something that I hear more from former religious people than religious ones. If we were to go down the idea of religion as meme, it's a very effective adaptation for keeping the meme going. (Note, I have lots of issues with the idea of memes other than being used metaphorically)
I think the choice has probably been taken away from them by their indoctrination, but no, my thoughts are most decidedly not as fixed. I have always challenged, with the 'Is this true?' question, but when I was a child the time was not right and I was prevented from finding a rational answer for sucha question. I have always enjoyed all discussion on the subject and of course if someone ever comes up with an objective, independently, verifiable, etc etc fact, I will change my mind and such a fact would change the world's knowledge base too.
I think a lot of religious people are religious because it feels right to them. It's wider than the idea of indoctrination, it's cultural, it's social, and it's part of our make up to think why, and want a why answer rather than just a how answer.
In addition, there are for many the idea of personal experiences, and I think it's almost impossible for anyone who believes they have had one to deny that on a purely rational basis. To take the often used example that we don't actually touch things - I get the rational argument that supports that but on a day to day basis it feels like nonsense.
I also have an issue with the idea of arguments for and against religious belief. They feel like a post rationalisation for the position rather than the reason for it. Certainly I didn't feel like I reasoned myself out of religion, I just realised I didn't believe. Now it might be argued that my subconscious wrestled with the arguments, and my conscious was presented with a fait accompli, and that the rational arguments I might present are somehow the conscious mind accessing the processes of the subconscious but again that's just not what it feels like.
And the thing about the arguments that religious believers prsent seem so often nothing to do with why they actually believe. Arguments like the Kalam or the Ontological seem obviously pist rationalisations.
It's something of a pity I think that it is only really on message boards that such topics can be broached. The only person with whom it comes up in conversation and with total agreement is my next-door neighbour. Her mother, well into her 90s, has just died (nothing to do with Covid 19 fortunately) and that reduces the number of people she can agree with on such matters.
To be honest, a lot of this type of discussion, I find uninyeresting, in part because I feel that detailed arguments on the philosophical approach tells me little about the person. There's an element that I can enjoy on an intellectual level but I have had so many of those discussions that it's pretty repetitive. I am much more interested in the day to day stuff, politics , art, sport, and of course people always people. And on that level, there are those who hold religious beliefs with whom I have much more fellow feeling than I do with many Gradgrindian atheists who suppose they drip rationality and objectivity. As Hume argued, reason is the slave of passion. We cannot jump the is ought gap with rationality and objectivity. We always need to make an assumption on a desire, and in the end that is why I choose wellbeing as an axiom - because I want to have a good enjoyable life.
-
I think I am influenced by the idea that subjectively the idea of wellbeing is a good base axiom for morality and evaluation here. Fred West was obviously a bad person on that position. I think we have evolved to be judgement machines. It could be argued that judging is the characteristic that makes us homo sapiens.
Thank you for an interesting read. I've had the latest S/N 20 installed this afternoon, so will read and respond properly tomorrow.
-
NS,
I think I am influenced by the idea that subjectively the idea of wellbeing is a good base axiom for morality and evaluation here. Fred West was obviously a bad person on that position. I think we have evolved to be judgement machines. It could be argued that judging is the characteristic that makes us homo sapiens.
I’m the same, but then pretty quickly you run into the question “whose wellbeing?” – the done-to-death trolley car thought experiment, whether it’d then be right to kill one person to harvest his organs to save the lives of five others dying for want of transplants etc. Wellbeing (or maximal wellbeing) is fine so far as it goes, but it quickly runs into rationally indefensible answers (albeit emotionally preferable ones).
I think for many RCs and other religions, it's not really that big a part of their life. It's important in many ways but on a day to day level belief vs lack of belief doesn't really seem to me to make that much difference to a person. I don't go out for a drink (at all at the moment obviously) with my friends who have relugious beliefs and think of them as any different from me purely because of those beliefs. The fear part seems to kick in much more when people doubt. It's something that I hear more from former religious people than religious ones. If we were to go down the idea of religion as meme, it's a very effective adaptation for keeping the meme going. (Note, I have lots of issues with the idea of memes other than being used metaphorically)
Memes are metaphorical aren’t they – ie, the proposition that ideas and beliefs will take hold and spread just as material phenomena like viruses will. In any case though, I’ve mentioned before that our best friends are RC (he a cradle RC, she a marriage convert from C of E) and no – it seems to make little difference to their day-to-day lives. (He’s a highly literate and liberal immigration lawyer by the way who tells me he still takes great comfort from dropping into RC churches now and then). The issue for me though is that my RC friends (and likely yours) don’t necessarily reflect the spectrum, especially in countries where church and state are much harder to distinguish than here. There are countries where bans on abortion, on sex ed, on contraception etc have a real and damaging effect on the populations as a whole, where for the clerics and for the devout laity the RC faith is it seems a very big part of their lives indeed – big enough to mandate how everyone else should live. And that troubles me – not the content of the faiths so much (so what?) – but their practical effect when they're in charge.
I think a lot of religious people are religious because it feels right to them. It's wider than the idea of indoctrination, it's cultural, it's social, and it's part of our make up to think why, and want a why answer rather than just a how answer.
Doesn’t it “feel right” to (pretty much) all religious people, regardless of what (or how nasty) the beliefs? Presumably Fred Phelps’s venomous intolerance felt as right to him as the rather sweet local vicar’s beliefs feel right to him. The more interesting question for me is why something that seems plainly wrong to me apparently feels right to someone else.
In addition, there are for many the idea of personal experiences, and I think it's almost impossible for anyone who believes they have had one to deny that on a purely rational basis. To take the often used example that we don't actually touch things - I get the rational argument that supports that but on a day to day basis it feels like nonsense.
It may feel like nonsense, but it isn’t. The issue for me with “experiences” though is not that I doubt people have them (I’m sure they do), but rather it’s that the justifications they make for their causes are routinely terrible: “One day I felt a deep sense of oneness with the universe, therefore (insert name of the deity they happen to be most enculturated to here) did it” type of thing.
I also have an issue with the idea of arguments for and against religious belief. They feel like a post rationalisation for the position rather than the reason for it. Certainly I didn't feel like I reasoned myself out of religion, I just realised I didn't believe. Now it might be argued that my subconscious wrestled with the arguments, and my conscious was presented with a fait accompli, and that the rational arguments I might present are somehow the conscious mind accessing the processes of the subconscious but again that's just not what it feels like.
Religious beliefs are religious beliefs – you can’t really have arguments for and against them as such, but what you can have is arguments for and against the arguments attempted to justify them. That’s the boundary for me: not so much “what do you believe?”, but rather “why do you believe it?”. And when the answers to that question fail (as they always seem to), I take the view that there’s no sound reason for me to take the claim seriously regardless of what it happens to be.
And the thing about the arguments that religious believers prsent seem so often nothing to do with why they actually believe. Arguments like the Kalam or the Ontological seem obviously pist rationalisations. To be honest, a lot of this type of discussion, I find uninyeresting, in part because I feel that detailed arguments on the philosophical approach tells me little about the person. There's an element that I can enjoy on an intellectual level but I have had so many of those discussions that it's pretty repetitive.
I broadly agree, except it does tell me something about the person - it tells me they’re not thinking straight!
I am much more interested in the day to day stuff, politics , art, sport, and of course people always people. And on that level, there are those who hold religious beliefs with whom I have much more fellow feeling than I do with many Gradgrindian atheists who suppose they drip rationality and objectivity. As Hume argued, reason is the slave of passion. We cannot jump the is ought gap with rationality and objectivity. We always need to make an assumption on a desire, and in the end that is why I choose wellbeing as an axiom - because I want to have a good enjoyable life.
Same here (more or less), but nonetheless I’m still interested in the practical effect of poor thinking – real people get really hurt in the real world, and so I suspect I’m a little less sanguine than you are about letting it be. I’m aware of the slippery slope fallacy (of course) but I still struggle to see how I’d argue against, say, someone committing a murder because his “faith” justifies it when I’m relaxed about someone doing something else less malign (or even benign) because his faith justifies that. I take the view that faith is a very bad reason for doing anything – there’s no logic to retro-fitting what the something happens to be to conclude that sometimes faith is a good rationale and sometimes a bad one. It’s just a bad one always I think.
-
NS,
I’m the same, but then pretty quickly you run into the question “whose wellbeing?” – the done-to-death trolley car thought experiment, whether it’d then be right to kill one person to harvest his organs to save the lives of five others dying for want of transplants etc. Wellbeing (or maximal wellbeing) is fine so far as it goes, but it quickly runs into rationally indefensible answers (albeit emotionally preferable ones).
What you're talking about is utilitarianism, and all the situations which are supposed to counter it as a moral system - the trolley-car one, the killing-to-harvest-organs, etc. - can be refuted simply by asking why the action described is wrong. The answer always turns out to be utilitarian (more specifically, rule-utilitarian): if it was the rule that people could be killed for their organs, we'd all be living in fear, which is hardly conducive to general happiness or well-being.
-
Nye,
What you're talking about is utilitarianism, and all the situations which are supposed to counter it as a moral system - the trolley-car one, the killing-to-harvest-organs, etc. - can be refuted simply by asking why the action described is wrong. The answer always turns out to be utilitarian (more specifically, rule-utilitarian): if it was the rule that people could be killed for their organs, we'd all be living in fear, which is hardly conducive to general happiness or well-being.
Yes I’m aware of rule utilitarianism, but the problems with it seem to me to be who’d decides on the rule, how they’d decide it, and how in any case they would measure the paradigm for maximal wellbeing they’d arrived at.
-
I think I am influenced by the idea that subjectively the idea of wellbeing is a good base axiom for morality and evaluation here. Fred West was obviously a bad person on that position. I think we have evolved to be judgement machines. It could be argued that judging is the characteristic that makes us homo sapiens.
I think for many RCs and other religions, it's not really that big a part of their life. It's important in many ways but on a day to day level belief vs lack of belief doesn't really seem to me to make that much difference to a person.
Not nowadays, no, because people are accustomed to criticism of religious edicts, they have much more awareness of, for instance, the Pope’s humanness, his vast wealth and his need to travel in bullet-proof cars! Why the question of why God isn’t enough to protect him is raised far too little in my opinion.The fear part seems to kick in much more when people doubt. It's something that I hear more from former religious people than religious ones.
The long-term effects of such strong inculcation of supposed religious power are evidently hard to break. I think a lot of religious people are religious because it feels right to them. It's wider than the idea of indoctrination, it's cultural, it's social, and it's part of our make up to think why, and want a why answer rather than just a how answer.
Speaking only for those I know who are of my sort of age, I know that most of them do not attend church, do not mention praying and that activities involving religion are very low on their list. They probably will put themselves down as CofE in the census, but I think that, if questioned closely, they would have to admit that they know there is no heaven or afte-life and that medical science has shown that this is so. But then, of course, it would be an intrusion on their personal space even to mention the subject. I think it is sort of an understanding which is not necessary to mention. Most will assume a conventional funeral, but cremation is something mentioned and agreed upon as the best method of disposal!In addition, there are for many the idea of personal experiences, and I think it's almost impossible for anyone who believes they have had one to deny that on a purely rational basis.
Agree, and on the GH forum where there are quite a few who say I am unable to understand their personal experiences of mystic this and that, I regularly point out that I never deny that people have experiences, but I do question their interpretations of them.I also have an issue with the idea of arguments for and against religious belief. They feel like a post rationalisation for the position rather than the reason for it. Certainly I didn't feel like I reasoned myself out of religion, I just realised I didn't believe. Now it might be argued that my subconscious wrestled with the arguments, and my conscious was presented with a fait accompli, and that the rational arguments I might present are somehow the conscious mind accessing the processes of the subconscious but again that's just not what it feels like.
Yes, that’s a huge barrier to cross if the world’s population is ever to become a majority of non-believers! With thousands of years of beliefs of all kinds ingrained into all countries and cultures, the reduction in beliefs which requires faith alone is an almost unattainable hope.And the thing about the arguments that religious believers prsent seem so often nothing to do with why they actually believe. Arguments like the Kalam or the Ontological seem obviously pist rationalisations. To be honest, a lot of this type of discussion, I find uninyeresting, in part because I feel that detailed arguments on the philosophical approach tells me little about the person. There's an element that I can enjoy on an intellectual level but I have had so many of those discussions that it's pretty repetitive.
Agree of course, but my personal circumstances mean that the subject provides a fairly constant source of interest, something I can participate in and think about.I am much more interested in the day ot day stuff, politics , art, sport, and of course people always people. And on that level, there are those who hold religious beliefs with whom I have much more fellow feeling than I do with many Gradgrindian atheists who suppose they drip rationality and objectivity. As Hume argued, reason is the slave of passion. We cannot jump the is ought gap with rationality and objectivity. We always need to make an assumption on a desire, and in the end that is why I choose wellbeing as an axiom - because I want to have a good enjoyable life.
I think I would have become more involved in politics if I’d started much younger, butmaybe not. I think I am lucky to be an optimistic sort of person but not being able to make eye contact with people …… well that’s something I’m used to. Thank scientists and engineers for the means to communicate with people all over the world with the added ease of being a touch typist, learnt from an excellent teacher way back when I was 18! Ah, so long ago!!
Thank you.
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-55966178
A step in the right direction I suppose, but there is a long way to go before there is equality in the RCC.
I was reading a few articles on this and I think the more general reporting may be slightly wrong on this. The Tablet (and I guess they are more likely to be correct on matters of the RCC) seem to think that this isn't the first woman appointed to the synod, however it is the first time a woman has had voting rights.
So over the years a few non-clergy (men and women) have been appointed, but until now none of the women have been able to vote, although the men have been given voting rights. So I guess this just rectifying the most gross, primary discrimination - whereby non clergy who are men have been able to vote, while non clergy who are women have not been able to.
However given that the vast, vast majority of the synod of bishops (the clue is in the name) are ordained priests and women aren't allowed to become priests there is no chance that women will have any meaningful decision-making role in the synod. And of course the senior leadership positions are all bishops, cardinals etc, who are, and will remain, exclusively men unless (or until) the RCC allows women priests.
-
NS,
I’m the same, but then pretty quickly you run into the question “whose wellbeing?” – the done-to-death trolley car thought experiment, whether it’d then be right to kill one person to harvest his organs to save the lives of five others dying for want of transplants etc. Wellbeing (or maximal wellbeing) is fine so far as it goes, but it quickly runs into rationally indefensible answers (albeit emotionally preferable ones).
i think there are problems here but to answer them would take a post almost as long as your entire reply here, and the point about morality in this context is that it is part of how we judge actions and people, and my doubts about Susan Doris's idea that she doesn't judge people at all. If you want to start a thread about how we, as individuals, think of morality, I think it would be a better approach.
Memes are metaphorical aren’t they – ie, the proposition that ideas and beliefs will take hold and spread just as material phenomena like viruses will. In any case though, I’ve mentioned before that our best friends are RC (he a cradle RC, she a marriage convert from C of E) and no – it seems to make little difference to their day-to-day lives. (He’s a highly literate and liberal immigration lawyer by the way who tells me he still takes great comfort from dropping into RC churches now and then). The issue for me though is that my RC friends (and likely yours) don’t necessarily reflect the spectrum, especially in countries where church and state are much harder to distinguish than here. There are countries where bans on abortion, on sex ed, on contraception etc have a real and damaging effect on the populations as a whole, where for the clerics and for the devout laity the RC faith is it seems a very big part of their lives indeed – big enough to mandate how everyone else should live. And that troubles me – not the content of the faiths so much (so what?) – but their practical effect when they're in charge.
There is a strong hint of some of my best friends are RCs there. And while I think I could argue that having been brought up in tge RCC, and attended 2 RC schools, including a Jesuit secondary, that I have more experience of the spectrum than you by some distance, I think it's irrelevant to the point. I am suggesting tgat it's more important to judge the individual by their actions rather tgan look at them as simply a member of an institution
Indeed there are many institutions that are not religious which behave in dictatorial ways. It seems that that is a pretty generic bit of humanity rather than anything specific to religions.
Doesn’t it “feel right” to (pretty much) all religious people, regardless of what (or how nasty) the beliefs? Presumably Fred Phelps’s venomous intolerance felt as right to him as the rather sweet local vicar’s beliefs feel right to him. The more interesting question for me is why something that seems plainly wrong to me apparently feels right to someone else.
Again 5his seems to posit the idea that this is somehow specific to the religious. My point, in reply to Susan Doris, was about the belief feeling right but it applies to the other judgements you mention as well. Since we have accepted that the fact of someone having religious beliefs tells us nothing about how they will act as a person, I don't see the use in mentioning some bad religious person. And since there are many bad people in both your judgement and mine who do not have religious beliefs, they seem irrelevant to how we judge the individual.
It may feel like nonsense, but it isn’t. The issue for me with “experiences” though is not that I doubt people have them (I’m sure they do), but rather it’s that the justifications they make for their causes are routinely terrible: “One day I felt a deep sense of oneness with the universe, therefore (insert name of the deity they happen to be most enculturated to here) did it” type of thing.
You miss the point about it feeling like nonsense. On a day to day level, I, and indeed you, will act as if it is a nonsense. Then you judge someone else's internal experience to have a bad justicatiobis just you expressing your internal experience of that person.
Religious beliefs are religious beliefs – you can’t really have arguments for and against them as such, but what you can have is arguments for and against the arguments attempted to justify them. That’s the boundary for me: not so much “what do you believe?”, but rather “why do you believe it?”. And when the answers to that question fail (as they always seem to), I take the view that there’s no sound reason for me to take the claim seriously regardless of what it happens to be.
Again, I think this misses the point about asking for arguments which I am suggesting are post rationalisations. Pointing out that those arguments fail is irrelevant if those are not why the person actually believes. Further, I think this applies to a lot of what we all believe on a day to day basis. The whole idea of people having thought out world views that they examine to establish logical consistency just seems outwith my experience.
I broadly agree, except it does tell me something about the person - it tells me they’re not thinking straight!
Again my argument in that sense is that none of us think straight. Ir's built in to the ought is gap that rationality is sufficient to come to a conclusion of how we ought to behave. And as part of my not thinking straight, I am happier with people who act as I might hope rather than think as I might hope. This is because I just see a lot of limited human beings, and being religious or non religious doesn't seem at all useful in determining whether I approve of their actions.
Same here (more or less), but nonetheless I’m still interested in the practical effect of poor thinking – real people get really hurt in the real world, and so I suspect I’m a little less sanguine than you are about letting it be. I’m aware of the slippery slope fallacy (of course) but I still struggle to see how I’d argue against, say, someone committing a murder because his “faith” justifies it when I’m relaxed about someone doing something else less malign (or even benign) because his faith justifies that. I take the view that faith is a very bad reason for doing anything – there’s no logic to retro-fitting what the something happens to be to conclude that sometimes faith is a good rationale and sometimes a bad one. It’s just a bad one always I think.
The idea that someone is justified in committing murder because of their faith is not one I have made so this feels like a strawman. Rather people seem to murder because of who they are and the circumstances they are in and I think I should judge them on that not on whether they are religious or not since that may in specific cases be part of the motivation but isn't useful in a generalized approach. Indeed, it seems to me that thinking it can be generalized when the evidence seems to be against it would be dangerous.
-
NS,
i think there are problems here but to answer them would take a post almost as long as your entire reply here, and the point about morality in this context is that it is part of how we judge actions and people, and my doubts about Susan Doris's idea that she doesn't judge people at all. If you want to start a thread about how we, as individuals, think of morality, I think it would be a better approach.
Fair enough.
There is a strong hint of some of my best friends are RCs there.
No there isn’t. The “some of my best friends are…” line is cover for prejudice (“I can’t be antisemitic/homophobic etc because some of my best friends are” etc.) Here my antipathy to the RC or any other faith is set out for reasons – I merely referenced friends of ours to confirm with an example your take that, in some cases, faith makes little difference to the way people live their lives day-to-day.
And while I think I could argue that having been brought up in tge RCC, and attended 2 RC schools, including a Jesuit secondary, that I have more experience of the spectrum than you by some distance,…
No, you’ve likely had more exposure to the same part of the spectrum than I have but unless you’ve lived in a society where the state and church are the same thing (with all that follows from that) then our exposure to the spectrum as a whole probably isn’t that far apart.
I think it's irrelevant to the point. I am suggesting tgat it's more important to judge the individual by their actions rather tgan look at them as simply a member of an institution
Yes, but that wasn’t my point at all. Rather my point was about why people act as they do, not about the actions themselves. “Judging people by their actions” just gives you “I would/would not agree” with that action. The point though surely is to understand why we disagree.
Indeed there are many institutions that are not religious which behave in dictatorial ways. It seems that that is a pretty generic bit of humanity rather than anything specific to religions.
That’s just whataboutery, but in any case the same question arises: why do such people behave as they do, and are their actions justifiable? This is a religion and ethics mb so we tend to focus on the religious, but if it was, say, a political mb I’d ask the same questions in that context.
Again 5his seems to posit the idea that this is somehow specific to the religious. My point, in reply to Susan Doris, was about the belief feeling right but it applies to the other judgements you mention as well.
No it doesn’t – see above. You were arguing that some beliefs and action “feel right” to the people doing them. I was just saying that, presumably, pretty much all actions feel right to the people who do them (religious and otherwise), otherwise they wouldn’t do them.
Since we have accepted that the fact of someone having religious beliefs tells us nothing about how they will act as a person,…
Who’s “we”, and where did we do that? Clearly there are cases where the religious belief does tell us how someone will behave – someone who subscribes to strongly homophobic “holy” texts for example will in all likelihood himself behave as a homophobe would. More to the point though, when someone justifies their religious beliefs with “because that’s my faith” that also tells us that in all likelihood “but that’s my faith” is its own justification – ie, they’re unlikely to have a good answer to the response, “so what?”.
I don't see the use in mentioning some bad religious person. And since there are many bad people in both your judgement and mine who do not have religious beliefs, they seem irrelevant to how we judge the individual.
It was just an illustration of an extremist behaving as they did because it “feels right” to him. I could just as well have picked Hitler or Shipman, but the context here was religious so I picked Phelps instead.
You miss the point about it feeling like nonsense. On a day to day level, I, and indeed you, will act as if it is a nonsense. Then you judge someone else's internal experience to have a bad justicatiobis just you expressing your internal experience of that person.
You’re not getting it still. I don’t care about (what someone describes as) their internal experience when that experience is expressed as, say, “therefore god did it”. What I do care about though is how they arrived at that explanation rather than another one – you’re conflating here “experience” with “explanatory narrative for the cause of an experience”.
Again, I think this misses the point about asking for arguments which I am suggesting are post rationalisations.
All explanations are post rationalisations – that’s the point. If I drop a cup of coffee, “gravity” for it falling is a post rationalisation.
Pointing out that those arguments fail is irrelevant if those are not why the person actually believes.
But that is why the person actually believes. You can ask them, “why do you think your explanation of a cause for your experience is correct?” and they will tell you. Generally what they tell you is false or impenetrable (“because that’s my faith” etc), but they will tell you nonetheless. Identifying why the response is false or impenetrable though isn’t irrelevant at all – it’s the rationale for, “in that case you give me no reason to take your claim seriously”.
Further, I think this applies to a lot of what we all believe on a day to day basis. The whole idea of people having thought out world views that they examine to establish logical consistency just seems outwith my experience.
Yes, on a colloquial, day-to-day, pragmatic view of the lived experience that’s probably true, but it’s not what we’re talking about here. The discussion here is about digging deeper than place marker “that’s good enough for now” assumptions to understand truth at a deeper level. Thor causing thunder was functionally good enough for the people who used that explanation, but there are richer understandings available when such explanatory claims are challenged and tested.
Again my argument in that sense is that none of us think straight. Ir's built in to the ought is gap that rationality is sufficient to come to a conclusion of how we ought to behave. And as part of my not thinking straight, I am happier with people who act as I might hope rather than think as I might hope. This is because I just see a lot of limited human beings, and being religious or non religious doesn't seem at all useful in determining whether I approve of their actions.
(Again), that wasn’t my point. Why do you hope people behave a certain way? What is it about their actions that makes you approve or disapprove of them, and indeed how is it that you justify your opinions about these matters to yourself? To me the actions themselves are very much a second order issue – it’s the rationales for them (post or not) that interest me much more. Don’t they you?
The idea that someone is justified in committing murder because of their faith is not one I have made so this feels like a strawman.
This isn’t about you specifically. Clearly people have (and still do) commit murder (and many other appalling acts) using their various faiths as justifications. That’s a practical outcome in my view of privileging faith above just guessing, and I think that’s worth discussing.
Rather people seem to murder because of who they are and the circumstances they are in and I think I should judge them on that not on whether they are religious or not since that may in specific cases be part of the motivation but isn't useful in a generalized approach. Indeed, it seems to me that thinking it can be generalized when the evidence seems to be against it would be dangerous.
It’s not a generalisation I’m making though – not at all. What I’m talking about is cases in which the perpetrators themselves will tell you they acted as they did because they think their faith mandates it. Sure if someone comes home and finds his partner in bed with another and the red mist descends that’s another story, but here we’re talking about why some behaviours “feel right” to the people who carry them out when those behaviours are justified with bad arguments. Identifying bad arguments and countering them seems to me to be something that should be taught at an early age and should be a lifelong concern if truth is not to be lost. That’s why I care only about the arguments, not about the conclusions - it's why for me "why" questions are greatly more interesting that "what" ones.
-
NS Just where do you think I said or implied that I do not judge anyone at all?!! Of course I make judgements, but of behaviours, not whether a person is my superior or inferior. My judgements of their behaviour will, in the case of personal friends, be made on the understanding of how and why they act, i.e. with a knowledge of their lives, backgrounds, etc.
-
NS Just where do you think I said or implied that I do not judge anyone at all?!! Of course I make judgements, but of behaviours, not whether a person is my superior or inferior. My judgements of their behaviour will, in the case of personal friends, be made on the understanding of how and why they act, i.e. with a knowledge of their lives, backgrounds, etc.
I don't understand how you divorce behaviour from the person. I wouldn't send people to jail without judging the person.
-
NS,
I don't understand how you divorce behaviour from the person. I wouldn't send people to jail without judging the person.
And yet judges do just that: “Did person A commit crime X, yes or no? If yes, then jail.” They may consider judging "the person" in mitigation at sentencing (hence character witnesses, psychiatric reports etc) but what matters to them mainly is the fact or otherwise of committing the criminal act itself.
-
NS,
And yet judges do just that: “Did person A commit crime X, yes or no? If yes, then jail.” They may consider judging "the person" in mitigation at sentencing (hence character witnesses, psychiatric reports etc) but what matters to them mainly is the fact or otherwise of committing the criminal act itself.
And yet still it is not just a judgement that a crime has been committed but also that the individual was guilty of it. Is Fred West in your opinion a better or worse person than Susan Doris, or do you think as Susan Doris does that he is neither inferior or superior.
-
NS,
And yet still it is not just a judgement that a crime has been committed but also that the individual was guilty of it.
You’re missing it. For a verdict the judge just cares about whether or not person A committed crime X. The judge isn’t “judging the person” at this stage at all – all the judge is considering is whether or not the evidence creates sufficient nexus between the person and the act to know beyond reasonable doubt that the accused did it, ie to establish culpability.
The time for “judging the person” is at sentencing when issues like whether the accused was sufficiently mature/sane to know what s/he was doing, whether s/he’s a first time or a habitual offender etc apply. Assuming the accused is sane, various crimes have mandatory minimum sentences so no matter how someone might “judge the person” they still go to pokey just the same.
Is Fred West in your opinion a better or worse person than Susan Doris, or do you think as Susan Doris does that he is neither inferior or superior.
Courts don’t concern themselves with “better or worse” people, just with guilt or non-guilt. Inasmuch as “better or worse” issues are in play it’s in the scale of the act – stealing a packet of Polos and stealing the crown jewels are both theft, but one deserves less punishment than the other. Again though, for determining culpability it’s the act itself that matters not the character of the person who committed it.
As for West and Susan, of course in my opinion Susan is a morally better person than West – the latter did morally despicable things in my opinion, and the latter has not (so far as I know). That’s a different matter though – that’s about benchmarking other people’s morality against my own, not about whether I’d send someone to jail.
-
NS,
You’re missing it. For a verdict the judge just cares about whether or not person A committed crime X. The judge isn’t “judging the person” at this stage at all – all the judge is considering is whether or not the evidence creates sufficient nexus between the person and the act to know beyond reasonable doubt that the accused did it, ie to establish culpability.
The time for “judging the person” is at sentencing when issues like whether the accused was sufficiently mature/sane to know what s/he was doing, whether s/he’s a first time or a habitual offender etc. Assuming the accused is sane, various crimes have mandatory minimum sentences so no matter how someone might “judge the person” they still go to pokey just the same.
Courts don’t concern themselves with “better or worse” people, just with guilt or non-guilt. Inasmuch as “better or worse” issues are in play it’s in the scale of the act – stealing a packet of Polos and stealing the crown jewels are both theft, but one deserves less punishment than the other. Again though, for determining culpability it’s the act itself that matters not the character of the person who committed it.
As for West and Susan, of course in my opinion Susan is a morally better person than West – the latter did morally despicable things in my opinion, and the latter has not (so far as I know). That’s a different matter though – it’s about benchmarking other people’s morality against my own, not about whether I’d send someone to jail.
We send people not behavior for punishment. Susan Doris does not think that she benchmarks against the other person's morality so you are disagreeing with her.
-
I don't understand how you divorce behaviour from the person. I wouldn't send people to jail without judging the person.
That would still be judging the actions. Those actions were the result of genetics, upbringing, environment, etc etc which make that person a less useful one, not an inferior one.
ETA I haven't mentioned morality - I'll tackle that tomorrow.
-
That would still be judging the actions. Those actions were the result of genetics, upbringing, environment, etc etc which make that person a less useful one, not an inferior one.
ETA I haven't mentioned morality - I'll tackle that tomorrow.
What is the difference between less useful and inferior? If the standard you are using is usefulness then someone who is less useful is by that standard inferior to someone who is more useful.
-
What is the difference between less useful and inferior? If the standard you are using is usefulness then someone who is less useful is by that standard inferior to someone who is more useful.
I don't think there is one word which accurately defines my thoughts on the meaning of superior and inferior when applied to people, I'm afraid.
Definition of inferior: a person lower in rank, status or ability
As a medical term, it means one thing below another
Whatever a person's rank, position, status, ability, character, education, etc I do not think that, as a member of the evolved human species, there is any one who is superior or inferior as a human being. Yes, I suppose you could say I'm being a bit picky, and that everyone knows what we mean by inferior or superior, but I would claim that both those words imply some human beings are more valuable than others. Of more or less value in various ways to the rest of us, yes, we all are, but not as members of the species itself.
I think I have this particular view because:(a) when I was a child, even my father wasn't absolutely sure that theJewish family whomoved in next door was really quite on the same *level* as us. As far as I was concerned, they were people and, therefore, interesting.
(b) To me, all people were equal in respect of being human and when I went to live abroad, I was quite shocked to realise that so many (white European or American) members of BP really considered themselves to be so much *better* than the local people. They thought that treating their houseboys or amahs as definitely *less* than they were was obviously the thing to do and thought I was silly that I treated ours as a nice person. Of course, also I had not realised that the man I married would think that too, but that's another story!
I'm stuck indoors as the wind is too strong and too cold to venture out in and I can put off taxiing to Tesco until tomorrow, so I'll ramble on a bit. I was thinking about this question last night and compared it to, say , an amimal herd. There is a natrral leader, i.e. superior in rank, and because the herd survives more successfully with that arrangement, the other animals are happy to fall in with that. But the leader animal is not a superior/better or inferior/worse animal than any of the others.
That's probably a weak analogy!
As for morality, it is of course an agreed way of behaving, and has nothing to do with whether a persoon is a superior or inferior human being.
And I will quite understand if this is the last post in this exchange! :)
-
We send people not behavior for punishment.
True - we send people to jail or for other punishment, but on the basis of their behaviour, specifically behaviour that contravenes the criminal or civil law. It is the behaviour, first and foremost, that dictates whether someone is sent for punishment.
-
NS,
We send people not behavior for punishment.
That’s a non sequitur. What you said (Reply 21) was, “I don't understand how you divorce behaviour from the person. I wouldn't send people to jail without judging the person”.
In response I said that courts don’t “judge the person” – rather they judge the evidence to determine whether or not it’s sufficient to indicate beyond reasonable doubt that the person committed the unlawful act. In other words they judge evidence, not character. “Judging the person” can come into play in mitigation at sentencing, but judges will routinely send people to jail (assuming they’re mentally competent) when the law requires it with no consideration of “the person” involved.
Susan Doris does not think that she benchmarks against the other person's morality so you are disagreeing with her.
Susan said (Reply 20): “Of course I make judgements, but of behaviours, not whether a person is my superior or inferior. My judgements of their behaviour will, in the case of personal friends, be made on the understanding of how and why they act, i.e. with a knowledge of their lives, backgrounds, etc.” I’d have thought referencing behaviours was a good indicator that she is benchmarking – ie, comparing the behaviours of others with those she thinks to be good and bad. How else could it be done?
-
In response I said that courts don’t “judge the person” – rather they judge the evidence to determine whether or not it’s sufficient to indicate beyond reasonable doubt that the person committed the unlawful act. In other words they judge evidence, not character. “Judging the person” can come into play in mitigation at sentencing, but judges will routinely send people to jail (assuming they’re mentally competent) when the law requires it with no consideration of “the person” involved.
That is correct.
And where there are mitigating or aggravating circumstances that may reduce or increase a sentence they tend to be based on previous behaviour (first offence, record of prior good behaviour vs record of repeated bad behaviour). So in reality "judging the person" is merely judging their relevant prior behaviours.
-
Another point I'd like to mention which I think is quite relevant is that the NHS does not decide whether the human being brought in for emergency care is a superior(/better) or inferior (/worse) human being before treatin the injury.
-
Prof,
That is correct.
And where there are mitigating or aggravating circumstances that may reduce or increase a sentence they tend to be based on previous behaviour (first offence, record of prior good behaviour vs record of repeated bad behaviour). So in reality "judging the person" is merely judging their relevant prior behaviours.
Yes, though my point was mainly that in any case all that comes after the guilty verdict. Prior to then, there’s no “judging the person” and moreover when the law requires it there’s are mandatory jail terms in any case.
-
Susan,
Another point I'd like to mention which I think is quite relevant is that the NHS does not decide whether the human being brought in for emergency care is a superior(/better) or inferior (/worse) human being before treatin the injury.
Yes, the situations are analogous. Doctors weight up the facts and evidence, and then commit to a course of action. They don’t judge the person as such, any more than judges do.
-
Susan,
Yes, the situations are analogous. Doctors weight up the facts and evidence, and then commit to a course of action. They don’t judge the person as such, any more than judges do.
And in the case of limited resources they may make a judgement at to which of a number of people receive treatment based on who is most likely to benefit in terms of length and quality of life. But that is an evidence-based clinical judgement, not judging the person but the likely outcomes.
-
Memes are metaphorical aren’t they – ie, the proposition that ideas and beliefs will take hold and spread just as material phenomena like viruses will. In any case though, I’ve mentioned before that our best friends are RC (he a cradle RC, she a marriage convert from C of E) and no – it seems to make little difference to their day-to-day lives. (He’s a highly literate and liberal immigration lawyer by the way who tells me he still takes great comfort from dropping into RC churches now and then). The issue for me though is that my RC friends (and likely yours) don’t necessarily reflect the spectrum, especially in countries where church and state are much harder to distinguish than here. There are countries where bans on abortion, on sex ed, on contraception etc have a real and damaging effect on the populations as a whole, where for the clerics and for the devout laity the RC faith is it seems a very big part of their lives indeed – big enough to mandate how everyone else should live. And that troubles me – not the content of the faiths so much (so what?) – but their practical effect when they're in charge.
Same here (more or less), but nonetheless I’m still interested in the practical effect of poor thinking – real people get really hurt in the real world, and so I suspect I’m a little less sanguine than you are about letting it be. I’m aware of the slippery slope fallacy (of course) but I still struggle to see how I’d argue against, say, someone committing a murder because his “faith” justifies it when I’m relaxed about someone doing something else less malign (or even benign) because his faith justifies that. I take the view that faith is a very bad reason for doing anything – there’s no logic to retro-fitting what the something happens to be to conclude that sometimes faith is a good rationale and sometimes a bad one. It’s just a bad one always I think.
BHS - just picking up on these 2 points. It seems that social media, Twitter mobs issuing death threats and cancel culture are starting to gather a momentum that could develop into a similar influence on mandating how people should live as religious institutions used to have - telling them how to live and how they can behave and what they can say and influencing their thoughts. They have not achieved the same level of traction as religion as they have not been around as long.
To me that points to something in human nature that seeks to exert control over our immediate environment and to avoid having to deal with ideas that seem unpalatable. I am not seeing the difference between my religious faith being a reason for an action and my non-religious beliefs being a reason for an action? People make decisions based on their beliefs and their interpretations of information they receive/ perceive. Human nature being what it is, many people are willing to fight for and are willing to die for causes and also kill, maim and coerce people for causes. They don't need to be religious causes. Take away religion and human nature will find something else to replace it, because it comes down to people acting on their beliefs. I don't find religious faith to be a special case. All beliefs are problematic.
-
Hi Gabriella,
BHS - just picking up on these 2 points. It seems that social media, Twitter mobs issuing death threats and cancel culture are starting to gather a momentum that could develop into a similar influence on mandating how people should live as religious institutions used to have - telling them how to live and how they can behave and what they can say and influencing their thoughts. They have not achieved the same level of traction as religion as they have not been around as long.
What makes you think social media etc could develop into a “similar influence on mandating how people should live as religious institutions used to have”? I agree that social media legitimise the village idiot by creating communities of like-minded people who can feed from each other’s fantasies (think flat earthers for example). To have similar influence to religions though, you’d need not only the abandonment of reason but also the entrenching of authority such that these communities had power – in the legislature, in education, in the media etc. I suppose you could argue that the conspiracy-fuelled mob that attacked the Capitol building on 06 January was an attempt to do that but, horrific as it was, by magnitudes more Americans didn’t riot than did.
To me that points to something in human nature that seeks to exert control over our immediate environment and to avoid having to deal with ideas that seem unpalatable.
Tribalism and confirmation bias both have evolutionary explanations, but there are plenty of examples of humankind thinking and acting beyond those paradigms.
I am not seeing the difference between my religious faith being a reason for an action and my non-religious beliefs being a reason for an action?
First, that’s whataboutery. Second though, the difference is reason. Its abandonment doesn’t have to be religious – think nazi propaganda and pseudo-science for example – but the basic underpinning that leads to actions that cannot be rejected by argument is faith or ideology. It’s Christopher Hitchens’ point, "You cannot reason people out of positions they didn't reason themselves into".
People make decisions based on their beliefs and their interpretations of information they receive/ perceive. Human nature being what it is, many people are willing to fight for and are willing to die for causes and also kill, maim and coerce people for causes.
I know, especially when their critical faculties have been nullified by faith or ideology.
They don't need to be religious causes.
No-one says otherwise. The “cause” is a secondary matter though – the primary one is why one class of causes (whatever they happen to be) are impervious to falsification by reason.
Take away religion and human nature will find something else to replace it, because it comes down to people acting on their beliefs. I don't find religious faith to be a special case. All beliefs are problematic.
No. The beliefs that things fall because of gravity, that germs cause diseases, that wings create lift etc are not problematic at all. Religious faith is a “special case” inasmuch as it’s one of a class of belief types that cannot be examined or falsified with reason. Why? Because, at their heart, they have no rational underpinnings to justify them.
-
I hereby declare this thread to be well and truly derailed.
-
HH,
I hereby declare this thread to be well and truly derailed.
I agree. Sorry.
-
Totally derailed and then some. ::)
-
Moderator Just to note that part of the rules covering derails is:
'2.c Thread Derails
There are two aspects that are recognised as being generally permissible.
1. Where the discussion moves from the original OP to related issues BUT this is consistent with flow of the preceding discussion.'
The mod team are happy that the move in topic in the thread is compliant with this.
-
Hi Gabriella,
No-one says otherwise. The “cause” is a secondary matter though – the primary one is why one class of causes (whatever they happen to be) are impervious to falsification by reason.
No. The beliefs that things fall because of gravity, that germs cause diseases, that wings create lift etc are not problematic at all. Religious faith is a “special case” inasmuch as it’s one of a class of belief types that cannot be examined or falsified with reason. Why? Because, at their heart, they have no rational underpinnings to justify them.
Hi BHS
I'd like to focus on this bit if that is ok? And apologies if it was a derail but will bring it back to the OP. I should have said moral/ ethical beliefs - beliefs about how we should act - are the problem rather than all beliefs. I think NS made the same point.
I agree that beliefs about gravity are not a problem, provided that if new evidence emerged that suggested that the belief about gravity needs to be changed, then it would be given proper consideration and investigated and researched by people in that field of science.
For example some people thinking men are superior in some way to women or thinking possessing more power and strength makes one person more suited for leadership over another is not confined to religion. Or some people thinking that the female hormones or having lower levels of testosterone makes someone less suited for leadership.
On another thread there is a discussion of a belief that society should not make provisions based on biology and sex as this is unfairly discriminatory on transgender individuals, but instead should privilege a person's beliefs about their identity over biological evidence. These moral or ethical positions are leading to a lot of conflict and threats of violence against those who disagree with this position. It is also leading to changes in legislation that mandate how we live.
The belief of the RC leadership that women should not be bishops is just one manifestation of human nature. Human nature seeks to control the environment, attitudes and behaviour of society by trying to establish beliefs that do not seem to be under-pinned by reason. Religion is a platform to express these ideas, seek to persuade, obtain popular support but as religion becomes less and less important in society, clearly other platforms become available to replace the influence that religion once had. The effects are similar and reason does not underpin the non-religious beliefs.
The issue about women priests was decided based on tradition. The RCC decided that priestly ordination was the process of handing on the office entrusted by Christ to his Apostles of teaching, sanctifying and governing the faithful. As it was seen that according to the traditional stories in the Bible the Apostles chosen by Jesus were all men, the RCC established the tradition that priests should therefore also be men. They see it as part of God's Plan for Catholic believers. The leadership also considers continuity and faithfully maintaining a tradition as being important - bit like the Freemasons do.
Another reason for maintaining the tradition was because the leadership assessed that allowing the ordination of women would lead to a split in the Church and they did not want to risk creating disunity, possibly because that dilutes their power or possibly because they believe disunity is bad for society. I think many people in society, not just religious people are afraid of disunity, diversity of opinion, non-conformity etc.
Yes I can see the argument that people can choose their battles and there is nothing wrong with focusing your time and energy on dismantling the power that religion has in society. But I disagree with the idea that dismantling religion will cause people to employ only reason to arrive at their moral or ethical beliefs. These type of beliefs rely on an emotional input, and are therefore not the same as beliefs about gravity.
-
Hi Gabriella,
I'd like to focus on this bit if that is ok?
If it’s ok by the mods, fine by me…
And apologies if it was a derail but will bring it back to the OP. I should have said moral/ ethical beliefs - beliefs about how we should act - are the problem rather than all beliefs. I think NS made the same point.
Ah right yes, getting from an ought an is is always problematic – a fool’s errand in fact – but nonetheless we’re forced to attempt some version of it at least if we’re to rub along, to try to live our best lives etc.
I agree that beliefs about gravity are not a problem, provided that if new evidence emerged that suggested that the belief about gravity needs to be changed, then it would be given proper consideration and investigated and researched by people in that field of science.
Of course, but that’s rather the point – how would you propose to demonstrate right or wrong for faith-based or ideological beliefs? “It’s true because I believe it’s true” is the beginning and the end of it…which engenders certainty…which engenders all manner of bad outcomes.
For example some people thinking men are superior in some way to women or thinking possessing more power and strength makes one person more suited for leadership over another is not confined to religion. Or some people thinking that the female hormones or having lower levels of testosterone makes someone less suited for leadership.
No-one has suggested that it is confined to religion – misogyny is rooted in various other classes of belief too.
On another thread there is a discussion of a belief that society should not make provisions based on biology and sex as this is unfairly discriminatory on transgender individuals, but instead should privilege a person's beliefs about their identity over biological evidence. These moral or ethical positions are leading to a lot of conflict and threats of violence against those who disagree with this position. It is also leading to changes in legislation that mandate how we live.
For what it’s worth my position is there should be equality of opportunity for all (regardless of how they choose to identify), and outcomes based on merit. Of course that quickly becomes problematic in practice (who’s more deserving of the job – the Eton pupil with straight As, or the sink school pupil with straight Bs? etc) but it’s a sensible principle to begin with at least I think.
The belief of the RC leadership that women should not be bishops is just one manifestation of human nature. Human nature seeks to control the environment, attitudes and behaviour of society by trying to establish beliefs that do not seem to be under-pinned by reason. Religion is a platform to express these ideas, seek to persuade, obtain popular support but as religion becomes less and less important in society, clearly other platforms become available to replace the influence that religion once had. The effects are similar and reason does not underpin the non-religious beliefs.
Yes I know – I said that in my past post. Faith/ideology-based beliefs tend to lead to poor outcomes in practice in my view, no matter what the faith/ideology happens to be.
The issue about women priests was decided based on tradition. The RCC decided that priestly ordination was the process of handing on the office entrusted by Christ to his Apostles of teaching, sanctifying and governing the faithful. As it was seen that according to the traditional stories in the Bible the Apostles chosen by Jesus were all men, the RCC established the tradition that priests should therefore also be men. They see it as part of God's Plan for Catholic believers. The leadership also considers continuity and faithfully maintaining a tradition as being important - bit like the Freemasons do.
As I just said - faith/ideology-based beliefs tend to lead to poor outcomes in practice. You’ve just given an example of that phenomenon.
Another reason for maintaining the tradition was because the leadership assessed that allowing the ordination of women would lead to a split in the Church and they did not want to risk creating disunity, possibly because that dilutes their power or possibly because they believe disunity is bad for society. I think many people in society, not just religious people are afraid of disunity, diversity of opinion, non-conformity etc.
This is basically the problem the CofE has with gay rights – fear of a schism (especially with the African churches) if they address their institutionalised homophobia. Nonetheless the only real solution to the homophobia would be to address the community uniting around an untenable faith position in the first place. You seem to be arguing for something like, “we’ve created a community on the basis of a bad idea/we don’t want to risk that community/therefore we can’t address the bad idea”. Maybe doing that would keep the community together, but at what price?
Yes I can see the argument that people can choose their battles and there is nothing wrong with focusing your time and energy on dismantling the power that religion has in society.
I’m not sure I can dismantle anything. My purpose is more modest than that – religion has had and continues to have a huge influence on all our lives, and I’m interested to know whether it has any arguments that should cause me to take its claims seriously. The answer so far is “no”, but you never know…
But I disagree with the idea that dismantling religion will cause people to employ only reason to arrive at their moral or ethical beliefs.
Has anyone expressed that idea?
These type of beliefs rely on an emotional input, and are therefore not the same as beliefs about gravity.
Sort of. When beliefs rely only on faith or ideology for their justification emotion is pretty much all that’s left. Nonetheless, there being several bullies in the playground is not a good reason for not taking out any of them I think.
-
Hi Gabriella,
Ah right yes, getting from an ought an is is always problematic – a fool’s errand in fact – but nonetheless we’re forced to attempt some version of it at least if we’re to rub along, to try to live our best lives etc.
Of course, but that’s rather the point – how would you propose to demonstrate right or wrong for faith-based or ideological beliefs? “It’s true because I believe it’s true” is the beginning and the end of it…which engenders certainty…which engenders all manner of bad outcomes.
There isn't a way of demonstrating a right or wrong for an ought, whether faith-based, ideological or just "it feels right" personal. The oughts are portrayed as the cure for society, for society to be able function in the way the people who come up with the oughts think it should function. And a lot of faith-based beliefs are oughts mixed up with some stories and metaphors to demonstrate oughts, with a dollop of supernatural to make the medicine go down.
For what it’s worth my position is there should be equality of opportunity for all (regardless of how they choose to identify), and outcomes based on merit. Of course that quickly becomes problematic in practice (who’s more deserving of the job – the Eton pupil with straight As, or the sink school pupil with straight Bs? etc) but it’s a sensible principle to begin with at least I think.
Fair enough but it is in hashing out the detail that the competing oughts become problematic. And as we agreed above there is no way to prove right or wrong for an ought belief.
For example, one of the current identity arguments seem to be that members of one sex want their own space so they feel safe from the other sex, and members of the other sex do not seem to even recognise sex as being a legitimate difference regardless of biological facts and therefore feel discriminated against if they are prevented from encroaching on the space of the physically weaker sex.
Yes I know – I said that in my past post. Faith/ideology-based beliefs tend to lead to poor outcomes in practice in my view, no matter what the faith/ideology happens to be.
As I just said - faith/ideology-based beliefs tend to lead to poor outcomes in practice. You’ve just given an example of that phenomenon.
This is basically the problem the CofE has with gay rights – fear of a schism (especially with the African churches) if they address their institutionalised homophobia. Nonetheless the only real solution to the homophobia would be to address the community uniting around an untenable faith position in the first place. You seem to be arguing for something like, “we’ve created a community on the basis of a bad idea/we don’t want to risk that community/therefore we can’t address the bad idea”. Maybe doing that would keep the community together, but at what price?
I wasn't actually arguing for anything - I just looked up why the RCC would not ordain women priests and presented their arguments, not mine. Their argument seems to be tradition. Some people believe following tradition is a good thing because they believe a sense of continuity and a link to the past is a source of strength for people in times of trouble. A belief in the strength drawn from tradition is not something that can be proved right or wrong, because as you say it comes at a price. For some people the price seems worth paying and for others it does not - again we can't prove a right or wrong here.
I’m not sure I can dismantle anything. My purpose is more modest than that – religion has had and continues to have a huge influence on all our lives, and I’m interested to know whether it has any arguments that should cause me to take its claims seriously. The answer so far is “no”, but you never know…
Has anyone expressed that idea?
I assumed that the focus on religious beliefs not employing reason was because religion was seen as some special bogey man. If not, then fair enough.
Sort of. When beliefs rely only on faith or ideology for their justification emotion is pretty much all that’s left. Nonetheless, there being several bullies in the playground is not a good reason for not taking out any of them I think.
That's the part that does not make sense to me. Emotional input into beliefs and trying to tell people in society how to live their lives in order for society to be better, fairer and other such emotional assessments is what makes us human I think. as you said above, we are social animals and we have to rub along together somehow and figure out a way to share limited resources. We are the bullies so how is it possible to take the bullies out? What one person perceives as bullying another person perceives as protecting their rights. See transgender arguments referred to above.
-
Gabriella,
There isn't a way of demonstrating a right or wrong for an ought, whether faith-based, ideological or just "it feels right" personal.
I know – that’s why I just said exactly that. You have a facility for repeating things I say as if you’re telling me something I don’t know!
The oughts are portrayed as the cure for society, for society to be able function in the way the people who come up with the oughts think it should function. And a lot of faith-based beliefs are oughts mixed up with some stories and metaphors to demonstrate oughts, with a dollop of supernatural to make the medicine go down.
You’re conflating moral or behavioural oughts (that people ought not be homophobic for example) with faith oughts, basically the "going nuclear" option (“OK so I’m guessing, but so are you so our positions are equivalent”). That’s wrong though – I can defend the oughts of my moral positions with arguments, albeit without recourse to absolutes (which is why moral doubt is unavoidable as well as vital). By contrast “but that’s my faith” is the beginning and end of it – there’s no reasoning to take you even part-way down that path. And a big problem with that is that it doesn’t allow for doubt – religious faith is certain, with all that flows from that when it’s given practical effect.
Fair enough but it is in hashing out the detail that the competing oughts become problematic. And as we agreed above there is no way to prove right or wrong for an ought belief.
Yes, but I still think having some parts of the jig-saw (and on that basis saying, “the picture might be X”) is a better place to be than having none of them (and on that basis saying, “the picture is certainly Y”). That’s the point. I can “hash out” competing reason-based moral positions with argument albeit tentatively, but I can’t hash out faith-based moral positions when any such statement is precisely as in/valid as any other.
For example, one of the current identity arguments seem to be that members of one sex want their own space so they feel safe from the other sex, and members of the other sex do not seem to even recognise sex as being a legitimate difference regardless of biological facts and therefore feel discriminated against if they are prevented from encroaching on the space of the physically weaker sex.
Yes, and in that case I can weigh up the competing arguments of rights and responsibilities and reach provisional conclusions. How could I do that though if the opposing proponents each say “but that’s my faith”?
I wasn't actually arguing for anything - I just looked up why the RCC would not ordain women priests and presented their arguments, not mine. Their argument seems to be tradition. Some people believe following tradition is a good thing because they believe a sense of continuity and a link to the past is a source of strength for people in times of trouble. A belief in the strength drawn from tradition is not something that can be proved right or wrong, because as you say it comes at a price. For some people the price seems worth paying and for others it does not - again we can't prove a right or wrong here.
But my point rather was that I’m not sure conserving bad ideas for the sake of unity is a price worth paying for that unity.
I assumed that the focus on religious beliefs not employing reason was because religion was seen as some special bogey man. If not, then fair enough.
No – as I’ve said many times, religious faith is only one of class of belief types that rely on faith/ideology/doctrine rather than on reason and evidence. It just happens though that it’s the one most relevant to this mb, and for practical purposes it’s also the one that’s most proximate (and therefore interesting) to me.
That's the part that does not make sense to me. Emotional input into beliefs and trying to tell people in society how to live their lives in order for society to be better, fairer and other such emotional assessments is what makes us human I think. as you said above, we are social animals and we have to rub along together somehow and figure out a way to share limited resources.
There’s a big difference between telling people how they must live (assertion) and persuading them how they should live (argument). If, say, I run for office using the texts of Aristotle and Spinoza and Russell as my manifesto that’s an example of the former. On the other hand if I wear a pointy hat and enforce the authority I’m afforded by right to mandate that others must live as my “holy” texts dictate, that’s an example of the latter
We are the bullies so how is it possible to take the bullies out? What one person perceives as bullying another person perceives as protecting their rights. See transgender arguments referred to above.
You’ve missed the point of the analogy. You’ve tried whataboutery several times – “OK so religion might be bad but so are other things, so why attack religion?” The bully on the playground analogy says that having several "bullies" isn’t a good argument for tackling none of them. It's a bit like saying, "Why are you going after typhoid when we also have cholera, diphtheria and malaria?". The playground/body/world is still a better place with one such taken out than it is with none of them taken out.
-
Gabriella,
I know – that’s why I just said exactly that. You have a facility for repeating things I say as if you’re telling me something I don’t know!
Sorry BHS - I was actually agreeing with you, not trying to tell you something as if you didn't know it. As there is no tone of voice on a message board, it is difficult to predict the way someone reads a post so I can't convey agreement in tone. I will have to remember to not forget to write "agreed".
You’re conflating moral or behavioural oughts (that people ought not be homophobic for example) with faith oughts, basically the "going nuclear" option (“OK so I’m guessing, but so are you so our positions are equivalent”). That’s wrong though – I can defend the oughts of my moral positions with arguments, albeit without recourse to absolutes (which is why moral doubt is unavoidable as well as vital). By contrast “but that’s my faith” is the beginning and end of it – there’s no reasoning to take you even part-way down that path. And a big problem with that is that it doesn’t allow for doubt – religious faith is certain, with all that flows from that when it’s given practical effect.
My experience of religious arguments is not people saying "that's my faith". On here people have argued why they think those moral rules are there and why it makes sense to them. So I do see an equivalence. Where there isn't an equivalence I think is with beliefs that are purely doctrinal such as the existence of gods of whatever variety or the belief that Christ walked on water or performed miracles or rose from the dead etc
Yes, but I still think having some parts of the jig-saw (and on that basis saying, “the picture might be X”) is a better place to be than having none of them (and on that basis saying, “the picture is certainly Y”). That’s the point. I can “hash out” competing reason-based moral positions with argument albeit tentatively, but I can’t hash out faith-based moral positions when any such statement is precisely as in/valid as any other.
Yes agreed. The certainty is a certainty in doctrinal beliefs - it's required to be stated as an act of faith. But not sure how it affects anyone else if someone believes Jesus rose from the dead. The issue that affects others will be more to do with beliefs about going to hell - freedom of thought means people can think it but telling people they are going to hell if they don't do x,y or z is emotional coercion and manipulation, which is problematic.
There are of course beliefs that are very problematic for others. E.g. people will state with certainty that Biden won the US election through fraud. They will state it with certainty and say they know it to be true and will try to justify it with theories. And even if we don't actually know whether in their minds they are as certain as they claim they are by their words, the consequences of disseminating those beliefs could be very divisive and dangerous for society.
Yes, and in that case I can weigh up the competing arguments of rights and responsibilities and reach provisional conclusions. How could I do that though if the opposing proponents each say “but that’s my faith”?
Yes I agree you can't. But see above - while people may say "that's my faith" in relation to certain doctrinal beliefs, many religious people - certainly on here where it is about morality rather than belief in the existence of gods - argue for why a certain moral position is a good idea and why it makes sense to them after weighing up the costs and benefits. And tradition sometimes seems like a good idea to them where they think the costs of tradition are outweighed by the benefits.
But my point rather was that I’m not sure conserving bad ideas for the sake of unity is a price worth paying for that unity.
Yes and many would agree with that point. The issue is that many people feel afraid of change - it's strange to me that many fear change as for me change is exciting. But I have to recognise that this fear exists in others and that when people are afraid there can be some really destructive outcomes so if I was in a position of leadership I guess I might tread carefully in changing things, even if I personally wanted to change them. Because a leader has a responsibility to anticipate destructive outcomes for the people he or she leads and often try to manage the situation to get the least bad outcome for as many people as possible. People who are not in positions of leadership would not necessarily have the same perspective - they might be be more narrowly focused on agitating for the change they want and trying to achieve it regardless of the consequences to the majority. Different perspectives, different goals.
No – as I’ve said many times, religious faith is only one of class of belief types that rely on faith/ideology/doctrine rather than on reason and evidence. It just happens though that it’s the one most relevant to this mb, and for practical purposes it’s also the one that’s most proximate (and therefore interesting) to me.
Fair enough. But I would not say that much is achieved by discussing doctrinal beliefs that can't be proved or disproved. I think the more interesting discussion is the ethics and practicalities of how religion affects our lives. But we can agree to disagree on that.
There’s a big difference between telling people how they must live (assertion) and persuading them how they should live (argument). If, say, I run for office using the texts of Aristotle and Spinoza and Russell as my manifesto that’s an example of the former. On the other hand if I wear a pointy hat and enforce the authority I’m afforded by right to mandate that others must live as my “holy” texts dictate, that’s an example of the latter
I would agree that there is a difference. But I see many examples of religious arguments seeking to persuade and if a religious text makes a point that can be expanded as a persuasive argument it would not matter to me that the argument was preceded by an assertion about the existence of gods.
You’ve missed the point of the analogy. You’ve tried whataboutery several times – “OK so religion might be bad but so are other things, so why attack religion?” The bully on the playground analogy says that having several "bullies" isn’t a good argument for tackling none of them. It's a bit like saying, "Why are you going after typhoid when we also have cholera, diphtheria and malaria?". The playground/body/world is still a better place with one such taken out than it is with none of them taken out.
I think you've missed the point. I wasn't saying religion might be bad. I was saying human nature might be bad because humans act on emotion-based beliefs and you can't eliminate human nature.
-
Hi Gabriella,
Sorry BHS - I was actually agreeing with you, not trying to tell you something as if you didn't know it. As there is no tone of voice on a message board, it is difficult to predict the way someone reads a post so I can't convey agreement in tone. I will have to remember to not forget to write "agreed".
Thank you (and no problem).
My experience of religious arguments is not people saying "that's my faith". On here people have argued why they think those moral rules are there and why it makes sense to them. So I do see an equivalence. Where there isn't an equivalence I think is with beliefs that are purely doctrinal such as the existence of gods of whatever variety or the belief that Christ walked on water or performed miracles or rose from the dead etc
That’s not experience at all. The faith part is axiomatic and essential, and any arguments that sit on top tend to be very fragile. The religious homophobe for example may try some half-baked attempt to explain why he thinks being gay is immoral, but that always unravels quickly to leave him with eg Leviticus.
By contrasts I can justify the position that there’s nothing morally wrong with being gay more robustly because I don’t need to throw reason out of the window at an early stage in favour of faith claims.
As to claims of gods, Christ’s supposed miracles etc, I disagree – these claims are fundamental to the concomitant moral convictions. The narrative is this: “There is a miracle performing god...this god’s moral rules are accurately recorded in books…therefore those rules must be the correct ones”. Take away “omnis” god and the attendant moral certainty collapses.
Yes agreed. The certainty is a certainty in doctrinal beliefs - it's required to be stated as an act of faith. But not sure how it affects anyone else if someone believes Jesus rose from the dead. The issue that affects others will be more to do with beliefs about going to hell - freedom of thought means people can think it but telling people they are going to hell if they don't do x,y or z is emotional coercion and manipulation, which is problematic.
See above. The “fact” of deities being able to perform miracles credentialises the accuracy and authority of their moral injunctions. Who are we to think we have better moral positions than moral arbiters who can perform that trick eh?
There are of course beliefs that are very problematic for others. E.g. people will state with certainty that Biden won the US election through fraud. They will state it with certainty and say they know it to be true and will try to justify it with theories. And even if we don't actually know whether in their minds they are as certain as they claim they are by their words, the consequences of disseminating those beliefs could be very divisive and dangerous for society.
Yes, but I would say the same of people who assert their religious faith claims as facts – in schools, in the legislature etc. Look at the relationship between church and state in Ireland for example and how that drove legislation on divorce, abortion etc that affected everyone.
Yes I agree you can't. But see above - while people may say "that's my faith" in relation to certain doctrinal beliefs, many religious people - certainly on here where it is about morality rather than belief in the existence of gods - argue for why a certain moral position is a good idea and why it makes sense to them after weighing up the costs and benefits. And tradition sometimes seems like a good idea to them where they think the costs of tradition are outweighed by the benefits.
If someone wants to argue for a moral position with reason and argument and they just happen to be religious too that’s neither here nor there. Funnily enough though it’s always almost the case in my experience that when you scratch the surface by falsifying the arguments they fairly quickly fall back on their religiosity. That’s the point. For them “It’s true because it says so in (insert choice of “holy” text here)" is the knock-down argument when the fig leaf of reason collapses. Oh, and when the rationalist responds with “so what?” often the response to that is “I’m offended by that” as if that was an argument in its own right.
Yes and many would agree with that point. The issue is that many people feel afraid of change - it's strange to me that many fear change as for me change is exciting. But I have to recognise that this fear exists in others and that when people are afraid there can be some really destructive outcomes so if I was in a position of leadership I guess I might tread carefully in changing things, even if I personally wanted to change them. Because a leader has a responsibility to anticipate destructive outcomes for the people he or she leads and often try to manage the situation to get the least bad outcome for as many people as possible. People who are not in positions of leadership would not necessarily have the same perspective - they might be be more narrowly focused on agitating for the change they want and trying to achieve it regardless of the consequences to the majority. Different perspectives, different goals.
But the same problem – if you think preserving a bad principle is a price worth paying for sustaining the club that unites around it then I’d argue that the societal price of keeping the club intact could be even higher. “People in leadership” may well have a different perspective, but some would say that there’s a different – and bigger – perspective too that societies as a whole should consider.
Fair enough. But I would not say that much is achieved by discussing doctrinal beliefs that can't be proved or disproved. I think the more interesting discussion is the ethics and practicalities of how religion affects our lives. But we can agree to disagree on that.
I don’t discuss doctrinal beliefs that can't be proved or disproved at all. Rather I discuss the arguments some try to justify such beliefs (which always fail), and I discuss the practical effect such beliefs can have when implemented in the public square.
I would agree that there is a difference. But I see many examples of religious arguments seeking to persuade and if a religious text makes a point that can be expanded as a persuasive argument it would not matter to me that the argument was preceded by an assertion about the existence of gods.
Can you think of a “religious argument” with no religiosity? If someone wants to make an argument then it should stand or falls on its merits, not on the superstitions of the person making it. If a religious person wants to run on a platform to make his case that’s fine in principle, but the problem is that the embeddedness of their faith gives than a faux authority (or an actual one when for example they can invoke blasphemy laws to deal with people who disagree with them). In many places religion is at the heart of public life and of governments – its clerics running for office (assuming there are elections at all) are in a very different position from secular candidates running for office evens-stevens.
I think you've missed the point. I wasn't saying religion might be bad. I was saying human nature might be bad because humans act on emotion-based beliefs and you can't eliminate human nature.
Nope. I referenced bullies in the playground just as an analogy. You then started talking about bullies (“we’re the bullies” etc). It’s a bit like me saying, "It’s like looking for a needle in a haystack” and you responding with a discussion of needles. The point though remains simply that not being able or inclined to tackle multiple problems is not a good reason for not tackling any of them.
-
#47
Very interesting read from sttart to finish.
-
Hi Gabriella,
Thank you (and no problem).
That’s not experience at all. The faith part is axiomatic and essential, and any arguments that sit on top tend to be very fragile. The religious homophobe for example may try some half-baked attempt to explain why he thinks being gay is immoral, but that always unravels quickly to leave him with eg Leviticus.
By contrasts I can justify the position that there’s nothing morally wrong with being gay more robustly because I don’t need to throw reason out of the window at an early stage in favour of faith claims.
As to claims of gods, Christ’s supposed miracles etc, I disagree – these claims are fundamental to the concomitant moral convictions. The narrative is this: “There is a miracle performing god...this god’s moral rules are accurately recorded in books…therefore those rules must be the correct ones”. Take away “omnis” god and the attendant moral certainty collapses.
See above. The “fact” of deities being able to perform miracles credentialises the accuracy and authority of their moral injunctions. Who are we to think we have better moral positions than moral arbiters who can perform that trick eh?
Yes, but I would say the same of people who assert their religious faith claims as facts – in schools, in the legislature etc. Look at the relationship between church and state in Ireland for example and how that drove legislation on divorce, abortion etc that affected everyone.
If someone wants to argue for a moral position with reason and argument and they just happen to be religious too that’s neither here nor there. Funnily enough though it’s always almost the case in my experience that when you scratch the surface by falsifying the arguments they fairly quickly fall back on their religiosity. That’s the point. For them “It’s true because it says so in (insert choice of “holy” text here)" is the knock-down argument when the fig leaf of reason collapses. Oh, and when the rationalist responds with “so what?” often the response to that is “I’m offended by that” as if that was an argument in its own right.
But the same problem – if you think preserving a bad principle is a price worth paying for sustaining the club that unites around it then I’d argue that the societal price of keeping the club intact could be even higher. “People in leadership” may well have a different perspective, but some would say that there’s a different – and bigger – perspective too that societies as a whole should consider.
I don’t discuss doctrinal beliefs that can't be proved or disproved at all. Rather I discuss the arguments some try to justify such beliefs (which always fail), and I discuss the practical effect such beliefs can have when implemented in the public square.
Can you think of a “religious argument” with no religiosity? If someone wants to make an argument then it should stand or falls on its merits, not on the superstitions of the person making it. If a religious person wants to run on a platform to make his case that’s fine in principle, but the problem is that the embeddedness of their faith gives than a faux authority (or an actual one when for example they can invoke blasphemy laws to deal with people who disagree with them). In many places religion is at the heart of public life and of governments – its clerics running for office (assuming there are elections at all) are in a very different position from secular candidates running for office evens-stevens.
Nope. I referenced bullies in the playground just as an analogy. You then started talking about bullies (“we’re the bullies” etc). It’s a bit like me saying, "It’s like looking for a needle in a haystack” and you responding with a discussion of needles. The point though remains simply that not being able or inclined to tackle multiple problems is not a good reason for not tackling any of them.
Seems to be a confusion of reason with morality here.
Your moral theory and philosophy has IMHO been inadequate e.g. it just as adequately covered by other words and concepts which don't really have any moral dimension.
You chose religious homophobia and elected to just seemingly substitute the word reason for morality without demonstrating where for you and in this case reason switches into belief.
Perhaps we should test your claims by setting you one of my choosing. Explain why slavery is immoral without straying into undemonstrable humanism or emotion.
-
Vlad,
Seems to be a confusion of reason with morality here.
Why? I was merely saying that reason (and to varying degrees intuition) is all we have to discern workable moral rules and norms. What else would you suggest - faith?
Your moral theory and philosophy has IMHO been inadequate e.g. it just as adequately covered by other words and concepts which don't really have any moral dimension.
You're out of your depth again. I'm talking about the application of reason to moral questions, just as one might apply reason to, say, aesthetic judgments. That doesn't mean though that morality and aesthetics cease to exist in either case.
You chose religious homophobia and elected to just seemingly substitute the word reason for morality without demonstrating where for you and in this case reason switches into belief.
I did no such thing. I merely took one moral position (homophobia) and said i could reason my way to a rebuttal. That reasoning though does not change the fact of the moral position to which it's applied.
Perhaps we should test your claims by setting you one of my choosing. Explain why slavery is immoral without straying into undemonstrable humanism or emotion.
First, if you think I'm going to answer your question after the last - what, 1,000 maybe? - questions I've asked you and you've just ignored you're sadly mistaken.
Second however as you're still down the rabbit hole of thinking that morality has to be fixed (in a book of your choice apparently) and certain to be "real" what would be the point when your only response would be to complain that the answer isn't definitive? As I keep explaining to you (and you keep ignoring) morality no more has to be certain to be "real" than aesthetics or language does. All these human constructions work well enough to be functionally useful with no need for universal, absolute templates. Until you finally grasp this (or at least try to engage with it) there's no point in discussing with you any specific moral statement.
-
Hi Gabriella,
Thank you (and no problem).
That’s not experience at all. The faith part is axiomatic and essential, and any arguments that sit on top tend to be very fragile. The religious homophobe for example may try some half-baked attempt to explain why he thinks being gay is immoral, but that always unravels quickly to leave him with eg Leviticus.
By contrasts I can justify the position that there’s nothing morally wrong with being gay more robustly because I don’t need to throw reason out of the window at an early stage in favour of faith claims.
As to claims of gods, Christ’s supposed miracles etc, I disagree – these claims are fundamental to the concomitant moral convictions. The narrative is this: “There is a miracle performing god...this god’s moral rules are accurately recorded in books…therefore those rules must be the correct ones”. Take away “omnis” god and the attendant moral certainty collapses.
See above. The “fact” of deities being able to perform miracles credentialises the accuracy and authority of their moral injunctions. Who are we to think we have better moral positions than moral arbiters who can perform that trick eh?
Yes, but I would say the same of people who assert their religious faith claims as facts – in schools, in the legislature etc. Look at the relationship between church and state in Ireland for example and how that drove legislation on divorce, abortion etc that affected everyone.
If someone wants to argue for a moral position with reason and argument and they just happen to be religious too that’s neither here nor there. Funnily enough though it’s always almost the case in my experience that when you scratch the surface by falsifying the arguments they fairly quickly fall back on their religiosity. That’s the point. For them “It’s true because it says so in (insert choice of “holy” text here)" is the knock-down argument when the fig leaf of reason collapses. Oh, and when the rationalist responds with “so what?” often the response to that is “I’m offended by that” as if that was an argument in its own right.
But the same problem – if you think preserving a bad principle is a price worth paying for sustaining the club that unites around it then I’d argue that the societal price of keeping the club intact could be even higher. “People in leadership” may well have a different perspective, but some would say that there’s a different – and bigger – perspective too that societies as a whole should consider.
I don’t discuss doctrinal beliefs that can't be proved or disproved at all. Rather I discuss the arguments some try to justify such beliefs (which always fail), and I discuss the practical effect such beliefs can have when implemented in the public square.
Can you think of a “religious argument” with no religiosity? If someone wants to make an argument then it should stand or falls on its merits, not on the superstitions of the person making it. If a religious person wants to run on a platform to make his case that’s fine in principle, but the problem is that the embeddedness of their faith gives than a faux authority (or an actual one when for example they can invoke blasphemy laws to deal with people who disagree with them). In many places religion is at the heart of public life and of governments – its clerics running for office (assuming there are elections at all) are in a very different position from secular candidates running for office evens-stevens.
Nope. I referenced bullies in the playground just as an analogy. You then started talking about bullies (“we’re the bullies” etc). It’s a bit like me saying, "It’s like looking for a needle in a haystack” and you responding with a discussion of needles. The point though remains simply that not being able or inclined to tackle multiple problems is not a good reason for not tackling any of them.
To answer your last point first - I agree it's interesting to discuss specific interpretations of religion. For example discussing those theists who advocate a certain moral sexual behaviour based on belief in doctrine, rather than just admitting (to use your example) that they have a visceral disgust at the idea of people deviating from the behaviour required for procreation e.g. by engaging in sexual behaviour with other people of the same sex.
As we have seen, over time society prioritises different issues and competing rights and 'so it came to pass' that in the UK the 1954 Wolfenden Committee report noted that revulsion towards homosexuals was an insufficient basis to criminalise their behaviour, since it breached their right to privacy: “Moral conviction or instinctive feeling, however strong, is not a valid basis for overriding the individual’s privacy.”
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/uk-law-homosexuality-legalisation-public-disgust-lgbt-gay-rights-50th-anniversary-a7860431.html
So my point was that throughout history humans seem to have been disgusted by certain behaviours and seek to regulate those behaviours in society in response to their human emotion of disgust. The behaviours and level of disgust may change but the aspect of humanity that feels disgust and acts on it seems fairly constant.
One way of regulating behaviour is by a charismatic person or group of people forming a religious "lobby group" such as the RCC that then seeks to persuade its members, some or many of whom may have joined because they were attracted to certain other aspects of the lobby group's message, that they should share the disgust at specific behaviours. Similar to politics, as the leadership changes it may be that some leaders don't feel disgust at certain human behaviours and seek to change the message of the club, which I think is a perfectly reasonable way for a club to be run. And if the leader of the club feels the change should be slow or there are more important considerations for the club than changing a particular message, I think that the membership will give their feedback on the performance of the leader by either leaving the club or staying and perhaps trying to influence club policy.
And I agree with you - members of the wider society who are not members of that club might seek to have the club disbanded or undermine it to the point where it no longer has much influence if they disagree with its public influence. Certainly in Muslim empires many different schools of thought came and went, often depending on a political leader for patronage in order to survive.
Given we agree it's driven by human interpretations of right and wrong, I would think there will always be humans drawn to idealistic messages who join groups (political, religious, social) even if they do not necessarily agree with everything the leader of the group promotes, they often feel there is enough there to make it worth their while to join the religion, the political party, the lobby group, the cause, the gang etc. and they often form relationships with similar-minded people and have children who they attempt to bring up with similar values.
Regarding your points about miracles such as walking on water, and doctrinal beliefs, I agree that arguments should stand or fall on their merits. While I would no doubt be impressed by a charismatic entity performing miracles, it would not be enough to persuade me that such an entity performing miracles was talking sense about other matters. I don't agree with the idea that a god who performs miracles has anything persuasive to say about morals. My brain/ mind would still have to determine whether the charismatic entity had a persuasive argument or a message that appealed to me rather than disgusted me. Softening me up with a miracle or two wouldn't really work because I do not see what being able to walk on water or resurrect the dead or be resurrected yourself has to do with moral arguments. I would be no more persuaded by the moral arguments of someone who can perform miracles than I would be by the moral arguments of someone who can play a sport well or sell records or be a box office draw or develop a vaccine that saves millions of lives. whether . Much like I do on here - if I am not persuaded by posters' arguments I challenge them.
Why some things appeal to me and others don't or why I desire some things but am repulsed by others is probably down to a mix of nature v nurture. I don't think it's particularly important whether my preference is to express that aspect of my human nature through religion, politics, social causes or all 3. In all 3 cases, as a member of society I, like most other people in society, will advocate to try to influence society based on my preferences.
-
Hi Gabriella,
To answer your last point first - I agree it's interesting to discuss specific interpretations of religion. For example discussing those theists who advocate a certain moral sexual behaviour based on belief in doctrine, rather than just admitting (to use your example) that they have a visceral disgust at the idea of people deviating from the behaviour required for procreation e.g. by engaging in sexual behaviour with other people of the same sex.
As we have seen, over time society prioritises different issues and competing rights and 'so it came to pass' that in the UK the 1954 Wolfenden Committee report noted that revulsion towards homosexuals was an insufficient basis to criminalise their behaviour, since it breached their right to privacy: “Moral conviction or instinctive feeling, however strong, is not a valid basis for overriding the individual’s privacy.”
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/uk-law-homosexuality-legalisation-public-disgust-lgbt-gay-rights-50th-anniversary-a7860431.html
So my point was that throughout history humans seem to have been disgusted by certain behaviours and seek to regulate those behaviours in society in response to their human emotion of disgust. The behaviours and level of disgust may change but the aspect of humanity that feels disgust and acts on it seems fairly constant.
Well yes, but it works the other way too: the “yuk” factor is balanced by whatever the opposite of “yuk” is for behaviours we intuitively find appealing and therefore feel to be morally good. That’s the point about constructs like morality and aesthetics I think: in part we intuit our way to judgments about both (sunsets just feel beautiful etc), but in part too we can reason our way beyond those intuitions (your Wolfenden example say).
One way of regulating behaviour is by a charismatic person or group of people forming a religious "lobby group" such as the RCC that then seeks to persuade its members, some or many of whom may have joined because they were attracted to certain other aspects of the lobby group's message, that they should share the disgust at specific behaviours. Similar to politics, as the leadership changes it may be that some leaders don't feel disgust at certain human behaviours and seek to change the message of the club, which I think is a perfectly reasonable way for a club to be run. And if the leader of the club feels the change should be slow or there are more important considerations for the club than changing a particular message, I think that the membership will give their feedback on the performance of the leader by either leaving the club or staying and perhaps trying to influence club policy.
And I agree with you - members of the wider society who are not members of that club might seek to have the club disbanded or undermine it to the point where it no longer has much influence if they disagree with its public influence. Certainly in Muslim empires many different schools of thought came and went, often depending on a political leader for patronage in order to survive.
No particular issues there – tribalism, group think etc (whether or not religious) are well-understood phenomena. Typically though members of such communities find themselves behind the Zeitgeist, behind science, behind moral philosophy etc – the RC church and Galileo is an obvious example, and still we have the CofE with exemptions from equal marriage rights, from adoption by gay couples, with gender discrimination. Presumably they’ll get there one day (or at least I hope so) but in the meantime I don’t think their influence is necessarily confined to their ranks. My view is that the CofE’s positions are not only bad for its subscribers, but bad for the rest of us too – its central position of (faux) authority in the legislature, in education, in uncritical media access gives it an influence that would not be afforded to a club I started tomorrow that tried to arrogate to itself the same rights.
Given we agree it's driven by human interpretations of right and wrong, I would think there will always be humans drawn to idealistic messages who join groups (political, religious, social) even if they do not necessarily agree with everything the leader of the group promotes, they often feel there is enough there to make it worth their while to join the religion, the political party, the lobby group, the cause, the gang etc. and they often form relationships with similar-minded people and have children who they attempt to bring up with similar values.
Yes, but that rather assumes unfettered choice in the matter. In what sense is someone whose entire education consisted of rocking back and forth citing the Koran for example “drawn to” his faith by such messages rather than indoctrinated into it? The relative scarcity of people brought up in one faith who jump ship for another one in later life for example (let alone non-religious people who become religious as adults) should give you pause about that I’d have thought.
Regarding your points about miracles such as walking on water, and doctrinal beliefs, I agree that arguments should stand or fall on their merits. While I would no doubt be impressed by a charismatic entity performing miracles, it would not be enough to persuade me that such an entity performing miracles was talking sense about other matters. I don't agree with the idea that a god who performs miracles has anything persuasive to say about morals. My brain/ mind would still have to determine whether the charismatic entity had a persuasive argument or a message that appealed to me rather than disgusted me. Softening me up with a miracle or two wouldn't really work because I do not see what being able to walk on water or resurrect the dead or be resurrected yourself has to do with moral arguments. I would be no more persuaded by the moral arguments of someone who can perform miracles than I would be by the moral arguments of someone who can play a sport well or sell records or be a box office draw or develop a vaccine that saves millions of lives. whether . Much like I do on here - if I am not persuaded by posters' arguments I challenge them.
That’s not the point though. The argument is essentially:
1. There is a god who can perform miracles.
2. These miracles are beyond our understanding or explanation.
3. This god has also written down (or “inspired”) moral rules in a book I think to be inerrant.
4. If this god can perform these miracles, he must be right about his moral rules too. Thus if you take away the “omnis” all that’s left is just another ancient attempt at moral philosophy that must fight its corner against all the thinking that’s been done since then. Thus the miracle-performing god part is essential to cement the moral authority.
5. Therefore the morality in my “holy” texts is correct.
In other words, the magic stuff provides the authority for the rules part.
Why some things appeal to me and others don't or why I desire some things but am repulsed by others is probably down to a mix of nature v nurture. I don't think it's particularly important whether my preference is to express that aspect of my human nature through religion, politics, social causes or all 3. In all 3 cases, as a member of society I, like most other people in society, will advocate to try to influence society based on my preferences.
No doubt, but the discussion here is about why you have those preferences and, in particular, about whether you formulated them entirely “in house” or had them handed to you by your faith.
-
Hi Gabriella,
Well yes, but it works the other way too: the “yuk” factor is balanced by whatever the opposite of “yuk” is for behaviours we intuitively find appealing and therefore feel to be morally good. That’s the point about constructs like morality and aesthetics I think: in part we intuit our way to judgments about both (sunsets just feel beautiful etc), but in part too we can reason our way beyond those intuitions (your Wolfenden example say).
No particular issues there – tribalism, group think etc (whether or not religious) are well-understood phenomena. Typically though members of such communities find themselves behind the Zeitgeist, behind science, behind moral philosophy etc – the RC church and Galileo is an obvious example, and still we have the CofE with exemptions from equal marriage rights, from adoption by gay couples, with gender discrimination. Presumably they’ll get there one day (or at least I hope so) but in the meantime I don’t think their influence is necessarily confined to their ranks. My view is that the CofE’s positions are not only bad for its subscribers, but bad for the rest of us too – its central position of (faux) authority in the legislature, in education, in uncritical media access gives it an influence that would not be afforded to a club I started tomorrow that tried to arrogate to itself the same rights.
Yes and it seems some people do not want to get there one day and would rather form their own little group and differentiate themselves from the Zeitgeist, presumably because there is some personal pay-off for them for not aligning their beliefs that outweighs the hardships of being out of step. This applies not just to religions in a society that is becoming less religious but also political movements e.g. opposing the Vietnam war despite accusations of being unpatriotic, a Communist sympathiser or morally deviant. Despite their natural aversion to pain they have reasoned their way to continue on their course.
Yes, but that rather assumes unfettered choice in the matter. In what sense is someone whose entire education consisted of rocking back and forth citing the Koran for example “drawn to” his faith by such messages rather than indoctrinated into it? The relative scarcity of people brought up in one faith who jump ship for another one in later life for example (let alone non-religious people who become religious as adults) should give you pause about that I’d have thought.
I agree no one has unfettered choice. Even with an education you are limited by the knowledge, thought, cultures you have been exposed to. That can't be helped but no point limiting this discussion to people who have had no education except rocking back and forth memorising thousands of paragraphs of Arabic. Cultures and heritage develop based on similarity of thought, customs and values that are passed through generations and preserved by traditions. Many people like to connect with their heritage despite some drawbacks. Many people want to sacrifice aspects of individuality to conform because they like the security. Why some people have a stronger preference for security and are more risk-averse than others and what this can lead to is an interesting topic of discussion in schools, and I would have thought this is the issue that people need to be educated about as well as the privileges that charismatic religious or political actors have acquired in influencing legislation.
That’s not the point though. The argument is essentially:
1. There is a god who can perform miracles.
2. These miracles are beyond our understanding or explanation.
3. This god has also written down (or “inspired”) moral rules in a book I think to be inerrant.
4. If this god can perform these miracles, he must be right about his moral rules too. Thus if you take away the “omnis” all that’s left is just another ancient attempt at moral philosophy that must fight its corner against all the thinking that’s been done since then. Thus the miracle-performing god part is essential to cement the moral authority.
5. Therefore the morality in my “holy” texts is correct.
In other words, the magic stuff provides the authority for the rules part.
I don't understand that argument from SOME/ MANY theists. I don't understand why someone's ability to perform miracles has anything to say about their ability to come up with good morals. They are two separate issues - one is nifty magic, the other is ethics and values about living with other imperfect humans. As far as I can see the arguments seem to be either 1 of the following or a mix of the 2:
(1) gods are more powerful than humans so better do what they say or you will find life difficult or you will face punishment
OR
(2) gods created life, and human nature is a product of that creation, so if they created us their superior knowledge that enabled that creation of us probably means they know human nature better than we do so we might learn something from their holy texts
No doubt, but the discussion here is about why you have those preferences and, in particular, about whether you formulated them entirely “in house” or had them handed to you by your faith.
I think the answer to why is that my preferences are a mix of my nature v nurture - we i.e. our minds, our reasoning, emotions and preferences all seem to be a product of evolutionary factors - our genes and culture and environment.
-
Gabriella,
Yes and it seems some people do not want to get there one day and would rather form their own little group and differentiate themselves from the Zeitgeist, presumably because there is some personal pay-off for them for not aligning their beliefs that outweighs the hardships of being out of step. This applies not just to religions in a society that is becoming less religious but also political movements e.g. opposing the Vietnam war despite accusations of being unpatriotic, a Communist sympathiser or morally deviant. Despite their natural aversion to pain they have reasoned their way to continue on their course.
Perhaps, but the point rather was about why people think like that. I can mount a perfectly good rebuttal of the moral claim “homosexuality bad” for example, but when the response is “but that’s my faith” where is there to go from there (other that is than, “so what?”)? That’s the issue for me – not that people know their beliefs are unsustainable but the cost of leaving the club that coheres around them would be too high, but that they genuinely think their faith beliefs supersede their reason.
I agree no one has unfettered choice. Even with an education you are limited by the knowledge, thought, cultures you have been exposed to. That can't be helped but no point limiting this discussion to people who have had no education except rocking back and forth memorising thousands of paragraphs of Arabic. Cultures and heritage develop based on similarity of thought, customs and values that are passed through generations and preserved by traditions. Many people like to connect with their heritage despite some drawbacks. Many people want to sacrifice aspects of individuality to conform because they like the security. Why some people have a stronger preference for security and are more risk-averse than others and what this can lead to is an interesting topic of discussion in schools, and I would have thought this is the issue that people need to be educated about as well as the privileges that charismatic religious or political actors have acquired in influencing legislation.
No choices can be truly unfettered – we’re all moored to varying degrees to culture, to upbringing etc. The point though is that reason and argument are the most reliable attempts we’ve found yet to make choices on objective criteria. The minute someone thinks faith is a better way to do that though objectivity deliquesces and I for one think that’s a bad thing if we’re to care about what’s true.
I don't understand that argument from SOME/ MANY theists. I don't understand why someone's ability to perform miracles has anything to say about their ability to come up with good morals. They are two separate issues - one is nifty magic, the other is ethics and values about living with other imperfect humans. As far as I can see the arguments seem to be either 1 of the following or a mix of the 2:
(1) gods are more powerful than humans so better do what they say or you will find life difficult or you will face punishment
OR
(2) gods created life, and human nature is a product of that creation, so if they created us their superior knowledge that enabled that creation of us probably means they know human nature better than we do so we might learn something from their holy texts
It’s (2) more or less. If you think there to be a god capable of creating a universe and whose moral injunctions are accurately written in some texts, why wouldn’t you think them to be inerrant?
I think the answer to why is that my preferences are a mix of my nature v nurture - we i.e. our minds, our reasoning, emotions and preferences all seem to be a product of evolutionary factors - our genes and culture and environment.
And your religion? As above, if you think there to be a "god of the omnis" whose moral rules are in a book, why wouldn’t you accept them as bang on the money?
-
Gabriella,
Perhaps, but the point rather was about why people think like that. I can mount a perfectly good rebuttal of the moral claim “homosexuality bad” for example, but when the response is “but that’s my faith” where is there to go from there (other that is than, “so what?”)? That’s the issue for me – not that people know their beliefs are unsustainable but the cost of leaving the club that coheres around them would be too high, but that they genuinely think their faith beliefs supersede their reason.
Yes I agree there is nowhere to go other than 'so what' for some theists who support moral beliefs based on doctrine alone. But there are plenty of theists who think 'so what' is a reasonable response to their moral beliefs and do not expect you to privilege those moral beliefs above the beliefs of others, which is why I think this is about individual people's reactions to religion or politics rather than religion or politics being the problem. Something internal drives some people to invest too much in ideas and beliefs and causes - I have no idea what. I could come up with the same 'so what' response when people feel offended about morality that has nothing to do with offending their religious sensibilities. People cling onto certain moral beliefs, religious or otherwise, maybe because it defines their identity and sense of self in some way whereby they over-invest themselves. Hence some transgender people ignore reason and harass gay people with accusations of transphobia if they won't have sex with trans people. Not all transgender people are so fixed in their views - it seems to be the character of the individual that influences how certain they are in their views on what is morally right or wrong.
No choices can be truly unfettered – we’re all moored to varying degrees to culture, to upbringing etc. The point though is that reason and argument are the most reliable attempts we’ve found yet to make choices on objective criteria. The minute someone thinks faith is a better way to do that though objectivity deliquesces and I for one think that’s a bad thing if we’re to care about what’s true.
Ok I take your point about faith in relation to morality. However, I do not see a problem with believing Jesus rose from the dead or that Prophet Mohamed was a Prophet unless someone uses that in a position of power to take away the rights of people who do not share that belief. There is no way of establishing if such beliefs are true. But I understand that people have a preference for believing some things without being able to objectively establish the truth. I don't see it as any different to some people having a preference for other beliefs or activities - aesthetic preferences as you mentioned. I just see a preference for beliefs of a religious flavour as similar to preferences for books or preferences for activities that provide an adrenaline rush e.g. skydiving.
The preference may be because it gives some people a sense of identity which is important to them hence these beliefs, rituals, traditions and clubs are perpetuated and passed down through the generations. I really like movies from the 1940s and 50s so I try to persuade my kids to watch movies from the 1940s and 50s as a shared experience.
It’s (2) more or less. If you think there to be a god capable of creating a universe and whose moral injunctions are accurately written in some texts, why wouldn’t you think them to be inerrant?
And your religion? As above, if you think there to be a "god of the omnis" whose moral rules are in a book, why wouldn’t you accept them as bang on the money?
I can only speak for Islam. Because the Quran is text that human brains have to interpret rather than a hotline to Allah, the interpretations by the brain vary depending on nature and nurture and so the moral injunctions vary depending on the individual Muslim you speak to. So many Muslims end up saying 'here's what I think based on this school of thought or interpretation and here's what some other school of thought or person thinks and Allah knows best'. The belief is that the god might be inerrant but the human is fallible both in motive and understanding. It is therefore the character of the individual theist that influences how certain they are in their understanding of what is morally right or wrong.
-
Hey again Gabriella,
Yes I agree there is nowhere to go other than 'so what' for some theists who support moral beliefs based on doctrine alone. But there are plenty of theists who think 'so what' is a reasonable response to their moral beliefs and do not expect you to privilege those moral beliefs above the beliefs of others, which is why I think this is about individual people's reactions to religion or politics rather than religion or politics being the problem.
Who are these “plenty of theists”? I see no great clamour from theists for the closing of faith schools or the removal of of Bishops by right in the HofL as examples and if you tried to argue for separation of church and state in the various theocracies around the world it’s likely a grim fate would await you for your efforts.
Dounbtless there are some wit the Something internal drives some people to invest too much in ideas and beliefs and causes - I have no idea what. I could come up with the same 'so what' response when people feel offended about morality that has nothing to do with offending their religious sensibilities. People cling onto certain moral beliefs, religious or otherwise, maybe because it defines their identity and sense of self in some way whereby they over-invest themselves. Hence some transgender people ignore reason and harass gay people with accusations of transphobia if they won't have sex with trans people. Not all transgender people are so fixed in their views - it seems to be the character of the individual that influences how certain they are in their views on what is morally right or wrong.
The point though was how to respond when people do try “but that’s my faith” as a counter-argument to the rebuttal of their claims and assertions, that’s all. You seem determined to twist in the wind about the corrosive effect of faith in any sort of discourse interested in establishing truth, presumably because you subscribe to one such and that implication is unwelcome?
Ok I take your point about faith in relation to morality. However, I do not see a problem with believing Jesus rose from the dead or that Prophet Mohamed was a Prophet unless someone uses that in a position of power to take away the rights of people who do not share that belief. There is no way of establishing if such beliefs are true. But I understand that people have a preference for believing some things without being able to objectively establish the truth. I don't see it as any different to some people having a preference for other beliefs or activities - aesthetic preferences as you mentioned. I just see a preference for beliefs of a religious flavour as similar to preferences for books or preferences for activities that provide an adrenaline rush e.g. skydiving.
The preference may be because it gives some people a sense of identity which is important to them hence these beliefs, rituals, traditions and clubs are perpetuated and passed down through the generations. I really like movies from the 1940s and 50s so I try to persuade my kids to watch movies from the 1940s and 50s as a shared experience.
You’re not getting it still – in rhetorical top trumps, having miracle-performing demi-gods at your back beats all others. After all, how could those of us with only Aristotle and Spinoza and Russell on our side possibly have a better grip on what’s real than a dead for a bit then alive again or winged horse flying supernatural Billy Big Pants? Analogies with skydiving or watching films miss the point entirely – theists with the top team on their side thereby have all the authority they need to carry the day precisely because their authorities are the top team (supposedly).
I can only speak for Islam. Because the Quran is text that human brains have to interpret rather than a hotline to Allah, the interpretations by the brain vary depending on nature and nurture and so the moral injunctions vary depending on the individual Muslim you speak to. So many Muslims end up saying 'here's what I think based on this school of thought or interpretation and here's what some other school of thought or person thinks and Allah knows best'. The belief is that the god might be inerrant but the human is fallible both in motive and understanding. It is therefore the character of the individual theist that influences how certain they are in their understanding of what is morally right or wrong.
Doesn’t wash. If you think there’s a book with inerrant moral rules in but there’s no way to know whether we’re “interpreting” these rules properly, what’s the point of claiming divine authorship (let alone divine inerrancy) at all? Why not just settle for, “here’s an early and fairly crude attempt at moral philosophy rooted in its time and place that may yet have some interesting to say but that has no special privileges thanks to its supposed authorship over the many works of moral philosophy that came later?” You’re trying a Trojan horse here – “yeah it’s all about the interpretation, but I know it’s written by a god so it must be right so all we have to do is to keep working at it to unlock the one true message (and in the meantime we’ll stone people who disagree with what we think it means just to be on the safe side)”.
It sounds superficially harmless but “it’s all about the interpretation” is a non-starter as a defence – there are plenty of people around the world who will commit appalling acts because they’re certain – the hard certainty that faith gives them – that their interpretation is correct so they’re just doing (their) god's work after all. When did you last hear of, say, say a Spinozan stoning someone in the street because he dared to disagree with an “interpretation”? The answer is never – now compare that with your “holy” book.
Why the difference do you think?
-
Hey again Gabriella,
Who are these “plenty of theists”? I see no great clamour from theists for the closing of faith schools or the removal of of Bishops by right in the HofL as examples and if you tried to argue for separation of church and state in the various theocracies around the world it’s likely a grim fate would await you for your efforts.
Hi BHS. People generally do not clamour for change unless it is directly adversely affecting them - this apathy to engage in political campaigns is not confined to religious issues but can be seen in terms of public support for many other campaigns. Voter turnout for General Elections hovers around 67%.
I did not say theists were clamouring for change so please don't misrepresent my posts. I said there are plenty of theists who do not expect you to privilege their moral beliefs above the moral beliefs of other theists or atheists. If change occurred through the normal democratic process I see plenty of evidence of theists in the UK participating in and accepting the outcome of UK democratic processes rather than staging religious revolutions.
The 2017 Social Attitudes Survey response to a question about the 26 seats in the House of Lords guaranteed to Church of England bishops, was that 62 per cent of people said that no religious clerics should have “an automatic right to seats”. Only 8 per cent of people said the bishops should retain their seats while 12 per cent said leaders from other faiths should be added to sit alongside bishops as Lords Spiritual. Various reforms of the House of Lords have been proposed several times and campaigns run but have failed to generate sufficient enthusiasm, hence no reform has happened, which is a normal occurrence in a democracy. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18612233. We have not abolished the monarchy either and the HofL has been in existence from 11th century so maybe there is not sufficient enthusiasm amongst the population for letting go of these symbols of tradition. Maybe that is also why faith and grammar schools have not been abolished. I have no opinion on that one way or the other - if other people like tradition I don't have a big enough problem with it to clamour for change. Any campaigns that I involve myself with in my spare time are usually related to civilians being bombed, starved or tortured in other countries.
The point though was how to respond when people do try “but that’s my faith” as a counter-argument to the rebuttal of their claims and assertions, that’s all. You seem determined to twist in the wind about the corrosive effect of faith in any sort of discourse interested in establishing truth, presumably because you subscribe to one such and that implication is unwelcome?
I don't understand your point - what do you mean when you ask how to respond to 'but that's my belief'? What's wrong with the response 'so what?' as you suggested? That response is suitable for anyone relying on belief alone and who presents no other argument for their opinion on any issue. What else are you expecting people to do in response to beliefs?
I have no idea what you mean by 'twist in the wind about the corrosive effect of faith in any sort of discourse interested in establishing truth". If someone presents faith as an argument, I would dismiss it with "so what". What else is it you want people to respond with instead?
You’re not getting it still – in rhetorical top trumps, having miracle-performing demi-gods at your back beats all others.
Yes so you keep asserting but not really seeing the truth of this demonstrated in this country. In a fairly open culture with freedom of expression, rule of law, accountability etc where is this top trumps? Maybe religion is privileged in the UK because of its association with tradition, and the voters currently do not have sufficient enthusiasm to get rid of these traditions. They certainly seem to have less trouble distancing themselves from new beliefs.
There is a new belief that people can be born in the wrong body and an attempt to privilege this belief. The response after a while has been to say 'so what if you believe that?'. It is sometimes couched in less crude language but essentially that is what it boils down to when people express those beliefs but have no evidence to establish the truth of it. https://mermaidsuk.org.uk/news/do-you-still-use-the-phrase-born-in-the-wrong-body/
https://www.transgendertrend.com/born-in-the-wrong-body/
In contrast, people seem to have been able to get behind the new belief that society does not have a right to prevent gay people from having civil marriages and to be able to get legislation passed accordingly, despite opposition from some religious lobby groups. No idea why there has not been similar enthusiasm for reform of HofL or abolishing faith schools. Perhaps you should post a link to studies done on lack of political enthusiasm for HofL reform or abolishing faith schools.
In other countries run by dictators or repressive regimes or in the middle of civil wars, as expected the religious practices of those people are in line with their cultural, social and political practices i.e. some people show bravery, kindness and tolerance and some people don't.
After all, how could those of us with only Aristotle and Spinoza and Russell on our side possibly have a better grip on what’s real than a dead for a bit then alive again or winged horse flying supernatural Billy Big Pants? Analogies with skydiving or watching films miss the point entirely – theists with the top team on their side thereby have all the authority they need to carry the day precisely because their authorities are the top team (supposedly).
Are you saying that your issue is that fantastical stories appeal to human nature? I'm not really sure what you expect as a response from me? I don't have a particular affinity for fantastical stories - they are part of the traditions that some of my fellow-Muslims enjoy and sure they can be enjoyable much like Harry Potter films or older stirring stories of courage, loyalty, friendship, kindness etc. Each to their own and I can tolerate belief in fantastical stories provided the democracy and rule of law are still adhered to so there is an opportunity for me to influence and amend the laws that govern me.
Surely if there is a lack of appeal for non-religious philosophy, which in the UK I am not sure is the case, it is a problem for the Aristotle, Spinoza and Russell proponents to solve as that's a feature of democracy. If laws are passed in a democracy that I don't agree with, sure I have a bit of a problem, but in the UK I have the option to campaign for change and try to gather popular support because of the freedoms we have here. If you want your opinions or indeed the opinions of Aristotle etc to triumph you will have to appeal to the masses.
In other societies, campaigning for change, whether it is political, social or religious change, could get you killed e.g. Afghanistan, Myanmar, China, Russia etc but that is less of an issue here. Sure we have the odd MP murdered (Jo Cox) or terrorist attacks - 7/7 or the IRA, which were justified by political and religious arguments but there is not really state-backed terror against citizens and where there is alleged to be evidence of state-inflicted violence on citizens there has eventually been inquiries and attempts at accountability such as the Saville Report on Bloody Sunday. Admittedly these take a long time to happen.
Doesn’t wash. If you think there’s a book with inerrant moral rules in but there’s no way to know whether we’re “interpreting” these rules properly, what’s the point of claiming divine authorship (let alone divine inerrancy) at all?
It's a nice story. Who knows why things appeal to us - some scientists have suggested our likes and dislikes are a mix of nature and nurture. What's your view on what governs our likes and dislikes?
Why not just settle for, “here’s an early and fairly crude attempt at moral philosophy rooted in its time and place that may yet have some interesting to say but that has no special privileges thanks to its supposed authorship over the many works of moral philosophy that came later?”
No idea why I like the Quran - can't explain it. Ask the scientists. And I don't think the Quran has any special privileges. So you'll have to ask those who do think it has special privileges. You’re trying a Trojan horse here – “yeah it’s all about the interpretation, but I know it’s written by a god so it must be right so all we have to do is to keep working at it to unlock the one true message (and in the meantime we’ll stone people who disagree with what we think it means just to be on the safe side)”.
No, you must have me confused with someone else. I actually believe that we can't unlock a one true message. I think that's the point of it and why it is so ambiguous, especially as it is written in Arabic - you could keep yourself busy for a lifetime just trying to decipher one Surah (chapter) (there are 114 of them) and trying to figure out comparisons between the context in 7th century Arabia and how to relate it to changing societies over the centuries. But then I grew up in an academic household, went to private school, was not brought up in a particularly patriarchal family, live in a relatively liberal democracy and am a product of a cosmopolitan London culture so I enjoy complexity and dislike certainty. My experience is that someone who is a product of a different environment/ education/ family/ culture feels differently about the Quran eg. my husband. Though he agrees that the Quran does not provide certainty I think he likes certainty.
It sounds superficially harmless but “it’s all about the interpretation” is a non-starter as a defence – there are plenty of people around the world who will commit appalling acts because they’re certain – the hard certainty that faith gives them – that their interpretation is correct so they’re just doing (their) god's work after all. When did you last hear of, say, say a Spinozan stoning someone in the street because he dared to disagree with an “interpretation”? The answer is never – now compare that with your “holy” book.
Why the difference do you think?
Yes some people like to fight for grand ideas. Religion is a grand idea, as is politics, nationalism, race purity, patriotism, freedom, equality, civil rights etc. The comparison with philosophers does not work unless philosophical works are being used by civil movements, lobby groups and political parties or dictators to generate mass appeal for a way of life or a government or as justification for dividing up limited resources or oppressing people's rights e.g. Marxism. Big ideas and slogans seem to be the way to go if you want support from the human masses unfortunately - must be some evolutionary reason for this. What do you think it is?
The people around the world committing appalling acts seem to be a product of their nature and nurture, hence there are religious people in conflict-torn countries who do not commit atrocities. Surveys show that people who commit appalling acts overwhelmingly do so for political reasons such as control of resources that may well be packaged up with some religious flavour.
The key point though is that just because I clearly seem to be one of those people who like ideas that seem bigger than me such as gods, freedom, justice, accountability etc and I would be willing to fight for some of those ideas- e.g. I signed up to the British Territorial Army at university so I am not a pacifist, I don't have any desire to fight for gods, even though gods are ideas that are bigger than me. I figure any decent god should be able to fight for themselves.
So no, I don't agree with your simplistic argument that religious faith leads to certainty leads to violence as the evidence seems to point to a much more complex process as this Guardian article sets our very well I think:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jul/02/religion-wars-conflict
-
Hi Gabriella – sorry it’s taken a while.
I’d have to write a thesis to reply to you point by point so I’ll try to summarise (what seem to me to be) your key issues if that’s ok.
Hi BHS. People generally do not clamour for change unless it is directly adversely affecting them - this apathy to engage in political campaigns is not confined to religious issues but can be seen in terms of public support for many other campaigns. Voter turnout for General Elections hovers around 67%.
I did not say theists were clamouring for change so please don't misrepresent my posts. I said there are plenty of theists who do not expect you to privilege their moral beliefs above the moral beliefs of other theists or atheists. If change occurred through the normal democratic process I see plenty of evidence of theists in the UK participating in and accepting the outcome of UK democratic processes rather than staging religious revolutions.
There’s no reason for people to clamour for change if they think their beliefs are correct. The issue though is deeper than that – it’s about why they think they’re correct, especially in countries where church and state are the same thing.
The 2017 Social Attitudes Survey response to a question about the 26 seats in the House of Lords guaranteed to Church of England bishops, was that 62 per cent of people said that no religious clerics should have “an automatic right to seats”. Only 8 per cent of people said the bishops should retain their seats while 12 per cent said leaders from other faiths should be added to sit alongside bishops as Lords Spiritual. Various reforms of the House of Lords have been proposed several times and campaigns run but have failed to generate sufficient enthusiasm, hence no reform has happened, which is a normal occurrence in a democracy. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18612233. We have not abolished the monarchy either and the HofL has been in existence from 11th century so maybe there is not sufficient enthusiasm amongst the population for letting go of these symbols of tradition. Maybe that is also why faith and grammar schools have not been abolished. I have no opinion on that one way or the other - if other people like tradition I don't have a big enough problem with it to clamour for change. Any campaigns that I involve myself with in my spare time are usually related to civilians being bombed, starved or tortured in other countries.
See above. A thought experiment: let’s say that the CofE was invented tomorrow, and that it launched a manifesto demanding the same integration and rights of access in education, in the legislation, in media reporting that it enjoys now. How many would vote for that do you think? The point here is that apathy regarding change isn’t an unfettered choice given the huge enculturation of the thing to be changed.
I don't understand your point - what do you mean when you ask how to respond to 'but that's my belief'? What's wrong with the response 'so what?' as you suggested? That response is suitable for anyone relying on belief alone and who presents no other argument for their opinion on any issue. What else are you expecting people to do in response to beliefs?
The point is that societies to varying degrees don’t respond with a “so what” to religious claims – they privilege them in all sorts of ways that affect their populations as a whole, extremely so in the case of theocracies. How long before Roe v Wade is up for grabs the US given the make-up of the Supreme Court do you think?
I have no idea what you mean by 'twist in the wind about the corrosive effect of faith in any sort of discourse interested in establishing truth". If someone presents faith as an argument, I would dismiss it with "so what". What else is it you want people to respond with instead?
I mean this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Muslim-majority_countries
This is what happens when “but that’s my faith” isn’t met with a “so what?”. You I think subscribe to a book in whose name these abuses occur. If I were you that would give me pause. Why doesn’t it you?
Yes so you keep asserting but not really seeing the truth of this demonstrated in this country. In a fairly open culture with freedom of expression, rule of law, accountability etc where is this top trumps? Maybe religion is privileged in the UK because of its association with tradition, and the voters currently do not have sufficient enthusiasm to get rid of these traditions. They certainly seem to have less trouble distancing themselves from new beliefs.
The top trumps is in debate about these matters. And yes, we two are very lucky to live in a secular country in which the rules of a religion are not also the law of the land – plenty of people around the world are not so lucky though.
There is a new belief that people can be born in the wrong body and an attempt to privilege this belief. The response after a while has been to say 'so what if you believe that?'. It is sometimes couched in less crude language but essentially that is what it boils down to when people express those beliefs but have no evidence to establish the truth of it. https://mermaidsuk.org.uk/news/do-you-still-use-the-phrase-born-in-the-wrong-body/
https://www.transgendertrend.com/born-in-the-wrong-body/
Category error: someone having gender reassignment surgery (for example) doesn’t affect anyone else; someone having their faith convictions privileged in the public square does.
In contrast, people seem to have been able to get behind the new belief that society does not have a right to prevent gay people from having civil marriages and to be able to get legislation passed accordingly, despite opposition from some religious lobby groups. No idea why there has not been similar enthusiasm for reform of HofL or abolishing faith schools. Perhaps you should post a link to studies done on lack of political enthusiasm for HofL reform or abolishing faith schools.
See above. If somehow the bishops in the HoL interposed in human rights such that it banned equal marriage no doubt there’s be more opposition to their presence by right.
In other countries run by dictators or repressive regimes or in the middle of civil wars, as expected the religious practices of those people are in line with their cultural, social and political practices i.e. some people show bravery, kindness and tolerance and some people don't.
That’s quite a pivot. The point here is that the clerics in charge are the dictators.
Are you saying that your issue is that fantastical stories appeal to human nature? I'm not really sure what you expect as a response from me? I don't have a particular affinity for fantastical stories - they are part of the traditions that some of my fellow-Muslims enjoy and sure they can be enjoyable much like Harry Potter films or older stirring stories of courage, loyalty, friendship, kindness etc. Each to their own and I can tolerate belief in fantastical stories provided the democracy and rule of law are still adhered to so there is an opportunity for me to influence and amend the laws that govern me.
No, I’m saying (yet again) that if people are enculturated to think faith claims are epistemically valid and the faith claim in question is an omniscient god, then what force could mere philosophy done by fallible humans have?
Surely if there is a lack of appeal for non-religious philosophy, which in the UK I am not sure is the case, it is a problem for the Aristotle, Spinoza and Russell proponents to solve as that's a feature of democracy. If laws are passed in a democracy that I don't agree with, sure I have a bit of a problem, but in the UK I have the option to campaign for change and try to gather popular support because of the freedoms we have here. If you want your opinions or indeed the opinions of Aristotle etc to triumph you will have to appeal to the masses.
In other societies, campaigning for change, whether it is political, social or religious change, could get you killed e.g. Afghanistan, Myanmar, China, Russia etc but that is less of an issue here. Sure we have the odd MP murdered (Jo Cox) or terrorist attacks - 7/7 or the IRA, which were justified by political and religious arguments but there is not really state-backed terror against citizens and where there is alleged to be evidence of state-inflicted violence on citizens there has eventually been inquiries and attempts at accountability such as the Saville Report on Bloody Sunday. Admittedly these take a long time to happen.
No - see above. Religion vs philosophy & reason is a rigged game – albeit to varying degrees depending on the degree of entrenchment of faith in the state concerned. That’s the point.
It's a nice story. Who knows why things appeal to us - some scientists have suggested our likes and dislikes are a mix of nature and nurture. What's your view on what governs our likes and dislikes?
Some would say that it’s anything but nice, but that’s not the point. The point rather was that if you think that the interpretation of it is all, as it’s fallible humans doing the interpreting what’s the point claiming inerrancy in the text?
No idea why I like the Quran - can't explain it. Ask the scientists. And I don't think the Quran has any special privileges.
You have got to be kidding right? Saudi Arabia? Pakistan? Afghanistan? Yemen? Need I go on?
So you'll have to ask those who do think it has special privileges.
Anyone who reads the news perhaps? I find your indifference to the practical application of a book you think to be “a nice story” to be chilling to be frank. If you at least resiled to “here’s an early and fairy crude attempt at moral philosophy written by people anchored in the realities of their time and place” that at least would be a step back from the tacit support your response gives to atrocities done in its name wouldn’t it?
No, you must have me confused with someone else. I actually believe that we can't unlock a one true message.
But you do think there is a “one true message” right? That’s the problem the moment you give credence to that idea you open the door to people convincing themselves to knowing what it is, with all that follows from that. Limit yourself to, “it’s interesting but fallible” on the other hand and that rationale goes away.
I think that's the point of it and why it is so ambiguous, especially as it is written in Arabic - you could keep yourself busy for a lifetime just trying to decipher one Surah (chapter) (there are 114 of them) and trying to figure out comparisons between the context in 7th century Arabia and how to relate it to changing societies over the centuries. But then I grew up in an academic household, went to private school, was not brought up in a particularly patriarchal family, live in a relatively liberal democracy and am a product of a cosmopolitan London culture so I enjoy complexity and dislike certainty. My experience is that someone who is a product of a different environment/ education/ family/ culture feels differently about the Quran eg. my husband. Though he agrees that the Quran does not provide certainty I think he likes certainty.
Aren’t you the lucky one then. Sadly, that’s not the experience of millions of others who have grown up in very different societies that treat (their interpretation of) that’s books rules as inerrant.
Yes some people like to fight for grand ideas. Religion is a grand idea, as is politics, nationalism, race purity, patriotism, freedom, equality, civil rights etc. The comparison with philosophers does not work unless philosophical works are being used by civil movements, lobby groups and political parties or dictators to generate mass appeal for a way of life or a government or as justification for dividing up limited resources or oppressing people's rights e.g. Marxism. Big ideas and slogans seem to be the way to go if you want support from the human masses unfortunately - must be some evolutionary reason for this. What do you think it is?
More whataboutery, and you’re conflating debatable ideas with privileged “but that’s my faith” idea too.
The people around the world committing appalling acts seem to be a product of their nature and nurture, hence there are religious people in conflict-torn countries who do not commit atrocities. Surveys show that people who commit appalling acts overwhelmingly do so for political reasons such as control of resources that may well be packaged up with some religious flavour.
So you think that, say, the people of Pakistan have a different nature and nurture such that they march in the street demanding a blasphemer be hung to the people of the UK who don’t?
Doesn’t work does it.
The key point though is that just because I clearly seem to be one of those people who like ideas that seem bigger than me such as gods, freedom, justice, accountability etc and I would be willing to fight for some of those ideas- e.g. I signed up to the British Territorial Army at university so I am not a pacifist, I don't have any desire to fight for gods, even though gods are ideas that are bigger than me. I figure any decent god should be able to fight for themselves.
But other people do, and that do it most where beliefs about gods are certain and enforced.
So no, I don't agree with your simplistic argument that religious faith leads to certainty leads to violence as the evidence seems to point to a much more complex process as this Guardian article sets our very well I think:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jul/02/religion-wars-conflict
Do you now agree with my “simplistic” argument? If not, why not?
-
Hi Gabriella – sorry it’s taken a while.
I’d have to write a thesis to reply to you point by point so I’ll try to summarise (what seem to me to be) your key issues if that’s ok.
Hi BHS. No problem. Sure.
There’s no reason for people to clamour for change if they think their beliefs are correct. The issue though is deeper than that – it’s about why they think they’re correct, especially in countries where church and state are the same thing.
Sorry, I am not sure what point you are trying to make here. Are you suggesting that the only reason people do not clamour for change is because they think their beliefs are right? Presumably most people think their beliefs are correct – if they didn’t they would not hold those beliefs surely?
Or do you agree that many people do not clamour for change for many reasons, including because an issue does not impact them negatively enough to make the effort to clamour for change? Which might mean that you might see something very negative about religious privilege but many other people might be apathetic about the issue because it does not have sufficient negative impact on them compared to some of the positives they perceive, even if they are not religious. It seems to me that not clamouring for change is the way a lot of people deal with many issues for a variety of reasons.
For example, people who are not easily offended cannot understand the fuss made by people who are easily offended, but the ‘not easily offended’ crowd are not all clamouring for change against the police using Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986, which says that despite not having the intention to be threatening, abusive or insulting or the intention to cause harassment, alarm or distress, a person "is guilty of an offence if he (a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby". https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jun/06/section-5-harassment-free-speech
So ok we have a similar situation with religion – many theists and atheists are not clamouring for change to certain religious privileges. You have not demonstrated that not clamouring for change enables us to draw any evidenced conclusion about what the theists and atheists really think about religious privilege. We just seem to have your guess here about why they are not clamouring for change.
See above. A thought experiment: let’s say that the CofE was invented tomorrow, and that it launched a manifesto demanding the same integration and rights of access in education, in the legislation, in media reporting that it enjoys now. How many would vote for that do you think? The point here is that apathy regarding change isn’t an unfettered choice given the huge enculturation of the thing to be changed.
Yes I agree there are many things that are not unfettered choices due to the prevailing cultural norms, history and tradition which can lead to biases. So far so normal. The movement trying to communicate BAME experiences of white cultural norms in predominately white countries is trying to make that very point that there are no unfettered choices.
The point is that societies to varying degrees don’t respond with a “so what” to religious claims – they privilege them in all sorts of ways that affect their populations as a whole, extremely so in the case of theocracies. How long before Roe v Wade is up for grabs the US given the make-up of the Supreme Court do you think?
Ok I agree – societies to a varying degree do not respond with “so what” to religious claims.
I mean this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Muslim-majority_countries
This is what happens when “but that’s my faith” isn’t met with a “so what?”. You I think subscribe to a book in whose name these abuses occur. If I were you that would give me pause. Why doesn’t it you?
It depends what you define as pause. I fully support anyone saying “so what” to ”that’s my faith”. That does not mean that the Quran cannot be a source of comfort or benefit to other people. https://www.legalfutures.co.uk/latest-news/quran-quoting-barrister-receives-apology-from-counsel-who-asked-him-to-stop
As this example suggests even though one person’s reaction to the Quran was “so what” it did not prevent him from acknowledging that others think differently and he was still able to find a connection and common ground. Similarly, the lawyer who advised on Sharia law practice in relation to family law acknowledged that people may have a “so what” reaction to his Quran quotes on LinkedIn and responded “I am the head of sharia law at my chambers and this platform is suitable for my practice which also happens to be my religion. If you have a problem with my messages then I would ask you to respectfully remove me from your connection.”.
This is not to support Sharia courts, which is a whole separate issue. I am just illustrating that there are different ways of handling disagreement when it comes to beliefs and that it is possible to “ acknowledge our differences and find connection on common ground; pause, reflect, move forward, carrying each other together”.
I assume you agree that people can be unhappy about specific behaviour and interpretations of beliefs without wholesale abandon of those beliefs? Hence, we have not abandoned our cultural and political beliefs in parliamentary democracy in the UK just because successive governments use laws passed by Parliament to allow UK companies to sell weapons to Middle Eastern governments that have atrocious human rights records. Similarly, it is possible for theists to acknowledge the harm religion can cause but not see a significant benefit to abandoning religion that outweighs the costs to them and their loved ones. I can of course see why other people would conclude the opposite and see the benefits of abandoning religion as outweighing any costs, but then again I could see why some people believed the benefits of Brexit outweighed the costs even though I voted Remain.
The top trumps is in debate about these matters. And yes, we two are very lucky to live in a secular country in which the rules of a religion are not also the law of the land – plenty of people around the world are not so lucky though.
Agreed that other countries with different systems of government might repress the freedom of their citizens including freedom of political or religious belief.
Category error: someone having gender reassignment surgery (for example) doesn’t affect anyone else; someone having their faith convictions privileged in the public square does.
You do not seem to understand my point. The issue is not someone’s right to have gender reassignment surgery. The issue is whether privileging someone’s belief of self-identity of their gender can let them have access to spaces designed to protect people of the opposite biological sex. The right to access these spaces – whether it is in sport, refuges, short-lists, medical health services, prisons, relationship services – does affect others.
That’s quite a pivot. The point here is that the clerics in charge are the dictators.
Not sure what point you are making by saying it’s a pivot. Are you agreeing or disagreeing with the point I made that in other countries run by dictators or repressive regimes or in the middle of civil wars, as expected the religious practices of those people are in line with their cultural, social and political practices i.e. some people show bravery, kindness and tolerance and some people don't?
My point is that the clerics combined with repressive governments with access to military resources are in charge. Communal violence ie. mobs of violent citizens attacking people with impunity means there are parts of the country where rule of law has been severely eroded. Some moderately religious politicians have formed alliances with religious extremists elements in order to use the thuggery of citizens loyal to a particular person to secure a seat in Parliament or to forcibly take over community institutions.
In Sri Lanka, for example, which is a Buddhist majority country, when local Muslim thugs proliferate hate and threaten violence in local council elections, nothing is done by the authorities or the Election Commission to hold them accountable. That is clearly not because the Buddhist authorities privilege the beliefs of Muslims but may have more to do with turning a blind-eye to local thugs for political reasons such as those thugs or their bosses being potential useful for future coercion and control of voters or to avoid a flash-point or confrontation that could lose the government future political capital or it may be just a lack of police resources to tackle the issue of local violence. Whatever the complex reasons, religious privilege being the cause is simplistic and not a convincing argument due to lack of supporting evidence. There may be evidence that demonstrates that focusing on that argument has helped solve the problems in these countries and happy to take a look at any links you provide of a case study of these types of countries that support your argument.
No, I’m saying (yet again) that if people are enculturated to think faith claims are epistemically valid and the faith claim in question is an omniscient god, then what force could mere philosophy done by fallible humans have?
You must be relieved then that culture is changing in the UK and people can be religious without being encultured to think faith claims are epistemically valid even if the claims involve omniscient gods. The more multi-cultural UK has become, the more people become aware that the competing faith claims involving competing omniscient gods can’t all be epistemically valid. Hopefully that realisation will eventually seep through to other parts of the world, which are less multi-cultural. The more cultures open up due to quick and cheap travel and communication between remote culturally-closed areas, the more opportunities there are for people to learn about and acknowledge differences in perspective. How people respond to those opportunities will be down to a variety of social, political, economic, technological, religious, cultural, educational, evolutionary, and genetic factors.
No - see above. Religion vs philosophy & reason is a rigged game – albeit to varying degrees depending on the degree of entrenchment of faith in the state concerned. That’s the point.
See above. You must be glad that this is changing whereby other factors play an increasing influence on people due to changing technology.
Some would say that it’s anything but nice, but that’s not the point. The point rather was that if you think that the interpretation of it is all, as it’s fallible humans doing the interpreting what’s the point claiming inerrancy in the text?
Claiming inerrancy in the text is part of the tradition – it’s just one of the beliefs that give followers a sense of there being something sacred about the book. Obviously no one can establish the truth of this claim . It gives the Quran more value and means people handle the book with respect when they pick it up or put it down. It gives followers a feeling that an unseen, immaterial Allah is near and they feel connected by the words even if they cannot understand the words clearly. That’s why people feel comforted by reciting the Quran in Arabic even though they often have no clue about the meaning because they have not studied Arabic.
You have got to be kidding right? Saudi Arabia? Pakistan? Afghanistan? Yemen? Need I go on?
You seem to have misunderstood my point, which was that I don’t think the Quran has any special privilege. Other people might think the Quran has special privilege.
Anyone who reads the news perhaps? I find your indifference to the practical application of a book you think to be “a nice story” to be chilling to be frank. If you at least resiled to “here’s an early and fairy crude attempt at moral philosophy written by people anchored in the realities of their time and place” that at least would be a step back from the tacit support your response gives to atrocities done in its name wouldn’t it?
Your feelings are noted. I am sorry you find my response chilling based on your interpretation of my response as tacit support for atrocities. Presumably you do not expect your interpretation and your feelings to be an over-riding factor in my reasoning of how I should respond to things?
I do not blindly accept other people’s interpretations of the Quran or their interpretations of my responses. All I can suggest is that you could try changing your interpretation of my response or try adopting a different perspective if you want to feel less chilled. Or not. Up to you.
But you do think there is a “one true message” right? That’s the problem the moment you give credence to that idea you open the door to people convincing themselves to knowing what it is, with all that follows from that. Limit yourself to, “it’s interesting but fallible” on the other hand and that rationale goes away.
If you mean do I believe it is true that there is a supernatural creator entity communicating that we are all different and will have different interpretations to the same input due to brain and environmental differences and we should try to acknowledge and be tolerant of our different understanding of inputs to try to find a way to live relatively peaceably together, then yes I think that is true. I don't think the human race is capable of eliminating violence but we can certainly learn to improve on how we deal with differences.
And no I don’t believe that you have demonstrated that my belief in an inerrant supernatural entity opens the door for other people to convince themselves to knowing what messages from that entity mean. I also don’t think you have demonstrated that people who think they know what is right, true or correct open the door for other people to commit atrocities in the name of what they believe is right, true or correct.
Not that I mind if you hold that belief about opening doors if you believe it is true and you are right.
Aren’t you the lucky one then. Sadly, that’s not the experience of millions of others who have grown up in very different societies that treat (their interpretation of) that’s books rules as inerrant.
Yes I would agree with you – we are lucky in many ways – we have lots of privileges such as wealth, education, family structure, living in a country with rule of law, political and legal accountability.
More whataboutery, and you’re conflating debatable ideas with privileged “but that’s my faith” idea too.
Disagree. For example, I think many of the ideas I mentioned are privileged in the laws of the UK and in what is taught in schools so why the special pleading for religious privilege? I do not agree that religious ideas are not up for debate. Any idea is up for debate regardless of whether the person advancing the idea tries to justify it with "that's my faith" or "I really, really, really believe it's true". Whether political, ethical, religious etc ideas are up for debate depends on the culture or society they are being brought up in. That’s not whataboutery – that’s the complexity of human interaction.
So you think that, say, the people of Pakistan have a different nature and nurture such that they march in the street demanding a blasphemer be hung to the people of the UK who don’t?
Doesn’t work does it.
I’m not sure where to start with that generalisation. The people of Pakistan do not all march the street demanding a blasphemer be hung. Pakistan has a population of over 212 million. But do I think the minority who do march demanding death to blasphemers have a different nature/ nurture from those who don’t march in Pakistan or any other country making those demands? Yes I do for the reasons given about determinism and reasoning and cause and effect and genetic, cultural, social, political, economic and technological environments, upbringing, education and life circumstances influencing people’s perspectives, emotions and behaviour. What is your explanation why some people’s religious interpretations are benign and others are violent?
But other people do, and that do it most where beliefs about gods are certain and enforced.
Do you now agree with my “simplistic” argument? If not, why not?
I agree with parts of them. I see your point that for some people having certainty that what they are doing is right can sometimes lead to violent atrocities. I do not agree that the certainty leading to violent actions by those people is a reason for other law-abiding people to abandon their religious faith. I think more can be achieved by finding common ground, which may or may not include retaining faith, and using that to reform people’s behaviour, though this is at times slow-going, as are any cultural changes that requires self-awareness. I think when I talk to Muslims as a Muslim, I can understand certain aspects of their thinking and I do not have the same reaction to some of their religious ideas even if I disagree with them, as an atheist would have to those ideas. As a Muslim, I can disagree, influence and persuade a Muslim in a different manner from an atheist. And being on this forum has helped me understand how to communicate better with atheists and to understand better where atheists are coming from and to re-examine some of the problems caused by religion.
Useful communication requires people to pause, to honestly examine their perceptions, reactions and outlook, acknowledge differences while trying to find commonality to move forward. Some people find this easier to do than others. I think you and I have a lot of common ground despite me having a religious faith and you having none.
-
I’m not sure where to start with that generalisation. The people of Pakistan do not all march the street demanding a blasphemer be hung. Pakistan has a population of over 212 million. But do I think the minority who do march demanding death to blasphemers have a different nature/ nurture from those who don’t march in Pakistan or any other country making those demands? Yes I do for the reasons given about determinism and reasoning and cause and effect and genetic, cultural, social, political, economic and technological environments, upbringing, education and life circumstances influencing people’s perspectives, emotions and behaviour.
I fully recognise that those people in Pakistan that march demanding death to blasphemers will be a tiny minority of the huge population of that country.
But the rest of your post implies, to me, that you consider those that march not to be in step with the majority and/or establishment position within that country. But that is not true. Pakistan is a country that has laws against blasphemy and hands out death penalties to those that it considers have been blasphemous.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/1/8/pakistan-court-sentences-three-to-death-for-blasphemy
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2021/02/pakistan-christian-couple-death-row/
Note that these links are from the last couple of months.
So those that march (regardless of whether they are a minority) are aligned with the establishment position within Pakistan which accepts that blasphemy is a criminal offence and one so significant that the death penalty is appropriate. That is the issue and that is the (literally murderous) problem.
-
I fully recognise that those people in Pakistan that march demanding death to blasphemers will be a tiny minority of the huge population of that country.
But the rest of your post implies, to me, that you consider those that march not to be in step with the majority and/or establishment position within that country. But that is not true. Pakistan is a country that has laws against blasphemy and hands out death penalties to those that it considers have been blasphemous.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/1/8/pakistan-court-sentences-three-to-death-for-blasphemy
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2021/02/pakistan-christian-couple-death-row/
Note that these links are from the last couple of months.
So those that march (regardless of whether they are a minority) are aligned with the establishment position within Pakistan which accepts that blasphemy is a criminal offence and one so significant that the death penalty is appropriate. That is the issue and that is the (literally murderous) problem.
A couple of minutes more research would have informed you that Pakistan has had trouble with mob rule by a violent extremist minority on a variety of issues. In this case it is to support blasphemy laws that were originally introduced by the British to make it easier to rule their colony and subsequently strengthened in the late 1970s by the military dictator, General Zia Huq, to make it easier for him to hold onto political power. So this religious identity to divide communities was cultivated by the British to further their own interests and then perpetuated after independence by politicians as a tool to protect national interests, including the widespread growth of extremist Wahabi madrassas funded by the Saudis. Extremists were cultivated as cannon-fodder to go fight wars in Afghanistan against perceived threats to Pakistan's interests and also used as political muscle in local issues.
As about 40% of the 212 million people in Pakistan are currently illiterate, that's about 85 million people who can't read and who can be persuaded that Pakistan's blasphemy laws are from the Quran rather than the brainchild of wily British and Pakistani politicians. In addition, the number of people living in poverty in Pakistan has risen considerably over the years https://tribune.com.pk/story/2115274/2-millions-fall-poverty-line and it's amazing how an economic recession can turn people against minorities and each other e.g. here in England to the point of voting for Brexit due to the spread of misinformation when they can't even agree on what Brexit means.
And if the majority of respondents to a survey in Britain thought violence against MPs was acceptable https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/majority-of-voters-think-violence-against-mps-is-a-price-worth-paying-over-brexit-165121/ this may have influenced why MPs eventually voted to pass the Brexit bill in Parliament and have not revoked it.
Many political parties have it as part of their manifesto to reform the blasphemy laws. The problem is an extremist minority have targeted and assassinated politicians or members of the judicial system who attempt to reform these laws. The establishment is afraid - they don't want to get murdered by an extremist. As the inter-communal riots in India and Pakistan show, not very easy to control a violent mob so who wants to take the risk given the high level of gun ownership amongst civilians in Pakistan?