How could you claim to not believe in God when you didn't read everything about the early church, the entire Catechism of the church, Padre Pio, Saint Francis....people who spoke with God... People gained so much from belief in God and had tremendous experiences!
I believe that this argument fails for many reasons.
The argument from utility that is underlying the final part of the above argument does nothing to prove that the claims being made by Christianity are true. I cover this more in depth here. People can gain great insight from Christianity, great, but this doesn't suggest that their beliefs are true.
We don't need to read everything or completely exhaust all sources of information before rejecting claims being made by people. There are millions of things we don't believe in such as unicorns, faeries, leprechauns, etc. Do we need to read the encyclopedia of unicorns and read all of the books written by unicorn believers before rejecting the claims that are made? Of course not. We don't need to search every corner of the universe before we reject the claims made by unicorn believers. With the current knowledge and arguments that are on the proverbial table, we reject the claims made by unicorn and God believers because they are insufficient.
After using the analogy of unicorns and even other religious claims, my "opponent" told me that God is more important than unicorns and other religions and followed up with "it is so foolish to reject God because he is greater than anything that possibly can exist." I told him that that's just a subjective judgment and it doesn't matter anyway because I wouldn't accept something even if it were greater than anything imaginable because there's no good reason to believe it. This seemed to be a watered down version of Pascal's Wager.
I used another analogy like this:
Imagine that someone comes to you claiming that if you take his water medicine that you'll be cured of your medical maladies. You can reject his claim without reading all books on homeopathy and hearing from all people who believe the someone. Homeopaths make very specific claims and we can reject them because there is no good reason to accept the claims.
Although I dictated that I read arguments for and against theism, listened to numerous debates, had so many conversations...apparently, that's not enough if you didn't read "x and x." Well, it is. We don't need to exhaust all possible sources of knowledge or testimony before rejecting claims.
We don't accept the claims that people are abducted by aliens, people talk to the dead, tarot cards are reliable, Bigfoot exists.... and we don't need to read all of what's out there to be on firm ground.
There are millions of things we don't believe in such as unicorns, faeries, leprechauns, etc. Do we need to read the encyclopedia of unicorns and read all of the books written by unicorn believers before rejecting the claims that are made?
ReplyDeleteThis is the most breathtakingly stupid thing that I have read over here yet.
Is it your opinion that all beliefs are of equal weight, and if so, why is that?
JD, its the crux of the argument. And really, makes perfect sense. Belief in unicorns is an unsubstantiated belief in an entity that has not been proven or disproven to exist, just like the belief in 'God'.
ReplyDeleteWhat I would like to know is what makes the theists claims that 'God' exists special or carry more weight than belief in any other unproven entity.
Courtier's Reply
ReplyDeleteJD,
If it's breathtakingly stupid to equate two unevidenced ideas, then you'll have to explain why. Just note that special pleading (it's just different because I -or some other person - say so) or argumentum ad populum (but more people believe in my god than unicorns) are logical fallacies and will not be accepted as valid arguments.
I simply don't need to exhaust all sources of information to not believe in something. I've heard the arguments from theists and have found them to be insufficient.
ReplyDeleteJust note that special pleading ([they are] just [the same] because I -or some other person - say so)
ReplyDeleteSo by your own definition, wouldn't the reverse be true in Justin's case? A belief is untrue 'cause I said so, which thus makes it a logical falacy?
I'm not saying that a belief is untrue because I say so. I say that the belief in God is unsubstantiated because there is no good evidence, reason, or argument to believe the claim.
ReplyDelete"How could you claim to not believe in God when you didn't read everything about the early church, the entire Catechism of the church, Padre Pio, Saint Francis…"
ReplyDeleteThis is one of my favorites.
On the one hand, in contemporary Christianity, it's supposed to be an everyman, available to all, mind-of-a-child, personal-relationship type of offer. On the other hand, you're not allowed to dismiss the offer without exhaustively engaging centuries of accumulated 'wisdom' and theology.
Man and his context were spontaneously fully-formed by an eternal and intelligent God. The God then died/sacraficed his Son in order to save mankind from eternity in the hell that He prepared for mankind. These propositions are absurd on their face: we don't need to understand the happiness and 'insight' these beliefs engendered in some individuals in order to disregard them.
I prefer my happiness and insight to be as delusion-free as possible.
My most favorite moment of the Troll ever- "The Pink Swastika". Thursday, March 4, 2010.
ReplyDeletehttp://treesforlunch.blogspot.com/2010/03/pink-swastika.html
With the almost as intelligent follow up, The Pink Swastika 2, March 6, 2010.
http://treesforlunch.blogspot.com/2010/03/pink-swastika-part-ii.html
We all need to be thanking the troll for saving us from the threat of the homosexual (insert deep southern accent), and by showing us, with his utmost intelligence, how skewed the Nazi party was in their gayness.
We all need to be thanking the troll for saving us from the threat of the homosexual (insert deep southern accent), and by showing us, with his utmost intelligence, how skewed the Nazi party was in their gayness
ReplyDeleteIs this coming from a guy that refuses to answer direct questions?
What in the above entries indicates that I am a troll?
I realize that you think that I stated that I was "saving us from the threat of the homosexual (insert deep southern accent)" and that you think that I stated "how skewed the Nazi party was in their gayness", but what was the terminology that I used? Are you even accurate in you assesment?>
JD,
ReplyDelete"So by your own definition, wouldn't the reverse be true in Justin's case? A belief is untrue 'cause I said so, which thus makes it a logical falacy?"
I'm sorry, but completely unsurprised that A) you don't know what special pleading is and B) you were completely unable to actually deal with the challenge/objection leveled at you. I find it especially ironic that you'd continue to castigate people for supposedly not answering your questions when you continually evade them as a seeming profession. I believe there's some projection going on.
I DO NOT FEED TROLLS... Justin, the brilliance that is plaguing your blog is all there for you to see. That is, if he did not take it down already. And, if you comment, he will threaten you with legal action, and delete your comments. He has brought it on himself.
ReplyDeleteWhile I don't disagree with the argument here, I would suggest that one would have to be well acquainted with the subject matter before one could categorically dismiss the value of religion as such, and I speak here of religion in the very broadest sense, West and East. It seems those who dismiss all religion and religious philosophy on the basis of their rejection of, say, theism, are denying themselves access to a lot of wisdom they would probably not find anywhere else.
ReplyDeleteWhat wisdom? What has religion taught us? What can we say that we know because of religion? I've asked this question quite a bit of believers and I find the lack of answers quite telling.
ReplyDeleteI have in mind contemplative/meditative practices and techniques - this is of course more the domain of Eastern religion. My favorite religious philosophy can be found in the prajnaparamita texts of Buddhism, for instance. I'm not saying everyone will find it meaningful, since we all have differing dispositions and interests, but personally it has worked for me and I've found nothing remotely as fulfilling within Western secularism and skepticism, as important as these two modes of thinking indeed are. I suppose for those with a disposition to appreciate existentialist questions and concerns, religious philosophy might hold an interest.
ReplyDeleteMoreover, I would also point out that since religion and culture have universally appeared together, to divorce the achievements of human culture from religion would be questionable. Religious and metaphysical impulses have driven our culture and all cultures, including the scientific quest for true reality, or, including the humanistic impulse and the concept of human rights and the sense of the way things 'ought' to be. Religion has never been a phenomenon existing separately from particular cultures, as if floating about in Plato's realm of perfect forms (another essentially religious idea that we still learn about in Philosophy101) therefore any generalization must be very qualified. On an individual level, there are plenty of people who attest that their religion, as a path to be walked with a particular goal in mind, is able to disclose personal truths about the self and the world that would perhaps be inaccessible to other methodologies. These personal truths, one might say, is what one can know 'because of religion'. I say this because, again, where else might one find them?
ReplyDeletePeace,
Mike
These personal truths, one might say, is what one can know 'because of religion'. I say this because, again, where else might one find them?
ReplyDeleteRead my post about naturalistic morality. We can easily arrive at moral conclusions without adhering to a religion.
On an individual level, there are plenty of people who attest that their religion, as a path to be walked with a particular goal in mind, is able to disclose personal truths about the self and the world that would perhaps be inaccessible to other methodologies.
If it just ended at that, it would be fine, but people make claims about objective reality such as a god exists, Jesus came back from the dead, Jesus was born of a virgin, etc. If people just derived moral lessons and guidance from religions, that would be fine, but when they start gaining harmful beliefs and acting on them, there are problems. When people start inspiring and perpetuating false hope, credulity, irrational thinking, there is also a problem.
If you gain insight from Eastern philosophy, great! If you like the eightfold path, awesome! Buddhists, for example, aren't saying that the eightfold path is a warrant to kill people who disagree. They won't use their books to legitimize bad behavior or legislate harmful laws...
If religion were really just personal truths about the self, we'd be in good standing, but it's often more than just that.
"I have in mind contemplative/meditative practices and techniques - this is of course more the domain of Eastern religion."
ReplyDeleteAnd how did religion teach you that meditation works? Why does one need to be religious to meditate? Have we conducted studies to check on this meditation stuff to ensure that it works, and wouldn't that be science teaching us about the world, not religion?
"Moreover, I would also point out that since religion and culture have universally appeared together, to divorce the achievements of human culture from religion would be questionable."
That's a double-edged sword isn't it? To divorce the history of bloodshed from religion would be questionable as well then, wouldn't it? Still, this doesn't answer the mail. Just because a person who learned something about the world was religious doesn't mean that religion informed that person of anything at all. Did Newton pray to learn about gravity, did he learn through religious texts or revelation, or did he learn through the process of testing and experimentation?
"On an individual level, there are plenty of people who attest that their religion, as a path to be walked with a particular goal in mind, is able to disclose personal truths about the self and the world that would perhaps be inaccessible to other methodologies. These personal truths, one might say, is what one can know 'because of religion'. I say this because, again, where else might one find them?"
I reject this completely. What one claims to have learned from religion will be completely contradicted by people of other religions, and in many cases by people from the same religion. In what sense can we say that religion has taught us anything when it is similarly teaching us contradictory things at the same time? It's not.
We don't actually learn anything from the process of having faith. We learn from empirical study of the world - the scientific method. What your revelation supposedly teaches you is not actual knowledge, nor is it "learned" or "known."
Hi Justin,
ReplyDeleteI agree that there is a lot of bad religion out there, and I make no pretense of defending it (I grew up with it myself). I don't think I've found myself substantially disagreeing with any of your arguments or conclusions that I've read. I’m mainly concerned about religion’s categorical dismissal by its being understood and depicted only one way. This includes narrow depictions both as good or as bad. Generalizations are by nature abstractions and limited. By categorically denying religion any validity, people may be closing themselves off to the helpful and relevant things that can be found within religious traditions, throwing the proverbial baby out with the bathwater, and furthermore denying an important (in both a historical and existential sense) dimension/mode of human thought and life. So I agree that, say, taking the gospel story literally and making it a point of contention is not good - as it is stifling to both personal and cultural development. I believe it is indeed desirable if not necessary for us to move beyond this type of religious thinking. In an important sense, however, I think it would also ultimately be wise to move beyond moving beyond religion, and rediscover the relevance of the religious mode of human life, thought, and practice (as indeed many religious thinkers have been doing, especially in light of the reality of pluralism and comparative studies). Nihilism is still a specter that haunts the Western a-religious enterprise. Nietzsche’s proclamation that ‘God is dead’ was not, as I understand it, simply a dismissal of supernatural theism; rather, it was pointing to the fall of the entire Western metaphysical enterprise. With ‘sacredness’ deconstructed and disposed of, there is only the abyss. That's not really offering the majority of people anything, except perhaps for a few people who are willing to take that plunge, and it's certainly nothing a stable society can be built around.
Hi GCT,
ReplyDeleteI shall enclose your quotations in double asterisks.
**That's a double-edged sword isn't it? To divorce the history of bloodshed from religion would be questionable as well then, wouldn't it?**
Yes, of course. My point is that it is questionable to divorce a religion from its culture and vice-versa.
**Still, this doesn't answer the mail. Just because a person who learned something about the world was religious doesn't mean that religion informed that person of anything at all. Did Newton pray to learn about gravity, did he learn through religious texts or revelation, or did he learn through the process of testing and experimentation?**
If the religious path was indeed the vehicle for discovery, then the religious path can be credited for the discovery. If one happens to find personal transformation because of his religious path, it would seem a bit ungrateful to claim it all for himself.
**I reject this completely. What one claims to have learned from religion will be completely contradicted by people of other religions, and in many cases by people from the same religion. In what sense can we say that religion has taught us anything when it is similarly teaching us contradictory things at the same time? It's not.
We don't actually learn anything from the process of having faith. We learn from empirical study of the world - the scientific method. What your revelation supposedly teaches you is not actual knowledge, nor is it "learned" or "known."**
It seems to me, with all due respect, that your own assumptions about the nature of religion are limited to the categories you have decided upon in advance, whether consciously or unconsciously. Within such a perspective, there really is no warrant for arguing, since the religious mode of thinking is dismissed by fiat. Now, you are very welcome to think what you will about my 'revelation', whatever that might mean, but I would just note that your assumptions about what I am talking about have no legislative power. The practices I speak of are fully able to be confirmed and realized in an intimate way, and there really is no need to advance any claims of 'revelation' beyond that basic fact.
Peace,
Mike
As sort of a side note, I would say that the scientific enterprise has been very dependent on faith - I think particularly of theoretical physics which can seem at times very metaphysical, or even theological. Not in the formalisms, of course, but in the concerns that actually motivate our researchers. Many of our great scientists have maintained a faith in a universe that can really be known - its ontological nature captured in mathematical formalisms and considerations - and perhaps most fundamental is the quasi-religious conviction that reality is one, a unity of being. These convictions come from many places and constitute what some have called 'meta-science'. But where they don't from is pure empirical data.
ReplyDeleteWhen I use the term "religion," I typically mean monotheistic religions. As I discussed before, I agree with Sam Harris that many of the "eastern religions" aren't "religions" like the western sense of the term. The "eastern religions" like Buddhism aren't dogmatic or tied to ritual, but rather are avenues of self-improvement and not belief in a deity.
ReplyDeleteMichadelic,
ReplyDelete"Nihilism is still a specter that haunts the Western a-religious enterprise."
Only because theists incorrectly insist that atheism inexoribly leads to nihilism.
"...and it's certainly nothing a stable society can be built around."
Are you seriously contending that a stable society can not be built around reason and rationality, but instead must have people who believe in superstitions? This ignores the rise of secularism and the stabilizing influence it has had in our societies. How stable were the European societies of just a couple hundred years ago that relied on rule of a divinely selected king? How stable are they now that they are largely secular? Your claim is demonstrably untrue.
"Yes, of course. My point is that it is questionable to divorce a religion from its culture and vice-versa."
Yet, that's what you are trying to do.
"If the religious path was indeed the vehicle for discovery, then the religious path can be credited for the discovery. If one happens to find personal transformation because of his religious path, it would seem a bit ungrateful to claim it all for himself."
How would anyone ever prove it was the religious path completely devoid of the larger societal influence? Secondly, what can one say that one has actually learned from religion in this instance? If someone decides to be a better person simply because they fear that god will punish them if they don't, can we really claim that they've learned something or that they've gained some wisdom and that it came from religion? Of course not.
"It seems to me, with all due respect, that your own assumptions about the nature of religion are limited to the categories you have decided upon in advance, whether consciously or unconsciously."
Way to completely avoid the point that I made, for one. Secondly, you are simply wrong. There's nothing assumed in taking religion for what it is. What is it? It's a belief in superstition that is unevidenced and irrational. How does believing in that for which I have no evidence confer upon me any sort of wisdom or knowledge? It is only thru empirical testing that we gain actual knowledge about the world.
"Within such a perspective, there really is no warrant for arguing, since the religious mode of thinking is dismissed by fiat."
No, it's dismissed becaused the theist can not point to anything that we actually gain from religion. It's dismissed because the "religious mode of thinking" is based upon not thinking at all, but uncritical acceptance of superstition.
"Now, you are very welcome to think what you will about my 'revelation', whatever that might mean, but I would just note that your assumptions about what I am talking about have no legislative power."
What does any of this have to do with "legislative power?"
"The practices I speak of are fully able to be confirmed and realized in an intimate way, and there really is no need to advance any claims of 'revelation' beyond that basic fact."
And, how will you confirm and realize them, through prayer, through revelation, or through empirical study?
"As sort of a side note, I would say that the scientific enterprise has been very dependent on faith..."
ReplyDeleteThen, you know very little about how science works. What part of the scientific method has "faith" in it?
"Many of our great scientists have maintained a faith in a universe that can really be known - its ontological nature captured in mathematical formalisms and considerations - and perhaps most fundamental is the quasi-religious conviction that reality is one, a unity of being."
They try to explain the universe, yes. Where's the faith part? If we succeed, we succeed, if we fail, we fail. And what is this "reality is one" stuff that you claim is quasi-religious? I smell strawman from someone who doesn't understand the subject matter and is making things up.
"But where they don't from is pure empirical data."
And yet, what we do know what we can say we have wisdom about does come from empirical data and study, always.
Hello GCT,
ReplyDelete**Only because theists incorrectly insist that atheism inexoribly leads to nihilism.**
Then they would be incorrect indeed.
**Are you seriously contending that a stable society can not be built around reason and rationality, but instead must have people who believe in superstitions? This ignores the rise of secularism and the stabilizing influence it has had in our societies. How stable were the European societies of just a couple hundred years ago that relied on rule of a divinely selected king? How stable are they now that they are largely secular? Your claim is demonstrably untrue.**
How about without a sense of what is sacred? In a dialogue, it helps to respond to what is actually being stated by the other person.
**Yet, that's what you are trying to do.**
I refer you to my statement directly preceding this one.
**How would anyone ever prove it was the religious path completely devoid of the larger societal influence? Secondly, what can one say that one has actually learned from religion in this instance? If someone decides to be a better person simply because they fear that god will punish them if they don't, can we really claim that they've learned something or that they've gained some wisdom and that it came from religion? Of course not.**
**Way to completely avoid the point that I made, for one. Secondly, you are simply wrong. There's nothing assumed in taking religion for what it is. What is it? It's a belief in superstition that is unevidenced and irrational. How does believing in that for which I have no evidence confer upon me any sort of wisdom or knowledge? It is only thru empirical testing that we gain actual knowledge about the world.**
I find it puzzling your inability to distinguish religion per se from theism in particular. It gives me the distinct impression that you have not actually read my posts and that you are probably not familiar with religious philosophy broadly speaking. This very much justifies my concerns that I expressed in my post to Justin.
**Then, you know very little about how science works. What part of the scientific method has "faith" in it?**
**They try to explain the universe, yes. Where's the faith part? If we succeed, we succeed, if we fail, we fail. And what is this "reality is one" stuff that you claim is quasi-religious?**
Please note that what I was referring to was the 'scientific enterprise'. And if you think belief and metaphysics has had nothing to do with that, then you need to better acquaint yourself with its history and philosophy, particularly in the fields of physics and cosmology. The scientific method has repeatedly been put to use to ask the universe some very deep questions. The nature(s) of those questions represent philosophical interests - a very human side of science - and are often tied to the particular convictions of scientists. What we have believed about the universe - what we have found important enough to investigate for whatever psychological reasons - has framed the very structure of the questions we ask about the universe. As far as my remark that the quasi-religious belief that ‘reality is one’ has been brought into the scientific domain - perhaps you’ve heard of grand unified theories, string theory, or all the other many attempts to demonstrate the unity of the universe? It is much more aesthetically pleasing to posit unity than dissonance, even though there is no purely logical reason we should expect the universe to behave this way, much less why we should even find the question important. Yet we do.
**And yet, what we do know what we can say we have wisdom about does come from empirical data and study, always.**
The empirical, plus philosophical interpretation, plus personal reflection, plus practical application and realization, taken together I might call wisdom.
**I smell strawman from someone who doesn't understand the subject matter and is making things up.**
I appreciate the gracious exchange.
Peace,
Mike
Forgot to address this:
ReplyDelete**What does any of this have to do with "legislative power?"**
I meant that you cannot refute by your own tautological decree the value of another person's religious practice and experience.
Peace,
Mike
michadelic,
ReplyDelete"How about without a sense of what is sacred? In a dialogue, it helps to respond to what is actually being stated by the other person."
Oh come now. Saying "Sacred" doesn't change the scope of what you said or what I responded with. Are you really going to try and avoid this discussion by hiding behind cheap rhetoric? The fact remains that you're advocating that we can't build stable societies without superstition. It's rubbish and demonstrably so.
"I refer you to my statement directly preceding this one."
Nice projection.
"I find it puzzling your inability to distinguish religion per se from theism in particular."
Ah, the old tried and true method of avoiding having to answer objections by being smug and condescending. I'm sorry that you couldn't answer my objections, but that gives you no license to try cheap rhetorical jabs. Start acting with some intellectual honesty.
"Please note that what I was referring to was the 'scientific enterprise'."
Which is the use of the scientific method to discover facts about the universe. Sorry, that dog won't hunt.
"And if you think belief and metaphysics has had nothing to do with that, then you need to better acquaint yourself with its history and philosophy, particularly in the fields of physics and cosmology."
Then point out where it fits into the scientific method. Oh yeah, you couldn't do that before, so what makes me think you can do it now. Simply proclaiming that "Science takes faith too" doesn't make it so.
"The scientific method has repeatedly been put to use to ask the universe some very deep questions."
And it just so happens to be the ONLY method we have.
"The nature(s) of those questions represent philosophical interests - a very human side of science - and are often tied to the particular convictions of scientists."
This is nothing more than a red herring. What we choose to study or not has nothing to do with the fact that what we know we've learned from empirical study, not from revelation, prayer, or religious superstitions.
"As far as my remark that the quasi-religious belief that ‘reality is one’ has been brought into the scientific domain - perhaps you’ve heard of grand unified theories, string theory, or all the other many attempts to demonstrate the unity of the universe?"
Again, it's a red herring. If someone searches for empirical evidence of a unified theory, it doesn't mean they are acting in faith or in a religious manner. If they find evidence, it does not mean that religion has informed us of anything. How you can be so condescending and then throw up red herring after red herring is beyond me.
"The empirical, plus philosophical interpretation, plus personal reflection, plus practical application and realization, taken together I might call wisdom."
The wisdom in this case still doesn't come from religion. You have yet to defend your initial statement.
"I appreciate the gracious exchange."
More condescension, eh?
"I meant that you cannot refute by your own tautological decree the value of another person's religious practice and experience."
I don't have to use any tautology, nor did I. Your religious experience is already refuted by all the contradicting religious experiences by all the other religious people out there. Something you can't simply wish away as you've tried here to do.
**How you can be so condescending and then throw up red herring after red herring is beyond me.**
ReplyDeleteDear GCT,
Before we can advance further in discussion it is necessary to be on the same page. You have repeatedly read theism and superstition into my posts where I am explicitly denied both, and yet you accuse me of dodging the issues. Why should I respond to misrepresentations of what I have written?
You seem to be working with a definition of religion as follows: "belief in supernatural powers or entities for which there is no empirical evidence." If that were the only meaning of religion, then I could not but agree with you. Yet, I consider myself religious, yet I do not invoke a god or supernatural entities or superstition in my life. By your definition, a position like mine cannot exist. I am inclined therefore to think that your working definition of religion is too limiting. It surely describes some forms of religion, but not religion per se.
HI GCT,
ReplyDeleteLet me try to clear some things up.
It is clear that you have not understood the intention with which I have commented on the nature of religion and science, and therefore you have overlooked my word choices. From my perspective, it seems that you're really wanting me to say something I have not been saying, so as to make it easy for you to refute my position and win another debate. You have already labeled and boxed me up.
If this is a debate, it is because you have made it one. And if you're frustrated with me it is due to your own assumptions - you have essentially been arguing with your mirror. I have had little to do with it. You have not actually asked me at any point to clarify my position, because you are too busy telling me what I think.
You told me that,
**The wisdom in this case still doesn't come from religion. You have yet to defend your initial statement.**
If you'd understood what my initial statement was, then you'd know what I said about wisdom is completely consistent with my approach to religion. Not all religion is predicated on the supernatural. I have not found the 'supernatural' as essential characteristic in, say, the Heart Sutra, Dhammpada, the Tao Te Ching and the Chuagn Tze, the Bhagavadgita, and in the Rig Vedas and Upanishads (the ones that I have read anyway), etc. In the these latter Hindu works, divine beings are more like characters within a story of an underlying philosophy of life. There is a world of religious philosophy which is more about relating what concerns us ultimately into an intimate practice of realization. Now, whether or not in the final analysis you would find these existential investigations meaningful is another thing. But it is a matter that is being discussed and will continue to be discussed by human beings indefinitely, and in any case does not merit an unsympathetic treatment.
I have never claimed that faith in any way influences the empirical results of scientific investigation. How would religion determine the results of an experiment? That is again, something you have wanted me to say. I have consistently qualified my statements and have been concerned with *why* we ask the questions in the first place, what is existentially going on. I am making far less a radical claim that you have taken it to be. In fact it has all been perfectly obvious and uncontroversial and can be found in any book on the philosophy of science and the rise of science historically in the West.
The fact that religion is totally inseparable in your mind from superstitious nonsense is evidence for the validity of my initial comment here.
Now, you also said,
**And it just so happens to be the ONLY method we have.**
Sorry, but I just have to ask it :) By which method did you arrive at this conclusion?
"You have repeatedly read theism and superstition into my posts where I am explicitly denied both, and yet you accuse me of dodging the issues."
ReplyDeleteMaybe because I know what the word religion means. If you want to claim that we gain wisdom/knowledge from religion, well then you should back it up.
"Yet, I consider myself religious, yet I do not invoke a god or supernatural entities or superstition in my life. By your definition, a position like mine cannot exist."
Yes, because words have meanings and you can't simply decide to be religious when it doesn't fit the defintion.
"If this is a debate, it is because you have made it one. And if you're frustrated with me it is due to your own assumptions - you have essentially been arguing with your mirror. I have had little to do with it."
Correct, you've had little to do with it because you refuse to back up your points and resort instead to condecension and arrogance.
"You have not actually asked me at any point to clarify my position..."
Yeah, asking you to defend your position (a couple times) I suppose doesn't count, right? Why all the excuses and pouting now?
"If you'd understood what my initial statement was, then you'd know what I said about wisdom is completely consistent with my approach to religion."
What? That you define religion as not having anything to do with religion and then claim that wisdom comes from something that doesn't come from religion that is renamed religion...yeah, it's making my head spin. Your rhetorical flourishes are just so cool.
"I have not found the 'supernatural' as essential characteristic...these latter Hindu works, divine beings are more like characters within a story of an underlying philosophy of life."
And, your point is? You're left with the problem of where the philosophy came from. It comes from empirical study of the world, not from the religion. In fact, you've just conceded your point here in that you're admitting that the religion follows the philosophy, not the other way round. Nice own goal.
"I have never claimed that faith in any way influences the empirical results of scientific investigation."
Never claimed you did...ah, but I'm the one not reading you?
"[I] have been concerned with *why* we ask the questions in the first place..."
Which I already pointed out is irrelevant...and once again, I'm the one not reading?
"The fact that religion is totally inseparable in your mind from superstitious nonsense is evidence for the validity of my initial comment here."
Nice decree, but that doesn't make it true. Good try though, especially since you've already conceded without even realizing it. Stunning from someone who is so smug.
"Sorry, but I just have to ask it :) By which method did you arrive at this conclusion?"
Simple logic. We don't actually have any other methods that work. If you know of one, feel free to propose it and then support your proposal. That you have not done so (support your lone suggestion or suggest any others) indicates that you can't, especially since no one has yet to do so. Empirical study is the only method we have to learn about the world and understand it, period, unless and until someone comes up with a different method.
**Yes, because words have meanings and you can't simply decide to be religious when it doesn't fit the defintion.**
ReplyDelete**What? That you define religion as not having anything to do with religion and then claim that wisdom comes from something that doesn't come from religion that is renamed religion...yeah, it's making my head spin. Your rhetorical flourishes are just so cool.**
So are you now seriously contending that the Tao Te Ching, Chuangtze, Heart Sutra, Dhammapada, Vedas, Upanishads, Dogen's treatises, are not religious writings? This would come as a shock to many professors who apparently have been placed in the wrong departments. If the word religion *does* have any meaning, then it applies most certainly to these, which has been my point all along. I have not set up religion exclusively against empiricism and philosophy, you have. And you have backed up my point that your definition of religion, if not flat out wrong (which it isn't since it does apply to some if not many forms of religion), is just too limited.
Since you linked dictionary.com, why not look at some entries:
"a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects:"
"the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices:"
"the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith."
"something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience:"
"strict faithfulness; devotion:"
Nothing about superstitious nonsense here.
**[I wrote:] "I have never claimed that faith in any way influences the empirical results of scientific investigation."
[You responded:]Never claimed you did...ah, but I'm the one not reading you?**
Might I ask then why these statements were directed toward me?....
**Again, it's a red herring...If they find evidence, it does not mean that religion has informed us of anything.**
And this,
**Then point out where it fits into the scientific method. Oh yeah, you couldn't do that before, so what makes me think you can do it now. Simply proclaiming that "Science takes faith too" doesn't make it so.**
Etc.
**"[I] have been concerned with *why* we ask the questions in the first place..."
Which I already pointed out is irrelevant...and once again, I'm the one not reading?**
Ok, so the existential side of the scientific enterprise is irrelevant. Guess that settles it.
**Nice decree, but that doesn't make it true. Good try though, especially since you've already conceded without even realizing it. Stunning from someone who is so smug.**
If my definition of religion is actually accurate (which it is), isn't it ironic that you're the one who has conceded this point without realizing it? Smugness? How else should one respond to such an aggressive and dismissive tone?
**Empirical study is the only method we have to learn about the world and understand it, period, unless and until someone comes up with a different method.**
Is it possible that there are aspects of reality beyond the possibility of objectifying?
Thanks and peace,
Mike
"So are you now seriously contending that the Tao Te Ching, Chuangtze, Heart Sutra, Dhammapada, Vedas, Upanishads, Dogen's treatises, are not religious writings?"
ReplyDeleteThe Tao is questionable, as it's more a simple philosophy than a religious tract. The others are religious tracts that draw on the supernatural/supersition.
"If the word religion *does* have any meaning, then it applies most certainly to these, which has been my point all along."
Are those goal posts heavy?
"And you have backed up my point that your definition of religion, if not flat out wrong (which it isn't since it does apply to some if not many forms of religion), is just too limited."
So, by using the actual, dictionary definition, I somehow backed up your point of not using the word in its dictionary sense? Are we in bizarro world?
"Nothing about superstitious nonsense here."
Only if you cherry pick and ignore the first and foremost definition, which sets up the others. And, yes, supernaturalism is superstition as is all religion. You might balk at the word because you don't think you are superstitious, but that's exactly what it is.
"Might I ask then why these statements were directed toward me?"
Um, because you claim that faith is part of science for one, and then tried to back it up by saying that what we decide to study is based on faith, which is completely irrelevant. How can you complain that I'm not reading you, that I'm misrepresenting you, etc when it's clear that you can't even follow the conversation and the points raised? How do you even know, and where do you get off being condescending?
"Ok, so the existential side of the scientific enterprise is irrelevant. Guess that settles it."
In terms of the method by which we've obtained the knowledge we possess, yes, it is. The method used was the scientific method, not any faith-based method. (I have not agreed with you, BTW, so don't act like I have. I've simply pointed out that it's not relevant.)
"If my definition of religion is actually accurate (which it is), isn't it ironic that you're the one who has conceded this point without realizing it?"
Wow, you don't get it, do you? Even if your redefinition is correct, you still admitted that the religion followed the philosophy - i.e. that religion didn't inform anything but was itself informed by something else. It has nothing to do with your definition. And, yes, you lost with that concession.
"How else should one respond to such an aggressive and dismissive tone?"
Whatever tone you impart is on you. If you can't read words without getting emotional and lashing out with smugness and condescension, then perhaps you shouldn't engage others online.
"Is it possible that there are aspects of reality beyond the possibility of objectifying?"
Maybe, but that doesn't answer the question. What method are you proposing to learn about the world that will work better than science...or work at all?
Hi GCT,
ReplyDelete**Wow, you don't get it, do you? Even if your redefinition is correct, you still admitted that the religion followed the philosophy - i.e. that religion didn't inform anything but was itself informed by something else. It has nothing to do with your definition. And, yes, you lost with that concession.**
Redefinition? These are pretty well established ideas, nothing novel here. The total matrix of philosophy and practice IS the religion. What were you supposing that religion would be in this sense? Something totally independent of all other human affairs? That may be the view you are working with, but it is certainly not one many others would accept.
**Are those goal posts heavy?**
Some conversations can prove to be less productive than one would hope, yes. Thanks for asking.
**Only if you cherry pick and ignore the first and foremost definition, which sets up the others.**
**And, yes, supernaturalism is superstition as is all religion. You might balk at the word because you don't think you are superstitious, but that's exactly what it is.**
I'm afraid this just doesn't carry any weight. It seems like you're arguing that religion has only one fixed meaning, which happens to be the one you're assigning it. This is just not realistic.
**Whatever tone you impart is on you. If you can't read words without getting emotional and lashing out with smugness and condescension, then perhaps you shouldn't engage others online.**
The most I've accused you of is ignorance.
Yet, from one obscure comment in response to yours, without hesitation you saw it fit to make whatever jabs and judgments that came to mind, not only deciding in advance that my experiences have no value, but then deciding I'm not even religious (because it doesn't fit your definition).
Please understand that when one behaves this way, an accusation of smugness from that party cannot taken very seriously. But I will take your advice in the sense that I will be more selective in the kind of conversations I engage in.
**The Tao is questionable, as it's more a simple philosophy than a religious tract. The others are religious tracts that draw on the supernatural/supersition.**
I would of course disagree with your opinions regarding these. Eastern philosophy on the whole draws from considerations about the problem of identity.
**Maybe, but that doesn't answer the question. What method are you proposing to learn about the world that will work better than science...or work at all?**
You seem to be using empiricism and the scientific method interchangeably. They are not synonymous. Buddhism, for instance, is rooted in observing the mind's subjective states. That is empirical. Knowing what a peanutbutter sandwich tastes like is empirical knowledge. Neither are using the scientific method.
Peace to you,
Mike
"Redefinition? These are pretty well established ideas, nothing novel here."
ReplyDeleteYes, redefinition, but I'm glad that you focused on that.
"The total matrix of philosophy and practice IS the religion."
Which you admitted gets its ideas from other means.
"Some conversations can prove to be less productive than one would hope, yes. Thanks for asking."
Yes, it can be unproductive when one person changes what they've been talking about all along in order to weasel out of their own positions.
"It seems like you're arguing that religion has only one fixed meaning, which happens to be the one you're assigning it."
I'm saying that religion has a specific meaning as outlined in the dictionary. If you want to redefine religion that's simply too bad. Use another word. If we use your definition, then yoga is a religion, star wars is a religion, collecting stamps could be considered a religion. Sorry, but your redefinition is so broad as to be useless.
"The most I've accused you of is ignorance."
Don't forget accusing me of not reading you, misrepresenting you, etc. It's pretty apparent that you aren't following my arguments, but do you even read your own, or is your projection that deep?
"Please understand that when one behaves this way, an accusation of smugness from that party cannot taken very seriously."
Ah, I see. Because of your perceived slights that gives you license to be smug, arrogant, and condescending and when called out on it you can simply claim, "Well, you offended me first, so mine doesn't count." How classy of you.
"But I will take your advice in the sense that I will be more selective in the kind of conversations I engage in."
If you're taking advice, try backing up your statements instead of simply taking offense when challenged.
"You seem to be using empiricism and the scientific method interchangeably. They are not synonymous."
Yeah, they kind of are. The scientific method is the refinement of using empirical observation in order to learn about the world. Science is the process of using empirical observation, testing, etc. to learn about the world.
"Buddhism, for instance, is rooted in observing the mind's subjective states. That is empirical."
And, once again the tenets of Buddhism that follow this are informed by the empirical study of the world, not the other way around. Once again, you continue to prove my point for me.
"Knowing what a peanutbutter sandwich tastes like is empirical knowledge. Neither are using the scientific method."
As much as one can say that they "know" what a PBJ tastes like, it has come from empirical study, which is science, not from religion. You still have yet to propose anything separate from science to learn about the world. IOW, science would say "If you want to know what a sandwich tastes like, you have to empirically test it." So you advocate empirically testing it, then claim it's not science. It is.
Actually, let's go one step further, shall we?
ReplyDeleteReligions make empirical claims from time to time. If a claim is wrong, can we be said to know it or that religion informed us? Of course not.
But, if we look at the situation where the religion just happens to strike upon something that is correct, does anything change? Let's say that religion A claims that X is true. Can we say that we know that X is true without investigating it? Of course not. So, we would go about investigating by using empirical/scientific methods. Once we establish the truth or falsity of X using empirical methods, we can say that X is true and we know it (remember, X happens to be true for this example). But, why do we know that X is true? Do we know because religion A told us or because we did the scientific investigation to find out? Once again, we find that religion didn't increase our knowledge or show us what is true, science did.
Hi GCT,
ReplyDelete**I'm saying that religion has a specific meaning as outlined in the dictionary. If you want to redefine religion that's simply too bad. Use another word. If we use your definition, then yoga is a religion, star wars is a religion, collecting stamps could be considered a religion. Sorry, but your redefinition is so broad as to be useless.**
You are actually so very close to hitting on the truth in your latter remarks here. In fact, except for a very few broad brushstrokes, religion cannot be defined in any way whatsoever that universally sticks. This is why, as my initial statement here was, 'categorically denying religion any validity' is a wrong approach. Now, what is 'too bad' is that we have not even come to an agreement about this very basic point. What a waste of energy, that we're just debating over tautologies here.
I would insist, again, that my redefinition is no redefinition at all; as I said, this is all pretty well established stuff, it's not as if I'm making it up. It seems that you just want religion to be a simplistic fixed target so that you can universally deny its validity; therefore you limit religion - an intricate phenomenon which has appeared universally at all times in all cultures - to the first entry of dictionary.com.
However, if you want to limit religion to the first entry, why not look at what it actually says?
"a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs."
First I would note that not all religious views assume that there is a cause or purpose to the universe. However, even if we were to grant this, then the rest of the definition, it seems, was only able to proceed with the use of extensive qualifications, using words like "especially," "usually," and "often". If you get a fixed, specific meaning of religion from this entry, then I don't know what else to tell you.
My definition is a very reasonable one, with no re-defining taking place because I am well within the parameters according to what any religious studies text will confirm. Let me put it to you this way: What do Chuangtze and Paul of Tarsus have in common as religious figures with religious teachings? How about Nargarjuna and Maimonides? Dogen and Aquinas? Aside from what could be painted with a few very broad brushstrokes (including the last pair close to being contemporaries), nothing. Seeing that this is the case, my concern about ‘categorically denying religion any validity’ is justified. Insisting, without qualification, that ‘religion is superstition,’ is problematic. You have to be specific. Which religion, and in what way? The Heart Sutra, Dogen, the Tao Te Ching, any professor will consider religious documents, yet these have not derived their substance from the supernatural.
By the way, Yoga is defined as such on dictionary.com…
ReplyDelete"1.
a school of Hindu philosophy advocating and prescribing a course of physical and mental disciplines for attaining liberation from the material world and union of the self with the Supreme Being or ultimate principle.
2.
any of the methods or disciplines prescribed, esp. a series of postures and breathing exercises practiced to achieve control of the body and mind, tranquillity, etc.
3.
union of the self with the Supreme Being or ultimate principle"
…which seems an awful lot like religion to me.
And as to stamp collecting, if such became the ultimate concern in your life; if you derived your meaning and values systematically from it, then how would that not qualify as your religion?
One example I could provide is Hee-Jin Kim's definition of religion, coming his book on Zen Master Dogen:
"Religion is a symbolic model with symbols, values, beliefs, and practices that enable us, individually and collectively, to attain spiritual liberation and to grasp the meaning of existence. These elements of religion, in turn, are intricately interwoven with the conditions of our biological and psychological makeup, as well as with socio-cultural and historical conditions. Thus, the net result is a unique fabric of an individual's symbolic reality."
**Once again, we find that religion didn't increase our knowledge or show us what is true, science did.**
Only if you want to create an artificial dichotomy. First, let me grant for the sake of argument that this is the correct way of seeing things.
It would not change the fact that the religion deserves credit for the insight. To deny credit would be silly. Is Buddhism a religion? Yes. Is it responsible for certain insights about reality? If so, then Buddhism deserves recognition/credit for the discovery. After all, the insights and creative discoveries were not have been made outside of its own religious context: its principles, goals, techniques, existential concerns, etc. Such insights certainly weren't derived elsewhere, like in a modern Western scientific setting.
Moreover, your use of 'just happens' with regard to any religious discoveries is ill-conceived. When a religion, again, like Buddhism, makes an existential discovery, it doesn't 'just happen' to. Religion acts as an inclusive reality, consisting both of practice and theory; it is both the investigation of its subject matter and the results.
To deny credit would be like denying Mozart credit for his music, because he was merely utilizing music theory which was derived from empirical methods, which is science.
And at this point, we have now arrived, I think, at merely the classic debate between the arts/humanities and science, which need not be continued here because we are both aware of it and know that it will not be resolved, certainly not here...
If you simply want to define science as any kind of knowledge derived from empirical contact with the world (and I'm not sure what other kind of 'contact' there can be), then your argument is true by definition. However, this doesn't have anything very interesting or meaningful to say. Poetry, music, literature, meaningful personal relationships, then become science. Knowing a peanut butter sandwich's taste is science. The Mona Lisa is science.
ReplyDeleteNow, I will address your objection here a while back:
**Are you seriously contending that a stable society can not be built around reason and rationality, but instead must have people who believe in superstitions? This ignores the rise of secularism and the stabilizing influence it has had in our societies. How stable were the European societies of just a couple hundred years ago that relied on rule of a divinely selected king? How stable are they now that they are largely secular? Your claim is demonstrably untrue.**
Since you brought up the theory of a king's divine right to rule, why don't you talk about what actually replaced it? Did we simply abolish religion from the political scene? Or did we replace the old religious view with a new one? It seems to me that we ultimately just redefined the notion of 'right' - and applied it universally to all people. However, the idea of human rights, liberty and justice for all, etc., have never been nor can be empirically tested. They are quasi-religious, yet form the foundation of our modern Western societies.
Now I would not deny the stabilizing nature of secularism. I would not want to have non-secular processes within my government, I want my government to be operate without respect to any particular religion. However, I ask this:
Imagine a society in which nothing is sacred. I mean nothing. I'm not talking about holy books or whatever. I'm talking about absolutely nothing being sacred: not life, not death, not freedom. Would that be desirable?
**If you're taking advice, try backing up your statements instead of simply taking offense when challenged.**
I don't simply take offense when challenged. But if you're going to solicit my opinion, it helps to do so in a cordial manner. This is not a debate forum; I was not challenging you, it was the other way around. I was commenting on this blog to Justin because I happen to actually know him. I feel I have the right to answer in any kind of indirect or even playful way I choose, especially when confronted with loaded questions with guns blazing (which, I would insist, were more than just mere 'perceptions' on my part). If I have offended you I apologize, I can see that my approach probably didn’t help and carried this conversation further than it needed to go.
That said, I see no advantage to continuing this discussion further, because as I said we are likely simply to get into a debate over arts/humanities vs science at this point.
I wish you peace and happiness in life,
Mike
"You are actually so very close to hitting on the truth in your latter remarks here. In fact, except for a very few broad brushstrokes, religion cannot be defined in any way whatsoever that universally sticks."
ReplyDeleteThen, you're saying that the dictionary is wrong? Sorry, but we use words and assign meanings to them in order to communicate with each other. When one starts making up definitions, it makes it impossible to have meaningful conversations. So, you seem, indeed, to be claiming that anything can be a religion. This makes it meaningless.
"What a waste of energy, that we're just debating over tautologies here."
I don't think this word means what you think it means.
"This is why, as my initial statement here was, 'categorically denying religion any validity' is a wrong approach."
This is not what I objected to, but please inform us what you mean by the "validity" that religion supposedly has and how does it have it?
"...an intricate phenomenon which has appeared universally at all times in all cultures..."
I very much doubt that you can show this is true, especially since we know of groups like Carvaka and the Epicurians. Also, you wouldn't be using a variant on the is/ought fallacy here, would you? That religion has been around means that it is somehow valid?
"However, if you want to limit religion to the first entry, why not look at what it actually says?"
I did. You're the one quote mining here.
"My definition is a very reasonable one..."
No, it's not for the reason I've pointed out. Your definition leaves the door open for literally anything to be considered a religion. When a word is so vague as to describe anything then it ceases having any meaning.
"Seeing that this is the case, my concern about ‘categorically denying religion any validity’ is justified."
Ah, so different religions have differences, so therefore you're right? Wow, you may have studied religion, but you may want to brush up on logic.
"The Heart Sutra, Dogen, the Tao Te Ching, any professor will consider religious documents, yet these have not derived their substance from the supernatural."
None of them have, including the Bible. None of them derive from the supernatural. What in the heck are you going on about? Where did I argue in any sense that these are derived from the supernatural? Quite the opposite, in fact.
"And as to stamp collecting, if such became the ultimate concern in your life; if you derived your meaning and values systematically from it, then how would that not qualify as your religion?"
Yay, stamp collecting is a religion as is everything else that anyone can think of. Congrats, you've made everything into a religion.
"One example I could provide is Hee-Jin Kim's definition of religion, coming his book on Zen Master Dogen..."
Nice own goal.
"It would not change the fact that the religion deserves credit for the insight."
What insight? It's a lucky guess. In order to have insight there must be an actual reason to believe something and assert it is true. The absolutely abysmal record of religions in doing so is pretty clear evidence that they don't have insight and when one gets one thing right it's no better than putting ideas on a dart board and claiming that the one the dart hits is true.
"Such insights certainly weren't derived elsewhere, like in a modern Western scientific setting."
ReplyDeleteBecause science is only performed in the west with "Western" thinking? And, I'm the one making false dichotomies? Once again you show an abject ignorance of what science is and it's history.
Anyway, how did these so-called insights of Buddism become known? Did someone simply decree them (what are they anyway?) and people simply knew they were correct? No, of course not. Once again, my previous objection from my previous post comes to bear, something you're not addressing. You're simply re-asserting the same stuff without addressing the objections. Typical.
"Moreover, your use of 'just happens' with regard to any religious discoveries is ill-conceived."
Oh really? Yeah, some religions incorporate ideas from elsewhere, as you've already admitted (and thus conceded the debate - which makes me wonder why I'm still bothering to beat the proverbial dead horse), but those can hardly be "religious discoveries." Other so-called "religious discoveries"...what are they again? Oh yeah, the only ideas you have on the subject are nebulous Buddist ideas that you've already admitted came from elsewhere, but somehow think religion gets to claim credit for.
"To deny credit would be like denying Mozart credit for his music, because he was merely utilizing music theory which was derived from empirical methods, which is science."
Ah, no. Your analogy would be closer to denying that a particular researcher should get credit for doing research because it's simply part of science, which is clearly unreasonable. If you wanted to make a better analogy to religion, it would be like claiming that history should get the credit for what science finds, which it clearly should not. Sorry, but really bad analogies aren't compelling.
"If you simply want to define science as any kind of knowledge derived from empirical contact with the world (and I'm not sure what other kind of 'contact' there can be), then your argument is true by definition."
Why should that be so? Don't you claim that religion has insights that it can share? There must be another method than empirical study, right? Or, is this just another way of you conceding the debate unintentionally? Yeah, that's what it was.
"However, this doesn't have anything very interesting or meaningful to say."
You'd be surprised how many people (like you) claim that we can get insights, knowledge, and wisdom from religion. It's not true, as you finally seem to be understanding.
"Poetry, music, literature, meaningful personal relationships, then become science."
Nice try, but misapplication of the idea. Poetry is how one communicates ideas to others, not how one studies the world. Poetry doesn't actually impart knowledge, however (except maybe knowledge of the poet, yet that must be studied in order to attain all the same). Same goes for the rest of the list. Once again, we find that you are unable to come up with examples that work.
"Since you brought up the theory of a king's divine right to rule, why don't you talk about what actually replaced it?"
ReplyDeleteWell, in this country it was enlightenment values (reason, etc) and a representative democracy that is secular. Once again, thanks for making my point for me.
"Did we simply abolish religion from the political scene? Or did we replace the old religious view with a new one?"
Wait, are you now claiming that separation of church and state is also a religion in itself? It would fit your definition, but I fail to see how it's at all accurate, despite your decrees to the contrary.
"However, the idea of human rights, liberty and justice for all, etc., have never been nor can be empirically tested. They are quasi-religious, yet form the foundation of our modern Western societies."
Wrong again, or have you never noticed how other social animals interact or studied the history of humanity? Or, perhaps you're completely unaware of concepts like empathy and it's real effect in the world, etc?
"Imagine a society in which nothing is sacred. I mean nothing. I'm not talking about holy books or whatever. I'm talking about absolutely nothing being sacred: not life, not death, not freedom. Would that be desirable?"
Why wouldn't it? Simply insinuating it would not be desirable doesn't prove your point. If nothing were sacred there wouldn't be holy wars, which would be a big step up. Let me counter by asking, why do you think we need to have sacred things or ideas? Why do you think we should hold things above and beyond scrutiny?
"I don't simply take offense when challenged."
True. You also get defensive, condescending, acusatory, and insulting.
"I feel I have the right to answer in any kind of indirect or even playful way I choose..."
And, I have the right to point out that you're a condescending jerk. I also have the right to point out that condescension is a poor substitute for reasoned arguments and doesn't support your position.
"If I have offended you I apologize..."
I don't care, I was simply pointing out that you were lashing out because you can't defend your positions.
"I can see that my approach probably didn’t help and carried this conversation further than it needed to go."
Yes, when you conceded the debate, it should have ended. It's been said that I suffer fools gladly, and I didn't disappoint this time either.
These personal truths, one might say, is what one can know 'because of religion'. I say this because, again, where else might one find them?
ReplyDeleteRead my post about naturalistic morality. We can easily arrive at moral conclusions without adhering to a religion.
On an individual level, there are plenty of people who attest that their religion, as a path to be walked with a particular goal in mind, is able to disclose personal truths about the self and the world that would perhaps be inaccessible to other methodologies.
If it just ended at that, it would be fine, but people make claims about objective reality such as a god exists, Jesus came back from the dead, Jesus was born of a virgin, etc. If people just derived moral lessons and guidance from religions, that would be fine, but when they start gaining harmful beliefs and acting on them, there are problems. When people start inspiring and perpetuating false hope, credulity, irrational thinking, there is also a problem.
If you gain insight from Eastern philosophy, great! If you like the eightfold path, awesome! Buddhists, for example, aren't saying that the eightfold path is a warrant to kill people who disagree. They won't use their books to legitimize bad behavior or legislate harmful laws...
If religion were really just personal truths about the self, we'd be in good standing, but it's often more than just that.