The Pope appoints a woman to the synod of bishops.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[SusanDoris]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[SusanDoris]

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!

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[bluehillside Retd.]

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?     

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[SusanDoris]

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.

[bluehillside Retd.]

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.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

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. 

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

   

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.

[bluehillside Retd.]

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.     

[Harrowby Hall]

I hereby declare this thread to be well and truly derailed.

[bluehillside Retd.]

HH,

I hereby declare this thread to be well and truly derailed.

I agree. Sorry.

[Roses]

Totally derailed and then some.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

 

[bluehillside Retd.]

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.   

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

[bluehillside Retd.]

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.   

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

[bluehillside Retd.]

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.

[SusanDoris]

#47

Very interesting read from sttart to finish.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.