Project Reason is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit foundation devoted to spreading scientific knowledge and secular values in society. The foundation draws on the talents of prominent and creative thinkers in a wide range of disciplines to encourage critical thinking and erode the influence of dogmatism, superstition, and bigotry in our world.
I put this under psychology because IMO that’s what religious belief actually is, the psychology of belief. The workings of the believing brain.
I find it easy to respect those of religious faith who just admit that they have no reason to believe other than it helps them find comfort in their life, and gives them a sense of moral direction, whether or not their particular beliefs are absolutely true. As is often said….people need to believe in something. I respect those who do not try and justify their ‘faith’ and just admit that faith is not empirical, cannot be proven to be correct or true, but just presents them with enough certainty in life to move forward and be happy.
What I don’t respect at all is people who claim that some personal experience or revelation, inclusive to themselves only, and unverifiable, unfalsifiable and unprovable, is their basis for their faith in some monotheistic dogmatic belief system invented by humans thousands of years ago.
That is simply a ploy and a cop out.
People who really believe, believe because they want to and were taught to, and if they were really honest people would not feel a need to justify their beliefs to other people by conjuring up some excuse or reason that they can hide behind.
If you want to believe to make yourself feel better about your life, go right ahead, you’ll not hear any grumbling from me. But don’t try to come up with some inclusive pseudo-scientific magical reason that can’t even be debated or questioned.
That is useless and disingenuous drivel in my humble opinion and is not very impressive at all.
I put this under psychology because IMO that’s what religious belief actually is, the psychology of belief. The workings of the believing brain.
I find it easy to respect those of religious faith who just admit that they have no reason to believe other than it helps them find comfort in their life, and gives them a sense of moral direction, whether or not their particular beliefs are absolutely true. As is often said….people need to believe in something. I respect those who do not try and justify their ‘faith’ and just admit that faith is not empirical, cannot be proven to be correct or true, but just presents them with enough certainty in life to move forward and be happy.
What I don’t respect at all is people who claim that some personal experience or revelation, inclusive to themselves only, and unverifiable, unfalsifiable and unprovable, is their basis for their faith in some monotheistic dogmatic belief system invented by humans thousands of years ago.
That is simply a ploy and a cop out.
People who really believe, believe because they want to and were taught to, and if they were really honest people would not feel a need to justify their beliefs to other people by conjuring up some excuse or reason that they can hide behind.
If you want to believe to make yourself feel better about your life, go right ahead, you’ll not hear any grumbling from me. But don’t try to come up with some inclusive pseudo-scientific magical reason that can’t even be debated or questioned.
That is useless and disingenuous drivel in my humble opinion and is not very impressive at all.
I agree completely, except that I often respect the believer, but not the belief. Often there’s far too much apologist in the believer, which tends to mean more compromised intellectual integrity, but where it’s isolated and fairly minimal, I have no problem ... still don’t respect the buelshite though. I’d also add that a lot of these believers with more respectable belief platforms are more into the community, really, than the doctrines. They just don’t care much about all that religious stuff, even if they mistake the community for that religious stuff (we’re socialized to do precisely that, after all, and if we don’t analyze it fairly rigorously it’s really easy to make the standard errors and credit Religion (reified) for the positive nature and character and good that the community itself actually produces). In my experience most believers just don’t have the introspective or analytical nature that leads to that sort of careful consideration, and those who do seem to sometimes end up as apostates, or far more often, apologists/intellectual problem children.
Well put, eud. May I add, your rights (to a belief) end where mine begin. One may believe in any god one wants, I don’t care, pick one, go out and seek others who believe too, have circle jerks about your god, go to your god’s conventions, spend money on your god and all that stuff. But eat the sour grapes yourself for those who won’t buy into it and keep your god out of my laws.
Christianity and Islam demand respect for religions with an extremely low bar for inclusion, while most other religions keep it amongst themselves and are suspicious of, and erect high hurdles for, those wanting into the club. I have more respect for exclusive religions than ones that will accept anyone who make a simple proclamation of faith.
As for respecting the believer and not the belief, my respect for the person goes only as far as their respect for my lack of belief. And I have no respect for those who condemn me for not accepting their beliefs; that conversation is over and they can go jump in a lake.
ive got to say that my experience makes it difficult to have respect for the beliefs of the faithful , mainly due to the fact that they react so defensivley to even the mildest challenge to their own viewpoint which in my opinions stems from knowing subconciously they are trying to defend an indefensible view of the world . Also it gets a bit wearing to be continually treated with slightly eye rolling condescension or with mild hostility every time the subject of religion comes up in conversation merely for being an athiest , i wish that all of the deistic and theist thinkers that i know could get their heads around the fact that athiesm is not a belief in the same way that their faith’s are but a lack of belief , a distinction that in my experience is lost on them!
Religion is just one of many social constructs that can aid in the earning of respect or help dismantle previously earned respect.
For me it depends on one’s actions. Not one’s self-proclaimed social attitudes.
Story:
Around here, there was a dirty contractor doing handy-man jobs for people in new homes who didn’t know any proper maintenance techniques.
He had a jesus fish on his white van. He had a “Jesus Saves” bumper sticker on his white van. He was known to ‘show’ a bible as reading material when he was on lunch break at people’s homes. He ripped off about 30 families for thousands of dollars before word and his description got out so that people wouldn’t hire him any more. He was either incompetent and didn’t care, or fully cognizant of his confidence game, and playing on the people’s false expectations due to his projected image.
Note: I’m not accusing all “christians” of being like this person. I’m simply saying that appearances deceive - and thus respect must be earned.
Religion, for me, does not equate to automatic respect. Nor should it for others.
I deeply respect honesty, and I have always found very little honesty with those who partake in religious belief. For someone to deceive themselves ony means that they can and usually will deceive others as well.
Trouble is, you cannot ascertain a belief by sight. It’s like sexual orientation in that way. You probably DO respect a number of believers without even being aware of it.
The persons who are identified to you AS believers generally have spoken or behaved in such a way as to impart this information.
I think this is significant because it calls into question exactly what we are evaluating when we determine whether we respect someone? Are private convictions really up for grabs? Are they even available for examination?
Is the respect we have for someone forever contingent upon whether our perception of their private thoughts are accurate?
I think respect is granted on the basis of behavior. What we intuit about beliefs is just tangent.
For most people, religion is a part of what they are, but they are much more beyond that. If two people talk long enough, they will no doubt find something they disagree on. Why are some people picking out religious persuasion as the main criterion upon which to base respect? I may not share a person’s religious belief, but I may think they’re a great mechanic, or doctor, or singer, or have a wonderful sense of humor or creativity, or they may have a wealth of interesting knowledge in another area.
This is why “religion and politics” are discouraged as topics of conversation in polite company.
For most people, religion is a part of what they are, but they are much more beyond that. If two people talk long enough, they will no doubt find something they disagree on. Why are some people picking out religious persuasion as the main criterion upon which to base respect?
Religious faith can get into the core of who we are—how we understand reality and fundamental issues of intellectual integrity.
If someone has a vivid religious experience and it is the bais for their faith, what do you want them to do….lie? From what I’m told and from what I’ve read, these events can be quite convincing and, in terms of the individual, life changing. Maybe I am misunderstanding, but I think it is a legitimate reason to believe. Not for YOU to believe…but for THEM to believe. Ecurb doesn’t post anymore because I suspect we either bore or disgust him, but he was always quite honest about his experience and how if affected him.
If someone has a vivid religious experience and it is the bais for their faith, what do you want them to do….lie?
That would be the religious route. Integrity demands that we accept the fact that humans have such experiences. We know this. We don’t have the first actual indication that it’s anything that religious interpretation presumes.
You seem to utterly discount the fact I’ve stated several times in here, in topics in which you were involved, that I’ve had two very powerful “religious” experiences myself. They don’t warrant any presumptions about their nature.
saralynn - 29 October 2011 04:58 PM
From what I’m told and from what I’ve read, these events can be quite convincing and, in terms of the individual, life changing.
Yup. You’ve heard that from me, for one.
saralynn - 29 October 2011 04:58 PM
Maybe I am misunderstanding, but I think it is a legitimate reason to believe.
Yup, you’re misunderstanding.
saralynn - 29 October 2011 04:58 PM
Not for YOU to believe…but for THEM to believe.
It’s either valid evidence or it’s not, and it’s not. All you’re really saying with the “for you” BS is that some people are more comfortable with unwarranted presumptions (self-indulgence).
saralynn - 29 October 2011 04:58 PM
Ecurb doesn’t post anymore because I suspect we either bore or disgust him, but he was always quite honest about his experience and how if affected him.
Yup ... and he’s a lot less prone toward presumption than many believers, but still a lot more so than most atheists.
Skeptic X: You seem to utterly discount the fact I’ve stated several times in here, in topics in which you were involved, that I’ve had two very powerful “religious” experiences myself. They don’t warrant any presumptions about their nature.
I didn’t utterly discount the fact that you’ve had two very powerful “religious” experiences, I completely forgot that you did. This surprises me because I usually collect stories such as Ecurb described because they please me emotionally. Perhaps you didn’t use enough exclamations points when you related what happened to you.
I do understand your point, but I still think that as long as an individual is honest about the subjective nature of the event, he or she is entitled to use it as a basis of belief, recognizing they might be wrong. After all, faith is a choice, isn’t it? You choose to discount subjective evidence and he doesn’t. Subjective evidence is still evidence.
For most people, religion is a part of what they are, but they are much more beyond that. If two people talk long enough, they will no doubt find something they disagree on. Why are some people picking out religious persuasion as the main criterion upon which to base respect?
Religious faith can get into the core of who we are—how we understand reality and fundamental issues of intellectual integrity.
Politics tend to reflect that as well.
Mechanical skills ... not so much.
So not everyone has impeccable intellectual integrity according to your standards of reason. Other people are, shall we say, not that worried about inconsistencies. I almost get the feeling that you are putting yourself in an us vs them position with people of faith. Sounds like you’re looking down on much of humanity.
Skeptic X: You seem to utterly discount the fact I’ve stated several times in here, in topics in which you were involved, that I’ve had two very powerful “religious” experiences myself. They don’t warrant any presumptions about their nature.
I didn’t utterly discount the fact that you’ve had two very powerful “religious” experiences, I completely forgot that you did. This surprises me because I usually collect stories such as Ecurb described because they please me emotionally. Perhaps you didn’t use enough exclamations points when you related what happened to you.
Funny, as usual (sincerely—I think you’re hilarious ... in a good way), but I think there’s something in that you forgot about this and in that you’re surprised regarding my case. The only real difference, I’d say, is that I don’t presume the powerful experience had to be something beyond humanity—I don’t downgrade The Human Experience or presume I’ve experienced anything that’s particularly special as compared to what any other human can experience, and that many do. I don’t presume it was anything more than an artifact of standard issue human brain function. You do have to presume those things.
That does not diminish the power of the experiences, in fact in my own case it significantly enhances it.
saralynn - 30 October 2011 05:29 AM
I do understand your point, but I still think that as long as an individual is honest about the subjective nature of the event, he or she is entitled to use it as a basis of belief, recognizing they might be wrong.
Is there another option?
Seems like an equivocation on the original issue, but what does “belief” really mean in this case, when the “believer” has to proactively participate in the process of “belief”? How can you really believe something you have to use as a basis of belief? That just doesn’t even make sense to me. You don’t “build” genuine belief, you discover it. If you’re trying to build a case upon which to base a desired belief, you’re doing it wrong. You’re developing apologetics rather than genuine understanding, and I’m not sure belief is the right term for what you come up with. Faith would be more like it. But “belief” is a very dodgy word in this context as far as I’m concerned—far too easily equivocated, and without any discernible contextual distinction it can be used in completely contradictory ways (it can mean “I don’t know but only suspect”, or “I’m fully convinced” when used in precisely the same sentence—that’s a NO GO, as we used to say in the Army).
saralynn - 30 October 2011 05:29 AM
After all, faith is a choice, isn’t it? You choose to discount subjective evidence and he doesn’t. Subjective evidence is still evidence.
That’s just refusing to accept the nature of subjectivity—using it as only a buffer to prevent a hard blow from reality. “Subjective” and “evidence” are at odds with each other, period. If you can’t accept that subjectivity means you can’t claim the credibility provided by the proper use of evidence then you yourself are rejecting the very idea of valid subjective belief that you’re trying to defend.
For most people, religion is a part of what they are, but they are much more beyond that. If two people talk long enough, they will no doubt find something they disagree on. Why are some people picking out religious persuasion as the main criterion upon which to base respect? I may not share a person’s religious belief, but I may think they’re a great mechanic, or doctor, or singer, or have a wonderful sense of humor or creativity, or they may have a wealth of interesting knowledge in another area.
This is why “religion and politics” are discouraged as topics of conversation in polite company.
Agree with the sense of that; we’re too prone here IMO to make too much of religion, as though it is some uniform belief system that impacts all believers in the same way and intensity, when clearly it does not. Of course nasty consequences are associated in some people with religion, but that can also be said for most any ideology.
For most people, religion is a part of what they are, but they are much more beyond that. If two people talk long enough, they will no doubt find something they disagree on. Why are some people picking out religious persuasion as the main criterion upon which to base respect?
Religious faith can get into the core of who we are—how we understand reality and fundamental issues of intellectual integrity.
Politics tend to reflect that as well.
Mechanical skills ... not so much.
So not everyone has impeccable intellectual integrity according to your standards of reason.
Of course not everyone has impeccable intellectual integrity.
That’s like saying I’ve claimed not everyone’s perfect.
Uh ... well ... okay.
Yeah. I’ll agree with that ... doesn’t really have any bearing at all on what I just posted, but whatever.
So what are you really trying to say here?
—
BTW, “my standards of reason” is a null statement, like calling it “my logic” or “my facts” or “my standards of evidence” and such. I could simply flip it back over on you and reply that your response, whatever that turns out to be, is just due to “your standards of reason.” That’s just deflection and obfuscation. These things aren’t subjective.
hannahfriend - 30 October 2011 08:32 AM
Other people are, shall we say, not that worried about inconsistencies.
Many aren’t even aware of them, nor do they have any real impetus to go there. I’ve explained many times my position that most believers have too much integrity to pull off much in the way of actual religious faith. Others are in fact very worried about inconsistencies and do pull off a significant degree of religious faith, and that’s where intellectual integrity becomes an issue.
hannahfriend - 30 October 2011 08:32 AM
I almost get the feeling that you are putting yourself in an us vs them position with people of faith.
Why? It’s not about me. You seem to be looking at this in an entirely negative light.
My point was that the nature of religious faith includes implications regarding how we understand reality and fundamental issues of intellectual integrity..
hannahfriend - 30 October 2011 08:32 AM
Sounds like you’re looking down on much of humanity.
It would be completely irrelevant to the merit of my points even if I were.
I don’t think you’ve actually addressed my comments at all here.
I’m saying there is a good reason people tend to weigh things like religion and politics more heavily in terms if character indications than they do most other things, like favorite sports and teams and mechanical skills. A person’s religion is all about that person’s character. There’s a reason we don’t see Jimmy Carter promoting Promise Keepers or the New Apostolic Reformation, and we don’t see Pat Robertson advocating gay rights or stem cell research. The same can be said of politics ... as I said before ... mechanical skills on the other hand, not so much.
That’s not really the issue. The actual issue is disagreement over how this reality is properly understood, and how that understanding is being applied.
For most people, religion is a part of what they are, but they are much more beyond that. If two people talk long enough, they will no doubt find something they disagree on. Why are some people picking out religious persuasion as the main criterion upon which to base respect? I may not share a person’s religious belief, but I may think they’re a great mechanic, or doctor, or singer, or have a wonderful sense of humor or creativity, or they may have a wealth of interesting knowledge in another area.
This is why “religion and politics” are discouraged as topics of conversation in polite company.
Agree with the sense of that; we’re too prone here IMO to make too much of religion, as though it is some uniform belief system that impacts all believers in the same way and intensity, when clearly it does not. Of course nasty consequences are associated in some people with religion, but that can also be said for most any ideology.
I think it’s a common error to conclude that religion makes people who they are, true, but that doesn’t address the actual issue.
Religion and politics reflect character far more so than most other aspects of what makes up who people are.
I tend to reject arguments about ‘core being’ or ‘deeper self’ as well. The only facets of a person available to me are those I can perceive directly. And vice versa. There is no such thing as ‘who I really am on the inside’. There is no inside. Just what behavior you actually exhibit.
Which isn’t to say I dismiss religion as being a component of a person. If a person believes religious propositions and participates in religious activities it is part of who they are. But to attach elaborate metaphors to those choices feels irrelevant. As if they have no option because it’s who they are.
I think it’s a common error to conclude that religion makes people who they are, true, but that doesn’t address the actual issue.
Religion and politics reflect character far more so than most other aspects of what makes up who people are.
Agree. The issue is the extent to which people learn to embrace various ideologies that reflect the cultural and/or personal mores in which they’re raised. “Because Daddy said so….” extrapolated to include various leaders, is a very powerful influence, one not even possible to counter much before the age of 18 or so, if then.
BB: I tend to reject arguments about ‘core being’ or ‘deeper self’ as well. The only facets of a person available to me are those I can perceive directly. And vice versa. There is no such thing as ‘who I really am on the inside’. There is no inside. Just what behavior you actually exhibit.
BB: I tend to reject arguments about ‘core being’ or ‘deeper self’ as well. The only facets of a person available to me are those I can perceive directly. And vice versa. There is no such thing as ‘who I really am on the inside’. There is no inside. Just what behavior you actually exhibit.
I don’t understand this. Could you elaborate?
Neither do I. There’s the public persona we all project, varying with the particular public, and then there’s the thoughts and feelings one reflects on alone in bed at 2:00 AM.
BB: I tend to reject arguments about ‘core being’ or ‘deeper self’ as well. The only facets of a person available to me are those I can perceive directly. And vice versa. There is no such thing as ‘who I really am on the inside’. There is no inside. Just what behavior you actually exhibit.
I don’t understand this. Could you elaborate?
Neither do I. There’s the public persona we all project, varying with the particular public, and then there’s the thoughts and feelings one reflects on alone in bed at 2:00 AM.
Sure. I have private thoughts and inner dialogue. What I contest is qualifying the issue of character this way. As when someone is caught doing something unseemly and defends them self with something to the effect of ‘that’s not who I am’. Or, in this case, someone who identifies with religious convictions retorting to disagreement by saying ‘this IS who I am’. As if some hidden aspect of a person can act as a wildcard in all negotiations.
I guess I just don’t equate personal reflection directly with character. Whatever is deep or profound about a person ought to be reflected in the nature of their actions and willingness to take responsibility and answer questions. I’ve had far too many queries answered with references to inner reassurances. As you might suspect, this goes directly to the thread topic.
Certainly I would not presume to deny anyone their own intimate mental adventures. Just don’t submit them as evidence.
My point was that the nature of religious faith includes implications regarding how we understand reality and fundamental issues of intellectual integrity.
Here’s one example of why I think you’re putting too much weight on religious beliefs:
One of the men in my family is a Christian. This came about because he had…a problem…and he genuinely felt that God helped him get straight. So he is forever grateful. However, he is very analytical in how he approaches other areas. He researches ballot issues before he votes. His work is very technical, and he is conscientious about working out details. He takes pains to manage his finances, again researching the options and keeping on top of changes in the market. So I actually see that his religion is more like his commitment to his wife—maybe she’s not the perfect woman for him, but since he’s committed to her, he remains unquestioningly devoted. If he dissected his faith in God or in his wife, he might see things differently. But he’s content to go on faith in some areas and on reason in others.
Now I agree that some people abnegate their own opinions when they join a church. These are the sort of people who are looking for someone to tell them all the answers. But many people are, as I said, inconsistent. They compartmentalize and use different means for making various types of decisions. This is why there are many doctors who are religious. They certainly understand how to reason, but they assign religious thought to a different standard.
My point was that the nature of religious faith includes implications regarding how we understand reality and fundamental issues of intellectual integrity.
Here’s one example of why I think you’re putting too much weight on religious beliefs:
One of the men in my family is a Christian. This came about because he had…a problem…and he genuinely felt that God helped him get straight. So he is forever grateful. However, he is very analytical in how he approaches other areas. He researches ballot issues before he votes. His work is very technical, and he is conscientious about working out details. He takes pains to manage his finances, again researching the options and keeping on top of changes in the market. So I actually see that his religion is more like his commitment to his wife—maybe she’s not the perfect woman for him, but since he’s committed to her, he remains unquestioningly devoted. If he dissected his faith in God or in his wife, he might see things differently. But he’s content to go on faith in some areas and on reason in others.
Now I agree that some people abnegate their own opinions when they join a church. These are the sort of people who are looking for someone to tell them all the answers. But many people are, as I said, inconsistent. They compartmentalize and use different means for making various types of decisions. This is why there are many doctors who are religious. They certainly understand how to reason, but they assign religious thought to a different standard.
And what exactly about any of that do you think indicates my position is mistaken?
