The Pope appoints a woman to the synod of bishops.

[bluehillside Retd.]

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. 

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

[bluehillside Retd.]

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.   

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

[bluehillside Retd.]

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?   

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

[bluehillside Retd.]

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?             

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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

[bluehillside Retd.]

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?
   

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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?