Gabriella,
We're not talking about theoretical classical economics, we're talking real world where markets are not completely free and where people are influenced to consume all kinds of ideas by lots of different factors.
Which still misses the point that religion is so deeply embedded (by law even non-religious schools are supposed to have a “daily act of worship” for example) that our “real world” is a heavily rigged game. “Not completely free” is significantly to understate the issue.
As I said if the consumer finds value in religion, they will buy. I am not implying anything is impossible - I am saying we live in a relatively free, democratic country and while consumers exist who derive value from religion, they will keep buying and they also may or may not keep privileging religious entities if they derive value from doing so. When they stop deriving value from religion those religious privileges will be revoked. Not sure why consumer behaviour is a difficult idea for you to grasp. Yes it is influenced by prevailing culture but that holds true for most goods and services, not just religion.
You’re still missing it – see above. If religious faiths were private members’ clubs (think Flat Earth Society for example) how many “consumers” would “buy” them do you think? And if, like me, you think the number would be a very small proportion of those who “buy” them just now, what does that tell you about the importance of being so deeply embedded in the machinery of the societies in which they do OK? Do you really think that if, say, the C of E were stripped of its privileges and left to fight its corner on its arguments (a la Brexiteers etc) its numbers wouldn’t dwindle even further? How about if we did away with faith schools?
Again that is up to consumers and a free press and social media to decide that they are no longer interested in Welby's pronouncements on a topic. In which case the media will stop broadcasting it. Right now, there is a perception that consumers are interested in what he has to say.
See above. Why is there that “perception” do you think?
Oh I see - so your comment about me being a paid up member of faith that kills people for drawing cartoons of Prophet Mohamed was not trying to single out a particular faith and claim that killing people who draw cartoons was what every member of that faith signed up for?
It’s simpler than that. Not only was I not trying to say it, I didn’t say that at all. By all means though if you think otherwise then try to show where I did say that "every member of that faith (had) signed up for".
Oh, and you’ve completely missed the actual
argument, namely that “faith” is the common underpinning, and that its objects and instructions are a secondary matter. Take away the “it’s inerrantly true because my faith tells me so” and only then can argument or reason have a role at all.
My mistake for thinking that was the kind of bigoted nonsensical rubbish argument you were trying to make.
Yes it was your mistake – see above.
And no, your simplistic version of an imaginary conversation "it's my faith" is not the end of the conversation. Though I get that you have to keep repeating it as it's the nonsense that underpins your whole unconvincing argument.
Throwing in “simplistic”, "unconvincing” etc doesn’t actually make an argument for any of those things being true. You do know that right?
If you believe these pejoratives to be true nonetheless, then you’d need actually
to address the argument itself to make a case.
As a consumer who derives value from a faith and therefore keeps buying, the conversation is a lot more nuanced than "it's my faith". But you already knew that because it's been explained to you by me and others many times, but you choose to ignore it, either wilfully or because it is too difficult for you to grasp.
Still missing it. I don’t doubt for one moment that you do “derive value” from your faith. Good for you. That though has nothing to do with the point, namely that those who would
make objective claims of fact about the world “because that’s my faith” are in not even wrong territory. You’re free to feel as warm and loved up as you like about your various beliefs – what you can’t expect though is to have the attendant claims of fact (”God is” etc) privileged over just guessing because they happen to be your faith beliefs.
It’s simple enough I’d have thought, so why keep avoiding what’s actually being said?
You also already know that regardless of how many times you try to equate faith with criminal acts by religious 3rd parties, consumers are still going to keep buying religion because they derive value from it.
What “3rd parties” would they be?
Anyway, as you’ve just continued with the same irrelevance as above I’ll leave it be I think.
Except it is not a hopeless analogy but you're welcome to think it is based on your skewed interpretation.
Again just using pejoratives in the hope no-one notices that you have no arguments to validate them isn’t helping you. It’s a hopeless analogy because people arguing for Brexit have none of the privileges I mentioned that religion has, and nor do Brexiteers claim inerrant certainty on the basis of their "faith" – QED.
My point about Brexit is that it reflects the democratic will of the UK population with the information they took on board as part of their decision-making process. And yes there was a lot of faith in the idea that Britain would be great again if it could free itself politically and legislatively from the EU.
Then it continues to be a bad point for the reasons I've explained.
First, you’re conflating the religious use of “faith” (ie, as an epistemologically valid tool) with the political one (ie, as trusting to luck when the evidence and argument cease).
Second, yet again you’re just ignoring the massive access by right that religion has to the instruments of state and of society more generally that other polemical positions don’t have. Why do you think you have such a blind spot about this?
As I said before, given that many people of faith have opposing views on many issues, including equal marriage, that's not their only argument. Some people's arguments hinge on whether or not they think individuals being free to live as they please is the type of society that benefits the most amount of people. It's not a difficult concept to grasp that some people do not like the way their society is changing because they feel it is in a worse state than it was before and therefore vote to limit other people's freedoms.
Nope again. Of course “people of faith” will have opposing views on many issues – that’s the thing with “holy” texts: you can often take from them whatever suits you best. The
point though is that what they generally have in common is the notion that personal faith is more reliable than just guessing - much more in fact as it's inerrantly correct - and that they behave accordingly.
Why not actually address that rather than dance around it?
So if I said LGBT rights or Pink News or Stonewall makes my skin crawl that would also be acceptable on the basis that you saying that Islam or Christianity makes your skin crawl is not actually targeting Muslim or Christian people?
It’s “acceptable” inasmuch as I’d defend your right to say it (and to say pretty much anything else), yes. I think you’d be wrong to say these things though, and I also think you should afford me the same courtesy that I show you by defending my right to say why I think you’d be wrong. (And if my right to free speech happens to be drawing a cartoon of someone you think to be a prophet by the way, then so be it).
The point though is that my skin would only crawl (for want of a better term) if you
also said, “and I know beyond any possible counter-argument that I’m right about that because my faith tells me so.” Why? Because then you’d have put yourself beyond any meaningful dialogue so my only response could be, “so ****ing what?”
No - calling people consumers is not arguing that people choose their beliefs. I am arguing that people buy religion based on their personal experience and belief that it adds value.
And its deeply embedded nature makes no difference to the buy-in rate do you think?
Seriously though?
The same way lots of people of faith have looked at their holy book and decided that there could be a variety of interpretations of what's actually written in the text or what should be practised, given the circumstances and context of the time that the text was written.
But if you think these texts are just early attempts at moral philosophy, what role is there then for “faith”?
Look, you can’t have it both ways: either you think these texts to be the inerrant words of a god because that's your faith, or you think they’re reflective of the mores of the times of their authors but no more certain in their content than, say, the works of Plato.
Which is it?
More importantly, so what if someone who regards aspects of their own behaviour as a sin also regards someone else's behaviour as a sin? Last time I checked we are not policing people's beliefs, only their behaviour. The only issue is what is legal, and given that a faith view on sin no longer determines laws in this country, the idea of sin has little impact on the workings of Parliament. This has been explained to you many times before. Why is it so difficult for you to comprehend, given the evidence of equal marriage laws?
Oh dear. Of course people are free to think whatever they like. If someone thinks though that, say, homosexuality is a “sin” because his faith tells him so then on what basis could he be persuaded that his God’s word on that issue is wrong? And if that person happens to be, say, a senior cleric whose views are treated seriously in the pubic square (schools, legislature, education, media etc) then how on earth do you think the added credibility that gives him
doesn’t bias the public debate, the Zeitgeist if you will more than, say, the views of the head of the Flat Earth Society?
Incidentally, the “laws in this country” are much more influenced by religion than you might think. We still have clerics taking seats by right in the House of Lords, we still have statutes that favour religion (the legal obligation for mandatory daily acts of worship in schools for example), we still have the RC church telling RC MPs how they should vote on certain issues, we still have exemptions for churches from various equality laws etc. Don’t kid yourself that this stuff is all history.
So presumably, given all the reasoning and evidence presented to you, you are not holding a faith position that the conversation ends at "it's my faith".
It’s not a “faith position”, it’s an
evidence position. “But that’s my faith” is routinely used by theists as an epistemic justification for their views. What counter-argument to that even conceptually do you think there could be?
Nor are you holding the faith position that Parliamentary legislation is based on what is considered a sin from a faith perspective.
No I’m not. I’m holding an
evidence position about that – see above.
Nor are you surprised that consumers who derive value from religion are hardly likely to give it up, regardless of your often repeated faith position that law-abiding religious people provide intellectual cover for religious criminals.
First, (again) “deriving value” and making objective, “true for you too”,
claims of fact about the world are not the same thing at all. We’re talking about religion here, not yoga.
Second, I’m not surprised for the reasons I keep explaining and you keep ignoring.
Third, think of smoking as an analogy: lots of people “derive value” from it and there’s no great public will to outlaw it entirely. It’s still to a significant extent woven into the fabric of society and so is still substantially normalised. Now imagine there was no such thing as cigarettes, and someone invented them tomorrow. Knowing what we know now, do you really thing there’d be anything like the buy-in for them that there is just now?
No? Why not?
Now imagine too that FOREST (the smokers' lobby group) had the sort of access to every aspect of society that religion has. How many buyers would there be then do you think?
Now imagine too that we lived in a country where the arguments from ASH (the anti-smoking people) were called "blasphemous", they were locked up (or worse) etc. How many more smokers would there be then do you think?
Is any of this sinking in yet?
Anything at all?
