Anti-Humanism and the Enabling Power of Religious Dogma

[Tawn]

I merely believe that all beliefs are equally rational.

Santa Claus?

I can see no way of showing that it is more rational to go with your senses than to go against your senses when your senses are not verifiable. Reality is potentially an illusion and there is no way of denying this.

Absolutely. But if you refute what your senses are telling you, you should have a better explanation with some sort of evidencial basis. Otherwise you are just letting your imagination take over your grip on reality.

If you happen to wish to BELIEVE in science then go ahead. But don't you dare call it knowledge or even accurate since your basic premises on which it is all based are merely assumed, just like any other faith.

Science is based on readily accessible information. It is true that there is an assumption that reality is as we percieve it - but to reject such a basic assumption is to become totally nihilistic. Anything goes.

 

[Fluffy]

Santa Claus?

I'm afraid so my friend.

But if you refute what your senses are telling you, you should have a better explanation with some sort of evidencial basis. Otherwise you are just letting your imagination take over your grip on reality.

I disagree. If you start from the premise that reality might be false then there is no reason not to let your imagination take a grip over it because what your imagination comes up with could be equally false or, just perhaps, true.

Science is based on readily accessible information. It is true that there is an assumption that reality is as we percieve it - but to reject such a basic assumption is to become totally nihilistic. Anything goes.

I must reject such a basic assumption. Nihilism, for me, is the gateway to my religion. As you put it, my imagination is now in control of reality and whatever my imagination comes up with is going to 1) be just as potentially real as any reality that my sense percieve and 2) be more to my liking so I fail to see a disadvantage.

For me this reduces the following:
Knowledge=belief
All belief is equal
Therefore, believe what you wish to believe.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

And the mindset that accepts this dismissal is in principle no different than that which burns witches, coerces conversions, bombs abortion clinics, and perpetrates Islamic terror.

With the utmost respect to all my friend here (and in real life) who share the aforementioned mindset, I must agree with Deut here.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I merely believe that all beliefs are equally rational.

No you don't.

 

[Fluffy]

No you don't.

Why not?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Why not?

Because you're rational.

If all beliefs are equally rational, then this would include the belief that your view is irrational nonsense. You cannot hold bothg positions concurrently without rendering your use of the term "rational" meaningless.​

Because you're ethical.

You do not, and would not, consider the racist delusions of the KKK and Nazi Party rational.​

Because you're caring.

You could not, and would not, accept the descision of a loved one to join such a group as rational.​

The suggestion that all beliefs are equally rational is sophomoric pretense. You're walking with a loved one; s/he decides to climb up upon the edge of an overpass railing, believing that s/he can fly. You stand back, smile, and say: "Shucks golly gee, I don't think so, but your beliefs are as rational as mine, so ..."

Please don't insult either of us with such nonsense.

 

[BUDDY]

I think the point is that the dominant perception today is that science makes observations and gathers data, and then formulates a hypothesis based on it, while religion formulates a hypothesis and then searches for the data to support it. The perception is out there because so many times this has been the way religion has worked in the past. I hope that religion will take on a more responsable role in the way they organize data, but I am afraid, given the way religion is today, that is far away from becoming a reality. I am admittedly guilty of doing the same thing, and in my present state of belief, it would be near impossable to throw everything out the window and start from scratch, but I am still hopeful that my religion will support my search for truth rather than hinder it.

 

[lilithu]

The danger of this theology is not that it flies in the face of science, but that it enables the sweeping and brutal dismissal of humanity on the basis of virtually nothing. And the mindset that accepts this dismissal is in principle no different than that which burns witches, coerces conversions, bombs abortion clinics, and perpetrates Islamic terror.

Fair enough. Let me rephrase. Do you beleive that those who believe in something without proof (subjective, since my proof and yours are polar opposites) for its existense, are a danger to society?

Speaking for myself as someone who agrees with Deut's statement, I don't think that it's specifically Christianity or even religion in general that is the problem, but rather an idealogical mindset that crosses these boundaries. It's not belief itself, but anytime when one's belief denies the validity of human experience, when one seeks to impose their "truth" on the human condition rather than gleaning truth from the human condition.

The book of Job, for example, is a very humanist book, even tho it is religious. The two are not mutually exclusive. Job's friends want to impose their ideology - their belief that only bad people are punished - on Job, but Job knows better because his personal experience tells him that this is not the case. In the end, God sides with Job.

And there are very humanist forms of Christianity. Liberation theology, for example, starts with the assumption that all theology is a reflection on God based on human experience, not a description of the "absolute" qualities of God. Liberation theology posits that God cares about human suffering, in this world and in this life, and that a Christian's role as a true believer is to alleviate human suffering, in this world and in this life. The concern is for humans (and the rest of creation); the source of agency is human. It is humanist, and it is Christian.

 

[Fluffy]

Deut. I must just say one thing to that. I never said I believed all beliefs to be rational. I said that all beliefs are equally rational.

The difference is that rationality is a sliding scale going from the irrational to the rational. Two things which are completely irrational are still equally rational.

Perhaps I should have said I view all beliefs as equally irrational but I'm uncertain as to whether that is good English.

If all beliefs are equally rational, then this would include the belief that your view is irrational nonsense. You cannot hold bothg positions concurrently without rendering your use of the term "rational" meaningless.

This bit as got me stumped. It makes sense to me yet does not convince me that my argument is incorrect. Yet I don't think this is down to stubborness on my part. Let me sleep on it and see if I can think better when it isn't 2 in the morning . Night night.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

This bit as got me stumped. It makes sense to me yet does not convince me that my argument is incorrect. Yet I don't think this is down to stubborness on my part. Let me sleep on it and see if I can think better when it isn't 2 in the morning . Night night.

Sleep well ... and perhaps dream a dream where Charles Manson's beliefs and Gandi's beliefs are "equally ratonal".

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Do you beleive that those who believe in something without proof (subjective, since my proof and yours are polar opposites) for its existense, are a danger to society?

Leaving aside my view that the proper domain of "proof" is is law, logic, and liquor, my answer is that it very much depends. Someone who has a mild dislike for the number "13" is most likely benign. Someone who applauds YWHW's vindictive bloodlust, justifying everything from infanticide to genocide to biocide, while noting that s/he is not at all certain that the doctrine presumably mandating such ugliness has been properly translated, has traded ethics for dogma.

 

[Yerda]

I never said I believed all beliefs to be rational. I said that all beliefs are equally rational.

The difference is that rationality is a sliding scale going from the irrational to the rational. Two things which are completely irrational are still equally rational.

All beliefs are equally rational.
Not all beliefs are rational.
[Belief X is a rational concept, belief Y is not.]
X and Y are equally rational.

Is that what you've said here?

 

[TheGreaterGame]

"Ethics"

Where do ethics come from?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Where do ethics come from?

The evolved propensities of self aware, social animals.

 

[lilithu]

I'm not sure that all beliefs are equally rational. Certainly beliefs that defy necessity - for example, jumping off a building and expecting to defy gravity - seem irrational.

But I do think that a lot of beliefs that we view as "irrational" are perfectly rational. They just stem from starting premises that we don't accept.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I hope that religion will take on a more responsable role in the way they organize data, but I am afraid, given the way religion is today, that is far away from becoming a reality.

On the contrary, more than ever in the past the religious community, or at least much of it, is working honestly to come to grips with such things as racism, antisemitism, homophobia, and male chauvinism. Progress is halting and uneven, but the dialogue is real. That dialogue is a far cry from: "Screw the Midianite children. They got what they deserved."

Whatever religion is, it's social, and I suspect that there will be increasing pressure from within the ranks of the religious to serve a socially enlightened role which honors human worth rather than declaring it deserving of nothing, and which honors the trinity of tzedek, kedusha, hesed - justice, holiness, loving kindness - as inseperable aspects of meaningful spirituality.

 

[Ormiston]

On the contrary, more than ever in the past the religious community, or at least much of it, is working honestly to come to grips with such things as racism, antisemitism, homophobia, and male chauvinism. Progress is halting and uneven, but the dialogue is real. That dialogue is a far cry from: "Screw the Midianite children. They got what they deserved."

Whatever religion is, it's social, and I suspect that there will be increasing pressure from within the ranks of the religious to serve a socially enlightened role which honors human worth rather than declaring it deserving of nothing, and which honors the trinity of tzedek, kedusha, hesed - justice, holiness, loving kindness - as inseperable aspects of meaningful spirituality.

Right on....whatever HE said! :jam:

 

[Bass04life]

The convenient thing about using religion to justify "irrational" acts is that it removes all feelings of guilt and responsibility from the person who commits the acts. The more an individual becomes aware of God's character, the more guilt he feels about his own. Theres three ways of getting rid of that guilt: 1. Attempt to change so that your character will resemble God's. 2. Turn your back on what makes you feel guilty and denounce it. 3. Mentally re-arrange the position of you and God... If God's character is demanding change and making you feel guilty, replace God with yourself and judge away as you see fit. After all, God's got your back now, since He apparently asked you to fill his shoes for a while.

Not only have groups such as the KKK and Nazi's chosen option three, but its also the position many church members decide to take. The church can unfortunately give a false sense of self-righteousness which takes its followers from the ,"I'm a sinner" standpoint to the "Save the sinners" standpoint. Some of them even take it two steps further and you end up with your out of control religious fanatics that we all love oh so much.

Thats my position on it... Figured I may as well toss in my two cents.

 

[Tawn]

I disagree. If you start from the premise that reality might be false then there is no reason not to let your imagination take a grip over it because what your imagination comes up with could be equally false or, just perhaps, true.

Youre imagination has no basis. I admit, that reality could be true or false just as easily.. but what we have to consider here is what is rational. By all means QUESTION the basic assumptions we make - but you have to have an alternative set of assumptions which make more sense...

I must reject such a basic assumption. Nihilism, for me, is the gateway to my religion. As you put it, my imagination is now in control of reality and whatever my imagination comes up with is going to 1) be just as potentially real as any reality that my sense percieve and 2) be more to my liking so I fail to see a disadvantage.

Wow.. sounds to me like youre living a self created fantasy. You have NO realiable basis to base your beliefs on except your own whimsy and wishful thinking. I may have a potentially unreliable basis for belief, yet that is at least a better basis than nothing.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It's not belief itself, but anytime when one's belief denies the validity of human experience, when one seeks to impose their "truth" on the human condition rather than gleaning truth from the human condition.

The corollary to this is that such dogma reflects the tyranny of intuition and is genetically resistant to corrective measures. If God tells me to love you, I will love you. If God tells me to kill you, I will kill you. Whether or not I understand God's instructions is irrelevant. Even the accuracy of the textual transmission of those instructions is irrelevant. I am guided solely by the Holy Spirit, or my Higher Self, or my Inner Voice - none of whom are answerable to you, to society, to empirical evidence, to reason, to anything whatsoever.

It is intuition run amok, fully empowered, and unconditionally justified.