Politics & Religion: A Simple Question

[Kekerusey]

Generally speaking (and in my experience it's true of this forum) it is frowned upon to be strongly critical of the religious views of others. My question is why? I'll try and explain.

There are many things we are critical of ... stars behaving badly, criminal behaviour, ethics, philosophies and politics. Indeed (focusing on the last) the kind of arguments that can erupt from differences in political viewpoints are often terrible things to behold.

So why is it OK to (often very strongly) attack the political views of a person, famous or otherwise, yet it is somehow frowned upon to do the same to a person's religious views? Both are choices freely made, even if inherited from parents, something I should know as I was brought up Catholic but broke away from it for reasons I have clearly documented on my blog.

I genuinely believe that decisions made personally (free-choice) should all be subject to skeptical criticism, whereas those things someone can do nothing about (sex, race, colour, orientation, height and often weight) should generally not be.

But, with specific regard to politics and religion, it seems to me both are freely chosen whether one follows in the footsteps of one's parents, adopts that view later in life or marries into it and as such both should be equally subject to the intense scrutiny their claimants deserve.

Discuss

Keke

[Yawne Zize’ite]

My take is that politics are at least slightly amenable to reason. That is, if people are similar enough to be holding a conversation, they probably agree on most of the basic questions, agree on the vague idea that policies and politicians should be pursuing the national interest, that there is a national interest (Arrow's theorem is not embedded in pop culture), and merely disagree on what precisely the national interest is and the most effective way of pursuing it.

Religion doesn't spring from reason, isn't amenable to change based on other people's experiences, and requires many of its followers to believe that some of their closest friends are going to suffer for all eternity because they believe the wrong things. Furthermore, traditionally people invested more of their ego in religion than politics (not as true for a lot of modern people). I see it as a cold truce to keep down heated and completely unproductive arguments; while there is some rational ground for decision between the merits of the Republican and Democratic platforms and clear earthly benefits to picking the right one, there's no rational ground for decision between the merits of worshipping Inanna and worshipping Astarte. (Even in those examples, I tried to pick gods it's unlikely anyone on the board worships for fear of starting a round of heated, irresolvable arguments!)

Anyhow, I was raised to not talk about politics or religion in polite conversation, so the premise is moot!

[Kekerusey]

Fair enough and, whilst I don't really agree with your "cold truce" reasoning (if I understood it OK), extremely well argued

Keke

[Kamean]

Very wise proverb:
If you want to quarrel with your best friend - talk to him about politics.
Or about religion.

[Kekerusey]

If you want to quarrel with your best friend - talk to him about politics.
Or about religion.

LOL ... as it happens I do talk to my best friend (Slutìsraw) about both, we're pretty similar minded about such things indeed it was him who first got me "into" debating creationists and their ilk.

Now if you were to change the "best friend" to "wife" it might work better

Keke

[`Eylan Ayfalulukanä]

Religious views are often held for, well, spiritual reasons, and often represent a persons core values. If your religion requires you to try and 'convert' others, that is OK if kept in the context for which it was meant. What is definitely not OK is when society as a whole feels they must question, criticize or try to 'convert' an individuals religious briefs. Our country is founded on the belief that each person's religious beliefs are sancrosect above all other things. So, discuss away, but keep that in mind. (I discuss politics and religion with others all the time! )

[Nyx]

I'd say discussing and asking questions is fine, but a line is crossed if it is done in a hurtful way. Questioning is good for everyone, it helps us see different views, but it's important to keep it civilized and know when to stop. You can always present your views in an attempt to convince others, I guess, but this too can be done respectfully without forcing them on others. You wouldn't want someone else's views shoved down your throat either. I'm all for picking things apart and asking for evidence, but there's no point in calling people names for making a choice for themselves, especially if that choice isn't hurting others. I'd say, go for understanding instead.

I (can I say we?) want to keep the forum friendly for everyone, so by all means, question everything, but be nice.

[`Eylan Ayfalulukanä]

I'd say discussing and asking questions is fine, but a line is crossed if it is done in a hurtful way. Questioning is good for everyone, it helps us see different views, but it's important to keep it civilized and know when to stop. You can always present your views in an attempt to convince others, I guess, but this too can be done respectfully without forcing them on others. You wouldn't want someone else's views shoved down your throat either. I'm all for picking things apart and asking for evidence, but there's no point in calling people names for making a choice for themselves, especially if that choice isn't hurting others. I'd say, go for understanding instead.

I (can I say we?) want to keep the forum friendly for everyone, so by all means, question everything, but be nice.

It is very hard to put into words, what I was saying about one person trying to 'convert' other people, but I think Nyx did a good job of defining the context in which this sort of activity is appropriate. Discussion of religious beliefs is best done in a one-on-one setting. In such a setting, you have the room to carry on a lively discourse about any aspect of one's beliefs that they are willing to discuss. Without trying to become 'preachy' myself, I was taught that one-on-one (Christian) evangelism is by far the most effective, both on getting people to 'convert' and on keeping them converted'.

History is rife with examples of society turning on one religious group or another. For just one example, The 'Pilgrims' that founded the United States came here due to religious persecution. This country was subsequently founded with the principle that no such persecution would be tolerated. This particular principle now goes well beyond religious beliefs, and is one of the pillars of freedom in this country.

[Kekerusey]

Religious views are often held for, well, spiritual reasons, and often represent a persons core values.

If, by spiritual, you mean supernatural then yes by definition that would be so. I don't agree about religion forming a person's core values though (even though you weren't making it an absolute per se) because it implies that you can't have core values without a belief in something religious.

If your religion requires you to try and 'convert' others, that is OK if kept in the context for which it was meant. What is definitely not OK is when society as a whole feels they must question, criticize or try to 'convert' an individual's religious briefs.

I agree on the latter not on the former ... not sure what you meant by "in the context etc." but I basically think it's wrong for anyone to try and convert others unless that person puts their beliefs "out there" effectively opening them up for criticism and/or discussion.

Our country is founded on the belief that each person's religious beliefs are sancrosect above all other things. So, discuss away, but keep that in mind.

I presume you meant "sacrosanct"? That's fine in principle but it's fairly clear it isn't followed by most Americans in practice ... no sources I can quote but surveys have apparently indicated that that the least likely group of people wanted elected to president are atheists.

Fortunately I'm not an American although I do envy you your laws that separate church and state ... we could do with those in the UK especially with creationist and heavily religious groups taking over academy schools at tax payer's expense (and that when other surveys apparently indicate the UK to be 70% without belief in deity).

In your other post I find it interesting that you appear to advocate one-on-one discourse on religion yet later say it's the most effective way to successfully evangelise ... that's hardly very fair is it?

Correction, it should be one of the pillars of freedom in your country but in practice it appears that every religious group and their dogs are trying to somehow bypass your separation of church & state laws. Your legal system has many, many cases of people (usually but not always secular and almost always in a minority) trying to overturn some law or practice that unfairly attempts to subvert those laws and give advantage to those of religious (usually Christian) belief. I keep myself fairly well informed on such things and it's one of the reasons I am as negative about religions as I am.

Keke

[Clarke]

What is definitely not OK is when society as a whole feels they must question, criticize or try to 'convert' an individuals religious briefs.

The scope of what we can analyze, test, and confirm is growing, which means the amount of questions we can definitely, empirically answer grows.
If you believe "yes," but then our ability to do science develops, and eventually we do a test, and it comes back, "no", what should happen? Are we "converting" you by telling you that reality disagrees with you? Or if someone asks you to justify your belief, and you can't, is that "converting" you?

Our country is founded on the belief that each person's religious beliefs are sancrosect above all other things.

As written, the US appears to be founded on the belief that free speech is paramount. The two aren't synonymous.

[Niri Te]

As written, the US appears to be founded on the belief that free speech is paramount. The two aren't synonymous.

You are quite right Clarke, The first amendment to our Constitution, is our cherished Freedom of Speech. Our SECOND Amendment, guarantees that no one will ever trample the First Amendment. The SECOND Amendment? The right to KEEP and BEAR Arms.

[Kekerusey]

And one of the really big problems is that many people (who believe in rights but don't really think about the responsibilities those rights imply indeed rely on) seem to believe that freedom of speech equate to freedom from criticism and there can be nothing further from the truth (and essentially what I hoped this thread would be about).

Keke

[Clarke]

As written, the US appears to be founded on the belief that free speech is paramount. The two aren't synonymous.

You are quite right Clarke, The first amendment to our Constitution, is our cherished Freedom of Speech. Our SECOND Amendment, guarantees that no one will ever trample the First Amendment. The SECOND Amendment? The right to KEEP and BEAR Arms.

That guarantee isn't a very strong one. (Since DARPA alone have bigger guns and more money than you.)

[Mako]

Okay, so going back to the original question here, I've got a simple proposition.

I'm fully aware that the number of people that believe something doesn't always mean it is correct, but if you look at the statistics about different religions and whatnot, it's surprising to see what percentage of the world believes that at least one God exists.

I would suggest that perhaps it's not a question about whether or not God exists or not, but rather a question of who's right.

As for this:

Generally speaking (and in my experience it's true of this forum) it is frowned upon to be strongly critical of the religious views of others. My question is why? I'll try and explain.

Statistics might also explain this one too. Again, depending on the source, the percentage of Atheists in the world ranges from 2-5%. I would suggest that here, the majority doesn't like being questioned by the minority. The same was (and perhaps still is) true of race, politics, and anything else where a majority/minority distinction can be made.

All of this is just food for thought, and nothing here reflects my beliefs about this particular issue. If you're interested in hearing my thoughts, take it to PMs

[Niri Te]

As written, the US appears to be founded on the belief that free speech is paramount. The two aren't synonymous.

You are quite right Clarke, The first amendment to our Constitution, is our cherished Freedom of Speech. Our SECOND Amendment, guarantees that no one will ever trample the First Amendment. The SECOND Amendment? The right to KEEP and BEAR Arms.

That guarantee isn't a very strong one. (Since DARPA alone have bigger guns and more money than you.)

Actually Clarke,  the guarantee is stronger than it appears to you.  A great percentage of the people in America are armed,  AND are COMBAT VETERAN'S. OF PRIOR WARS. There is also a fairly large number of Active Duty Military that will NEVER fire on American Civilians, whether they are ordered to,  or not.
Remember this bit of history my friend. There was a time when a bunch of poorly armed colonial farmers were attacked by an Army that had MORE guns,  BIGGER GUNS,  more men,  and was backed by the Throne of the then most POWERFUL COUNTRY on Earth. These simple farmers sent that Army BACK TO ENGLAND in disgrace.

[Nyx]

Okay, so going back to the original question here, I've got a simple proposition.

I'm fully aware that the number of people that believe something doesn't always mean it is correct, but if you look at the statistics about different religions and whatnot, it's surprising to see what percentage of the world believes that at least one God exists.

I would suggest that perhaps it's not a question about whether or not God exists or not, but rather a question of who's right.

But you just said that a lot of people believing something doesn't make it true, am I misinterpreting the last part or are you contradicting yourself? Anyway, the way I see it, that belief is based on pretty much nothing, it's not like all those people actually investigated the issue, it's mostly about what they've been told by others who have been told the same by someone else (and so on), or about a feeling. I agree with you on the part about it being a question of who's right if you include non-believers too. Sadly, asking this question seems to lead to lots of fighting.

I do think you're on to something with the majority not wanting to be questioned. And I think it also has to do with people not wanting to listen to anything that doesn't fit their views because it's uncomfortable to hear someone say you might be wrong.

[Mako]

But you just said that a lot of people believing something doesn't make it true, am I misinterpreting the last part or are you contradicting yourself? Anyway, the way I see it, that belief is based on pretty much nothing, it's not like all those people actually investigated the issue, it's mostly about what they've been told by others who have been told the same by someone else (and so on), or about a feeling. I agree with you on the part about it being a question of who's right if you include non-believers too. Sadly, asking this question seems to lead to lots of fighting.

Proposing a possible counterargument, not contradicting myself. And even knowing that, 89% or 98% are not percentages to be taken lightly by anyone, no matter their bias. I'm proposing that from how it would appear, humans got the idea for God from somewhere that's common to all of our social evolution. And the fact that even cultures that have been untouched by the "civilized world" have their own beliefs in God(s) serves to strengthen the idea that perhaps our idea of God didn't come from us. It's all very interesting.

I do think you're on to something with the majority not wanting to be questioned. And I think it also has to do with people not wanting to listen to anything that doesn't fit their views because it's uncomfortable to hear someone say you might be wrong.

I would agree with you on your point as well.

And it's important to remember that the majority has been right before, as well as wrong.

[Kekerusey]

Okay, so going back to the original question here, I've got a simple proposition.

I like simple, not stupidly so but any scientific explanation should be the most parsimonious (i.e. the simplest one that actually appears to explain it)

I'm fully aware that the number of people that believe something doesn't always mean it is correct, but if you look at the statistics about different religions and whatnot, it's surprising to see what percentage of the world believes that at least one God exists.

I would go further and say that the number believing in something rarely means it is correct ... in Columbus's time, 99.99% of the population of the known knew it was flat, not much earlier (may even have been around the same kind of time) everyone knew the Earth was the centre of the universe., earlier still (early biblical and pre-biblical times) it was believed that the Earth had 4 corners, edges and the sky was a literal dome that held the stars in the sky.

I would suggest that perhaps it's not a question about whether or not God exists or not, but rather a question of who's right.

Those who are absolutely certain rarely are, science is inherently non-absolute (in principle always open to new evidence, new explanations) and represents our best current explanation for the universe we observe around us. Granted it may all turn out to be wrong and that, though perhaps somewhat surprising (and worthy of many questions as to where we went wrong), is/will be fine but for now it's the best we have.

Generally speaking (and in my experience it's true of this forum) it is frowned upon to be strongly critical of the religious views of others. My question is why? I'll try and explain.

Statistics might also explain this one too. Again, depending on the source, the percentage of Atheists in the world ranges from 2-5%. I would suggest that here, the majority doesn't like being questioned by the minority. The same was (and perhaps still is) true of race, politics, and anything else where a majority/minority distinction can be made.

Perhaps although I'd say that statistic is likely to be off because this forum, whilst open to the world, probably isn't evenly representative of it ... probably much more "western hemisphere" or some such. In my country I'm not really a minority except perhaps that I am relatively well educated and fairly cynical/sceptical. In the US in particular, though still fairly small in actual population terms, atheist groups are fairly numerous, organised and often quite militant. In the US atheists seem to number around 10%, in Canada around 30%.

If you're interested in hearing my thoughts, take it to PMs

I am.

Keke

[Mako]

Okay, so going back to the original question here, I've got a simple proposition.

I like simple, not stupidly so but any scientific explanation should be the most parsimonious (i.e. the simplest one that actually appears to explain it)

I'm fully aware that the number of people that believe something doesn't always mean it is correct, but if you look at the statistics about different religions and whatnot, it's surprising to see what percentage of the world believes that at least one God exists.

I would go further and say that the number believing in something rarely means it is correct ... in Columbus's time, 99.99% of the population of the known knew it was flat, not much earlier (may even have been around the same kind of time) everyone knew the Earth was the centre of the universe., earlier still (early biblical and pre-biblical times) it was believed that the Earth had 4 corners, edges and the sky was a literal dome that held the stars in the sky.

I would suggest that perhaps it's not a question about whether or not God exists or not, but rather a question of who's right.

Those who are absolutely certain rarely are, science is inherently non-absolute (in principle always open to new evidence, new explanations) and represents our best current explanation for the universe we observe around us. Granted it may all turn out to be wrong and that, though perhaps somewhat surprising (and worthy of many questions as to where we went wrong), is/will be fine but for now it's the best we have.

Generally speaking (and in my experience it's true of this forum) it is frowned upon to be strongly critical of the religious views of others. My question is why? I'll try and explain.

Statistics might also explain this one too. Again, depending on the source, the percentage of Atheists in the world ranges from 2-5%. I would suggest that here, the majority doesn't like being questioned by the minority. The same was (and perhaps still is) true of race, politics, and anything else where a majority/minority distinction can be made.

Perhaps although I'd say that statistic is likely to be off because this forum, whilst open to the world, probably isn't evenly representative of it ... probably much more "western hemisphere" or some such. In my country I'm not really a minority except perhaps that I am relatively well educated and fairly cynical/sceptical. In the US in particular, though still fairly small in actual population terms, atheist groups are fairly numerous, organised and often quite militant. In the US atheists seem to number around 10%, in Canada around 30%.

If you're interested in hearing my thoughts, take it to PMs

I am.

Keke

I am in no position to reply to this right now, physical or mental. I'll give a detailed reply when I can.

[Clarke]

Actually Clarke,  the guarantee is stronger than it appears to you.  A great percentage of the people in America are armed,  AND are COMBAT VETERAN'S. OF PRIOR WARS. There is also a fairly large number of Active Duty Military that will NEVER fire on American Civilians, whether they are ordered to,  or not.
Remember this bit of history my friend. There was a time when a bunch of poorly armed colonial farmers were attacked by an Army that had MORE guns,  BIGGER GUNS,  more men,  and was backed by the Throne of the then most POWERFUL COUNTRY on Earth. These simple farmers sent that Army BACK TO ENGLAND in disgrace.

Well, yes - the 1700s were a time of far greater transportation and logistics costs than exist now. The same scenario happening with modern technology would play out far differently, most likely resulting in a loss for the Americans.
For instance, a segment of the USN the size of the Royal Navy alone could cause substantial damage to America's economy using modern weapons, and no amount of armed veterans could stand in their way. How? Blockade Texas. Once you start actually firing things, the damage only goes up!  
(Bonus question: if that rogue segment has a nuke, and appear to be willing to fire it, how do you make them stand down?)

I would go further and say that the number believing in something rarely means it is correct ... in Columbus's time, 99.99% of the population of the known knew it was flat,

This example is almost beautiful in its self-reference. In Columbus' time, everyone knew the world was round, even Columbus. Columbus was trying to find a route west to the East Indies, but got laughed off because he thought the world was smaller than it actually was known to be. The only reason he didn't vanish into history's aether is because the world turned out to be exactly one continent wider than he was expecting - hence why Native Americans are sometimes referred to as "Indians."

I would suggest that perhaps it's not a question about whether or not God exists or not, but rather a question of who's right.

Here's an interesting thought: IIRC, about 45-49% of the world are Christian, and another 45-49% are Muslim - both of whom declare themselves to be the one Truth. This means, no matter what, over half of the world are wrong. Perhaps that changes the logic slightly?

Anyway, the way I see it, that belief is based on pretty much nothing, it's not like all those people actually investigated the issue, it's mostly about what they've been told by others who have been told the same by someone else (and so on), or about a feeling.

Lots of people have investigated "the issue" (of which there are a lot) and have arrived at varying answers. It would be silly to dismiss all their hard work.  

(I will most likely respond in an on-topic and coherent fashion at some point in the next day or so. )