Hi Steve,
> >> Steve:
> >> I agree that beliefs need to be respected in some sense of the term, but
> >> what does it mean to respect or be tolerant of people's beliefs?
> >
> > [Platt]
> > To me it means 1) not threatening nor doing physical harm to others
> > because of their beliefs, 2) not verbally attacking them personally, and
> > 3) protecting their right to freely express their beliefs no matter how
> > objectionable you may consider them to be.
> >
>
> Steve:
> This seems to me to be a good definition of tolerance or respect for
> other's beliefs, but it also seems to me that the idea of tolerance
> leaves what may be the most important aspect of liberalism which is
> that all ideas can be criticized.
>
> I think your 2) is often taken further to say that we shouldn't
> criticize people's beliefs.
[Platt]
Perhaps some people take it that way because for them it's hard to separate
their beliefs from their egos. I think it's OK to criticise another's
beliefs, but not to call her a moron.
> > [Steve]
> >> Faith requires uncritical loyalty to the truth claims of the religion
> >> (which inhibit the evolution of the intellectual level). Faith then is
> >> the enemy of reason.
> >
> > [Platt]
> > Careful. Some have faith -- as you define it -- in reason.
>
> Steve:
> We have evidence that reason works, so no faith is required.
[Platt]
Depends on if you consider "what works" to be the criterion of goodness. I
don't. The Holocaust worked well from a Nazi point of view. Also reason
depends on beginning premises that are often faith based. For example, the
premise of science that only propositions that can be empirically verified
are true cannot be empirically verified.
> > [Steve]
> >
> >> Does tolerance and respect for people's beliefs mean that we
> >> shouldn't question people's beliefs? We want evidence or at least
> >> logical cohesion before we "respect" beliefs on any other topic but
> >> religion. It's considered in poor taste to question religious
> >> beliefs. Isn't this social pattern of "respecting people's belief's" by
> >> not questioning them a social pattern that inhibits intellectual
> >> evolution?
> >
> > [Platt]
> > I think you can question anyone's beliefs including those who
> > believe that
> > science is the final arbiter "Truth." Respecting other people's
> > beliefs is
> > an intellectual level moral stance against bigotry.
>
>
> Steve:
> Respecting beliefs in the way that you described is moral. The
> pattern not questioning beliefs that are religious in nature is
> immoral. Why is this the one area where evidence and reason are not
> welcome?
[Platt]
Because not all belief is a matter of evidence and reason, including the
belief that evidence and reason is the only arbiter of Truth.
> >> Platt:
> >>> It is certainty of belief (dogmatism) that leads to
> >>> trouble, whether religious or otherwise. The crowning glory of
> >>> science is
> >>> the belief that all their "truths" are provisional. Unfortunately,
> >>> some
> >>> scientists as well as a lot of lay people forget that.
> >
>
> Steve:
> I think all scientists fit to call themselves scientists must see
> truth as something that can be questioned and is subject to revision
> with new evidence. Do you know any scientists who think their truths
> are eternal?
Not personally, but some passionately defend what they think is true, even
in the face of contrary evidence. Einstein, for example, did not buy
quantum theory in toto, i.e., "God does not play dice." Historically
arguments among scientists have been common. Today there's a roaring
controversy about the nature of consciousness. Anyway, I would guess that a
lot a scientists hold as an eternal truth that the scientific method is the
best method for ascertaining how the material world is ordered. That the
method has no provision for morals doesn't seem to bother them, even though
believing that something is "best" is a moral decision.
> > [Steve]
> >> Is Pirsig's description of intellectual quality as including
> >> consistency with experience and logical coherence just another dogma?
> >
> > [Platt]
> > It could be if someone takes is as the gospel truth. I don't think
> > Pirsig
> > considers it etched in stone.
>
> Steve:
> Good point. It is an attempt to describe intellectual quality rather
> than to define it.
>
> >
> > [Platt]
> > It is the actions of militant Islamist terrorists that we war
> > against, not
> > their beliefs. Punishing people for their beliefs is a social level
> > pattern attempting to devour an intellectual pattern. Let us be vigilant
> > against thought police.
>
> Steve:
> I am not promoting punishing people for their beliefs, but I think it is
> moral to try to change their beliefs--fostering a taste for evidence and
> not giving religion a free-pass on intellectual quality.
{Platt]
Does religion make a claim for intellectual quality? I don't think so, but
I could be wrong.
> I'm not sure how to do it in the case of Islamists. It is probably
> only moderate Muslims who can influence militant ones.
[Platt]
I think you're right -- moderates convincing the militants that blowing up
people is not good.
Regards,
Platt
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
