Anti-Humanism and the Enabling Power of Religious Dogma

[true blood]

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?

The founding fathers of my country thought it was very important to protect the right to believe in something without proof. Doubtful they would provide protection for a freedom that some might think breeds danger to a society. Probably the opposite and comparing the societies of the world today, it's evident.

 

[lilithu]

I may have a potentially unreliable basis for belief, yet that is at least a better basis than nothing.

So you say.

I prefer the approach that, taking necessity into account, does not claim to have a privileged point of view. With no privileged pov, there is no need/desire to convince other people that their beliefs are wrong.

 

[Tawn]

With no privileged pov, there is no need/desire to convince other people that their beliefs are wrong.

Awww... that takes all the fun out of it..

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The founding fathers of my country thought it was very important to protect the right to believe in something without proof.

As do I.

Doubtful they would provide protection for a freedom that some might think breeds danger to a society.

Thoughtless nonsense: civil liberties imply that you have the right to embrace, for example, Nazi theories or Aryan superiority. That is not an endorsement of racism and antisemitism as constructive or benign

Probably the opposite and comparing the societies of the world today, it's evident.

Theocracies are a monument to the anti-humanism and the enabling power of religious dogma.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

With no privileged pov, there is no need/desire to convince other people that their beliefs are wrong.

And if those beliefs are sexist? ... racist? ... xenophobic? ... homophobic?

Seventy years ago you sit in an Austrian Lutheran congregation, and the Jewish question comes up?
Forty years ago you sit in a Mississippi Baptist congregation, and the issue of Jim Crow comes up.
Next Sunday, you sit in a Methodist congregation, and the issue of same-sex unions/marriages comes up.​

Do you truly have no responsibility? Isn't the logic of "no privileged pov" moral relativism, and isn't the logic of moral relativism moral abdication?

 

[true blood]

Thoughtless nonsense: civil liberties imply that you have the right to embrace, for example, Nazi theories or Aryan superiority. That is not an endorsement of racism and antisemitism as constructive or benign

Definately not pleasant and benefical endorsements but when weighing such liberties against the lack of, a far more destructive endorsement is given birth. The lack of such liberties were the circumstances in which "nazi theories or aryan superiority" reared it's ugly head. The hope is that with these civil liberties ignorance is lost.

 

[lilithu]

And if those beliefs are sexist? ... racist? ... xenophobic? ... homophobic?

Seventy years ago you sit in an Austrian Lutheran congregation, and the Jewish question comes up?
Forty years ago you sit in a Mississippi Baptist congregation, and the issue of Jim Crow comes up.
Next Sunday, you sit in a Methodist congregation, and the issue of same-sex unions/marriages comes up.​

Do you truly have no responsibility? Isn't the logic of "no privileged pov" moral relativism, and isn't the logic of moral relativism moral abdication?

Namaste Deut,

I was refering to "privileged pov" with respect to beliefs on the nature of things - whether or not there is God, whether or not there is Santa Claus, whether or not God has revealed Godself in a book, whether or not the only thing that exists is that which we can observe and measure, etc. None of these points of view are privileged, imo. (Tho I certainly have my own preferences amongst them.) And I do bristle when someone claims a privileged position when it comes to such things.

But I am not a moral relativist. In fact, I think most people who use that term on themselves are mistaken. Only a psychopath can be a true moral relativist.

Morality, like necessity, is something that crosses these boundaries of belief. One can believe that Jesus walked on water, but if a person believes that he or she can also walk on water, necessity will prove otherwise. One's beliefs are constrained to the extent that they, in actuality, violate natural law. One can believe that God favors one group of people over another, but if a person believes that is a licence for him or her to harm other people, morality - based on humanism - says otherwise. One's beliefs are constrained to the extent that they, in actuality, violate someone else's personhood. As you said in another post, there are "corrective measures" to which one's beliefs must be compared.

 

[Tawn]

I was refering to "privileged pov" with respect to beliefs on the nature of things - whether or not there is God, whether or not there is Santa Claus, whether or not God has revealed Godself in a book, whether or not the only thing that exists is that which we can observe and measure, etc. None of these points of view are privileged, imo. (Tho I certainly have my own preferences amongst them.) And I do bristle when someone claims a privileged position when it comes to such things.

I dont claim a priviledged pov. Except a person with opposing beliefs must have 'something' to base their beliefs on. If its a book or a feeling - fine.. but when people start saying they can imagine what they like and believe that then I think I am right to discredit those particular reasons..

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Namaste Deut,

I was refering to "privileged pov" with respect to beliefs on the nature of things - whether or not there is God, whether or not there is Santa Claus, whether or not God has revealed Godself in a book, whether or not the only thing that exists is that which we can observe and measure, etc. None of these points of view are privileged, imo. (Tho I certainly have my own preferences amongst them.) And I do bristle when someone claims a privileged position when it comes to such things.

But I am not a moral relativist. In fact, I think most people who use that term on themselves are mistaken. Only a psychopath can be a true moral relativist.

I understand, my friend, and your comments never cease to delight, and often instruct, me. But I fear you may rapidly confront a problem of recursion. So, for example, we have the issue of "'privileged pov' with respect to beliefs on the nature of things", such as:

• whether or not there is God
• whether or not there is Santa Claus
• whether or not God has revealed Godself in a book
• whether or not the only thing that exists is that which we can observe and measure
• whether or not there is a master race

But, wait. Where do we draw the line? How and why do we draw the line? And if we insist that the last question is somhow different than the preceding ones, should we take that as a priviledged point of view. It's a slipper slope.

 

[lilithu]

I understand, my friend, and your comments never cease to delight, and often instruct, me. But I fear you may rapidly confront a problem of recursion. So, for example, we have the issue of "'privileged pov' with respect to beliefs on the nature of things", such as:

• whether or not there is God
• whether or not there is Santa Claus
• whether or not God has revealed Godself in a book
• whether or not the only thing that exists is that which we can observe and measure
• whether or not there is a master race

But, wait. Where do we draw the line? How and why do we draw the line? And if we insist that the last question is somhow different than the preceding ones, should we take that as a priviledged point of view. It's a slipper slope.

I guess, intellectually, I don't draw a line between the last question and the others (even tho on a gut level I find the last one to be repugnant). I would say that if some people believe that there is a master race (of which they invariably believe that they are a part), so be it. My pov disagrees with their pov, but objectively speaking, I cannot say that they are wrong and I am right. However, if from this belief, they believe that it's warranted to harm people who are not of this "master race," then I will object and resist. I object, not because of their belief per se, but because they're seeking to impose their beliefs upon someone else.

Now someone may object here that by saying that people can't impose their beliefs on someone else, I am in fact imposing my belief on someone else. The ideas of human sovereignty and freedom are afterall beliefs, not objective facts, and I am choosing to insist that they are true for everyone. This is the same paradox that I face with my current signature (the only thing that a UU can't tolerate is intolerance). To this objection, I can only say that I have in mind the ultimate goal of maximizing the amount of freedom available to all humans. Freedom is the necessary condition for humans to be able to make the choices that "create" themselves - to bring who they choose to be into being. (This, to me, is "the purpose of life.") It's with the goal of maximizing freedom in mind that I say that no pov is privileged over another, lest someone feel justified to impinge on someone else's freedom. And it's also with the goal of maximizing freedom in mind that I limit each person's freedom at the point where it impinges on someone else's freedom. In order to maximize freedom for everyone, there must be that one limitation on freedom for everyone. To my mind, it constitutes a type of "necessity."

Of course, this is a liberal/humanist point of view. Someone who does not share the same ultimate goal will not come to the same beliefs.

Ultimately, you are right Deut. I cannot say that there is no privileged pov without presupposing a privileged pov - the one that leads me to that statement. This, to me, has always been one of the challenges of liberalism. Taken to its logical conclusions, tolerance and openess lead to either moral abdication or hypocrisy. (I choose the latter.) Whereas, people who claim that their pov is right and seek to impose it on others do not face this dillema. (That doesn't mean they're right!!)

 

[Fluffy]

Right. I have all day to think about this so hopefully this has unmuddled my thoughts slightly.

I think it is irrational to base a belief on an assumption. I do not think that anything is verifiable therefore all knowledge is based on an assumption. Therefore all knowledge, beliefs and convictions are irrational.

If everything is an assumption then on what grounds can we say that X is more rational than Y if neither has basis in fact?

Tawn, you have grown up within a certain reality which may or may not be true and you happen to find this reality the easiest one to accept. Unfortunately, for some unknown reason, you have decided that because you find it easier to do this, that this adds any more validity to your assumption. If I found it easier to assume that invisible pink unicorns existed, would you find that an acceptable method of inserting some validity into that assumption?

I also fail to see why my believing in something because I wish to and for no other reason is any different from believing in something based on any other irrational assumption.

 

[Ormiston]

I guess, intellectually, I don't draw a line between the last question and the others (even tho on a gut level I find the last one to be repugnant). I would say that if some people believe that there is a master race (of which they invariably believe that they are a part), so be it. My pov disagrees with their pov, but objectively speaking, I cannot say that they are wrong and I am right. However, if from this belief, they believe that it's warranted to harm people who are not of this "master race," then I will object and resist. I object, not because of their belief per se, but because they're seeking to impose their beliefs upon someone else.

Now someone may object here that by saying that people can't impose their beliefs on someone else, I am in fact imposing my belief on someone else. The ideas of human sovereignty and freedom are afterall beliefs, not objective facts, and I am choosing to insist that they are true for everyone. This is the same paradox that I face with my current signature (the only thing that a UU can't tolerate is intolerance). To this objection, I can only say that I have in mind the ultimate goal of maximizing the amount of freedom available to all humans. Freedom is the necessary condition for humans to be able to make the choices that "create" themselves - to bring who they choose to be into being. (This, to me, is "the purpose of life.") It's with the goal of maximizing freedom in mind that I say that no pov is privileged over another, lest someone feel justified to impinge on someone else's freedom. And it's also with the goal of maximizing freedom in mind that I limit each person's freedom at the point where it impinges on someone else's freedom. In order to maximize freedom for everyone, there must be that one limitation on freedom for everyone. To my mind, it constitutes a type of "necessity."

Of course, this is a liberal/humanist point of view. Someone who does not share the same ultimate goal will not come to the same beliefs.

Ultimately, you are right Deut. I cannot say that there is no privileged pov without presupposing a privileged pov - the one that leads me to that statement. This, to me, has always been one of the challenges of liberalism. Taken to its logical conclusions, tolerance and openess lead to either moral abdication or hypocrisy. (I choose the latter.) Whereas, people who claim that their pov is right and seek to impose it on others do not face this dillema. (That doesn't mean they're right!!)

Once again the limitations of our existance have produced a thing of beauty. Every individuals point of view is privileged to them. And none of us are right, however some must be more accurate than others. Right?? (I doubt it)

 

[Tawn]

I think it is irrational to base a belief on an assumption. I do not think that anything is verifiable therefore all knowledge is based on an assumption. Therefore all knowledge, beliefs and convictions are irrational.

If everything is an assumption then on what grounds can we say that X is more rational than Y if neither has basis in fact?

Tawn, you have grown up within a certain reality which may or may not be true and you happen to find this reality the easiest one to accept. Unfortunately, for some unknown reason, you have decided that because you find it easier to do this, that this adds any more validity to your assumption. If I found it easier to assume that invisible pink unicorns existed, would you find that an acceptable method of inserting some validity into that assumption?

I also fail to see why my believing in something because I wish to and for no other reason is any different from believing in something based on any other irrational assumption.

Ok I think the film The Matrix is a good representation of what were talking about. We could be living in some made up reality. Everything we see and experience could be false. This I accept.

However, even if I can accept this fact that reality may be false - what reason do I have to regard any other belief system as more rational? There is no information supporting such beliefs. So if I reject what we see and hear as reality I have no basis except whimsy to structure my alternative belief system around.

It is not irrational to base a belief in an assumption.. all beliefs are based on assumption.. what makes the belief rational or not is the basis for that assumption.
If you can make an assumption on existencial information, know it to be falsifyable and therefore be open to alterntive explanations if they are presented - then you are being rational.

Making this assumption has nothing to do with what is easier to accept. Sometimes what I see and hear is difficult to accept.. however it seems to me that a belief based on what you want to be true is the easiest thing to believe in there can possibly be.

Essenatially my mind can potentially come up with any arbitary belief system it wants to. If you really mean what you are saying and that all belief systems are irrational, then you cannot believe in anything without being irrational. Therefore the only rational thing to do would be to believe in nothing.. With no beliefs you can make no actions.. not even inaction.. and you soon go mad because thats not possible to do.

What makes belief in what you want any stronger as a belief system than say, what you fear?

 

[Bass04life]

Impressive argument Tawn. I noticed the main argument here is turning to rational belief vs. irrational belief which made some interesting questions for me. 1. When you grow up and construct your own view of common sense and rational choice, doesn't society and culture have the greatest impact on your perspective? I believe it does but I also believe theres some things that society and culture are completely incapable of changing a person's views on. For example, who told you fire was hot? Even if you were told fire was hot, did you just believe it or did you test it? Have you ever seen a child stick a fork in a toaster twice? Rest their hand in an open flame twice? Try and punch through a rock twice? So couldn't you argue that there are certain things we learn about making rational decisions by trial-and-error rather than being taught by culture or society?

So if you would agree with that point, then wouldn't you have to also agree that rational choice and belief do in fact exist? 2. What exactly is wrong with being irrational? Look back through history, how many of the people whose names are worth mentioning for making some sort of discovery or inventing some new tool were considered completely rational, center-field, on-their-rocker people?So that makes you wonder who was more irrational, the individual who made himself comfortable with his situation and did nothing or the individual who believed (and proved) his situation could be made better? So whose standards of rationality should a person conform too? Mass societies who repeatedly has sworn their is nothing more than what is now, or his own that he has spent time in actually reflecting on "common knowledge" and finding a hole that needs filled? Any insight from people who feel they understand what I'm talking about and can show a valid answer to my questions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks again.

 

[Ormiston]

Ok I think the film The Matrix is a good representation of what were talking about. We could be living in some made up reality. Everything we see and experience could be false. This I accept.

However, even if I can accept this fact that reality may be false - what reason do I have to regard any other belief system as more rational? There is no information supporting such beliefs. So if I reject what we see and hear as reality I have no basis except whimsy to structure my alternative belief system around.

It is not irrational to base a belief in an assumption.. all beliefs are based on assumption.. what makes the belief rational or not is the basis for that assumption.
If you can make an assumption on existencial information, know it to be falsifyable and therefore be open to alterntive explanations if they are presented - then you are being rational.

Making this assumption has nothing to do with what is easier to accept. Sometimes what I see and hear is difficult to accept.. however it seems to me that a belief based on what you want to be true is the easiest thing to believe in there can possibly be.

Essenatially my mind can potentially come up with any arbitary belief system it wants to. If you really mean what you are saying and that all belief systems are irrational, then you cannot believe in anything without being irrational. Therefore the only rational thing to do would be to believe in nothing.. With no beliefs you can make no actions.. not even inaction.. and you soon go mad because thats not possible to do.

What makes belief in what you want any stronger as a belief system than say, what you fear?

I think a safe 'assumption' is that we can believe in the limited 'things' that we know to be true. I like much of Descarte's reasoning on this subject. You don't have to prove everything as truth. It seems true AND I have no reason to doubt that it is (as this applies strictly to the senses).

 

[Ormiston]

What exactly is wrong with being irrational?

Nothing is "wrong" with being irrational. But something is distinctly wrong in trying to pawn it off as truth.

 

[Fluffy]

However, even if I can accept this fact that reality may be false - what reason do I have to regard any other belief system as more rational? There is no information supporting such beliefs. So if I reject what we see and hear as reality I have no basis except whimsy to structure my alternative belief system around.

Yes I agree with that whole heartedly. I would certainly not want to imply that I thought my belief system was anything more than the product of my own whim.

It is not irrational to base a belief in an assumption.. all beliefs are based on assumption.. what makes the belief rational or not is the basis for that assumption.
If you can make an assumption on existencial information, know it to be falsifyable and therefore be open to alterntive explanations if they are presented - then you are being rational.

This I also totally agree with and it completely destroys my argument lol. Thank you Tawn . I completely concede the point that some belief systems are more rational than others and I just hope that my beliefs hold up under rationality.

 

[TheGreaterGame]

Where do ethics come from?
The evolved propensities of self aware, social animals.

Isn't it true that God has put within the creature . . . a knowledge of right and wrong?

 

[Pah]

Isn't it true that God has put within the creature . . . a knowledge of right and wrong?

No, according to science and according to John Locke. Much work has been done in evolutionary sociology and anthropology and all of it points to a "blank slate" that is filled with nuture.

John Locke, in his "An Essay Concerning Human Understanding", shows the "blank slate" conclusively.

 

[Ormiston]

Isn't it true that God has put within the creature . . . a knowledge of right and wrong?

How did you come to this conclusion?