posted
I don't know if people remember, but I seem to recall that one of the reasons people stopped saying 'I believe X because that's what my religion teaches' is because other people said, o.k., if that's your rationale, then your rationale is bigoted/racist/idiotic/wrong, and there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth because people felt like something very personal to them was being attacked.
Another reason that I seem to remember that people stopped using 'my religion says X' as a rationale is because it basically shut down conversation. There was a thread about this and why religious explanations aren't as 'good' as non-religious ones, but the bottom line is that, unless you belong to a particular religion, that religion's argument is not going to be persuasive.
In light of the above two points, it would seem to me to be a bad idea to use your religion as a point in an argument.
It might be said, of course, that we aren't arguing and that just telling someone why you feel a certain way is just being honest, and to do otherwise is to lie.
I accept that rationale, but I guess I'm curious what people who use their religion in conversations/debates/arguments with people not of their religion expect the reply to be to those arguments? I don't see anyone really able to say anything other than "O.K. That's the way it is", then walking away.
If this is what you understand the reply to be to a 'religious' rationale, then I guess it is understood that when giving a religious argument, you are basically ending discussion with you on that topic.
*******************
Just some thoughts I've had on the whole religious rationale thing. Please note that I am not saying that 'religious' arguments are better than 'non-religious' ones, or saying that there is somethign wrong with religious people. Far from it.
I am just trying to explain how I view, and how others might view, certain types of religious arguments that seem to me to be bottom-line statements with no room for discussion.
So, no attack Storm-san! No! Storm is try to be win for niceness! Respect Storm's effort!
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
On second thought, I know this thing is going to get derailed to hell and back. I probably ought to delete it.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've been trying to articulate something similar for the last few days myself, Storm. Thanks for doing it better. Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm curious what people who use their religion in conversations/debates/arguments with people not of their religion expect the reply to be to those arguments?
Practically every time I've shared my religious beliefs in such a discussion I've been asked why I think/feel/believe something.
"How can you think that..." "Why do you believe that..." "How could anybody choose to..."
I don't bring it up, but it's often asked.
I reckon that if you don't want to hear religion as an answer, you shouldn't ask the question.
edit: I just realized that I also have shared my religious beliefs in such disucssions in order to correct misinformation being shared by others.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Porter, if we say 'I believe X because that's my religion', I think we are basically speaking in a foreign language to someone not of our religion, or gibberish.
The usual reaction to this is to say 'Please explain this to me in terms I can understand', or "How can you...", "Why do you...", "How could anybody...".
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, the correct response would be "Why does your religion believe that?"
If they can answer that, then you've got the debate back on track. Of course, if the answer is, "Because God told us so," then your gonna run out of track again pretty quick.
Posts: 3056 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: Are you Teuton your own horn again, Blackblade?
Actually I've got a ton of Saxon blood myself. But I'm 1/8th Norwegian. My wife is 1/2 German (her father is German and her mother has a good deal of German ethnicity too.)
We draw swords and battle to the death every morning Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What a coincidence. I have about a ton of Saxon blood myself.
I keep it buried in a special tank in the back yard until Interpol and the SSS (Secret Saxon Society) quits looking for it.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it doesn't so much come down to a "religious reasons" issue, so much as it comes down to what people accept as their basic principles
examples: I view human life as beginning at the moment of conception, and at that moment being as valuable as any other human life.
Others may view human life as starting later and/or being worth less until a certain point in gestation or until birth.
This is the primary disconnect in all the abortion debates, which happens to coincide with various religions, but really isn't a religious issue per se.
Another example that has nothing to do with religions:
I believe that order is in general preferrable to chaos.
Others believe that chaos is in general preferrable to constricting order.
All arguments should be able to come back to basic principles like these. Now admittedly there are some "basic principles" which are closer to the surface of the arguments: Literalists believing that the Bible is word-for true.
At some point, many arguments are going to come down to these disconnects, which really can't be addressed by logic. so yes, once you get to this point I don't think there's anything to do but just walk away.
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
I am just trying to explain how I view, and how others might view, certain types of religious arguments that seem to me to be bottom-line statements with no room for discussion.
I think it depends on the kind of conversation you are having and the kind of relationship you have with the person in question.
I have religious discussions/debates all the time. I am perfectly happy to argue the idea of papal authority (for example) with a fellow Catholic, citing historical and scriptural evidence for my point etc.
Arguing though, for example, the authority of prophecy in LDS religion, though, can't be done by me without attacking the core of someone's belief.
And that, I think, is beyond the scope of this forum. So once someone goes to the "Prophet says so" argument, the discussion is pretty much over.
Does that make sense?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
I am just trying to explain how I view, and how others might view, certain types of religious arguments that seem to me to be bottom-line statements with no room for discussion.
I think it depends on the kind of conversation you are having and the kind of relationship you have with the person in question.
I have religious discussions/debates all the time. I am perfectly happy to argue the idea of papal authority (for example) with a fellow Catholic, citing historical and scriptural evidence for my point etc.
Arguing though, for example, the authority of prophecy in LDS religion, though, can't be done by me without attacking the core of someone's belief.
And that, I think, is beyond the scope of this forum. So once someone goes to the "Prophet says so" argument, the discussion is pretty much over.
Does that make sense?
Not really, you could attempt to demonstrate through the words of commonly (as in Catholic and Mormon) accepted prophets that the words of a Mormon prophet are not docterinally sound.
You've got the entire Biblical collection of prophets.
Mormon prophets as far as I can tell don't say things that fly in the face of the bible. You could argue that Mormons sound like they are coping out when they say (that biblical passage was not translated properly according to Joseph Smith) but I think there is still plenty of agreed upon passages to make discussion possible, less then 1% of biblical passages have modifications by Joseph Smith.
If they mention a passage from the BOM, Docterine and Convenants, etc, why not argue that the passage is not correct based on its statements not on where it came from. That way you can avoid wasting time arguing about authority and simply argue about logic.
I have theological discussions with many of my protestant and catholic friends. I am perfectly willing to stay inside the realm of the bible if they at least agree to allow me to introduce ideas found in Mormon scripture if I fail to think of a Biblical equivalent, they agree to discuss the idea and not haggle over whether Joseph Smith is allowed in the conversation.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Not really, you could attempt to demonstrate through the words of commonly (as in Catholic and Mormon) accepted prophets that the words of a Mormon prophet are not docterinally sound.
Feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but IIRC, when a Mormon prophet and a biblical prophet contradict, it is the more recent prophet whose words hold greater sway.
The more recent revelation is considered the more accurate one.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Not really, you could attempt to demonstrate through the words of commonly (as in Catholic and Mormon) accepted prophets that the words of a Mormon prophet are not docterinally sound.
Feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but IIRC, when a Mormon prophet and a biblical prophet contradict, it is the more recent prophet whose words hold greater sway.
The more recent revelation is considered the more accurate one.
Not from my understanding. A modern day prophet MIGHT (but this is rare) say, "This passage is hard to comprehend but by combining other scriptures, and careful thinking this is what the scripture says, as prophets are by design supposed to illuminate the scriptures.
Prophets in this scenario OFTEN say, "This is what I think." but rarely say, "This is what God thinks."
What prophets do NOT do is say, "This prophet is mistaken, and this is what God thinks now!"
In fact that to Mormons is one of the signs of a false prophet, in that they say the scriptures are wrong, or that another prophet is mistaken.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have an ad for "Spiritual Formation" at Spring Arbor University. "That Christ be formed in [me]..."
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Black Blade, I don't agree with your representation of modern prophets. Xavier is right.
Could you demonstrate where a more modern statement by a prophet was stuck over a more ancient one purely because the statement was said by a modern prophet? Or else point me towards a prophets statement where he said an older prophet was simply wrong.
posted
No more polygamy? Stop physically gathering to Zion and build up your stakes in your homeland? The priesthood goes to all worthy males? Any of those ring a bell?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Porter, if we say 'I believe X because that's my religion', I think we are basically speaking in a foreign language to someone not of our religion, or gibberish.
But that is often the real answer.
Just because you can't relate to the answer doesn't mean that the answer is wrong.
quote:It has nothing to do with not wanting to hear religion as an answer, Porter.
Then I am still misunderstanding youn.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Point one: Fulfilling a law doesn't do away with it. It confirms it. The law is not a prophecy, it is a principle of righteous government. Has righteousness changed?
Point two: I agree, a good case can be made from the original Greek that the "wine" used in the Last Supper was unfermented grape juice.
I do not think that it is a good argument to say "I believe X because it is what my religion/church teaches." I am a member of my church because I agree with what it teaches. Some people do just accept a package of traditions along with the religion they inherited or by chance fell into. But that is not good enough for me, and I would not ascribe any weight at all to arguments that arise from that way of thinking.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are you ignoring my points because you didn't see them or because you don't acknowledge when a female discusses doctrine?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Fulfilling a law doesn't do away with it. It confirms it. The law is not a prophecy, it is a principle of righteous government.
Quibble.
A previous prophecy said that God's people couldn't eat pork while a later prophecy said they now could.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Katahrina--I didn't see them. But now I am ignoring them.
mr_porteiro_head, what prophecy says God's people can't eat pork? The dietary regulations in Leviticus 11 say that God's people shouldn't eat pork (shellfish, etc.) because it is unfit for human consumption, but that is not a prophecy. Are you clear on what prophecy is?
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I assume that when someone ends an argument by saying, "I believe this because it's my religion," they mean something along the lines of that, in their opinion, their religion has turned out to be right about a lot of things in the past, and that therefore they trust what it has to say about everything. At least that's the most rational meaning I can give to that line.
Posts: 781 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that a "prophecy" definition is also semantic. Not to mention, I don't think that "prophecy" is actually getting used in this discussion. It seems that "revelation" or "communication from God" is the broader discussion.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Just because you can't relate to the answer doesn't mean that the answer is wrong.
quote:It has nothing to do with not wanting to hear religion as an answer, Porter.
Then I am still misunderstanding youn.
Porter, I don't believe I ever said that the religious answer was wrong, or implied such. The thesis of my original post was 'Why it might not be a good idea to use your religion as an argument', not why religious arguments are wrong.
Let me see if I can give examples of my two points that might help me elaborate on what I was trying to say:
1)I believe homosexuality is wrong because the Book of Bob says it is.
Reply: Then the Book of Bob is homophobic and bigoted.
Conclusion: Bringing your religion into an argument as the basis for an argument opens up that religion to attack. A lot of people seem to consider attacks on their religion to be out of bounds because their religion is something that they hold very dear. I think, emotionally, something along the same lines as bringing your mom into an argument as the basis for what you're saying.
2) I believe women should have abortions because the Book of Bob says they should.
Where does someone who is not a Bobian go with this? If it's pretty clear that the Book of Bob is for abortions, and the person is resting their belief primarily on the Book of Bob, then there is no way to have a debate or an argument. All you can really do is acknowledge their belief, perhaps say soemthing along the lines of I don't believe that, or, I agree, then walk away.
If you don't believe in the Book of Bob, then that argument means nothing to you since it draws upon a reality that doesn't exist for you.
And, of course it works the opposite way.
So, does that mean that religious people and people outside of their religion cna't debate on some things? Possibly.
************************************
Of course there are things that everyone holds dearly and won't compromise on or listen to, and I'm not trying to say that religious people are uniquely close minded.
I guess what I am saying is that if anyone cares about influencing the opinion of the person they are talking with, they should take into account what arguments they use if they want to sway that person's opinion. If you don't care, cool. Go right ahead quoting from the Book of Bob or Mao's Little Red Book, or whatever revealed writings you live your life by. If you do care, then it might be wise to frame the argument in such a way that the other person understands what you are saying.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: A lot of people seem to consider attacks on their religion to be out of bounds because their religion is something that they hold very dear.
People also hold their loved ones very dear, yet these threads debating their very morality are common.
Why is faith out of bounds but who one loves isn't?(*)
The only solution is for each side to leave eachother alone. Christians who are against homosexuals should refrain from passing laws against us and we should refrain from passing laws against them. (like prayer in school, tearing down on christian monuments on state property, removing the 10 commandments from state property, removing god from the pledge and the money.)
We gotta stop fighting. It's hurting everyone and not helping anyone.
Pix
(*) Obvious the TOS protects faith here, but I'm refering to debate in general.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
But, your question SS isn't "what should religious people do" but "What should non religious do?" (in response to your last paragraph). As such, I think the answer is shrug your shoulders and move on or be prepared to offend.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: As such, I think the answer is shrug your shoulders and move on or be prepared to offend.
Dawkins' latest book, The God Delusion, asks why it is that questioning faith as the foundation of someone's behavior is considered one of the great remaining taboos. I think a good deal of the book is lazy and needlessly inflammatory, but the central idea -- that we extend a default respect to traditions of "religious faith" that we'd never hesitate to criticize were they non-religious, and that this default respect gives any religious assertion a power that reasonable argument alone cannot overcome -- is a valid and interesting one.
posted
The answer is one that has bothered you for a long time. You can't really argue religion, or more to the point, faith. At least not without holding similar underlying premises.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: And I responded that I don't use it as an argument.
The way I read it is that you shared your religious beliefs, then people asked you why, to elaborate on those beliefs. However, I see what you are saying.
I'm a bit disgruntled at this point because I kind of feel like that the misinterpretation is not entirely my fault and I just elaborated on what I wrote for nothing.
I will try and read what you write more carefully, but please also try and be careful, too, about what and how much you say.
quote: But, your question SS isn't "what should religious people do" but "What should non religious do?" (in response to your last paragraph). As such, I think the answer is shrug your shoulders and move on or be prepared to offend.
I don't believe that many 'religious' arguments aren't open to some kind of modification or aren't based in the 'real world' and can't use the common world that we all share to make their point.
Just because someone believes something as an article of faith, and everyone does have articles of faith, that doesn't mean they can't frame their argument in a non-religious..no, that's not right...a non dogmatic? way such that someone else can't understand what they are saying.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: People also hold their loved ones very dear, yet these threads debating their very morality are common.
If someone uses their mom as the basis for an argument, then they have to be prepared to have someone attack the basis of their argument in some fashion.
Note that I am not arguing that just because people can, they should do it in a mean way. I'm just saying that if you introduce something as part of your argument, then to respond to that argument, someone must address that something.
quote: The only solution is for each side to leave eachother alone. Christians who are against homosexuals should refrain from passing laws against us and we should refrain from passing laws against them. (like prayer in school, tearing down on christian monuments on state property, removing the 10 commandments from state property, removing god from the pledge and the money.)
It's not the only solution in some senses.
quote: We gotta stop fighting. It's hurting everyone and not helping anyone.
quote:Just because someone believes something as an article of faith, and everyone does have articles of faith, that doesn't mean they can't frame their argument in a non-religious..no, that's not right...a non dogmatic? way such that someone else can't understand what they are saying.
Sometimes there's no way to do that.
For many X, the answer to the question "Why do you believe X?" is "Because I believe God said X."
Why do I believe God said X? At this point, we aren't even talking about X at all. We're talking about why I choose to be Mormon.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
And I understand that. I'm not saying you can't ever, or you shouldn't ever.
However, I'm guessing there are plenty of things in your religion that aren't absolutely understood by you or others, aren't set in stone, so even if it comes from God, it still behooves you to discuss them with others so you understand what is truth, good, or workable at what times and in what fashion.
I think, too, that for those things whose basis is in God, there are almost always reasons for why they work in our physical and emotional life.
Framing our arguments in these terms, the terms that everyone can understand, even if they don't agree on them, is kind of what I think should be used.
Even if someone asks us why, is it a lie to say,I believe it is right, and here's why, without ever referring to articles of faith, of the spirit? I don't think so--because it isn't, is it?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Even if someone asks us why, is it a lie to say,I believe it is right, and here's why, without ever referring to articles of faith, of the spirit? I don't think so--because it isn't, is it?
It depends on what is being asked.
If you are asking for reasons for X, then I can give any reasons, including ones that that don't touch upon my faith at all.
But if you are asking for the reason why I believe X, and the reason I believe X is because of my religious beliefs, then yes, it would be dishonest to give you other reasons.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was getting at something similar when I discussed "If it doesn't hurt anyone else, it shouldn't be illegal" as a principle for deciding when something should be made illegal.
While there are thousands of pages of analysis underlying this premise, many people today simply hold it as a given.
I don't necessarily think this is a huge problem, but I do think it creates the same kind of STOP in a discussion as a religious premise does. It means that, until the premise is resolved, further progress will not occur unless one takes an alternate tack.
Possible tacks: 1.) formulate an argument that relies on the other person's premises but supports your desired conclusion. 2.) discuss the premises. 3.) seek a more basic premise that underlies the disputed premises and which both parties agree on. 4.) seek new conclusions which fulfill both sets of premises as adequately as the original disputed conclusions do.
Edit: this process is necessary whenever such a premise-induced stop occurs, whether the premises are religious or not.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
