Hi Steve, > > Steve: > >> The idea is to break the taboo in the US of "questioning > >> someone's beliefs." All we are talking about is applying the same > >> conversational pressures to religious beliefs as we would to > someone's > >> beliefs about leprechauns, government bailouts, the best laundry > >> detergent, and whether or not the Holocaust actually happened. > > > Platt: > > Conversational pressures? LIke what? Ad hominem attacks? > > Steve: > No, like simply asking, "why do you believe that?"
OK. So I simply ask, "Why do you believe it's good to pressure someone to answer that question?" I can understand if the motive is to learn. But, in many cases the motive is to ridicule the response and trash the responder. > I seemed to have touched a nerve with saying we should ask such simple > questions. I suppose it is scary for those buying into a social pattern > which says such obvious questions are in bad taste. The problem is that > not asking those questions has become dangerous to society as we saw on > 9/11 when otherwise well-educated middle class men believed that they > could buy their way into heaven and be serviced by black-eyed virgins > if they became mass murderers. > > My hope is that intellectual patterns which include a taste for > evidence in support of all of our beliefs will trump the social > patterns which hold such intellectual patterns to be in bad taste when > applied to religion. Religious beliefs should no longer be in a special > class of socially protected unquestionable beliefs like believing your > wife is beautiful and your children are unusually talented. We can no > longer afford to extend such nod-and-smile social courtesy when > religious beliefs have become a threat to civilization itself. OK. But, what about nonreligious beliefs that have become a threat to civilization -- like secular socialism with its "absence of a concept of indefinite Dynamic Quality?" (Lila, 17) > Steve: > >> BTW, for someone who opposes relativism, claiming that no belief is > >> better or worse than any other is a strange thing to say, but it does > >> seem to be typical of conservatives to complain about moral > relativism > >> while promoting intellectual relativism. > > > Platt: > > I believe some beliefs are certainly better than others. My point was > > that > > I am not so arrogant as to believe I couldn't possibly be wrong. Nor > > do I > > believe others should believe they are like gods and thus privileged > to > > force their beliefs on others. > > Steve: > Who believes that they can never be wrong? Al Gore, for one. Hamas for another. > And what do you mean when you keep saying that someone is trying to > force beliefs on another? Personal ad hominem attacks are such an attempt -- like calling those who question global warming "holocaust deniers." > I'm just saying that we need to have conversations about religion even > if it makes some people uncomfortable. That's it. I think that's all > any of us are saying. No one is suggesting that we need to tie people > up and have them renounce their gods at gun point. We just want > religious beliefs to enter the marketplace of ideas. My impression is that religious beliefs are based less on intellectual persuasion than on responses to ineffable experiences, like paintings in a gallery. But, if someone wants to engage in a discussion about religion, fine with me so long as ad hominem attacks, overt or subtle, are avoided. . > > Platt: > > As for moral relativism -- that all behavior is equally moral -- I > > believe > > that's wrong. My moral beliefs follow the MOQ. > > > > Do you think morality applies to beliefs? > > > Steve: > Of course. Aren't intellectual patterns also patterns of value? So your beliefs may be immoral? I think this treads on dangerous ground that can lead to justifying censorship. We've already seen encroachment on free speech by academe in imposing political correctness. In Amsterdam a Dutch parliamentarian is now being put on trial for making remarks that "affect the dignity of Muslims." While I detest ad hominem attacks (which Pirsig says are immoral) I certainly don't consider them criminal offenses subject to punishment by the state nor especially by academe whose openness to contrarians should be sacrosanct. But, I could be wrong. :-) 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/
