Ministers, proselytizers, and ethics

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In Canada (and I believe many other countries), there's a legal concept called "negligent misstatement": someone who puts themselves forward in a way that suggests his or her opinion is reliable has a special obligation to ensure that any opinions they express publicly on the area of their expertise are well-founded. For instance, if I as an engineer say that an unsafe building is structurally sound, I can find myself liable if it comes out that I had no real basis for what I was saying. OTOH, if a non-engineer expressed an opinion that the building was safe without justification, their liability would be much less (or maybe zero).

Applying this principle more broadly, I draw a distinction between two classes of religious believers:

- everyday believers who happen to have become convinced that their religion is correct.

- proselytizers, evangelizers, and ministers who present religious beliefs to others as reliable, either to convince them to adopt the religion or to keep them in the religion.

Now... I'm not suggesting that ministers and evangelizers be legally liable for their preaching, but it seems to me that those who try to convince others of their religious beliefs are ethically obligated to have good support for those beliefs in a way that the typical congregant in the pew isn't.

Do you agree? Disagree? Why?

 

[Sunstone]

I have long wished I could sue certain clergy for something I had no real term for. Now I do: "negligent misstatements".

Semi-joking aside, I think the clergy does indeed have an ethical obligation to speak truthfully about things they claim expertise in -- very much including an ethical obligation to speak truthfully about the scope and limits of their expertise.

And if they are not intimately familiar with what the limits of their knowledge are, then how can they claim to be genuine experts in their fields.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

… it seems to me that those who try to convince others of their religious beliefs are ethically obligated to have good support for those beliefs <

That leaves most of the "new atheists" condemned, then.

 

[George-ananda]

it seems to me that those who try to convince others of their religious beliefs are ethically obligated to have good support for those beliefs


Do you agree? Disagree? Why?

As usual I disagree. What would 'good support' look like for any belief in things beyond the physical plane?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

As usual I disagree. What would 'good support' look like for any belief in things beyond the physical plane?

That's a problem for them to figure out in a defensible way. There are many ways to do this depending on the specifics of the claim.

As a starting point, if a claim isn't supported any better than conflicting claims, then it isn't supported well enough to rely on it.

To use the engineering analogy: if my calculations support the conclusion "this building will collapse with the next gust of wind" as well as the conclusion "this building will withstand everything it will experience for a thousand years," then I really have no idea when it's likely to collapse. Even without considering the soundness of my methods, I can dismiss both conclusions as unreliable.

... so that's the lower limit. Any claim not supported to that level is clearly, demonstrably not supported enough. Above that low bar, we can talk about - and potentially have reasonable disagreements about - what level of support is appropriate. But I've yet to see any religious or supernatural claim that clears that low bar, so the question is moot for the time being.

If it's impossible to justify religious claims in general, then it would be unethical for any religious minister of proselytizer to make them out to be reliable.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

As usual I disagree. What would 'good support' look like for any belief in things beyond the physical plane?

Out of curiosity: say someone presents you with a new claim about "things beyond the physical plane." It doesn't conflict with anything you already accept as true, but you haven't accepted it yet. What sort of support would you look for to decide if the claim is justified?

 

[Losin]

Who would decide what is ethicaly right or wrong? General opinion? Even if it leads to clearly immoral behavior?

 

[Twilight Hue]

In Canada (and I believe many other countries), there's a legal concept called "negligent misstatement": someone who puts themselves forward in a way that suggests his or her opinion is reliable has a special obligation to ensure that any opinions they express publicly on the area of their expertise are well-founded. For instance, if I as an engineer say that an unsafe building is structurally sound, I can find myself liable if it comes out that I had no real basis for what I was saying. OTOH, if a non-engineer expressed an opinion that the building was safe without justification, their liability would be much less (or maybe zero).

Applying this principle more broadly, I draw a distinction between two classes of religious believers:

- everyday believers who happen to have become convinced that their religion is correct.

- proselytizers, evangelizers, and ministers who present religious beliefs to others as reliable, either to convince them to adopt the religion or to keep them in the religion.

Now... I'm not suggesting that ministers and evangelizers be legally liable for their preaching, but it seems to me that those who try to convince others of their religious beliefs are ethically obligated to have good support for those beliefs in a way that the typical congregant in the pew isn't.

Do you agree? Disagree? Why?

I think there should be criminal liability in cases where people get harmed or killed due to religious advice and directives. Civil liability in cases of fraud.

 

[McBell]

Now... I'm not suggesting that ministers and evangelizers be legally liable for their preaching,

Why not?

 

[Sunstone]

Who would decide what is ethicaly right or wrong? General opinion? Even if it leads to clearly immoral behavior?

Who should decide it "leads to clearly immoral behavior" if not the people themselves? Old men in skirts?

 

[YmirGF]

In Canada (and I believe many other countries), there's a legal concept called "negligent misstatement": someone who puts themselves forward in a way that suggests his or her opinion is reliable has a special obligation to ensure that any opinions they express publicly on the area of their expertise are well-founded. For instance, if I as an engineer say that an unsafe building is structurally sound, I can find myself liable if it comes out that I had no real basis for what I was saying. OTOH, if a non-engineer expressed an opinion that the building was safe without justification, their liability would be much less (or maybe zero).

Applying this principle more broadly, I draw a distinction between two classes of religious believers:

- everyday believers who happen to have become convinced that their religion is correct.

- proselytizers, evangelizers, and ministers who present religious beliefs to others as reliable, either to convince them to adopt the religion or to keep them in the religion.

Now... I'm not suggesting that ministers and evangelizers be legally liable for their preaching, but it seems to me that those who try to convince others of their religious beliefs are ethically obligated to have good support for those beliefs in a way that the typical congregant in the pew isn't.

Do you agree? Disagree? Why?

As much as I would love to see some human animals held to account for their wild and crazy ideas, this would clearly mark the top of a very, very slippery slope. It could be quite hilarious to add warning labels on religious works, somewhat like the disclaimers at the start of InfoMercials or on a pack of cigarettes, LOL.

"Caution: The material you area about to read, listen to or view relies solely on faith based reasoning and therefore can neither be proven nor disproved. Caveat Emptor! Said material is designed for adult audiences only due to considerable violent content and should not be presented to minors. Use this product in a well lit, ventilated room and avoid inhaling."

 

[Losin]

Who should decide it "leads to clearly immoral behavior" if not the people themselves? Old men in skirts?

People dont know what is best for them, look at food and obesity, if people would know that it is bad for them they would not do it. I dont understand the second question.

 

[Sunstone]

People dont know what is best for them, look at food and obesity, if people would know that it is bad for them they would not do it. I dont understand the second question.

You cannot logically say that everyone doesn't know what is best for them based on only some people not knowing what is best for them.

Beyond that, it would seem to me that people -- even those who do not do what is best for them -- have a moral right to self-determination (in so far as their right does not trample other people's rights). If you disagree with that, then on what grounds do you disagree with that?

Last, no one is infallible, including the "authorities" (such as religious leaders, holy books, etc) that so many people look to for direction. So you might as well make your own mistakes in life, rather than have your mistakes made for you by some fallible authority.

 

[Losin]

You cannot logically say that everyone doesn't know what is best for them based on only some people not knowing what is best for them.

Beyond that, it would seem to me that people -- even those who do not do what is best for them -- have a moral right to self-determination (in so far as their right does not trample other people's rights). If you disagree with that, then on what grounds do you disagree with that?

Last, no one is infallible, including the "authorities" (such as religious leaders, holy books, etc) that so many people look to for direction. So you might as well make your own mistakes in life, rather than have your mistakes made for you by some fallible authority.

ad 1) I can it is called Argument based on Generalization.
ad 2) Does that mean I have the right as a self determined person to cut my wrist or otherwise self-harm myself ?
ad 3) On what basis you pressupose that no one is infallible ?

 

[George-ananda]

If it's impossible to justify religious claims in general, then it would be unethical for any religious minister of proselytizer to make them out to be reliable.

So you are really calling for the end to all religious beliefs that include 'things beyond the physical plane' that by definition are not provable through physical scientific demonstration??

 

[Sunstone]

ad 1) I can it is called Argument based on Generalization.

To argue that all things are x based on the fact that some things are x is a logically invalid generalization when it is known that somethings are not x.

ad 2) Does that mean I have the right as a self determined person to cut my wrist or otherwise self-harm myself ?

Yes, unless it can be shown otherwise.

ad 3) On what basis you pressupose that no one is infallible ?

Name an infallible person.

 

[George-ananda]

Out of curiosity: say someone presents you with a new claim about "things beyond the physical plane." It doesn't conflict with anything you already accept as true, but you haven't accepted it yet. What sort of support would you look for to decide if the claim is justified?

Your question implies that acceptance is 'yes' or 'no'. I think in terms of reasonableness and likelihood. And in that consideration I include all evidence and argumentation pertinent to the issue at hand such as quantity, quality and consistency of the evidence and argumentation from all sides. So I usual just talk in terms of reasonableness and the strongest statement I make after in favor of a belief is 'beyond reasonable doubt'. For example I believe conscious entities exist outside of our familiar physical plane 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

 

[Losin]

To argue that all things are x based on the fact that some things are x is a logically invalid generalization when it is known that somethings are not x.



Yes, unless it can be shown otherwise.



Name an infallible person.

I am not claiming in my analogy that since some people are obese that all people are obese. It shows that since some people are obese than other people are can suffer from obesity too. They might have different issues. Like in morality not everybody is stealing, but that someone does infers that it is possible to do things which one finds ok, but they are not. So people should be told what to do (not to steal).

So if everybody decided that suiccide is ok and everybody would kill himself there would be nothing wrong about it? Or even wierd? Does not it oppose your concience to thing this is allright?

God is infallible person. Logic is infallible even though it is not person, but to do things which defies logic as a moraly okay is to defy infallible part of universe.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

I think, at the very least, we can bust a lot of preachers for fraud in cases of "medical healing" and "charity". Just throwing the faith healers and the wealthy "charitable" types should reduce a lot of the problem.

 

[Twilight Hue]

As much as I would love to see some human animals held to account for their wild and crazy ideas, this would clearly mark the top of a very, very slippery slope. It could be quite hilarious to add warning labels on religious works, somewhat like the disclaimers at the start of InfoMercials or on a pack of cigarettes, LOL.

"Caution: The material you area about to read, listen to or view relies solely on faith based reasoning and therefore can neither be proven nor disproved. Caveat Emptor! Said material is designed for adult audiences only due to considerable violent content and should not be presented to minors. Use this product in a well lit, ventilated room and avoid inhaling."

I see new attorney billboards popping up now. *grin*