View Single Post
Old 04-25-2006, 08:19 AM   #158
sleeper
Minion of Satan
 
sleeper's Avatar
 
Posts: 8,799
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lie
Can you explain what you think the "hard core" of that belief is as you see it? Because I have a hard time knowing what we're really talking about here. Like, if someone is religious with a capital R, what does that mean to you and what precisely is worthy of criticism, if you could be as specific as possible?

Again, the example of being a pedophile or serial killer just doesn't work, and not because of the extreme negative connotation, but because being a serial killer means you kill people, being a pedophile means you're sexually attracted to children, but what does being religious mean? That's a serious question and I'd like you to try and answer it. You can say that it's buying into dogma or a world view but is that really the case? I think there are people who don't "buy into" a dogma or world view the way that you mean but at the same time consider themselves religious and would be offended if you told them they weren't.

What I don't like and what I would criticize (and this is the part we presumably agree on) is not some "hard core" of belief that exists inside of people, it's people using their religion outside of themselves for direct influence, argument, or coercion. The way that I see it, if that "hard core" (in my interpretation) truly exists in a bad way, it shows itself. I don't see anything necessarily worthy of criticism about people embracing an abstract concept, even if it has roots in dogma. The only thing I see worthy of criticism is attempting to bring that abstraction into the concrete world and or using it against other people in a concrete way. Beyond that, it really is speculation unless you can be more specific.

I can understand your frustration with my refusal to just deal with the classic understanding of what being religious means, but I think that hits on the very difference in the way we see things. It's not equally likely that a person can be effectively taken over by an obsession with soccer as through some religion, no, but my point is that a person can choose to be taken over by any number of things, religion just being the most practical for that, and no matter how you look at it, whatever a person believes is something they are doing themselves. It is not a passive choice even if it seems like one, as I'm sure you would agree. It's strange because it seems like even though you are criticizing a religious worldview in the face of rationality and reason, you're mystifying religion, and that's exactly what I'm trying not to do. I'm pretty sure that at least you would agree that, generally speaking, people create religion because it suits their needs, right? This makes religion something that people do rather than something that people accept. Everything that a person does is significant in some way or other, and you're right, anything about a person can potentially change the way you look at them, but that little declaration "I am religious" means nothing to me in itself. You may not believe me, but stick with me for a minute here and try to understand what I'm saying. As with your question about who I would feel more comfortable with, I pretty much said that if I had to choose being trapped on an island with one of those people, I would choose someone who was not "religious" as I would be inclined to think that the statistical chance of them being a nutcase would be lower. That is as far as I can go in answering that question, because statistics/facts as they stand, are all that I have to go on there. I'm answering it as best as I can, not avoiding it, but the fact that there ARE other factors involved, and that "religion" is more of a statistical and associative land mine than anything, is kind of the whole point of what I'm saying.

If I knew someone for years and thought they were a cool person and so on, and then suddenly, out of nowhere, they said, "I'm religious," of course I would be aware that might be something that could change the way I saw them, but I would not know if it did until they explained what that meant or how that affected them.

Okay, so let's take the bull by the horns because I have the feeling I'm still not talking about the same thing you are. Let's say there's this guy who's raised Catholic. In his head he believes very simply in all the literal dogma, in the saints, etc., but he never speaks a word of it to anyone outside his family or who doesn't share his beliefs. So we have this literal structure of actual existing belief in very specific things that kind of holds down this spirtual fortress for him, and we're presuming it's no more complicated than that. Through communion and confession he feels, we presume, something that he interprets as spiritual fulfillment, and when he does something that he interprets as a sin, he feels guilty, but he never mentions this to anyone but a priest. Okay, so let's say he's taught about evolution and does not believe in it immediately because he finds it to not be accordance with his beliefs. He doesn't tell anyone he doesn't believe in it, but he doesn't, simply because of what he's been taught through the Catholic church. He does not consider any other option, but he also does not talk about it. Is this worthy of criticism? In my opinion yes, and the main reason why is because he has somehow equated spiritual fulfillment with his ability to uphold a doctrine whose only inherent virtue is its age, and he's probably doing it because he's too scared to consider anything else. There is nothing substantial being used here and it's really at the point where an arbitrary set of rules are really using him, because he has not even thought about why he believes what he believes.

So if that's what you're talking about then yes, I think that kind of thought process is worthy of criticism, but first of all you're never going to be in a position in criticize a person for something like that unless they come right out and tell you what's going on in their head and second of all what I would criticize him for is not being religious but his thought process concerning it and his refusal to consider anything beyond very simple, literal lines.
honestly, i was hoping you wouldnt ask me to define that idea. not because the idea is a sham or false or something, but because its just really tricky to define and is something of a trap. but ill try anyways. i guess the answer could be in a question: what elements are present across all religions? i mean look up in a dictionary the definition of religion and i guess that would be it (varying definitions notwithstanding). and then from that, what fundamentally do you see as wrong with accepting that? on that basic level. i vaguely outlined this before when i said that all would necessarily 1nclude (something along the lines of) "putting yourself within this preexisting system of belief that has to do with the supernatural", and that youd be "adopting a phony, catch all, absolutist solution to life", with some kind of worship i think, by definition, always involved. theres this, as ive seen it worded recently, "inner attitude." so its not just analogous to something like faith, for instance, it is a system of faith. i mean, how far can a religion ever distance itself from these things and still be a religion? we are talking about "religion" and what it means when someone says they are religious here, to be clear, not religious-like things or if that common understanding of the words meaning is less than perfect. look:

Quote:
Worship is probably the most basic element of religion, but moral conduct, right belief, and participation in religious institutions are generally also constituent elements of the religious life as practiced by believers and worshipers and as commanded by religious sages and scriptures.
this is all brought up vis a vis this idea that religions are different and vary. right, i admit, but how much? ever enough to stop being a religion? if not its still a religion, still has that basic meaning (the "incontrovertible hard core"), and that basic meaning is, to me, incredibly stupid. i know weve moved beyond this idea and have gone into other issues, like what other things that arent explicitly religious are still equally worthy of being effected by the same criticism, and how or if one is even able to criticize someone for being "religious", when that term doesnt necessarily correspond to that hard core anymore



again you misinterpreted my analogy. i would be wiling to just automatically assume fault, because i dont doubt your ability to interpret correctly in general, but this time i dont think that would be merited. i think i sufficiently made clear what i meant. i mean, i couched that, admittedly loaded, analogy in all these specifications and redefinitions and everything -- such to the point where i dont think you could claim to just get caught up in the superficial appeal of pedophila in that analogy. i just re-read that paragraph and i dont know how i could make what i meant clearer. it has to do with your knowledge of a person and how that can change, with your view of them justly following suit. its about what it means from your perspective, your understanding of that person. coming upon the "knowledge" of someone being a catholic, or a pedophile, or whatever, can change things. you just seemed to be suggesting that.... i cant word this that much better than i did originally, so ill just copy it: "that you can be totally ok with someone first, and that its silly to then be less ok with them later, after finding out theyre catholic or some shit." which isnt true i think
the point was that i wasnt comparing religion to pedophilia, much as i wasnt comparing it serial killing earlier, i was just trying to illustrate a general principle here. extreme examples are (their flammability in arguments aside) good for this. theres no better way to demonstrate a principle than with extremes. in principle, that is


now youre bearing your true libertarian colours. truly sickening. put your clothes back on, i dont want to see this! personal belief, when its localized to that personal realm, doesnt effect you, so, therefore, who cares, right? when it does effect you then you can criticize it. of course this is basically true, but there are a few bits of clarifying to do. one is that we are kind of trying to establish the "right or wrong" aspect of it, which exists apart from the question of if or if not it affects you. two is that this isnt just an idea floating out there, its in the context of judging a person. like im not judging these mysterious strangers out there (apparently 70% of canadians identify themselves as religious), it has to do with someone telling you that they are religious and how you interpret that, what that will end up meaning in respect to your view of the person. its fine to, in the appropriate context, take it to mean somehting negative because, whether or not it affects you, it does speak to who the person is, just as any bit of information would.
Quote:
I don't see anything necessarily worthy of criticism about people embracing an abstract concept
i guess this is where we differ. is any abstract concept as good as another? are they all equal? if not then why couldnt you judge someone on theirs? if the abstract concept someone embraces is, say, contradictory and irrational, am i to ignore that? does what someone believes, the choices they make and their deeds, not reflect on the person as a whole?


not equally likely sure. but i dont agree that these things people choose to be taken over with are, again, ultimately similar enough to refer to the same way. i said before that i think religion goes beyond that and does more, than its political or sports-related brethren. there may be similarities in how and why people accept either, but there are differing consequences of each individual path, and religion's is notable for its ugliness


i see what youre saying with the statistics of it. but what are those statistics founded in? surely not something irrelevant. the fact that you choose the non-religious person speaks to the significance of it in itself. obviously, yes, its just probabilistic, not deterministic, and its exact meaning depends on circumstance (like that kid who believes or whatever), i agree to all of this


so this "guy" is you, right? sad

but, yeah, thats one way it could play out. not only in that form, but the general (im saying this word too much) principle of it, where someone can still be criticized for belief that is passive, or that type of thought process that the presence of religion might signify. i think people not only have a responsibility to ask these questions and to be willing to abandon beliefs in face of evidence that proves them false, but, knowing the natural curiosity of people, that it actually takes active suppression, usually via cheap rationalizations, to uphold them throughout life. its rarely ever so passive, i think. past a certain maturity level, its a positive accomplishment, it couldnt just happen by accident, so to speak

the core idea here that you keep on mentioning is that youd have to talk to them to know what it means exactly, but that if it means what weve been talking about then, sure, youd criticize it. i generally agree that its dependent on other things, as ive pained to make clear, but at the same time i think i have, youd agree, a lower threshold than you. i think im pretty distrustful of what people say about themselves. with that, theres such possibility for dishonesty or misrepresentation, while their actions, on the other hand, are pretty definitive. with speech, i wouldnt necessarily accept the meaning of what someone says, but look to the meaning of the act of saying it. if you see what i mean. i dont think youre exactly suggesting this, but i dont think that it all has to be so explicit, where you have to hear what they say about their belief. i think other things can suffice as evidence towards these ends. like i dont have to ask anything someone about what their faith means, because other parts of their character or behaviour can explain it all. i think we agree on this though, i dont think youre so literal with it

it seems like, in general, our views are converging. or, rather, just being revealed to not be that far apart. its all so peaceful

Last edited by sleeper : 04-25-2006 at 08:30 AM.

 
sleeper is offline