Hi Margaret, > I remember debates > I had in the second grade cafeteria over > the existence of god. I was a staunch athiest > then. They weren't much fun. ha ha ha.
Steve: Does this mean you are not an atheist now? Margaret: > > Beliefs on the other hand (to me), are composites > of what a person has experienced up until > that moment and their beliefs are very unique > to that individual. I think its too easy to say that just because > you can dance circles around someone intellectually > that your belief is superior/or has more quality than > theirs. > Steve: I understand your pov better now. I think you make a good point about ideas in the abstract versus a person's belief system. In some ways I think we do need to "respect people's beliefs" in that for example, I don't go around telling people why I think that the evidence for religions is poor every time someone makes reference to God in conversation. But I do think that we have taken respect for beliefs too far in this country. When faith is used to defend a scientific claim or a political position, we shouldn't allow the word faith to be used as the conversation stopper it is. For example, when Bush says "We need commonsense judges who understand that our rights were derived from God," the next question a reporter might ask is "what does that mean" or "how do you know?" or "are you referring to Poseidon, Zeus, or some other god?" and look how scary Scalia is...(from some speech in Chicago in 2002) http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html? res=9F07E7D61031F93BA35754C0A9649C8B63 He quotes St. Paul, ''For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.'' ''The Lord,'' Mr. Scalia explained in Chicago, ''repaid -- did justice -- through His minister, the state.'' ... ''Indeed, it seems to me,'' Mr. Scalia said in Chicago, ''that the more Christian a country is the less likely it is to regard the death penalty as immoral. Abolition has taken its firmest hold in post- Christian Europe, and has least support in the churchgoing United States. I attribute that to the fact that for the believing Christian, death is no big deal.'' This might imply that the death penalty would have little deterrent effect for the faithful. It might also imply that devout Christians have fewer moral scruples about disregarding the Old Testament's injunction against killing. (''For the nonbeliever, on the other hand, to deprive a man of his life is to end his existence,'' Mr. Scalia said sarcastically. ''What a horrible act!'') So while belief's are personal, they are also public to some extent. Sam Harris points out that we don't consider individual beliefs on personal hygiene or epidemiology to be respected because our public health is at stake. The health of civilization itself is certainly at stake as religious extremism becomes more prevalent and access to better and better technology of mass destruction continues. I understand what you saying about "I think its too easy to say that just because you can dance circles around someone intellectually that your belief is superior/or has more quality than theirs." We smarty-pantses need to keep this is mind and have humility about our own ideas and the limits of intellectual skill in coming up with the right answers. But the issue I'm trying to get at is a little different. I'm not saying I'm right about anything and that my intellectual skills have proven it. I'm just saying that people need to apply their own intellect. The affirmative claim I am making is that this ideas of faith that says it is a good thing for people to believe what they are told on faith is a actually bad thing. Do you disagree with that point? Regards, Steve 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/
