--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jst...@...> wrote:
I think this post illustrates what I like about our discussion on this topic. A chance to separate the different choices we have made concerning religious beliefs. I don't have a problem with the choices you have made. That doesn't seem to be reciprocal, but that is often what keeps these discussions going. When it comes to speaking with someone personally I would favor your approach. Especially where it allows me to uncover what the person actually does believe without making them defensive. At most in those situations I might bring up something I find contradictory about the belief and give them a chance to show me if they have a way to resolve it. But I am more interested in rapport personally and I have little faith in my own ability to convince in religious areas. I often find that by mentioning that I am not religious at all it offers a safe zone for them to raise their own doubts without the fear of being shamed for voicing them. Writing here I feel more freedom to explore my own views without worrying that some believer will be offended. If they ever read my posts they stopped long ago if that were the case. I am a full disclosure writer here, people know what they are getting. And that freedom allows me to use language that is meant to entertain. I am choosing dramatic phrases that make me laugh. Phrases that in a personal context might offend. But this is not a personal context except to the person I am writing to and that person is you. There are topics that I discuss with you more carefully because I know they are ones that you hold personal beliefs about. We can still discuss them but I do my best not to offend you about them. I am not always successful but that is my intention. One of the biggest distinctions I see in our points of view on this topic is the emphasis we are placing on epistemology. For me this is a big deal and always has been. My break from the movement is specifically a difference of opinion about what should allow us to be confident in what we know. For me this is the central negative effect of not countering religious assertions. It promotes a really poor epistemology and more than that elevates it above other (and to me better) ways of being confident about our knowledge. At the very least is should instill the distinction between beliefs based on the level of earned probability. This has been reversed in society today. The most baseless assertions are promoted as being the ones that we should never challenge. And then we wonder why the public makes shitty choices about any political topic that involves science. I respect your focus on behavior as being valuable, so why can't we have both? While speaking out against actions why can't we also speak out against the type of thinking that leads to them. We are having some success with this approach in society concerning racism and sexism. We not only challenge people who have done bad things to minorities but we go after the ignorant assumption that one person is intrinsically superior to another. Yet this same view is a common tenant in religion and we let is slide as unfair to criticize. I'll drop into your specific points now. Judy quoting me> > about how > > > "absurd" it is for the folks who do to have "superstitious > > > tribal beliefs." > > Me: > > So you think female circumcision should be respected > > as just another belief option? You don't think any of > > the beliefs that relate to honor killing among tribes > > in Afghanistan could be characterized this way? > > Is that what I said? I am giving you examples of what I mean specifically. If I thought you said it I would precede it by "you said" or "Judith sayith." > > See, here's the thing. If every religionist believed > utterly in every word of the scripture of their > faith according to precisely the same interpretation > thereof and unfailingly observed every one of its > commandments and prohibitions in the same way in their > behavior, then you'd have a lot better case for going > after the beliefs. Of course this would be impossible given the contradictory nature of most scriptural advice. Like most good literature there are many ways to interpret scripture and that is its virtue as art. It makes a poor case for being the absolute word of god. But the one thing that most of the disparate interpretations share is their approach to epistemology and that is my biggest problem with them. Particularly since most of my criticisms are just the standard intellectual conventions when evaluating knowledge in any other area of human knowledge including how we evaluate the accuracy of the morning paper. > > But that isn't the case. All these elements are all > over the lot, even the degree to which folks believe > the scriptures are the authoritative word of God. > There are as many belief systems as there are people. > > They're a moving target. *Many* moving targets. You > can't get a fix on them. Epistemological you can. You just have to trace why they are confident about what they are asserting just as we do when evaluating any other historical or intellectual or even ethical claim. They are making claims about how the world works for real, real. They shouldn't get a free pass to assert without challenge. > > You *can* get a fix on bad behaviors. And we should. But we could jail every person in the US who hurt black people physically or legally but things didn't start to change racially till the belief system started to change and the public opinion rose up and said, "this belief about black people being inferior is wrong." > > <snip> Judy: > > I haven't chosen to > > > announce that society should "denounce" their beliefs. I suspect there are some beliefs you would like society to denounce. You have just given religion an unwarranted pass. Even though it often promotes the very transgressions that I suspect you feel the most strongly about like woman's rights. It is wrong to beat a woman but it is also wrong to view her as a piece of property, isn't it? And it is even worse in my opinion if you claim that God told you so you are absolutely certain about their status. > > > > You have just made different choices where to focus your > > attention. > > That's right, that was my point. You said to Willytex: > > "If you don't believe every religion's scriptures and > practice every direct command from their word of God, > then you have made the same choices I have." > > In regard to my beliefs, yes. Not in regard to what I > do about them. Agreed. That is the basis for this interesting discussion. > > <snip> > > I > > > don't demean religious people by referring to their > > > "special books" and "imaginary friends." > > > > But these are precise description. They are considered > > special books from any others men have written. What > > exactly is your problem with this characterizations? > > The tone of "special" is the problem regarding the books, > as in, "Well, isn't that special!" a la the Church Lady. > It's mockery. I do use references to the Church Lady but when I do I use the spelling speaaaaaacial. I meant this in a more neutral way which conveys their belief that scriptures are not like other books human's wrote. I am not above mocking them in this way but that is not how I meant it. It is funny that you would object to me calling the "special" but not them calling them the word of God. How freak'n more special could any book be? > > > And if you don't believe in any of the versions of God > > then they are just as imaginary for you as they are for > > me. > > That's right. But they're quite real for others. Lots of > things are real for others that aren't for me, and vice- > versa. I am not a relativist when it comes to knowledge and particularly with claims. Believing in things that are not real does not make them real in the sense that I use the term. It makes them compelling to the person's mind. But the growth of human knowledge is a history of challenging claims of what is real, and getting a better and better bead on what we choose to consider real. I object to the epistemological assumptions in your use of the term "real." I am sure you are drawing your lines somewhere right? Every assertion that a person makes as real is not just a relative personal judgment call. My appeal is to continue to challenge assertions as we always have and to include religious claims in the same system that has worked so well in other areas of human knowledge. No one is going to let a person get away unchallenged if they assert that, for them, the intrinsic intellectual inferiority of women is a fact. And there are a lot of moving targets in all the nuances of disproving that case by case aren't there? Plenty of scriptural support this view including the Laws of Manu which equates killing a woman with killing an insect on the karma scale. Isn't this exactly the kind of belief that needs a challenge at a higher level than behavior? > > > Just because you haven't posted on this board about your > > POV doesn't make you superior. You don't believe in them > > either you just don't speak up about it. > > I've posted about my POV here many times. Guess you > missed those posts, huh? Maybe you didn't notice them > because they didn't use insulting language about the > beliefs and didn't express a desire to stamp them out. "Stamp them out" is a mischaracterization of my position that by now in the discussion can only be deliberately misleading. This is an example of insulting language that I AM noticing. I also object to your phrase "insulting language." If it insults you let me know. If you are imagining some other person who holds these beliefs and who is reading anything I write then I don't accept your being offended on their behalf. If you would back off your judgment of me you might find many of my phrases humorous which is often how I intend them. Labeling what I write as "insulting" in the abstract is a sophist's trick that doesn't work with me. > > Stamp out the *behaviors*. And you know what? If you can > convince somebody a behavior they believe was commanded > by God is wrong, you've put a wedge between them and > that belief, without ever having to attack the belief > itself. I don't agree with your assessment of how societal change comes about. And I object to having a class of beliefs that are shielded by the intellectual processes that we use in every other area of human knowledge. Religious claims and beliefs are not special and don't deserve special protection and treatment. >
