posted
Nathan, I don't think the FSM or pastafarianism is meant as a mockery of religion at all. Nothing of the kind! Instead, it was invented as an attempt to point out some extremely flawed reasoning by taking it to its logical conclusion. That the reasoning of creationists is flawed is entirely independent from the fact that many of them are connected with and prompted by their religion.
As evidence that no mockery of religion was intended by the guy who founded it, I want to testify that on the FSM forum, if you mocked people's religion you were booted off. It wasn't tolerated at all. Aunt Dee Dee was religious and ruled the forum with a firm hand.
Secondly, many proponents of the religion really do believe in it. It's lighthearted but definitely not mean-spirited. And what happens is that when they begin to exercise the forms of religion, like praying, asking for blessings, seeking answers, etc. then they begin to feel the results. It actually serves as an introduction to religion for people who would otherwise have zero exposure to that whole realm of human experience.
Lastly, God definitely has a sense of humor. And he doesn't object to being characterized in different ways by his different children. And he really does have a lot of aspects that are noodly, for instance, string theory in physics. I don't really think the Flying Spaghetti Monster is such a bad depiction of God. So be of good cheer, and cease to be troubled, my son. You too can be touched by His Noodly Appendage.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
That was a very good response, Tatiana, and DevilDreamt, and really does put my mind at ease about it to a degree. However, I still hold the opinion that this particular instance was targeted towards making a point about religion, not a freedom of his belief.
And I do see the humor behind it, and from time to time smile at the absurdity of it (it really is a great parody). I only get upset when it is taken to the point of acting serious about it to, as I said prior, "score a point against religion" when it isn't really believed by the person weilding the claim that they believe in it.
Looking back, I didn't really clarify that point. I was being a tad bit too involved in it.
Posts: 9754 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
After reading his statement, I withdraw my concern completely and fully. That said I validate his belief from my own standards and support him on his quest for equalization in wearing his eye patch, which poses no danger or threat.
Posts: 9754 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I really feel, though, as if he did this as an attempt to have religious symbols that students carry with them be taken away, rather than to express his beliefs in a FSM. That's what bothers me. I see it as atheist vs theists, and someone is trying to score a point against religion by making an example out of the symbols of their faith.
If that's the case, I agree it's reprehensible, but I really don't think it's the case. I don't think he's trying to hurt anyone, or take anything away from anyone. He's just being a crazy funny guy and using humor to call attention to an issue he cares (maybe) about: religion in school, not religion in general.
But, I hadn't thought about it that way, and it is possible. Thanks for showing me another view.
Edit: I didn't realize there was a second page when I posted this, so I hadn't seen the post above.
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: Nathan, I don't think the FSM or pastafarianism is meant as a mockery of religion at all. Nothing of the kind! Instead, it was invented as an attempt to point out some extremely flawed reasoning by taking it to its logical conclusion. That the reasoning of creationists is flawed is entirely independent from the fact that many of them are connected with and prompted by their religion.
As evidence that no mockery of religion was intended by the guy who founded it, I want to testify that on the FSM forum, if you mocked people's religion you were booted off. It wasn't tolerated at all. Aunt Dee Dee was religious and ruled the forum with a firm hand.
Secondly, many proponents of the religion really do believe in it. It's lighthearted but definitely not mean-spirited. And what happens is that when they begin to exercise the forms of religion, like praying, asking for blessings, seeking answers, etc. then they begin to feel the results. It actually serves as an introduction to religion for people who would otherwise have zero exposure to that whole realm of human experience.
Lastly, God definitely has a sense of humor. And he doesn't object to being characterized in different ways by his different children. And he really does have a lot of aspects that are noodly, for instance, string theory in physics. I don't really think the Flying Spaghetti Monster is such a bad depiction of God. So be of good cheer, and cease to be troubled, my son. You too can be touched by His Noodly Appendage.
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: "then you really aught to teach every religion's version, and that would be ridiculous."
I don't think it would be. I think it would show a liberal education in the most basic meaning.
Definitely, but wouldn't it take up a large part of the school day teaching the religion of every student? If there's only a few I guess it wouldn't, but in a large, inner-city school? It would cut into time that could be used for other, more important, things.
(not that religion's not important)
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: As of now, with the 3 days of OSS (Out of school Suspension), that puts me over in absences, you are allowed to make up OSS absences in Saturday School, so as of now, I'm over in absences, which might lead to me to failing this year of school, over getting suspended for expressing myself. How sad... Please help me out in fighting this, i live in a poor family, we live in a trailer park in Weaverville, I can't do anything about this, my parents are 'christians' and claim that i'm going to hell for not being one, so I have no support for them, except negetive.
*shakes head*
Clearly, many need to be touched...hard...by His noodly appendage.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, I feel bad for the kid. Really I do. But if this is any indication of the grammar skills of an "honor student" these days....wow...just wow...
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sounds like what everyone needs in this school is to join together in a big spaghetti potluck. I really hope all the kids wear eyepatches in solidarity, and the teachers have to admit they were wrong, because they can't suspend everybody.
All religions teach the best they know how. Apparently the poor boy's parents' religion teaches them that their son is going to be tortured for eternity for not believing, and that they're supposed to be happy about that. Sounds like they believe that's true, too.
Pastafarianism doesn't have any such cruel beliefs (though it's rather insensitive to the circumstances of mijits) but certainly a few of its proponents do. Its founder keeps a check on that, mostly. I don't think he fully realizes what he's wrought.
I think it's all grand and glorious, and that life is beautiful. Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:SYRACUSE, N.Y. -- A school district violated a fourth-grader's constitutional rights to free speech and equal protection by refusing to allow her to distribute "personal statement" fliers carrying a religious message, a federal judge has ruled.
The Liverpool Central School District in upstate New York based its restrictions on "fear or apprehension of disturbance, which is not enough to overcome the right to freedom of expression," Chief U.S. District Judge Norman Mordue wrote in a 46-page decision Friday.
...
According to the family's 2004 lawsuit, Nicole Bloodgood tried three times to get permission for Michaela to pass out the homemade fliers to other students at Nate Perry Elementary School. The flier, about the size of a greeting card, started out: "Hi! My name is Michaela and I would like to tell you about my life and how Jesus Christ gave me a new one."
Bloodgood's requests to school officials said that her daughter, now a sixth-grader, would hand them out only during "non-instructional time," such as on the bus, before school, lunch, recess and after school.
The lawsuit noted that Michaela had received literature from other students at school, including materials for a YMCA basketball camp, a Syracuse Children's Theater promotion and Camp Fire USA's summer camps.
Liverpool officials said at the time there was "a substantial probability" that other parents and students might misunderstand and presume the district endorsed the religious statements in the flier, according to the lawsuit.
"The court cannot say the danger that children would misperceive the endorsement of religion is any greater than the danger that they would perceive a hostility toward religion as a result of the district's denial," Mordue wrote.
quote:According to the family's 2004 lawsuit, Nicole Bloodgood tried three times to get permission for Michaela to pass out the homemade fliers to other students at Nate Perry Elementary School. The flier, about the size of a greeting card, started out: "Hi! My name is Michaela and I would like to tell you about my life and how Jesus Christ gave me a new one."
While I agree that the judge made the right decision and that the school district was in the wrong from the beginning, I find the idea of a parent having her 4th grader do something like this to be kinda creepy.
posted
I wasn't talking about here on Hatrack, KoM. There are some things which are ridiculous which, generally speaking, all people refrain from mocking.
So, I guess I'll phrase it as a question, then. Is there anything that is both ridiculous and unmocked, by you?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I may, I'm sure KoM doesn't mock everything that's ridiculous; both for shortage of time and will. The above is sarcasm, which of course works because there is a kernel of truth to it.
It's just that he won't pretend that ridiculous empirically unsupported beliefs are worthy of respect.
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:While I agree that the judge made the right decision and that the school district was in the wrong from the beginning, I find the idea of a parent having her 4th grader do something like this to be kinda creepy.
I agree it would be creepy, but it's not at all clear that this is what happened. It is clear that the parent was the one who tried to obtain permission for the daughter, but we can't tell from the article whose idea sharing her testimony was or, specifically, whose idea handing out the fliers was.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:The Liverpool Central School District in upstate New York based its restrictions on "fear or apprehension of disturbance, which is not enough to overcome the right to freedom of expression," Chief U.S. District Judge Norman Mordue wrote in a 46-page decision Friday.
Sounds to me like schools make decisions based on "fear or apprehension of disturbance" all the time. Weren't we just discussing those high school girls' quoting of the Vagina Monologues and getting into trouble for it? Their freedom of expression was certainly curtailed by the school out of fear of disturbance.
Of course, there's a difference between a girl wanting to hand out something that's obviously personal (as opposed to school-endorsed) during non-instructional time, and girls participating in a school-sponsored event where content could obviously be construed as school-endorsed.
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Of course, there's a difference between a girl wanting to hand out something that's obviously personal (as opposed to school-endorsed) during non-instructional time, and girls participating in a school-sponsored event where content could obviously be construed as school-endorsed.
This difference is so critical that it is the core issue in many school religion cases.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I wasn't talking about here on Hatrack, KoM. There are some things which are ridiculous which, generally speaking, all people refrain from mocking.
So, I guess I'll phrase it as a question, then. Is there anything that is both ridiculous and unmocked, by you?
So much to mock, so little time? Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps you'd like to give an example of something ridiculous which you believe I would not mock?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Certainly. Let's see...someone slipping and falling on ice, for example. Maybe spilling some groceries.
A very fat person. A ridiculously ugly person. Someone driving an incredibly crappy, ugly car. Someone struggling to speak a difficult language, mangling it due to their novice skill. Any number of things.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I see we are using different meanings of the word 'ridiculous'. I don't see any of those as being particularly ridiculous, although I've cracked my fair share of jokes about fat people, ugly people, and incompetent people. Unintentionally amusing, possibly, but not ridiculous. Religion, however, is ridiculous in that it wilfully espouses beliefs that are, to an outside observer, not merely false, but so against experience as to seriously invite questions about the sanity of its devotees. Never mind 2+2=5, Christians have seriously propounded the idea that 3=1 for two millennia. Dagonee will tell you that a particular ritual which in no way changes any property of anything nevertheless makes him a spiritual cannibal. The various k's all think "I choose to believe X" is a reasonable argument in favour of the truth of X, and argue from X as an axiom on the strength of it. Lisa thinks you can play telephone across three thousand years and get out the original message. And yet a beer volcano is supposed to be particularly worthy of laughter?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's just that he won't pretend that ridiculous empirically unsupported beliefs are worthy of respect.
Is this something you believe as well, Euripedes?
Yes it is. That doesn't mean that I believe the people who hold those beliefs are unworthy of respect; I don't.
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yes it is. That doesn't mean that I believe the people who hold those beliefs are unworthy of respect; I don't.
So...what, then? For someone who holds a "ridiculous empirically unsupported belief" as a lifelong, deeply personal, crucial aspect of their daily lives...exactly how much do you respect them?
Or do you just respect them in spite of their ridiculous fancies?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It depends upon the circumstances. These are a few questions I intuitively ask myself: How pervasive is the belief in that person's culture? Was he or she exposed to alternative beliefs or explanations? Are his or her ideas based on a false premise but otherwise built up in way that is rationally defensible? Are they well-intentioned? How much do they really respect the truth, and do they make an honest effort to discover it?
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmph. King of Men's answer is more straightfoward and I have to admit, sounds more sincere than yours does, Euripedes.
Let's suppose, then, that the belief is quite pervasive in that person's culture. Not required, but most of that person's friends, family, and acquaintances belief as they do. They were exposed to a variety of other beliefs and explanations, and chose their ridiculous empirically unsupported belief anyway. Being a ridiculous empirically unsupported belief, it's obviously based on a false premise but is otherwise built up in a rationally defensible way (at least, as far as a house on a foundation of sand can be said to be rationally sturdy). They're well-intentioned, and in their mind make an honest effort to discover the truth.
How much do you respect them then? Or is the word you're searching for pity?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd say that's a rough description of yourself, to make a wild guess. While I've probably said a few things that upset you, I actually do respect you as a person, so far as I can without knowing you so well. Which is why I felt the need to send you that apology.
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't need an apology, but thank you just the same. Also, I'm not actually upset-your line of thinking isn't one I've never heard before, after all. That's not a cut, that's just a statement, there have been atheists around here and in general life that believe religious beliefs are stupid fantasy, adhered to ultimately because one fears and cannot face the alternative.
Or, to dress it up nicely, 'ridiculous empirically unsupported beliefs'. Really, it amounts to the same thing. And, while I have zero respect or liking for the way King of Men conducts himself in these sorts of conversations, at least he's honest.
Perhaps you're being honest too, and you do 'respect religious people as people'. I don't see how that can be, though. The weird homeless guy having a conversation with himself on the street, who thinks aliens speak to him through the fillings of his teeth, I don't respect him, I pity him. He may have other good qualities that make him, overall, a good person, but I could only honestly say I respected him if I spoke in a very precise and somewhat limited way.
The way this applies to the conversation we're having now is: what, ultimately, do you feel the difference is between an obviously mentally ill homeless person conversing with himself, thinking aliens are talking directly into his brain...and someone who believes in God, and believes that they can pray and get answers that have an impact in their daily lives?
What's the difference? Is there a difference? It seems to me that 'ridiculous empirically unsupported beliefs' can apply to both people just as easily.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am being honest. There are plenty of religious people I respect.
I think fear and guilt play a major role in extending the shelf life of theism, and are very effective at keeping many theists from straying. I'm not so sure that it's 'cannot face the alternative', so much as 'cannot face the disapproval of the community, the idea of turning one's world view upside down, and the possibility of committing a grave sin, should god actually exist'. Or something thereabouts. It depends heavily on the circumstances, and there are a wide array of reasons why religion continues to propagate.
I think the best way to clear up my position would be to use examples. Assigning respect is an intuitive sort of process after all, and emotion is involved. It's sometimes hard to identify exactly what criteria we're using.
Someone who believes his/her religion is the be all and end all, that nothing else matters, such as the people we see in Jesus Camp, I only have pity for; and little respect. I see the children as victims of child abuse in Dawkins' sense. With some of the adults I don't even have much pity. For Becky Fischer, the children's pastor in that movie, I have no respect and I strongly dislike her. She even brought up the fact that Muslim kids are sometimes trained to commit their lives to jihad in the physical sense, and said that she wants a similar level of commitment on the part of her flock; the kids of Evangelical Christians. She has done so much damage to rational inquiry and the education of those children (not to take away blame from their parents), subjected them to a moral code which prescribes such severe punishment (even for thoughtcrime) that they feel compelled to obey in order to keep deep feelings of guilt and fear at bay, and more. I see the kid crying on the floor because he feels he has lost faith in god (he sees no worldly evidence for his existence), and I see vicious brainwashing in action. Her only redeeming virtue is her honesty of conviction; she does seem to believe she's behaving morally. But by failing to examine her premises in the first place, she's being intellectually dishonest as well.
The reason I have no respect for her is because firstly, she is as an adult living in America, in a position to re-examine her fundamentalist premises. More importantly, she has decided to indoctrinate children and place faith over empirical reasoning; which is the foundation of virtually all fields of academic inquiry except theology.
I have a similar level of respect for the pope(s), and pretty much everyone in a prominent position in the Catholic Church. I have no respect for that institution, just as I have no respect for the National Association of Evangelicals.
Here's another example: my history teacher in high school. Although I can't be certain if he really believed in god (the institution which employed him was supported by a church, after all; and I think he's a man who would have made a shrewd politician), he was a self-professed Christian. He taught me to write in a highly logical fashion, emphasising empirical support very strongly. I got to know him a little better; and his morality is one which is defensible by reason, almost indistinguishable from a humanist's. He's one of the people I respect the most, because he is one of the most intelligent people I know, and valued the sort of things I thought I valued. I had a lot of teachers I highly respected. I can't think of one who was definitely atheist. What mattered was whether they were reasonable good-willed people who's decisions were amenable to sound argument.
Then take the reverend of the school. Like my history teacher, he had a PhD. He was a nice guy. Yet I can't muster much respect for him. It's because most of my contact with him was in the context of chapel. I sat in the pews as he extolled faith in Jesus using sports and navy analogies (he used to be a navy chaplain), choosing the nicer passages out of the bible as readings, and at one time berating the ancient Athenians for not flocking to the Christian faith once they heard Paul speak. I wasn't even there as a matter of choice, so that added to my irritation.
It's 3am and I'm rambling again. Sorry for the lack of coherence in this post.
I'll finally address your analogy, but first I want to remove the mental illness, the tooth fillings, and the homelessness from the picture. Those are intended to make the subject seem less worthy of respect. In response to your question, yes, I do think there's a difference, but I think it's more quantitative than qualitative. That is, Christianity is better established in society, and usually influences people during childhood when the beliefs are likely to stick. It's recognised standing in society and the fact that lots of very smart people have argued for Christianity lends it a degree of verisimilitude.
quote:I am being honest. There are plenty of religious people I respect.
I believe you are sincere when you say that. I am questioning just how much you can truly respect someone, though, whose most important beliefs--which impact every aspect of their lives and they take very, very seriously--you regard as foolish fantasy, as sensible as to believe in a levitating pasta monstrosity.
quote:I think fear and guilt play a major role in extending the shelf life of theism, and are very effective at keeping many theists from straying. I'm not so sure that it's 'cannot face the alternative', so much as 'cannot face the disapproval of the community, the idea of turning one's world view upside down, and the possibility of committing a grave sin, should god actually exist'. Or something thereabouts.
Well, it amounts to the same thing. Fear keeping theists in line. They don't have the guts to face up to the truth.
I've never seen Jesus Camp, so I can't comment on any examples drawing from that source that aren't explained in detail.
quote:I have a similar level of respect for the pope(s), and pretty much everyone in a prominent position in the Catholic Church. I have no respect for that institution, just as I have no respect for the National Association of Evangelicals.
Thank you for being honest about that. Sometimes, around here, it's like pulling teeth to get any atheist except King of Men to own up to that even when, from other comments, it's pretty clear that's what they believe.
I note that you are careful to say "that institution", though, and not "Catholics". I wonder what you think is the difference, if that specific distinction is one you meant to make.
quote:He taught me to write in a highly logical fashion, emphasising empirical support very strongly. I got to know him a little better; and his morality is one which is defensible by reason, almost indistinguishable from a humanist's. He's one of the people I respect the most, because he is one of the most intelligent people I know, and valued the sort of things I thought I valued.
And there you have it, Euripedes. He believed very much what you believed. You would have to have little respect for yourself if you were to have little respect for him.
quote:I sat in the pews as he extolled faith in Jesus using sports and navy analogies (he used to be a navy chaplain), choosing the nicer passages out of the bible as readings, and at one time berating the ancient Athenians for not flocking to the Christian faith once they heard Paul speak. I wasn't even there as a matter of choice, so that added to my irritation.
Thanks for owning up to that as well.
quote:I'll finally address your analogy, but first I want to remove the mental illness, the tooth fillings, and the homelessness from the picture. Those are intended to make the subject seem less worthy of respect. In response to your question, yes, I do think there's a difference, but I think it's more quantitative than qualitative. That is, Christianity is better established in society, and usually influences people during childhood when the beliefs are likely to stick. It's recognised standing in society and the fact that lots of very smart people have argued for Christianity lends it a degree of verisimilitude.
I'm sorry, but I don't think you really get to discard those examples and make it stick reasonably within your argument. See, I think that because you lend just as much weight to aliens talking through tooth fillings as you do to someone believing their prayers are heard by God and answered by God. To you, they're a hamburger and a cheesesteak. Different foods, but still the same deep down.
All you've done is point out how there are extenuating circumstances for people to believe these ridiculous empirically unsupported things. You still think they're foolish, and insofar as people believe them, they're foolish as well. You do pity them, because they believe something that only has the appearance of truth. They can't really help it, it's how they were raised.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have found my interactions with Euripides both respectful and pleasant.
If I can (and I can) respect him without agreeing with him, why shouldn't I believe that he can respect me?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do respect him, and generally find him to be a pleasant person. This is mostly because I don't really care* what he thinks about my religious beliefs.
That said, though, it's pretty clear he only respects you insofar as you (and me) aren't religious people. Those portions of our religious personalities, on the other hand, well, are to be pitied. We were raised up that way, and so they got us when we were kids. Or it's embedded in society, so it's more likely we'd believe it. Or, we're too afraid of upsetting G-d or the community, so we stick to it (even though we don't know it).
It's not a matter of disagreeing with him. I respect people I disagree with all the time. It's a matter of thinking that people believe something really, really stupid in a big, life-impacting sort of way...and then in the same breath, saying that you respect them.
It doesn't fit. It's a contradiction. I can respect someone who thinks that, for example, thinks that Rush Limbaugh or Michael Moore are really great people, journalists or documentary filmmakers worthy of respect. I would disagree, and strongly, with them on that, but it's not something that permeates their lives.
Could I respect someone who thought about that all the time? Whoe actually went to an organization multiple times per week to talk about how awesome either figure is, and how we should get to know them better? Who tried to found their life on something that I felt was so stupid?
I don't think so. I don't believe that one can truly respect something one thinks is stupid. I don't believe one can truly respect someone else who bases their lives on something that one thinks is fundamentally stupid.
This is quite different from one religious person disagreeing from another. If, as I believe, someone interprets their relationship with God differently from me, well I'll generally think they're making a mistake, but it's such a tricky and subjective business anyways that I won't disrespect them for it, any more than I would disrespect someone for voting Republican or Democrat.
*I am interested in discussing it, but I don't take the criticism to heart.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The way this applies to the conversation we're having now is: what, ultimately, do you feel the difference is between an obviously mentally ill homeless person conversing with himself, thinking aliens are talking directly into his brain...and someone who believes in God, and believes that they can pray and get answers that have an impact in their daily lives?
Ok, I'll bite - what is the difference?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The difference should be clear. The paranoid schizophenic who is homeless and living on the streets is unable to hold a job, unable to maintain personal relationships, unable to take care of most of their basic needs, their behavior is general irradic and often dangerous to both themselves and others.
None of the above are typical of religious people. In fact, exactly the opposite maybe true. Numerous studies have found that religious people are more likely to have successful long term relationships, have a longer life expectance, are more reliable employees, and are over all happierthan people who aren't religious.
While those studies may not be conclusive and don't establish a causal link between religiousity and any of the those factors, they do clearly indicate that religion does not have a similar impact on an individuals ability to function that mental illness has.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
Well, it amounts to the same thing. Fear keeping theists in line. They don't have the guts to face up to the truth.
Okay, if you want to summarise it that way, I think that's about half of it in most cases. I also think that untangling religious dogma and the often convoluted justifications for god can be a major intellectual endeavour for people who have absorbed religion through culture. So just as often, it can be a kind of academic mistake with unfortunately consequences.
quote:I note that you are careful to say "that institution", though, and not "Catholics". I wonder what you think is the difference, if that specific distinction is one you meant to make.
I was careful to do that, because I have more than a couple Catholic friends and respect them.
quote:
quote:He taught me to write in a highly logical fashion, emphasising empirical support very strongly. I got to know him a little better; and his morality is one which is defensible by reason, almost indistinguishable from a humanist's. He's one of the people I respect the most, because he is one of the most intelligent people I know, and valued the sort of things I thought I valued.
And there you have it, Euripedes. He believed very much what you believed. You would have to have little respect for yourself if you were to have little respect for him.
Okay, I think this gets to the crux of things. I realised after posting it that it was a weak example of respect for religious people, but it's opened up an avenue of discussion which will probably clear this up.
I value truth, honesty, reason, benevolence, and justice very highly. Deep down those will be the criteria I use when intuitively assigning respect to someone. So yes, if someone has constructed their entire lives around something that the evidence shows is a corruption of reason, I can't give them much respect on the 'reason' scale. If they honestly believe what they're saying, I can give them some credit for honesty. If they don't, they're actually fairly reprehensible.
If a highly religious person, in day to day life, is amenable to argument, is amicable and just, and interacts with the world in a rational fashion, I can respect them highly (because I don't believe that the two are mutually exclusive. If high religiosity precludes someone from fitting the above description, then I guess I can't respect them as highly). If the part of them which thinks rationally and upholds morals which are rationally defensible is irreligious, then what you say about me is accurate.
quote:I'm sorry, but I don't think you really get to discard those examples and make it stick reasonably within your argument. See, I think that because you lend just as much weight to aliens talking through tooth fillings as you do to someone believing their prayers are heard by God and answered by God. To you, they're a hamburger and a cheesesteak. Different foods, but still the same deep down.
You could say that. Just that people who eat the hamburgers (religion), say are mostly healthy, whereas people who eat the cheesesteaks (crazy alien conspiracy theory) are unhealthy alcoholics. Even if there isn't a causal link, I could probably respect the hamburger-eater more than the cheesesteak-eater. Because choosing which brand of faith you follow also says something about the company one chooses to keep.
Moderate Christians are mostly decent people, while the people in Aum Shinrikyo, an armageddon cult that released sarin gas in a busy Tokyo train station (to use an extreme example), are definitely not decent.
Even if I see both groups as believing in an elaborate fiction, I'd respect someone who chooses to associate with the Christians much more than someone who joined the death cult.
quote:All you've done is point out how there are extenuating circumstances for people to believe these ridiculous empirically unsupported things. You still think they're foolish, and insofar as people believe them, they're foolish as well. You do pity them, because they believe something that only has the appearance of truth. They can't really help it, it's how they were raised.
That's about right. I do pity people who are duped, and insofar as I believe religion is false, it follows that in my view their followers have been duped in some way (usually through exploitation of childhood naivety).
quote:That said, though, it's pretty clear he only respects you insofar as you (and me) aren't religious people. Those portions of our religious personalities, on the other hand, well, are to be pitied.
If being religious means having faith in irrational fictions because one is encouraged to, them yes. But really, most moderate Christians aren't as religious as they claim. While they're not praying in private or attending church, they're often rational, honest, truth-valuing people.
The situation gets more complicated when we consider that the official doctrine of the Catholic Church is that the existence of god can be empirically proven. Then my level of respect for that person is dictated by whether I deem the claim to proof to be honest, or rhetoric used to afford a foregone conclusion more verisimilitude.
When it comes to the pope and his ilk making claims about logic and scientific evidence, I have strong doubts about their honesty and intentions. John Paul II once sent Dawkins a letter endorsing Darwinian evolution, for example. Dawkins wrote back saying that he preferred an honest fundamentalist, and that the pope was being a hypocrite.
I really like that story, so that probably tells you something about me. I dislike it when people try to brush over paradoxes and self-contradictions as if they don't exist.
quote:I don't think so. I don't believe that one can truly respect something one thinks is stupid. I don't believe one can truly respect someone else who bases their lives on something that one thinks is fundamentally stupid.
I agree. And one final thing; I think that many Christians who say that they get their morals from Christianity, actually don't. They get their morals from what Dawkins would call the moral Zeitgeist. I suspect many of them haven't read the bible either.
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
None of the above are typical of religious people. In fact, exactly the opposite maybe true. Numerous studies have found that religious people are more likely to have successful long term relationships, have a longer life expectance, are more reliable employees, and are over all happierthan people who aren't religious.
Not doubting you, but could you point me to where I might find such a study? I'm curious to know how they gauged 'happiness'.
I understand that you weren't suggesting there was a causal link between these factors.
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
From what I have read, studies have used a variety of measures for happiness ranging from self reporting or a variety test questions to measurement of activity in the front temporal lobes of the brain.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: The difference should be clear. The paranoid schizophrenic who is homeless and living on the streets is unable to hold a job, unable to maintain personal relationships, unable to take care of most of their basic needs, their behavior is general irradic and often dangerous to both themselves and others.
None of the above are typical of religious people.
You think there are no homeless Christians? Conversely, do you think all alien-believers are homeless? Schizophrenia takes many forms, including Christian beliefs; the helplessness doesn't require the voices to be aliens. And on the other hand, lots of New Agers lead happy, fulfilled lives. So again - what is the difference?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
My friend wore a Penguin suit and a Hotdog suit to school on back-to-back days and didn't get suspended. There's also a video on Youtube of him wearing the Hotdog one and his friend wearing the Penguin one. They go to Safeway and have a Kung Fu fight in the middle of the store. The police get called and they get tackled and banned for life from the store. It's really funny.
Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Sounds like they believe that's true, too. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
